Tackling misinformation in election season a big challenge

GREEK statesman and orator Demosthenes aptly captured the perils of misinformation in a democratic society with his timeless quote: “You yourselves, Athenians, should on no account be indifferent to these matters… for just as the body cannot be in health if it is full of bad humours, so a city cannot be well administered if it harbours misleading speeches.”

Traditional media like television and newspapers is constrained by space and time. Social media offers more democratic and low-budget forms of campaigning. India has over 82 crore active Internet users, with rural areas accounting for more than half. The rise of social media platforms has revolutionised electoral campaigns, enabling maximum reach at an unprecedented speed. While this is a positive feature, the challenge lies in dealing with the abundance of shared, curated and created content.

Contrasting results emerged in a UNESCO survey of 16 countries which are going to the polls this year. While the use of social media has surpassed that of traditional media, faith in the latter remains significantly higher. Contrary to popular belief, the majority (around 88 per cent) feel that the government should regulate social media content.

Online media platforms, unlike newspapers or TV, act as middlemen for information. But their rules often lead to specific outcomes, with implications for democracy. For instance, algorithms use Internet history to decide what you see in searches or ads. So, these platforms are not neutral. They act like editors, influencing how people make decisions.

Algorithms on social media platforms facilitate what is known as ‘selective exposure’ or ‘elective affinity’, connecting like-minded individuals, reinforcing shared views and values, creating echo chambers, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives and potentially hindering democratic ideals. A wide range of online platforms — end-to-end encrypted ones, image hosting platforms, news aggregators, blogs, photo- and video-sharing services, wikis, online gaming platforms and cyber lockers — can potentially affect elections by serving as repositories for propaganda that may influence public opinion or dent electoral integrity.

During elections, specific techniques are employed. Software algorithms can manipulate what appears in one’s news feed, potentially influencing the individual’s opinions. During a US presidential election and the Brexit referendum, software algorithms manipulated what people saw in their news feeds, swaying voter preferences. Cambridge Analytica used Facebook data to target voters with personalised political messages, which raised concerns about data privacy and manipulation.

The main areas of social media that can be problematic during an election season are the virality or speed of information, filter bubbles that occur when websites and social media platforms use algorithms to show content tailored to users’ preferences, insensitivity to extreme or offensive content, micro-targeting of voters, manipulation of search engine results or the trending of topics through Google or Twitter bombs. These tactics involve coordination to make a specific word or phrase appear prominently by using it in posts or linking it to a certain website. Hidden or uncertain identities on these platforms can aggravate these issues. Social media platforms are also exploited for disseminating misinformation and disinformation.

Observations show that both state and non-state foreign actors manipulate online information to influence voter choices, sow confusion among citizens and erode trust in the electoral process. If there is concern about foreign interference in elections, establishing a link with the security service becomes essential.

Regulation is commonly associated with restricting undesirable activities of campaigners and controlling finances. Traditional platforms like newspapers generally have more room for fixing responsibility and accountability internally compared to online platforms. Social media platforms have a responsibility to remove illegal content when notified, but they are not obligated to actively search for it themselves. This grants them immunity from liability for harmful or illegal content hosted on their platforms. While there is a well-established consensus on the type of regulation to apply — or not apply — to traditional media during elections, there is no consensus across the stakeholder spectrum when it comes to regulating content on social media.

To address the problem, rapport needs to be established prior to the election between social media companies and election regulators. This would involve discussions to review the concerns that may arise during the election and charting a middle way for how social media companies can respond to such issues while respecting the rights of citizens.

Such an approach is vital because strict control over technology will always have unforeseen and negative consequences. The pace of technological change is so fast that almost all regulations become outdated by the time they are implemented. Therefore, regulators, platforms and civil society should work out means to focus on the outcomes of these technologies rather than regulating specific activities or technologies.

Canada has announced a $7-million grant programme to fund media research and civic engagement programmes to study the digital media’s coverage of elections. In Argentina, the Asociación por los Derechos Civiles has developed a tool enabling citizens to monitor social media advertisements while safeguarding their privacy. Such initiatives enhance accountability on social media during elections.

Any regulatory approach should have the voter’s role as the primary concern, while also respecting the boundaries of the freedom of speech and the right to campaign through open debates. It is crucial to ensure that open debates are not misrepresented as unaccountable ones and to consider how regulation fits into this broader consideration within the context of the relationship between regulators, various media platforms and democracy. Elections strive to enable informed voter choices, yet unaddressed digital regulation gaps may lead to the proliferation of misinformation and manipulation.