By Hannah Yeates LL.B., Queen’s University Belfast<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nrecent months, the term \u2018fake news\u2019 has become a familiar one within the media.\nThe widespread satirical use of the term has lead to a loss of its particular\nmeaning as a new challenge within our culture. The problem, which should be of\ngrowing concern to all internet users, is in need of significant regulation. It\nis critical that a new level of control is gained over 21st<\/sup> century\nnews consumption in order for this dangerous issue to be tackled.<\/em>This piece will set the scene of a new media and\ndigital age in which the vast spread of \u2018fake news\u2019 has been facilitated.\nHaving done so, it will explore the various worrying, yet often overlooked,\nimplications it has had upon democratic societies and why our current laws and\nregulatory authorities have failed to prevent them. Furthering the current literary\ndiscussion of the area, this project will turn to responses to \u2018fake news\u2019 and\nwill involve the careful consideration of several potential means of regaining\ncontrol; where they are likely to be effective and where, alternatively, they\nwill pose new problems and ultimately result in waste of resources.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Chapter\nOne:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nthis digital age of new media, the consumption of news has been entirely\ntransformed and, as a consequence, the spread of \u2018Fake News\u2019[1]<\/a>\nhas been facilitated. This is a huge legal problem and one that is challenging\nour democracy of free speech and freedom of information in a new way. I will\nresearch this issue of fake news; how it has emerged and then become more\nevident within the 21st<\/sup> century, what it looks like today, and it\u2019s\nworrying implications for our society. I will question how the problem is to be\ntackled, if it can be challenged at all; analysing the potential gaps within\nthe current law and then proposing a solution, with careful consideration of\nwhether that should be a legal one or otherwise. This piece will combine media\nstudies and journalism studies with a legal outlook. The research involved will\nbe desk-based.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nChapter Two I will provide a background to the issue of fake news by discussing\nthe consumption of news within the 21st<\/sup> century. Before focusing in\non the problem at hand, it is necessary to set the scene with facts and\nstatistics regarding some of the elements that have contributed to it. I will\nconsider the growth of the phenomenon of social media and the filtering of\ncontent that this encourages, alongside the tabloidization and sensationalism\nof news sharing online. Chapter Three will then focus specifically on the\nproblem of fake news; its causes and the implications and threats that it\nbrings. I will discuss the frightening realities of inaccurate \u2018viral\u2019\ncirculation, generally misinformed citizens and, overall, a new challenge to\nour democracy of free speech and freedom of information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nChapter Four I will look at what the law currently requires regarding the press\nand broadcasting, considering what this actually means for online news outlets\nand social media. I will look at the remedies available at present and, throughout,\ndiscuss whether more needs to be done if fake news is to be tackled. Chapter\nFive will include proposals or suggestions for measures that will combat fake\nnews. I will consider whether a legislative solution will be effective or\nrealistic, and compare other regulatory solutions and control mechanisms. In\nChapter Six I will conclude by pulling my research together and looking forward\nto the future of fake news. Chapter\nTwo:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Contemporary\nNews Consumption<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nthe 21st<\/sup> century, keeping up to date with the world around you can\nbe entirely possible without ever purchasing a newspaper or watching the news\non television. The internet has transformed the way in which news is\ndistributed, and the use of social media has played a significant role in that.\nKaplan and Haenlein described social media as \u2018a group of Internet-based\napplications \u2026 that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content\u2019.[2]<\/a>\nIt was described as having become a \u2018global phenomenon\u2019 by Pew Research Center\nin 2010, who stated that almost half of adults in countries such as the UK,\nUSA, Poland and South Korea make use of social networking websites and\napplications.[3]<\/a>\nThese social networks have evolved beyond their core function as a means of communication\nbetween friends, and into another online news outlet. Purcell found that 75% of\nonline news consumers in the US receive news via social network posts.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n If\nan individual decides to use a social media platform, then regardless of their\nintention for use when signing up for the account, they will be constantly\nreading updates of news on that space. As the nature of social networking is\nthe sharing of information, it is inevitable that the particular news stories\nof that day will become part of the sharing. Kwak and Lee studied the\ncharacteristics of Twitter as a new information-sharing platform, which they\ndescribed as bringing about the emergence of collective intelligence.[5]<\/a>\nThey explain how, as a result of its \u2018Retweet\u2019 function, Twitter has become \u2018a\nmedia for breaking news in a manner close to omnipresent CCTV\u2019 and proof of\nthis is in the fact that news has broken out on Twitter before CNN live\nbroadcasts.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n This\ngrowth in the use of social media, and in particular its use for reading news\nonline, appears (from the outset) to be a good thing. Hermida and Fletcher found\nthat social media are \u2018becoming central to the way people experience news\u2019. They\ndiscuss the way in which technologies have given users the ability to personalise\ntheir news stream and that users value this means of filtering content. They\ndescribe it as an \u2018evolution of the public sphere\u2019 which is \u2018reshaping\u2019 the\nentire dynamic of news publication and distribution, subsequently affecting the\nrole of journalists and \u2018established flows of information\u2019.[7]<\/a>\nThe writers do not, however, present these effects as being overly detrimental.\nSinger certainly discusses this transformation in a positive light, referring\nto how media organisations have embraced it as offering them new ways to\ndistribute and target their news content to a broad audience.[8]<\/a>\nThere are many positive aspects of social media news sharing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not\nall age groups consume news the same way. Of course, there remain a significant\nnumber of people who get their news at 6 o\u2019clock on television, but others may\nnever sit to watch a news broadcast or read a newspaper. Statistics from the\nReuters Institute Digital News Report 2017 show the generational split. They\nstate that 64% of 18-24 year olds use the internet as their main source of news\n(including social media platforms) compared to 29% who chose either television\nor printed newspaper. Over half of those aged over 55 said television was their\nprimary news outlet.[9]<\/a>\nThose who keep up to date with news through their social media feeds may\nreceive the same mainstream stories, but those will be dispersed amongst many\nupdates from more unusual sources. This is when the ability to distinguish fact\nfrom fiction is essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\nrely upon access to information as a fundamental guarantor of democracy;\nassuming that more information means more accountability, fairness and transparency.\nInformation is referred to as a \u2018public good\u2019[10]<\/a>\nbecause, generally, being well informed keeps a person safe. Social media and\nonline news allows for a constant flow of information; it enables citizens to\naccess a broad spectrum of types of informative material from across the globe,\nin an instant. An issue arises, however, whenever people become so constantly\nwell informed that they believe everything they are exposed because it has been\ncirculated on their feed, but they know nothing about the reliability of its\noriginal source. Pentina and Tarafdar expressed a negative view of this new\nmedia news consumption. They stated that there is an \u2018avalanche of information\u2019\navailable from a \u2018soaring number of (frequently unverified) sources\u2019 and that\nthe consequences include \u2018information overload, suboptimal knowledge formation,\nand biased worldview\u2019.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n With\nthe use of online news outlets, there comes the issue of misleading headlines.\nBlom and Hansen analyse headlines from news websites and discuss tabloidization\nof online news, summarising that \u2018if the readers click it does the trick, seems\nto be the logic\u2019.