07: Disinformation – a threat to democracy (Part 2)
The target of disinformation is usually credible information – information that powerful individuals, organisations and even states seek to put in doubt or push out of view. Therefore, users and all citizens with an interest in safeguarding information integrity should advocate for platform accountability for online content. And, at the same time, there is a need to push against governments intervening in illegitimate ways under the guise of pursuing protection of our rights. Responses to disinformation should be crafted cautiously and in line with the right to freedom of expression, so that the “cures” are not worse than the ailments themselves.
GOVERNMENTS AND "CYBERCRIME" LEGISLATION
Given the lack of sufficient self-regulation of platforms and the deficiencies in Internet regulation, many governments in Africa have re-energised shaky old concepts like the prohibition of ‘false news’ and put similar provisions into new cybercrime laws which define cybercrime so loosely and widely that officials have leeway to prosecute even truth-tellers. These rules allow over-reach for arbitrarily policing online content and thereby restricting freedom of expression.
Internationally, “cybercrime” is narrowly defined as attacks on the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data or systems (such as hacking) as well as traditional offences committed through the Internet (such as fraud). But many laws go far beyond this definition to include informational content which raises freedom of expression concerns.
In Kenya, the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act makes it an offence to publish “information that is false in print, broadcast, data or over a computer system, that is calculated or results in panic, chaos, or violence among citizens of the Republic”. Ethiopia’s Computer Crime Proclamation criminalises dissemination of content that “incites fear, violence, chaos or conflict.” In Malawi, the Electronic Transactions and Cybersecurity Act includes a provision to make “publication of news likely to cause fear or public alarm” an offence.
Yet courts are intervening. In 2023, Uganda’s constitutional court struck down Section 25 of the country’s Computer Misuse Act, which criminalized “offensive communication”. The court ruled that the section, imposing prison terms of up to a year for anyone using electronic communication to disturb the peace, was “vague, overly broad and ambiguous.”
In 2004, the same court found that “a person’s expression or statement” is not precluded from the right to freedom of expression “simply because it is thought by another or others to be false, erroneous, controversial or unpleasant”. So, it is possible to challenge these kinds of overly-vague content restrictions.
Legitimate reasons for restrictions
There are, of course, legitimate restrictions to freedom of expression on the Internet. But this is only as long as such curbs are clearly specified, proportionate and justified in a democratic society to protect the rights and dignity of others. These conditions apply equally online and offline.
Take the case of serious offences like hate speech (in the words of the South African constitution: “propaganda for war; incitement of imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”). Consider also cases of the violation of a person’s dignity and reputation.
The requisite provisions will often already be in place in other pieces of legislation, which apply equally to online communications. In some ‘borderline’ cases, however, there may be good reason for regulators, courts and platform companies to take account of unique features found online. These include the sheer magnitude of the Internet as a medium of communication, its vast and immediate impact, and the dominant business models that give algorithmic amplification to sensational – aggressive, patently false or even illegal content just because it wins users’ attention. For example, the dissemination of child sexual abuse materials, generally illegal, is possible by traditional media, but it will have much more wide-reaching and devastating effects on Internet platforms.
Where states become involved in legitimately regulating online content, because of platforms failing to do so, there are important institutional safeguards needed. First, decisions should be made by independent regulatory bodies – appointed by and accountable to parliament, not government. Second, the decisions should be transparent, and reviewable by courts. Third, both the digital companies and their users should push back when state intervention in online content is not compliant with international legal standards for freedom of expression.
HOW TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE INTERNET
Given the ever-rising flood of online dis- and misinformation, more than ever before there is need for a sustained effort by civil society, lawmakers and, most importantly, users themselves worldwide to make the internet work for all, not just for those who seek to exploit it for financial or political gain.
For a start, every user of social media should remain an active agent, not just a passive recipient. Spot when content is intended to arouse your emotions, because that is a way to manipulate you. Try to check the facts: verify information, seek proof from additional sources, sort out facts from fiction. When in doubt, check with a media outlet or factchecker that is to be trusted. When using generative AI apps like ChatGPT, push for disclosure of sources the system is using for its answers – in many cases this can show that the information provided is wrong or misleading.
Such fact-checking is especially important before sharing or liking a post of dubious content – which is tempting to do because it feels good to be part of a group. UNESCO provides a good guideline:
“Think before you click and click wisely”
Don’t aid the dodgy forces doing disinformation.
Help with fact-checking
There are a number of projects worldwide and in Africa specifically that engage in fact-checking. Africa Check, for example, is a not-for-profit organisation that works continent-wide and has correspondents in several countries who investigate major pieces of disinformation and publish corrections. The goal is to break the cycle of false information by creating a critical mass of people with appropriate skills to slow down the wave.
A national example is Namibia Fact Checks which aims to verify public statements and media reports. Another example is a South African mechanism called “Real411” that provides a platform for the public to report digital harms including disinformation, harassment, hate speech and incitement to violence. The public is invited to ‘flag’ disinformation in social media, especially during election periods.
Media and information literacy (MIL) is increasingly important in a world of hate speech, disinformation and information overload. Ideally, MIL education should start at school level. With the education system in Africa showing little or no interest in the subject, it is up to civil society organisations to lobby governments and education departments to introduce MIL in school curricula and teacher training colleges. NGOs can also help to fill the gap through their own efforts. Media too can play a key role in educating people about their rights to free expression, media freedom and access to information.
IN SUMMARY
Countering disinformation online is a huge task, especially when platforms’ business models actually build on the power of this kind of content to catch and hold attention. It will not be enough to disprove lies and to expose hate speech. It is also vital to increase the supply of information as a public good, notably professional journalism. And to push for this content to be elevated by algorithms to be prominent online. Promotion of information integrity means not only acting against the “weeds”, but also planting and nurturing the “crops”.
This INFO BITE is selected from the online course on Media
and Digital Policy in Africa, offered by Stellenbosch University
in association with Namibia Media Trust.
There are free and paid options available for the full course.
Explore more BITES on a number of related topics
