Why a government should not decide what is true and what is not and why the fight against disinformation cannot be done by bodies that are not independent of the government

Disinformation is a problem that affects not only our democracy, but Democracy with a capital letter, and its solution cannot depend solely on the Government, but must be built from the collaboration of different actors who independently fight against lies. . Only in this way can we guarantee that the fundamental right to freedom of expression is not violated.

Maldita.es was part of the European Commission’s High Level group of experts against fake news and disinformation. In the report we wrote and which served as the basis for the Action Plan against disinformation presented in 2018 by the European Commission, a skepticism towards any content regulation was specified . In addition, a series of recommendations were developed, among which it is worth highlighting the insistence on a collaborative approach that involves all relevant actors, with a previously structured process that documents the progress made and flags those actors who do not take their responsibilities seriously. 

The European Commission itself, in the public consultation on the European Action Plan on Democracy, points out the option of creating independent oversight bodies with powers to investigate reported irregularities as an initiative that could be taken at national level to strengthen monitoring and application of electoral rules and support the integrity of the elections. In no case does it propose that these organizations depend on the member states.

The fight against disinformation: a matter of the State, not of parties

Not counting on the opposition to seek solutions to a country’s problem distances these solutions; Not having journalists, media and press associations shows lack of knowledge about how to tackle the problem; and not having independent verifiers makes any verification attempt made by this body lack credibility, aggravating it even more.

What has been approved?

Well, the biggest problem is that it is so ambiguous that it is not very clear. On November 5, the Procedure for action against disinformation approved by the National Security Council on October 6, 2020 was published in the BOE. What does this plan say?

According to the BOE, this government procedure will help » improve and increase transparency regarding the origin of disinformation and the way in which it is produced and disseminated, in addition to evaluating its content » and has the following objectives:

• Identify and define the organs, organizations and authorities of the system.
• Establish levels for prevention, detection, early warning, analysis, response, and evaluation.
• Describe the specific tasks involved for the levels established in the fight against disinformation.
• Define the mechanisms established for the exchange of information at the strategic, operational and technical levels.
• Determine the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation and operation of the procedure.
• Define a methodology for the identification, analysis and management of disinformation events.
• Propose the framework and composition of an ad hoc work team for the development and review of a National Strategy to Combat Disinformation.

The procedure approved by the National Security Council includes six bodies responsible for fighting disinformation: the National Security Council, the Situation Committee, the Secretary of State for Communication, the Permanent Commission against disinformation, the competent public authorities and the private sector and civil society. But regarding the latter, it is noted that “their collaboration may be requested” if “it is considered relevant . ” That is, they do not have to count on the rest of the organizations involved in this process and they should be part of the solution. 

And many doubts remain:

• Who will decide what is real and what is not? Who will decide what is checked and what is not?
• Who will decide what is monitored and what is not? With what methodology?
• What is «fake news»? Can an opinion be? How is satirical news that goes viral classified as real? Who will say what is satirical and what is not?
• Who would order the removal of content?
• If it is a judge, who will report false content to the prosecutor’s office? Any user? An institution? A committee?
• Will websites that publish false content be closed? Who will order it?
• What is a fake news website? What percentage of them must it have to be considered as such?
• If those websites that profit from the publication of fake news are not in Spain but are focused on its citizens, will their access from our country be prohibited? How would this be done?
• Does the Government intend to hijack digital publications by preventing platforms from allowing their publication? How do you plan to do that? Does the Government believe that the platforms will collaborate?
• How do you plan to stop fake images, fake WhatsApp chains, screenshots that do not correspond to reality and other forms of misinformation not directly linked to a link or a website?
• Are you going to invest in media and technological literacy?

The mere possibility of the creation of «truth committees» by governments creates normal alarm; Not having the parties with parliamentary representation before its publication in the BOE, nor with press associations, experts, constitutionalists, nor with independent verifiers calls into question the intentions of said government for this body to be independent.

Governments should not deny content from the press, radio and television media, as Foreign Minister Arancha González Laya has stated , nor can a committee appointed by a Government do so. Who, then, will expose the lies of the government itself? 

The fight against disinformation requires independence, methodology, non-partisanship and transparency. Yes to collaborative, multidisciplinary and independent organizations, but a resounding no to bodies hand-picked by governments.

A few hours after its publication in the BOE, the Secretary of State for Communication has issued an explanatory note in which it states that » in no case will it monitor, censor or limit the free and legitimate right of the media to offer their information » and that «Its purpose is to prevent foreign interference in matters of national interest, as well as to detect campaigns promoted from abroad that may harm the national interests of our country.» However, as we said, the text is so ambiguous that it is open to interpretation. 

But what about the dangers of external threats?

Monitoring disinformation dangers is something that has been done for a long time to stop possible external threats and falls within the European strategy. However, the monitoring of citizens and media by a government or a committee appointed by it to see what they say and open the possibility of censoring them if they consider that what they say is disinformation is something else. If this is the end of the order, it will have us against it. A government should not do this, nor should a committee appointed by it. The Government must clarify in its procedure that the sole purpose of this committee is to monitor foreign interference: to date this is not specified in the order. 

The role of governments in the fight against disinformation

Is misinformation a problem that governments have to get involved in? Sure, but it cannot be part of a partisan fight that further polarizes and restricts the rights of citizens. It cannot happen without press associations, without taking into account a piece of media education and without independent verifiers.

The Government must support the work of the media and independent verifiers, it must support media education, it must work together with the platforms to be transparent and stop disinformation on their platforms. A Government should not appoint committees against disinformation.