[12]<\/a>\nWhere media organisations embrace the internet as their opportunity to\ndistribute material to an immeasurable audience, the presence of ambiguous and\nintentionally deceiving headlines is inevitable; they want readers to choose to\nread (and then share) their articles over the many others on their feed. News\ncontent posted online will not be likely to be read nor will it be shared\nfurther if it does not have an element of sensationalism (misdirecting people\non the truth of the story), therefore there is a stronger tendency for using\nthese types of headlines with tabloid media on news websites, than in the\npress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why\ndo people, especially those of younger generations, wish to share news stories\nover social media? Lee and Ma address this question.[13]<\/a>\nThey discuss the \u2018Uses and Gratifications\u2019 theory (an old media studies theory,\noriginally developed in relation to radio and television, but applied to online\nnews by Diddi and LaRose in 2006[14]<\/a>)\nand its attempt at explaining the psychological motivations. They also discussed,\nwith reference to Ames and Naaman[15]<\/a>,\nstatus seeking and a need to gain attention as further driving factors.\nSimilarly, Rogers talked of how the sharing of credible and relevant content\nmakes the social media user appear credible and as an \u2018opinion leader\u2019 to those\nwho access it and find it interesting.[16]<\/a>\nGenerally, people want to be seen as influencers. Alongside the desire to be\nwell informed, there is the desire to be the one who is informing others. The\nculture of the 21st<\/sup> century is one in which people depend upon the\napproval and recognition which they receive online, in the form of \u2018likes\u2019 and\n\u2018shares\u2019. They meet this psychological need by posting updates of news that are\ninteresting or entertaining, but not necessarily important or even factual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hermida\nand Fletcher found that Canadians were twice as likely to prefer reading the\nnews that was shared or recommended by their friends and family on social media,\nthan news from journalists or official outlets.[17]<\/a>\nThey described news as being a \u2018shared social experience\u2019 now, and said this\nhas become more enjoyable, however they questioned the potential outcome of\nexposure to (only) news which is popular rather than important.[18]<\/a>\nI would further question what aspects of those stories are making them popular;\nit is unlikely to be their reliable factual basis but rather their\nentertainment value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\nis entirely possible to alter your social media feed in a way that allows you\nto view only the news updates that are relevant to your interests or opinions.\nNov and others referred to this news-filtering potential as an attractive\naspect, which is transforming users from \u2018passive consumers of content\u2019 into\n\u2018active producers\u2019.[19]<\/a>\nThere is a danger, however, where filtering is not recognised by the users as\nbeing in place. A study by Elsami (from 2015) found that 63% of participators\nwere not aware that algorithms were filtering their Facebook News Feed, making\nit personalised to include only information that is relevant to them.[20]<\/a>\nMany internet users are not fully aware of the types of material they are being\nexposed to or having hidden from them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two\nphenomena that are created by this filtering are known as \u2018echo-chambers\u2019 and\n\u2018filter bubbles\u2019. A book by Sunstein from 2007, focuses in on the idea of\necho-chambers with regard to blogging (at this stage, social media was only\ndeveloping, but the concepts still apply).[21]<\/a>\nSunstein describes the increasing power people have to decide when to \u2018screen\nin and screen out\u2019 and he addresses the impacts upon a democracy of free\nspeech. He discusses the negative affects upon societies where the ideal of\n\u2018The Daily Me\u2019, whereby individuals read a form of newspaper entirely limited to\ntheir own interests, becomes reality. This old concept originates from\nNegroponte.[22]<\/a>\nHe says, \u2018\u2026because it is so easy to learn about the choices of \u2018people like\nyou\u2019, countless people make the same choices that are made by others like them\u2019\nand explains the ability to \u2018design something very much like communications\nuniverse of their own choosing\u2019. Interestingly, he speaks of this movement\ntowards an \u2018apparently utopian picture\u2019 as being very dangerous; it results in\nbad citizenship because, \u2018\u2026in a democracy deserving of the name, lives should\nbe structured so that people often come across views and topics that they have\nnot specifically selected\u2019.[23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n There\nare, of course, positive aspects of social media filtering. Sunstein does not\nfail to mention the \u2018quite wonderful\u2019 benefit of finding recommendations on\nNetflix or finding a new book through Amazon\u2019s personalised suggestions. This\nmust be balanced, however, against the detriment of strengthening political\nviews (including extremism) by exclusively hearing and learning from those who\nare like-minded[24]<\/a>,\nor \u2018distorted understanding of some issue, person or practice\u2019 gained from a\nsuggested YouTube clip taken out of context[25]<\/a>.\nPre-existing views are confirmed and exposure to challenging beliefs is\nlimited.[26]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n In\n\u2018The Filter Bubble\u2019, Eli Pariser discusses the subtle, but yet fundamental,\nchange of the digital world towards a tool for harnessing as much information\nabout the user as possible and providing a \u2018custom-tailored\u2019 space.[27]<\/a>\nPariser is the chief executive of \u2018Upworthy\u2019[28]<\/a>,\na website promoting meaningful viral content, but also the president of\n\u2018Moveon\u2019[29]<\/a>,\na site for political campaigning. Despite this background, he discusses the\ninternet as a harmful reinforcing tool; rather than a useful campaigning one.\nAlthough he does not mention (or perhaps even anticipate) issues of outright\nfakery in news, he does enforce the danger of the confirmation bias that\nhappens in social media \u2018bubbles\u2019. These filtered spaces have a \u2018powerful\nallure\u2019 but yet we not ever chose to enter them.[30]<\/a>\nIn line with the mission of \u2018Upworthy\u2019, Pariser questions whether an article\nabout child poverty would ever be considered personally relevant to many of us.\nAlthough it may not be, it is still important to know about. This type of story\nmay, however, be hidden from a personalised feed and replaced by a \u2018spicy\nheadline\u2019 of dubious factual basis.[31]<\/a>\nThis leaves us with a misshapen sense of the world around us; one with no\nperspective on what is important. Democracy is built upon shared knowledge and\nshared experience, therefore filtered bubbles are threatening it.[32]<\/a> Chapter\nThree:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\n\u2018Fake News\u2019 Problem: Causes & Implications<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nuse of social media fuels an overload of information; users are immediately\nexposed to an ever-increasing amount of news material when they log-on and view\ntheir \u2018news feeds\u2019. Unfortunately, this material will inevitably include\n\u2018unverified, anonymous and overwhelmingly subjective\u2019 content.[33]<\/a>\nAs said by Pavlik, \u2018we live in an age of ubiquitous information\u2019[34]<\/a>,\nbut much of this information is unreliable and some is entirely false. The\nconcept of fake news has become a \u2018hot topic\u2019 recently, but it is more than\nthat; it is a global problem. So, how has this issue come about?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Social\nmedia creates a space for a constant flow of content generated by users. This\nstream of information will, due to the accessibility of social networking\napplications, include immediate coverage of events and developments. Amongst\nthose that are personal to the user, there will be those updates that involve\nlocal, national and even worldwide news. These posts have the ability to be\ndistributed across societies and discussed by users from across the globe\nwithin minutes; diffused within a worldwide virtual community.[35]<\/a>\nContent is exchanged on a \u2018many-to-many model\u2019 and the publishing dynamics of a\nsystem based upon the concept of a broadcast audience is altered significantly.[36]<\/a>\nBy facilitating this \u2018viral\u2019 sharing, social media platforms facilitate the circulation\nof inaccuracies or altogether-fake stories on an extensive scale; far beyond\nthe retrieval of the original (often unrecognised) publisher. Mechanisms such\nas Twitter\u2019s \u2018retweet\u2019 button empower users to spread content of their choice\nbeyond the reach of their own \u2018follower\u2019 base. It is this feature which has made\nTwitter a significant new medium for dissemination of information.