How to tackle disinformation (without limiting free speech)

A good compromise usually means that all participating parties leave the room partially unsatisfied. High-Level Experts Group report is no exception. However, it defines a broad set of solutions that should allow (if duly implemented) to fight disinformation more efficiently

The report of High-Level Experts Group on the fake news is now public. Commissioner Marija Gabriel and the Group's chair, Prof. dr. Madeleine de Cock Buning, explained its content in detail, at the press conference in Brussels. I assume you know the baselines by now. As a humble contributor to HLEG works, one of its 39 members, I allow myself to share with you a few of my remarks.

 When meeting the High-Level Group for the last time, Commissioner Gabriel stated: - The work of this group is going to be part of this Commission's legacy. I hope Commissioner is right, for I believe this report is an essential step towards the resolution the problem of disinformation in digital media. Yes, we use the word disinformation instead of "fake news" - and our report explains why. Journalists, researchers and members of the academia should stop using the term "fake news" as it is completely meaningless now, appropriated by politicians who call "fake news" basically everything they find unpleasant. Disinformation, as defined in this report, includes all forms of false, inaccurate, or misleading information designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause public harm or for profit. We acknowledge that such disinformation can be very harmful to our societies at large.

This report shows that one-solution-fits-all approach is impossible. Any attempt to impose censorship or to limit the freedom of speech should be rightly rejected. Disinformation should be countered with many different tools used at the same time. In the long run, improving media literacy is the key - this is why we call for an essential increase in media literacy initiatives funding, including the EU funding. In parallel to increasing media literacy, relevant stakeholders (online platforms, news media organisations, fact-checkers, independent content creators and the advertising industry) should voluntarily commit to a Code of Practices, reflecting stakeholders' responsibilities (sometimes precisely defined ones).

I can see elements of my thinking and analysis all over the text of the report. So can my colleagues, 38 experts from different settings and backgrounds. The teamwork was excellent and very - let me use some pathos here - "European", in the sense of compromise-building. There's one element of the report I'm particularly proud of as the author. On page 28 our report calls on social media companies to create (or improve the existing) tools that allow the right to reply and the right to correct false stories that propagate on social media. Even a single citizen should be entitled to stop and annihilate the steam-roller of lies that directly affect him/her, the same way we are allowed to eliminate false stories about us being published in the legacy media (press etc.). As you might remember, this type of users' empowerment is consistent with my previous papers and publications.

Some may say the text of the HLEG report could be more punchy, more firm as far as social platforms are concerned. One of the organisations participating in the whole exercise, the European consumers' rights organisation BEUC decided not to vote in favour of this report, precisely for its alleged vagueness and soft (too soft in their view) approach towards the platforms and their business models. There are parts of the report I'd prefer to strengthen too. However, compromises are rarely 100% satisfactory to all participants. At this stage, I believe it was crucial to keep on board as many stakeholders as possible, platforms included. I hope they interpret this report as the last warning that the civil society patience is running thing, a final attempt to solve the disinformation issue through the best practices and voluntary measures.

If nothing changes, two-three years from now, or if the situation worsens and our democracies keep being poisoned by the massive, social media propagated disinformation campaigns - I'll be first to call for heavy-handed, top-down actions.