Tackling misinformation on social media
Evaluating options available to governments and the inherent tradeoffs
This blog post is a submission to an assignment for the course DPI-662 Digital Government: Technology, Policy, and Public Service Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School. The fictional scenario and prompt are as follows:
You are a senior policy advisor for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. You have learned that viral rumors (spread by Facebook and WhatsApp) about kidnappers have led to mobs killing over 20 people in the last two months. In the last few days, mob killings of innocent people have spiked. The Prime Minister has repeatedly publicly denounced the killings. What should the Prime Minister do. Write your response in the form of a blog post.
While social media platforms have improved connectivity, the ease, speed and frequency with which information flow is possible has proliferated the dissemination of fake news and rumors in several countries including India. This has resulted in disastrous consequences such as communal riots and electoral manipulation that pose challenges to social harmony and democratic integrity.
Options to control fake news and rumors include internet disruptions, regulations on social media activity, and awareness campaigns. These options should be evaluated against criteria such as economic cost, operational sustainability, and political feasibility. A combination of soft regulations and awareness campaigns appears to be a feasible approach as shown by an evaluation of proposed options against evaluative criteria below.
Option 1: Government disrupts access to internet and social media
An internet shutdown could take one of many forms in the context of suppressing viral rumors on social media. The government could consider a blanket internet shutdown or a targeted shutdown of social media apps. As internet traffic is expected to contribute 16% of India’s GDP in 2020 with apps driving half of this share, disrupting the internet to control the spread of viral rumors entails significant economic costs. The magnitude of these costs may presumably be curtailed by limiting any disruptions in terms of geographical scope and time duration. Even if the economic costs of internet disruption are worth controlling viral rumors, the sustainability of any such measure is doubtful — it is unlikely that limited internet disruptions would prevent viral rumors from taking hold once disruptions are eased. Additionally, there is the potential of political pushback from civil society and activists due to the direct nature of government interference in limiting democratic freedoms. However, the mere threat of disruptions may compel reluctant social media companies towards stronger regulation of content.
Option 2: Social media companies regulate malicious content and user activity
Social media companies will factor in India’s large social media user base (over 300 million users and growing) and the threat of unilateral disruption of internet and social media apps by the government in deciding how to handle the spread of viral rumors on their platforms. The government can potentially use this leverage to push social media companies to do more to curb misinformation even if requests such as allowing “traceability” of messages may not materialize. These regulations could fall into the following two categories:
1. Soft Regulation: WhatsApp has introduced limits on number of forwards to control the spread of rumors. Other soft regulatory mechanisms include limits on message size, option to fact-check shared content, and flagging violent videos.
2. Hard Regulation: Twitter has previously removed tweets and banned users in response to requests by the Indian government. Social media companies may be requested to prevent malicious content and users from accessing their platforms — WhatsApp appears to have started doing this at some level already.
It is reasonable to assume that this approach is economically less costly and more sustainable in terms of application than internet disruptions given its targeted nature at the user and content level. Additionally, having social media companies themselves regulate activities on their platforms may be more viable politically as the government has a less visible involvement.
Option 3: Awareness campaign led by government and social media companies
The government and social media companies may partner to introduce awareness campaigns on print and electronic media as well as the social media platforms themselves. This approach is more passive compared to the two presented earlier and thus has low economic costs and greater political acceptance. However, despite ad campaigns in India to counter fake news and rumors, the impact of such campaigns and ways to improve its efficacy should be investigated.
Way Forward
The three options presented above involve tradeoffs among economic cost, operational sustainability, and political feasibility. Internet disruptions especially those targeting social media platforms come at such significant costs that they may be considered non-starters. However, their threat may encourage social media companies to pursue more meaningful regulations of activities on their platform. Together with awareness campaigns, soft regulations may be a reasonable step for the government to pursue.
Parting thoughts
Over the past few days, police in Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has arrested dozens of people for disrupting communal harmony through social media posts. The government seems to have decided to use prosecutions and detentions as a means to deter any potential proliferators of insensitive content. It remains to be seen how effective this approach proves to be.