[37]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nUK Parliament began an inquiry into fake news in April 2017. Much of the\nwritten evidence from this inquiry (which has been published online)[38]<\/a>\ndiscussed the definition and scope of fake news. Dr Thorrington stated that the\ndefinition should be broad; including any publication which is \u2018intended to be\ntreated as an objective report but contains flaws that lessen its objectivity\u2019.[39]<\/a>\nDarren Parmenter\u2019s evidence described a \u2018meme\u2019 image viewed on Facebook that\nquoted the then Home Secretary (alongside her image) to have said, \u201cSex\noffenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt\u201d. An official\narticle by The Daily Telegraph clarified that these were not her words, but\nsomething she had been told. A movement of punctuation marks had completely\nchanged the connotation of the image, which had subsequently been shared\nthousands of times accompanied by \u2018incredibly vile and personal comments\u2019. In his\nopinion, this was a type of fake news; it misinforms the viewer.[40]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nBBC defines fake news as being any information that has been circulated\nintentionally by hoax news sites to misinform readers, usually for their own\npolitical or commercial gain. They note the differentiation between fake news\nand false news. Fake news, to them, is a term used at times by politicians to\ndispute comments that they dislike or do not agree with.[41]<\/a>\nThe National Union of Journalists describe how the use of social media has\ncreated a type of \u2018eco-system\u2019 in which news, or information pretending to be\nnews, is shared instantly within \u2018belief-affirming bubbles\u2019 and this is a\nbackdrop which some (notably politicians) can exploit.[42]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n A\nPOSTnote of the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on \u2018Online Information\nand Fake News\u2019 lists various types of fake news. This list includes fabricated\ncontent (completely fake), manipulated content (distorting the truth), imposter\ncontent (impersonation of a genuine source), misleading content (for example,\nby presenting an opinion as fact), false context or connection (for example,\nwhere a headline does not reflect the material within the article), and satire\nor parody (whereby something humorous and presented as if it was true). The\nscope of fake news is extremely wide, as is the variety of online outlets for\nthese types of content.[43]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ninternet has been described as having the potential to be a positive force for\ndemocracy and was celebrated in its infancy as such, however, it does not\nachieve this goal.[44]<\/a>\nAlthough fake news is not a newly emerging issue, it has become more prominent\nand familiar in recent years (and particularly recent months). Ultimately, it\nundermines democratic societies in which populations should be able to\nunderstand and be informed on the events and decisions in the news that are\naffecting their lives. Our economy is \u2018information-dependent\u2019 and any risk to\nthe standards of media industries and quality journalism will threaten it. The\nNational Union of Journalists states that this is the primary reason why fake\nnews is a problem.[45]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Modern\ndemocracies are committed to ensuring freedom of the press and media; many\njournalists throughout history fought for it. It allows them to publish content\nwithout restriction or interference by the state (generally), and is something\nthe UK prides itself on.[46]<\/a>\nThis does not have any relevance to the online publications of ordinary\ncitizens but their freedom of expression[47]<\/a>,\non the other hand, is certainly relevant. Although there are organisations who\nhave the power to limit what is posted across the internet (such as the UK\nInternet Watch Foundation (IWF) or Ofcom communications regulator), it does\nseem that very little gets banned from being posted online and free-speech via\nthe internet does appear to be unlimited.[48]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding\nthe online engagement with stories in the critical final weeks of the US\npresidential election, an analysis by the digital media company, BuzzFeed,\nfound that there was greater attention (shares, reactions and comments) paid to\nfalse election stories by hoax sites than there was on the official articles by\nmajor news outlets such as the New York Times.[49]<\/a>\nThis finding is shocking and is of major significance. The use of fake news for\npolitical benefit is a dangerous matter; distortion and polarization are\ninevitable and worrying outcomes for a democracy that is based upon the\nimportance of transparency and accountability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According\nto Sunstein, in a democracy people should not live in \u2018echo chambers or\ninformation cocoons\u2019, but should be exposed to ideas that will challenge them\nand inform them even if they have not chosen the material in advance. This is not\nthe case where internet users are designing their own daily newspaper.[50]<\/a>\nPeople\u2019s preferences, knowledge and decisions are the result of their exposure\nto \u2018excessively limited options\u2019 and this, in turn, limits their freedom and capacity\nas citizens.[51]<\/a>\nI would add that this limitation is very much related to their reduced ability\nto distinguish truth from lies, reliability from deception, legitimacy from\nquestionability. It is understandable that people have been found more likely\nto believe a false claim if it is repeated, even if it contradicts their prior\nknowledge.[52]<\/a>\nWe will believe what we read, if we read it enough times and it comes from\nenough sources; this is \u2018the psychology of rumor\u2019 and although it is far from a\nnew concept, it is newly significant as a major reason why the spread of fake\nnews is palpable within the bubble of a social media feed. Chapter\nFour:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A\nLegal Gap?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We\nbelieve, as a society in general, that the truth is a good and important thing.\nWe are people who want to know more all of the time, and want to have access to\nan abundance of information regarding every aspect of our lives, so that we can\nlive as well-informed people and make good decisions based on that. For this to\nbe the case, such information must be the truth. Barendt refers to the\ndiscovery of truth as \u2018an autonomous and fundamental good\u2019, which has\nsignificant value \u2018concerning progress and the development of society\u2019. He\nstates that this is why it is one of the most durable arguments in support of\nthe freedom of speech.[53]<\/a>\nAccuracy is a social goal and we should understand that it is a better thing,\nfor the world, if we have access to accurate news. We receive this news on an\nhourly basis from the media, and the legal system has, therefore, placed an\nemphasis on enforcing accuracy across the various platforms to which we are\nexposed. In some circumstances, however, this is only a gentle emphasis. In\nreality, the social goal of truthfulness and accuracy must be balanced against\nothers; namely the freedom of speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although\nthe UK prides itself on its free press, journalism is still restricted through laws,\nbroadcasting or regulatory standards and guidelines. War reporting, blasphemy,\ncontempt, information regarding minors or vulnerable individuals,\ndiscriminatory content, incitement to crime and issues of national security are\nall examples of the types of material that are restricted within journalism.\nThese types of restrictions are generally understood and well supported by the\ngeneral public, when they consider the moral and\/or ethical reasoning for them.\nEven those who actively support and promote free speech will generally accept\nthem as being reasonable.[54]<\/a>\nThe press and broadcasting media are, therefore, monitored, regulated and\ncontrolled, to an extent, by different bodies and authorities. Truth and\naccuracy do play an important role and are recognised in these areas; there are\nincentives to be truthful in reporting and publishing, for example as a defence\nto defamation allegations. Although the effectiveness of this regulation is\narguable, it does exist and the procedures are in place to attempt to enforce accurate\npublication of the truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\ncontrast to these other media platforms, there is, at present, very little\nlegislation allowing for any control of what is published on the internet. The\ninternet remains, for the most part, quite unregulated in terms of accuracy and\ntruth. Many are of the opinion that this has allowed freedom of speech to get\n\u2018out of hand\u2019 because there are only implied moral responsibilities of users\nnot to write anything online that will cause harm to others.