Fake News PL: don't kill the messenger
In common parlance, this expression is used to refer to the discipline of not criticizing the bearer of bad news, but concentrating on the source of the problem. As far as we know, the origin of the expression is the order given by Darius III, King of Persia, when news reached him of the defeat of his army by Alexander the Great. Rather than face the reality of defeat, he ordered the head of the Greek messenger to be cut off. The popular saying instructs to concentrate on the focus of the problem.
As the Western outlook has worsened, with Covid, attacks on democracy, the Ukraine war, tightening central bank monetary policies, and global food insecurity, the extreme polarization of ideas and hate speech has worsened, and attacks on the media and digital platforms have increased.
All things considered, the aggressive discussion about the PL of Fake News sounds like the classic story: instead of reflecting on the origin of the problem, the formulation of the maliciously lying news, it focuses fire on condemning the vehicles that disseminate the content.
Freedom of expression vs. censorship: the debate is much deeper
And of course, the platforms themselves are playing a very bad role in crisis containment and image management, letting themselves be positioned as opposed to fighting fake news. They should be the most interested in creating technological mechanisms that would help in this fight and could lead the issue by their greater capacity of knowledge about the intricacies of social networks. The PL of fake news has been going through the Brazilian congress for three years, without the platforms having done anything concrete to help mitigate this social technological cancer of incitement to crime by electronic means. They prefer, casuistically, to stick to the simplistic discussion of the binomial freedom of expression x censorship. They miss the chance to have a good debate on how the platforms can help curb the dissemination of illegal content that is harmful to human beings, society, the environment, and democracy. There is a growing worldwide discussion about the function of social networks and their business model. If they don't change their stance quickly, they will be overwhelmed by the facts in the near future. A few years ago, the United Nations formally charged Facebook for allowing its technology to contribute to provoking, in Myanmar, one of the worst genocides since World War II.
Social platforms lack a face, a person, a legitimate representative in the societies where they operate. We know that figures like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Pavel and Nikolai Durov represent the world's internet universe, but they are distant, inaccessible and insensitive to the daily problems of third world countries and therefore have little credibility in Brazilian society, which follows them more for their eccentricities than for any social, educational or philanthropic work. Besides, they preach conflicting discourses, as they claim to be anti-State, but control companies that have received public subsidies, like Tesla, or control companies that survive on contracts with the American government, like Space X. There is also a lack of transparency regarding the remuneration received by these companies, which, despite not charging for Internet services, manage to make billions of dollars every year. If everyone knows clearly how the companies profit, it is legitimate and acceptable that these companies defend their business and their source of wealth.
An opportunity for improvement that cannot be missed
The so-called big techs, an already pejorative nickname, are strangely opposed to any specific legislation, whose purpose is to regulate the moderation of content, on the grounds that this would impact the lives of several people. How so? These managed companies, born and developed in an acute capitalist society (nothing against capitalism), now set themselves up as defenders of the most humble, poor Brazilian citizens? The posture of these companies shows a total ignorance of the society in which they operate. It is an atrocious arrogance.
Whenever a crisis arises, there is a bill to increase penalties, regulate conduct, or hold people responsible. Therefore, they lose the chance to help create a good bill. One that actually inhibits the creator of fake news, or prevents its dissemination. They do exactly the opposite, they recognize that fake news can exist and be spread, but want to avoid responsibility. They incite the parliamentary debate to criticize the bill in an across-the-board manner, boosting lying or radical parliamentary positions.
And since we are talking about legislative eccentricities, it is typical in Brazil, especially in these emblematic bills, that protection clauses are inserted, or with commercial benefit for some economic groups. In the case of the fake news bill, we find the device that institutes payment to large media companies for the use of journalistic content. This issue should not be in this bill. It contaminates the discussion of its essence and makes it easier for dissenters to speak against it. The good bill is the one that is unassailable in its concept, but that admits discussion about its form. Bringing to the same agenda that contains the defense of democracy, inhibition of crime, transparency, prohibition of illicit practices, the payment for journalistic content weakens the discussion. The media companies, if they are really concerned with the central issue, should give up this theme and instruct the media caucus in congress to remove it from the bill. This discussion is valid, but it takes place in another environment.
Electronic platforms, on the other hand, should concentrate on what really matters, which is how to prevent the spread of criminal news. What is within the reach of technology and financial resources to contain the spread of this evil? What new technologies can be developed to curb this harm? Electronic platforms are a business of global scale and there is a need for a systematic, gradual and adaptive adaptation to the limits and consequences of the speed of information, not only in Brazil but also in other countries. By the way, the European Union has already regulated the social networks last year and the big techs have also made a lot of noise. There, the result was the approval of the strictest law in existence, with a fine of up to 6% of the company's global revenue. The Brazilian law was inspired by the European law, but ended up making so many exclusives to punishment that it dehydrated the original project. The form currently used concentrates efforts on the removal of publications and punishment, because the ideal way to contain the formulation of fake news has not yet been found. This is where the platforms can contribute, with technology and strict policies for the use of their digital tools. Certain positions they are adopting only serve to increase society's distrust of what they really want. Is there justification for Twitter's refusal to remove accounts that encourage violence, or for Telegram's refusal to obey a court order, the result of which culminated with a temporary suspension nationwide? Why does doubt persist about the manipulation of the algorithm?
Combating Fake News is a cultural issue
Society needs to demand from schools a discipline focused on social education, with a focus on the correct use of social networks. It would be the return of a kind of moral and civic education, without the militarized bias of other times. This issue, fake news, will hardly have a single solution, whether by bill, or by any restrictive measure. There is no silver bullet for this issue, because it requires a change in habits, customs, mentality, and the way we think. The problem is mitigated by a set of several actions, depending on social acceptance in a certain time and space.
The moment to discuss a project that curbs fake news is opportune and the debate has an effect on society. It could have a more educational posture, but for this the platforms have to be fully engaged in the solution, helping with financial and technological resources, data disclosure, transparency, and contributive posture, so that they are seen as they want to be seen, mere messengers. Currently, the posture points to the opposite. They seem to be an enabler of the human problems that flow into the social networks, whose business model is to keep people glued to the platform for as many hours as possible, with underlying technology to achieve this goal. There is no way to blame platforms for the individual psychological weaknesses that lead us to do wrong, or act against the social interest, wiping out notions of common welfare, but when platforms come to be perceived as not being institutions that uphold social governance and the common good, they cannot be expected to absolve themselves of any responsibility. Being an arbiter of a democracy determined to destroy itself is a thankless job, but if platforms do not impose limits on themselves, these will be imposed on them with regulation by the state.
