Assessing the Threat of Misinformation
It is challenging to accurately assess the threat posed by misinformation (so-called "fake news") to society. Recently, the prestigious scientific journal Nature published an editorial titled "Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think," but a researcher from the University of Sussex, Dan Williams, quickly wrote a rebuttal titled "Misinformation poses a smaller threat to democracy than you might think." Both articles, in my opinion, offer valuable insights into the current state of this debate.
The Nature editorial, co-authored by renowned misinformation researchers, points out that with elections taking place in many countries this year, there is a high risk of misinformation becoming a threat to democracy. They reject some claims that the threat of misinformation is exaggerated, arguing that there is sufficient evidence that misinformation is a threat and that countermeasures are justified. They cite fact-checking and "psychological inoculation" - spreading correct information in advance to raise awareness - as effective countermeasures against misinformation.
On the other hand, Williams criticizes the Nature editorial on four points. First, contrary to the editorial's claim, there is little empirical evidence demonstrating the actual impact of misinformation, yet it justifies excessive vigilance. Second, it distorts the views of critics, portraying them as historical revisionists or anti-science. Third, it fails to understand the difference between citizen participation in debates and expert policy advice. Fourth, it does not mention the potential negative effects of misinformation countermeasures and lacks sufficient evidence to prove the effectiveness of these measures.
It is important to note that no one is saying that "misinformation does not pose any threat to democracy." I myself do not intend to completely deny the possibility that misinformation could lead to harmful consequences, and technological advances may pose more serious dangers in the future. However, like Williams, I personally believe that the threat is currently overestimated.
The existence of misinformation and its social impact are separate issues
The mere existence of misinformation and it has a sizeable social impact are separate issues. Ciaran Martin, an Oxford University professor and cybersecurity expert, recently addressed this issue from a different angle in an article for The Guardian. Martin cites examples such as the voter registration system failure in the UK's Brexit referendum, which was initially thought to be a cyber attack by foreign countries but turned out to be a mere system failure due to high traffic. He points out that globally, there are very few cases where cyber interference has had a decisive impact on elections. While it is true that Russia and China are investing heavily in cyber-based public opinion manipulation, it is not easy to manipulate voter behavior through these means alone. The notion that "the Remain camp lost because of a Russian conspiracy" may be a convenient excuse for the defeated side, but reality is not that simple. Martin also emphasizes that we should not confuse what is technically possible with what is realistically achievable when it comes to deepfakes, a topic that has been in the news recently. While many people enjoy deepfakes as entertainment, surprisingly few actually believe the content of the videos. However, if censorship by authorities or propaganda-like measures are carried out under the guise of misinformation countermeasures, that would be a more serious problem.
The Blurred Line between Misinformation and Truth
As Williams and Martin point out, there is surprisingly little evidence that definitively shows misinformation has influenced people's actual behavior. Some may recall the January 6, 2021 incident in which rioters, influenced by the misinformation that the U.S. presidential election victory was "stolen" from Trump through large-scale election fraud, stormed the U.S. Capitol, or the cases in Japan where people resorted to violence after being misled by anti-vaccine misinformation. However, the question is whether they were truly deceived by misinformation. Corrections and fact-checking of misinformation were conducted in large quantities in real-time, and many of them had certainly seen such information. Yet, they still did not change their behavior. Rather than saying that they are being deceived by misinformation, it is more likely that they actively sought it out because it aligned with their pre-existing worldviews.
Their worldviews have been gradually fostered over a long period of time through a complex interplay of various psychological, social, and political factors, such as distrust in politics and institutions, changes in economic structure, financial hardship, despair due to aging and loneliness. It is more natural to consider this a reflection of the harsh reality they face rather than the influence of misinformation.
The saying "the spread of misinformation is a result, not a cause" illustrates this very point. While some misinformation is widely accepted, there is also a lot of misinformation that no one pays attention to. If facts and truth (or what is considered as such) are ignored and misinformation is chosen instead, there must be a reason for that as well. The Japanese saying "putting a lid on something that stinks" suggests that if we turn a blind eye to serious social problems that are the source of the stench, the accumulated gases of decay will eventually cause a massive explosion. In my opinion, there are certainly truths that can only be expressed in the form of misinformation.