[55]<\/a>\nBesides the deterrent of the risk of a defamation case (as this doctrine\napplies to internet material just as it does with other platforms) there is no explicit\nlegal requirement that what an individual choses to post online is accurate or\neven truthful. Whilst entities described as \u2018internet information gatekeepers\u2019,\nsuch as search engines and social networking sites are considered to have\nparticular responsibilities through their position of authority, general\ninternet users are not.[56]<\/a>\nThis has facilitated the spread of fake news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following\nthe News of the World phone-hacking scandal of 2011, the Leveson Inquiry was\nset up to examine the press and debate how it should be regulated. This was a\npublic inquiry, which heard from a number of high-profile witnesses and focused\nupon the culture, practices and ethics of the press. Within the final report,\nLord Leveson recommended that a new, independent body should replace the\nexisting Press Complaints Commission and that it should be supported by new\nlegislation. This currently exists as the Independent Press Standards\nOrganisation (IPSO) and regulates both the print press and online press\ncontent. Government declined, however, to enact new laws to recognise it, so it\nremains as a non-statutory authority.[57]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n IPSO\nattempts to uphold high, professional standards in journalism by monitoring the\ncompliance of its members with an Editors\u2019 Code of Practice and investigating\nwhere there have been complaints and reports of serious breaches of the Code.\nThey also provide guidance and training for editors and journalists, and have a\n\u2018Whistleblowing Hotline\u2019. The Code is written by the Editors\u2019 Code Committee\nand sets out a framework of rules that all magazines and newspapers, who have\nvolunteered to be regulated by IPSO, have subsequently agreed to and committed\nto following. The rules are set out under various headings such as Accuracy,\nPrivacy, Children, Reporting of Crime and Discrimination.[58]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Under\nthe heading of Accuracy, the Editors\u2019 Code notes that there must be care taken\nnot to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information and that where\nthis happens there must be prompt corrections and appropriate apologies.\nFurthermore, there must be clear distinction between published comment,\nconjecture and fact.[59]<\/a>\nSuch rules are obviously of relevance to the issue of fake news. This authority\naims to promote high standards of journalism by ensuring that its members are\ncommitted to following detailed rules on accuracy, among other aspects. The body\nis independent, however, and is not statutory; there is no legislation backing\nits work, despite it having a huge number of members and therefore the potential\nfor significant influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nstatutory body, Ofcom (the Office of Communications), regulates all broadcasters\nwith wide coverage; all radio stations and television channels, including\nsatellite and cable. Its powers are set out in the Communications Act 2003 and\nits \u2018Broadcasting Code\u2019 specifies its standards. Although they are not in\nstatute, they are required to be followed according to statute and are\nconditions of retaining the licence that the broadcaster has been granted.\nSection 5 of this document is particularly relevant to issues of truth as it\nrequires \u2018news is reported with due accuracy and presented with due\nimpartiality\u2019.[60]<\/a>\nIt specifically defines what accuracy means and it includes the mention of\nissues like misrepresentation and deception. Similarly, section 7 gives\nrequirements regarding elections. It orders fairness as a specific duty (which\nis punishable by fines and by withdrawal of licenses) that broadcasters must\navoid any unjust or unfair treatment of an individual or an organisation. Broadcasters\ncannot only present one side of a story; they must present a full picture and\nallow for responses. This is a key aspect of truth-telling; it requires a story\nto be shared with full coverage, rather than with a deceiving or misleading\nperspective or single opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If\nfake news were to be broadcast on a television channel, it would be relatively\nstraightforward to bring a complaint to Ofcom. Ofcom would look back at this\ntelevision programme, make a decision on whether it had breached their code and\nwould act accordingly. This would involve publishing the decision to the public\nwho had been misinformed, ordering an apology from the broadcasters,\npotentially issuing a fine and, in the most extreme of cases, acting to remove\ntheir license. This is generally how the complaints procedure would work in\npractice as set out under the framework of section 319 of the 2003 Act.[61]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n There\nis a historic distinction between the press and broadcasting. Generally, when\nwe think of broadcasting media we are thinking about screens, computers and\nhigher levels of technology than would be involved with the press and\nnewspapers. The internet, however, is actually more similar to the press in\nthat it does not require a license. Barendt, in rejecting the analogy with\nbroadcasting, notes how the internet \u2018does not invade the home in the same way\nas radio and television; users do not come across indecent (or other) items by\naccident\u2019.[62]<\/a>\nAlongside this difference, the specific rules for broadcasting like, for\nexample: impartiality, regulatory bodies, obtaining licenses, controls on\nadvertising, do not apply to the internet. The internet allows, generally, for\nopen access, and operates without a system of centralized control, because it\nwas not set up to be subject to the same statutory requirement to control\nanyone with access to the system; it does not have the same \u2018gatekeepers\u2019\ndetermining what is transmitted.[63]<\/a>\nAs noted, the main thing that the internet has in common with the press is the\nlack of a need for a license.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One\nway in which the internet is regulated, to an extent, is through the work of a\nself-regulatory body called the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). The IWF is not\noverly well-known and monitors limited types of content like images of child\nsexual abuse or other obscene or violent content. This body is funded and\nsupported by the European Union as well as major ISPs, filtering companies and\nsearch providers. One function is to provide a \u2018hotline\u2019 through which the\npublic can report accidental exposure to criminal content online.[64]<\/a>\nAnother crucial role they play is in providing block lists to ISPs, which they\ncan then use to ensure nobody reaches the inappropriate content. This function\nreally makes the difference to internet users. When the IWF get a report that\nthere is particular URL on which obscene images are found, they add this to the\nblock list which is given to ISPs to be filtered and made inaccessible. While\nthe material is still online, and could potentially be reached if accessed from\nanother country, it is blocked and found as a blank page to any UK internet\nusers. Takedown of images hosted abroad is dependent on the actions of local\nauthorities.[65]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nIWF developed as an alternative to legal action. The government wanted ISPs to\nhave the duty to block images of this nature but the industry disagreed, based\non the huge expense and general feasibility. The response was going to be a\nlegal obligation to do it, and so the IWF was set up as means of self-regulation.\nAlthough online exposure to child sexual abuse was the primary focus of the\nIWF\u2019s work, the system has also been used for the blocking of copyright\ninfringement. Under intellectual property law there is a system whereby an\ninjunction can be obtained against those who are in the position to prevent\nharm, by copyright infringement. This injunction will order ISPs to block the\nparticular streaming site that is being used. Over the last decade, many\napplications have been brought to the High Court from the creative industry\n(including movie producers, record labels, publishers) and their primary\nargument is that if this blocking can already be done for abuse images then\nsurely it could be used for this type of material, too.[66]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n At\npresent, the IWF cannot be said to be doing anything for fake news. It is\ninteresting to consider whether or not it would be capable of any monitoring or\nregulation of this and if not, why not? The technology and procedures that are\nused could be the same as those which are used for child abuse images or\ncopyright infringement content. The main issue, I would suggest, is that whilst\neveryone can probably come to agreement on whether or not an image of a child\nis of a pornographic and therefore inappropriate nature, it would not be so\nblack and white in deciding whether any statement online is true or false.[67]<\/a>\nThere could be too many grey areas and controversy over what should be blocked\nand whether the IWF had the right to block specific pages on the basis of an\ninaccurate statement, anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defamation\nlaw is certainly relevant to the issue of fake news due to the importance of\nthe falsehood of the statement in question. The Defamation Act 2013 (England\nand Wales, only) Section 2 clarifies the statutory defence of truth. It is the\ncurrent law that a statement is not defamatory if it is proven to be\n\u2018essentially\u2019 or \u2018substantially\u2019 true.[68]<\/a>\nThe prospect of a defamation case will be a significant deterrence to any\njournalist and the pre-publication procedures involved in their role will\nensure that they will not often end up in this type of legal action. Where a\ndefamation case is brought against a newspaper, it will be them who must to\nprove the truth rather than the complainant. This is one of the ways that truth\nis enforced. This forces or at least encourages publishers to consider the\ntruthfulness of content. This is not the case, however, regarding defamation\nonline. A member of the public who publishes material on an online platform\ndoes not face the same prospect and does not have the same reason to consider\nwhat they are posting. They are not writing from a position of authority or\nemployment from which they can be removed, and do not have the responsibility\nto represent a particular newspaper or magazine; they are only an individual\nonline profile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alongside\nthe defence of truth, there is also the qualified privilege for publication of\ndefamatory material that is in the public interest. This is also in statute for\nEngland and Wales.[69]<\/a>\nThis statutory defence abolished the common law \u2018Reynolds defence\u2019, which was clarified\nwithin the House of Lords case of Reynolds\n<\/em>[2001][70]<\/a>,\nand provided that a journalist can argue that they had a duty to publish\nmaterial, even if it turned out to be false, if it was in the interest of the\npublic for them to do so. In Reynolds<\/em>,\nLord Nicholls set out 10 factors for the court to take into account in deciding\nwhether a defendant should be able to rely upon this defence. These included\nmatters such as the seriousness of the allegation, the nature of the\ninformation, the steps taken to verify the information and the urgency of the\nmatter.[71]<\/a>\nThese factors became well-known standards of responsible journalism and further\nguidance on their use as a test was given in the later case of Jameel <\/em>[2007].[72]<\/a>\nThis was a way in which the legal system tried to incentivize \u2018good\u2019 and careful\njournalism by using a broad, liberal approach and considering a wide range of\naspects.[73]<\/a>\nThe 2013 Act provides no list of standards that the publisher must meet and so\nthe courts need not use these as a benchmark any longer.[74]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Cases\nof defamation linked to the internet are on the rise due to the failure of\nonline platforms to put in place the same types of pre-publication controls\nthat are used in traditional media broadcasting.[75]<\/a>\nThe key case of Tamiz v Google Inc<\/em>\n[2012][76]<\/a>\nsets out, with clarity, a message of positive inaction on the part of the UK\ncourts towards victims of online defamation. It demonstrates, essentially, that\na \u2018host\u2019 of online content does not have to do all that much. In this case it\nwas held that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is merely a \u2018host\u2019 of the relevant\ncontent and this means its role has been passive rather than actively\npublicising or even authorising material. Similar reasoning was used in the\ncases of Bunt v Tilley <\/em>[2007][77]<\/a>\nand Metropolitan International Schools <\/em>[2011][78]<\/a>\nregarding this \u2018passive facilitation\u2019 of defamatory content. Such ISPs are subsequently immune from defamation\nactions according to Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive)\nRegulations of 2002.[79]<\/a>\nThe exception here is where an ISP or \u2018host\u2019 has been notified of the existence\nof defamatory material on their platform but have failed to take adequate steps\nto remove it, as was the case in Godfrey<\/em>\n[2001][80]<\/a>.\nThis exception is built into the Directive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nDefamation Act 2013 (Section 5) makes it even easier for hosts to deny\nresponsibility for content on their websites. If you are, as the Act says, the\noperator of a website, you may only need to pass on the complaint (subject to\nconditions) and you are very well protected from legal action under defamation.\nThis is the case, in particular, where the writer of the material is named and\ntraceable. While the Defamation Bill was debated within the House of Lords,\nmany members referred to the impact upon Mumsnet and similar famous websites.[81]<\/a>\nMumsnet online forum were lobbying to say that while many post on their very\ninfluential discussion groups, they cannot check the truth or accuracy of each message;\nall they are capable of doing is putting the writer and complainer in touch\nwith each other and allowing them to establish truth between themselves. The\nwebsite operator of Mumsnet cannot be in the position to judge the truth of\neach individual statement and so they would find themselves exposed to far too\nmuch liability if this was required of them.[82]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n I\nwould argue that the same can be said of social media platforms such as\nFacebook; surely they cannot be expected to have the positive duty to be actively\nlooking for false material or inaccurate news sharing on their entire website?\nAt present, they only have the obligation to take particular types of material\ndown if it has been reported to them. In the Northern Irish case of CG v Facebook <\/em>[2016], Facebook failed on\nthis point and were held to be liable to the respondent in damages for misuse\nof private information which they should have or ought to have known had been\npublished on their platform.[83]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\nis extremely difficult for a person who has been a victim of online defamation\nto know who they can take action against or to have any confidence that any\nlegal actions would be successful. Cyberspace has no legal borders as it\ncrosses national boundaries; any message or piece of information can be instantaneously\ndispersed across many geographical locations but there are no legal barriers\nacross the internet to prevent this flow.[84]<\/a>\nAs was predicted by Negroponte back in the 1990s, we now \u2018socialize in digital\nneighborhoods in which physical space [is] irrelevant and time [plays] a\ndifferent role\u2019.[85]<\/a>\nIn these we can be anonymous and untraceable; we will write things we would\nnever have said, or at least would certainly have given more consideration,\naloud in a face-to-face discussion. As a result, in many cases of defamation\nonline, it is impossible to distinguish the physical location of the ISP, server\nor the author and such material can be particularly damaging and harmful.\nAlthough this anonymity does not stop law enforcement from attempting to track\ndown online breaches of the law, when regarding individual defamatory comments\nthis can be extremely difficult and time consuming, and therefore impractical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Where\nan internet user has succeeded with legal action under defamation law, they may\nbe compensated by way of damages. Alternatively or in addition, an injunction\nmay be issued. I doubt the use of financial compensation if that post has been\nshared across the online community and seen by hundreds or thousands of other\nusers. Although an injunction should prevent any further spread, the post may\nhave already gone far. The false information about that person has probably\nalready been easily published, easily accessed and easily shared, without any\nhindrance to the many internet users who were involved. This is referred to by\nNegroponte as \u2018a new kind of fraud\u2019 when he compares how easily he can send\nsomething which is read on the internet, to \u2018literally thousands of people all\nover the planet\u2019, compared to spreading a physical newspaper clipping. This can\nseem completely harmless, because it is so easy, and this is where the problem\nlies.[86]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ninternet has become a type of \u2018worldwide collective of free speech\u2019 which has\nreached the stage of being out of control.[87]<\/a>\nWhile many defend this and argue that the internet is the one place where free\nspeech remains unfettered, it seems clear that the coming years of this digital\nage are going to present legislators and courts with many challenges regarding\nonline content. While the internet has facilitated a global freedom to express\nand exchange ideas and opinions, which is important in a democratic society, it\nhas also facilitated a significant rise in misinformation and, ultimately, the spread\nof fake news.[88]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ntruth is important to us, as a society. Effort has been made to encourage the\nspread of the truth in television and radio broadcasting; it was recognised\nthat this was important and so a whole regulatory and license system was\ndeveloped for this reason. Similarly, individuals and companies are willing to\nspend huge amounts of money on legal fees for libel\/defamation cases because\nthey feel that it is important that the truth is told and spread about them.\nThe belief that the truth is important and good within society is expressed\nthrough the combination of bodies, authorities and mechanisms that I have\ndiscussed in this chapter. The area, in which this belief is not having any\nimpact, is in the context of the internet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\nis plenty of regulation out there, which is appropriate to the press and to\nbroadcasting media. Although it is a small number, there are television and\nradio channels that have lost their licenses for failure to properly fact-check\nthe content they are broadcasting.[89]<\/a> <\/strong>License\nrevocation is the ultimate sanction; more often they would only be fined, butthe problem is that these mechanisms\nof monitoring and regulating are either impractical, inappropriate, or\ninsufficient if\/when they are applied to the internet. The internet, as a\ndifferent platform of electronic media, has been left so far apart from other\nplatforms; it is regulated very informally and, aside from the IWF, has no\nbroad oversight by any agency which is controlling its content.[90]<\/a>\nThe internet is left as a gap which needs to be filled. Existing means of\nregulation need to be adapted in order to suit the internet\u2019s various\nplatforms, or new means need to be established and developed. Maybe its \u2018global\nreach and distributed architecture\u2019 are what make it impossible for the\nexisting bodies to do this job.[91]<\/a>\nThe alternative is, perhaps, that new laws are the only outcome that will be\neffective in \u2018reining in\u2019 the freedom currently enjoyed by internet users. Chapter\nFive:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Combatting\n\u2018Fake News\u2019: A Regulatory Solution?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether\nit is possible to regulate the content individuals post online, and if so, what\ntype of regulation would be most effective, are extremely complex questions.\nWhile the most obvious form of regulation is legislation, this is not\nstraightforward with regard to cyberspace. Which actions or types of content would\nsuch a cyberlaw criminalise and how would that law be enforced effectively?\nThese are the questions legislators would need to consider and from the outset,\nand when considering the issue of fake news, the answers are certainly not obvious.\nLegislating, although it may seem like the most direct and impactful means of\ntaking control, takes huge amounts of time, effort and resources. Before these\nare wasted on a new law that will not have the required impact, these difficult\nquestions must be answered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cyberpaternalism\ntakes the position that it is very possible for national laws to effectively\nregulate cyberspace. Reidenberg took this view at an early stage.[92]<\/a>\nWhile other cyberlaw theorists considered the internet to be inherently unregulable\nby its design, and thought that it would be entirely independent and\nunrestricted, Reidenberg saw the potential for unique types of control. At a\nEuropean Union level, the problem of fake news is recognised and attention is\nbeing paid to the potential for a legislative solution. A public consultation\nwas launched by the European Commission in November 2017 (which ran until\nFebruary 2018), with the objective of assessing the effectiveness of current\nactions addressing different types of fake news.[93]<\/a>\nIn a text adopted by European Parliament, the Commission was called upon to\nanalyse the current legal framework and verify the possibility of new\nlegislative interventions.[94]<\/a>\nThe idea of a legal solution is, therefore, not a new concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How,\nthen, could legislation control internet content? Traditional\nlaws consist of three elements: a director, a detector and an effector.[95]<\/a>\nThe director is the standard that has been set and the detector is the means of\ndetecting any deviation from that standard. The effector is the mechanism used\nto push the deviant behaviour back towards the standard. It is difficult or,\narguably, impossible for any of these elements to function effectively with\nregard to cyberspace. Those who would be subject to such laws are no more than\n\u2018digital personae\u2019 who cannot always be identified or physically located let\nalone fined or imprisoned. Furthermore, with the ability to move between zones\ngoverned by different regimes, state sovereignty would be undermined.[96]<\/a>\nIt is significantly more difficult and more expensive to enforce laws where the\nunlawful activities or communications can cross national borders. Cases would\ninvolve complex questions; does it depend where, geographically, the unlawful\nact can be sourced to have taken place or where it was eventually\nreceived\/detected? When dealing with the internet as a global medium, lawmakers\nwill face these problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reed\ndiscusses the way in which law does not operate as a system of control because\nthis would assume that it is only the fear of the law\u2019s sanctions which forces\nus to behave in a way which complies with them. In reality, humans conduct\ntheir lives according to social norms and believe that the law reflects them.\nRather than being controlled and deterred by law enforcement, people live by\nits normative effects.[97]<\/a>\nReed states that a successful law will, therefore, either entrench already\nexisting norms or reinforce a developing one, like the UK law mandating the\nwearing of seat belts.[98]<\/a>\nIf we are aware that there are already deeply entrenched norms existing in\ncyberspace regarding the free flow of information and news, how can a law be\nintroduced which would contradict or challenge them? An example of the\nineffectiveness of this approach is the attempt to curtail file sharing of\ndigital music through copyright laws. Murray describes this clash between\ncyberspace norms and legal rules as \u2018regulatory flux\u2019.[99]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n For\nlegislation to be effective, it must be able to be taken seriously and be\nconsidered as meaningful or necessary. A national law, which would attempt to\nexert control over all cyberspace users, would be unlikely to meet these\ncriteria; it would be considered unfeasibly burdensome or unenforceable.[100]<\/a>\nOne individual internet user cannot be expected to investigate the laws of\nevery country which may apply to his\/her activity online, then look closely at\nthose to decide whether their activity is lawful or not. Similarly, a law may\nnot be perceived as being applicable because it attempts to regulate a\ntechnology that is no longer in date. This poses questions for the regulation\nof cyberspace; the pace of legal change could never compare with the pace of\ntechnological advancement.[101]<\/a>\nFurthermore, where a piece of legislation is going to be taken seriously and\nconsidered to be meaningful, it must be understandable. An issue that is as\nwide in scope as the spread of fake news, would require vast amounts of\nexplanatory information involving technical terminology and precise detail. It\nwould be extremely difficult to provide sufficient detail in order to avoid any\nuncertainty regarding legal application, without causing complete confusion.[102]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lawrence\nLessig was greatly influenced by Reidenberg and the cyber-paternalist school.\nIn Code 2.0 <\/em>he uses a dot to\nrepresent a person or thing, which is being controlled or regulated.[103]<\/a>\nHe talks about four distinct, yet interdependent modalities of control: legal\nconstraints (threatening punishments), social norms (focusing on stigmas),\nmarket (prices and supply) and technology or architecture (physical burdens).\nThese can support and enable, or undermine or oppose each other, but a complete\nview of regulation will involve all four together.[104]<\/a>\nLaw is one mechanism of control over the dot, but it is not the only one or\neven, necessarily, the most effective one. The law can have direct operation in\ntelling societies how to behave and controlling behaviour by threatening\npunishment if they deviate from the lawful standard. On the other hand, a law\ncould have indirect operation in that it would aid one of the other modalities.[105]<\/a>\nThe same can be said regarding the regulation of actions online. While\nlegislation may play a part and contribute to control with indirect operation,\nthe other modalities need to play their part too and support the efforts, as a\nlaw will not be effective on its own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reed\nstates that the area of content control is one in which the internet has\n\u2018robbed the law of much of its power\u2019, but that it is also an area in which\ncode has huge potential.[106]<\/a>\nDue to the \u2018decentralised design\u2019 and \u2018dispersed architecture\u2019 of the internet,\nit has often been considered to be immune from any censorship by the state.[107]<\/a>\nThis is not entirely true, however, as most internet users will have\nencountered internet blocking and content filtering mechanisms which are used\nto ensure that some control is in place. These techniques and technological\nfeatures are continuously being developed to do more to impose control over\naccess to particular types of content, webpages or websites. Lessig describes\ncode as \u2018the instructions embedded in the software or hardware that makes\ncyberspace what it is\u2019.[108]<\/a>\nCode is the architecture of cyberspace and it has the potential to provide\nmeans of regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\narchitecture of the internet will always influence the way in which an\nindividual uses it; it enables certain activities and behaviours but, by\ndesign, it will also constrain and restrict others. The environment with which\nan internet user becomes familiar with and enjoys, exists because of coding. In\nthe same way, it can be limited and controlled with use of code. If this is the\ncase, the ones who regulate the coding of the internet and therefore control\nits architecture, are the ones who can regulate the content. Similarly, areas\nof the internet can charge for access or require paid subscriptions for their\nuse. If this does not restrict access, busy signals can do so. This is what\nLessig describes as the market modality of control. Just as with law,\narchitectural and market influences can contribute to control over a person or\nthing.[109]<\/a>\nEach of these modalities will have a cost and take time to introduce and so it\nis important to consider which ways, or in which combinations, they will be\nmost effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Throughout\nthe evidence of the parliamentary inquiry into fake news there are mentions of\narchitectural mechanisms relating to changes made by browsers or social media\nplatforms. One common suggestion is that genuine news outlets are allowed to\ndisplay a mark\/sticker of verification on their webpage or publications.[110]<\/a>\nThe issue with such a proposal is that a decision would need to be made on\nwhich authority should be allowed to grant the verificatoin and this would,\npotentially, be an authority derived from government. If this were the case there\nwould, inevitably, be debate on whether government should have the power to\ndecide what is truth or should be considered to be truthful. This would\ncontradict the expectation that the public should be allowed to make up their minds\non what is truthful or legitimate. Another fault with this recommendation is\nthat this would not tackle the issue of fake news spread by ordinary social\nmedia users, it would only verify main news outlets; individuals could not be\nverified as they could not be distinguished as a legitimate source. The news\npages that they share could be verified, but their own posts could not.[111]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Another\nrecommendation for architectural means of control is that major players such as\nGoogle and Yahoo! have a \u2018news toolbar\u2019 which would appear on everyone\u2019s search\npages. Using the toolbar, anyone could tag something that they consider to be\nfake news and if there are multiple reports then the stories would be flagged to\nbe checked. Linda Greenwood compares this idea to an Amazon toolbar add-on\nwhich allows her to add shopping to her basket from any website.[112]<\/a>\nThe issue I would suggest for this measure is that a group must be delegated as\nresponsible for the checking of flagged stories and there would be debate over\nwhich group should have such power. Furthermore, it would not be enough to\nintroduce this add-on feature without promoting it and providing a great deal\nof information on why it is vital that it is used (and used properly). Internet\nusers cannot be expected to embrace a feature and make use of it if they are\nnot aware of its importance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Edmund\nWisty, a computer consultant, recommended that social media sites should\ndisplay \u2018traffic graphs\u2019 for their trending posts, which would give users the\nability to check whether growth rates look to be reasonable or forced.[113]<\/a>\nAlthough this measure would, potentially, be useful in evaluating the\ntruthfulness of a Tweet or shared story, it would require the user to go to the\neffort of analysing a graph and attempting to understand it. The readers would\nfirst have to doubt the accuracy of the news story and chose themselves that it\nwas worth going to this effort. It may not be overly beneficial if this feature\nwas not automatically visible to the reader, beside the post or tweet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Google\noutline their attempts at introducing better mechanisms for controlling the\namount of misleading or inaccurate content.[114]<\/a>\nThey note that they have introduced fact-check labels to both their search and\nnews functions, and are taking steps to help users find fact-checked articles\nwith critical outlooks. They are working to improve the algorithms that produce\ntheir search results, to reduce the number of sites that are able to reach the\ntop of the results through use of deceiving headlines or through\nmisrepresenting themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All\nof the suggested technological solutions require more than just an\nintroduction; they must be promoted, supported and have their importance rigorously\nexplained to internet users. As argued by Lessig, the architectural modality of\nregulation is unlikely to be sufficiently effective on its own. These measures\ncould make a difference in the short term but longer-term approaches would be\ncritical alongside the attempts of the social media platforms and browsers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those\nwho are very familiar with use of the internet (Lessig refers to them as\n\u2018Netizens\u2019) become aware of the behaviours that are considered to be socially\nacceptable and those that are not, within their online environments and the\nonline communities in which they interact. This is relevant to the final of\nLessig\u2019s modalities of control; social norms. He mentions examples of behaviour\nthat would not be socially accepted on the net; posting about irrelevant\nmatters on a newsgroup forum or talking too much on a discussion group.[115]<\/a>\nSocial norms can be extremely effective in controlling particular types of\nbehaviour. This is because stigmas are attached and sanctions can be imposed whenever\nindividuals conduct themselves in a way that is not acceptable to their\ncommunity. The risk of the type of scrutiny a person may be subjected to by\nsociety may be enough to deter them from acting in a particular way and may\neven be a more significant deterrent than the risk of legal sanction. Online,\nthe result may be that the user is removed from the newsgroup, blocked from the\nforum, reported and have their profile deleted from the social media site or\nhave their subscription to a platform cancelled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many\nnorms exist because of the existence of legislation and therefore line up with\nbehaviour that is legal. The example Lessig discusses is the wearing of seat\nbelts. While legislation directly regulates this by mandating it, social norms\nalso regulate it in that there is a stigma against those who choose not to. The\nnorm lines up with the influence of law. There are, however, other ways to develop\nor change social norms; education is the most obvious. The funding of public education\ncampaigns can be immensely effective in creating stigmas and developing the sense\nthat a particular conduct is not acceptable.[116]<\/a>\nRegarding the issue of fake news, I think it is particularly important for\neducation to be funded, allowing younger generations to learn about the\nimportance of thinking critically about the sources from which they are reading\ntheir news. This, in turn, should result in a change in social norms relating\nto the sharing of news and an understanding that spreading material that is\ninaccurate or entirely false is dangerous and socially unacceptable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many\nof the written evidence reports from the parliamentary inquiry directly\ndiscussed awareness and education as being a long-term requirement if the fake\nnews issue is to be tackled from the source.[117]<\/a>\nThe contribution by the founder of Simple Politics, a website and social media\npresence, discussed the importance of equipping young people with the skills\nthey need to identify fake news themselves and instilling within them the desire\nto hunt for facts, rather than taking information at face value.[118]<\/a>\nEducation on these issues and development of critical thinking skills within\nschools will play a fundamental role in the changing of social norms as a\nmethod of control because the younger generations can bring a new awareness\ninto their jobs and futures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr\nGray and Professor Phippen, academics and authors in the field, focused their\nattention exclusively on children and the particular problems they have\nregarding recognition of false information. They clarified that the issue lies\nin the blurring of boundaries between information which is authoritative and\nthat which is purely for entertainment purposes.[119]<\/a>\nThey expressed concern that a generation with limited awareness of \u2018digital\nmoralities\u2019 will be likely to face an erosion of their rights alongside abuses\nby industries and governments; they describe the growth of fake news as being\nthe critical \u2018warning signal\u2019 that urgent action is needed. They suggest that\nthis urgent action should involve development in education on the digital\nworld; digital issues should not be kept to a restricted section of the school\ncurriculum but should be infiltrated within other subjects because these issues\ninfluence all areas of life.[120]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n This\ntype of educational development must stem from and be supported by policies\nthat have national acknowledgement; it must come hand-in-hand with these. It is\nessential that changes and additions to the school curriculum are adequately\nresourced and respected as being crucial for the young generations who face\nthese digital issues on a daily basis and must be equipped. Under this\nobjective, teachers must be adequately resourced and upskilled to be fully aware\nand knowledgeable regarding the significance of these issues and the risks\nassociated with them. Alongside more technological, ICT-based lessons on\nauthoritative and reliable sources, and distinguishing factual information from\nbiased opinions or deceptive commentaries, children should be taught, more\ngenerally, how to be critically minded and reflective when accessing news\nonline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One\nexample of relevant educational development is the new interactive game\nlaunched by the BBC, which is giving young people the challenge of taking on\nthe role of a journalist and spotting fake news. The task involves\ndecision-making regarding the trustworthiness and legitimacy of sources,\npolitical claims and social media comments. The BBC \u2018iReporter\u2019 game, which is\naimed at 11-18 year olds, is one aspect of an wider initiative which also\nprovides teachers and older students with classroom resources and lesson plans\non various topics surrounding the issue of fake news.[121]<\/a>\nA BBC Live lesson was also streamed for schoolchildren on \u2018sorting fact from\nfiction\u2019. This interactive session involved experts from \u2018Full Fact\u2019, an\nindependent fact-checking organization.[122]<\/a>\nMore platforms must begin to incorporate fake news into their initiatives for\neducation and awareness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whilst\ncampaigns for education and awareness have the potential to influence attitudes\ntowards fake news and result in a vast understanding into the dangers of it,\nthis will not regulate the issue on its own. This cannot be a perfect solution\nas it may, primarily, take time to inform people and change their views on the\nimportance of this issue, particularly with developments in education only\ninfluencing the younger generations in the short term. It does remain, however,\nthat education and awareness must play a major role in attempts to tackle fake\nnews. Chapter\nSix:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Distribution\nand consumption of news has changed remarkably within the 21st<\/sup>\ncentury with the growth in the use of social media platforms, especially among\nyounger generations, playing a key role. Amongst many positive aspects,\nreliance upon online outlets for news has many downfalls. Individuals can,\nbefore they are even aware of it, enter into an echo-chamber or filter bubble\nin which they are only exposed to stories and viewpoints which will confirm and\nreinforce their existing beliefs. This leads to them having a significantly\nlimited perspective of the world around them.[123]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Within\nthese restricted feeds of news coverage, internet users become more impressionable\nregarding sensationalized news stories, misleading headlines and deceptive,\n\u2018click-bait\u2019 articles which, in turn, facilitates the instantaneous, viral\nspreading of fake news. Individuals can be fooled into thinking their social\nmedia platforms are allowing them to become better informed citizens but they are,\ninstead, being misinformed entirely. Fake news, which is a broad concept and\ncan encompass various types of material, threatens democratic societies in new\nways.[124]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\nis gradually becoming recognised that the issue of fake news is a serious one\nand its worrying implications must be tackled and brought under control. There\nis plenty of regulation in existence regarding the press and broadcast media,\nand these measures have the importance of truthfulness reflected within them;\nhowever, the internet is one area for which control is limited. The internet is\na unique space for which many of the existing mechanisms for control are simply\ninsufficient. The freedom which internet users currently embrace and enjoy must\nbe reined in through new initiatives and developments which will suit its\nnature.[125]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Having\ncome to these conclusions, I moved to discuss various proposals for combatting\nthe issue. Beginning with legislative developments, specifically the concept of\nan \u2018Anti-Fake News Law\u2019 or \u2018Accuracy Act\u2019, I focused upon the difficulties of\nlegislating for cyberspace. These hurdles included the lack of geographical\nborders, the complexities of defining types of unlawful behaviour on the\ninternet, and the issues with applicability and understanding. This type of law\nwould not be effective without increased awareness and education into the issue\nof fake news and technological adaptations, which would encourage individuals\nto recognise its applicability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding\npotential technological developments, I discussed a number of recommendations\nmade by those who contributed to the parliamentary inquiry. These included\nsuggestions for verification marks, news reporting toolbars and \u2018traffic-graph\u2019\ndisplays. The main issue, regarding these architectural changes, is the\ninevitable debate over the granting of authority to verify or not verify\nstories or sources, or the granting of powers to fact-check reported material.[126]<\/a>\nFor the chosen organisations to be trusted and relied upon they must have\nbacking by government and for the mechanism to be acknowledged and used it must\nbe adequately promoted and supported with explanations\/instructions. As with new\nlegislation, new technological mechanisms will not be effective in tackling\nfake news alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally,\nI discussed the importance of new initiatives for education on digital issues\nand funded campaigns into public awareness of the problem. This, in my opinion,\nis the most crucial of all developments towards achieving a regulatory solution.\nThe public will not understand the applicability of a new law on online\naccuracy if they are not educated regarding the risks associated with fake news\nspreading. In the same way, an individual internet user cannot be expected to\nacknowledge or make use of a new function on their social media feed if they\nhave no knowledge of the existence of a fake news problem. If, however, changes\nin law or architecture are made in partnership with major improvements to the\nlevels of education and awareness, they can and will be worth the time, money\nand resources spent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nconclusion, a \u2018something must be done\u2019 attitude is critical. It is inevitable\nthat the issue will present new challenges to democratic societies in the\ncoming months. This attitude, however, must not result in complacency with a\ndecision to enact a new law or, alternatively, to place the responsibility upon\nsocial media websites or online news outlets to adapt their platforms. The\ntime, money and resources spent on these will not be worthwhile as they cannot\nbe sufficiently effective on their own. These changes must be made alongside\ngovernment-funded campaigns into promoting awareness of the issue, and major\ninitiatives for educating younger generations. This is what is required if\nthere is to be any hope of tackling the fake news issue in the long-term. Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Books:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n