Keywords

9.1 Introduction

The value of accessible and reliable information was made abundantly clear during the COVID-19 pandemic. Amid high levels of uncertainty, auditing the most important developments and emerging evidence from the deluge of content was no easy task. A significant proportion of all information in circulation was false or misleading, making navigating public health and policy choices even more problematic. This chapter focuses on the challenge of responding to mis- and disinformation while respecting freedom of expression, particularly in times of crisis.

If an overabundance of information can be considered an “infodemic,” then we can also identify an associated subcategory: a “disinfodemic” or a pandemic of nonverified or misleading information. Two UNESCO policy papers (see Bontcheva and Posetti 2020; Posetti and Bontcheva 2020) describe a disinfodemic as a mix of both misinformation and disinformation that circulated in society during the pandemic – that is, both content that is created with the knowledge that it is false and with the intention to harm, as well as content that is misleading but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, both proved to be of concern, and particularly when in combination. Such content can cause real damage, no matter the intention behind the Tweet or Facebook post that denied science, blamed the origin and spread of the virus on specific, often marginalized groups, or provoked unjustified skepticism about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Over the past 2 years, the world’s experience with the pandemic has taught us important lessons about the potential social harms caused by misinformation and disinformation, as well as about the damaging effects of misguided policy responses on freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights. In this chapter, we seek to outline some of the key dynamics driving mis- and disinformation, explain why we need to protect freedom of expression while addressing the danger, explore how actors responded during the COVID-19 crisis, and offer some nonregulatory approaches aimed at long-term social resilience.

It is important to underline that due to its purpose and scope, this chapter focuses on the intersection between mis- and disinformation and the public health crisis. However, mis- and disinformation impact several other areas that are crucial to our lives, including climate change, elections, press freedom, migration, and natural disasters. We hope that the issues highlighted here can provoke discussions that help inform initiatives addressing mis- and disinformation in fields beyond public health.

9.2 What Is a “Disinfodemic”?

Understanding the dynamics of mis- and disinformation is vital for the enablement of effective policy responses. Due to the complexity of the subject matter, the field is fraught with diverging definitions and conceptualizations. There are no internationally agreed-upon definitions of misinformation or disinformation. In wading through this potential confusion, it is important to consider the key dynamics of the spread of false and potentially harmful content online.

WHO defines an infodemic as “an overabundance of information – some accurate and some not – that occurs during an epidemic… [and] makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it” (WHO 2020). Within the larger category of the infodemic, what, though, is a disinfodemic?

“Disinfodemic” is a term used by UNESCO to specify the potential harms caused not only by too much information in general, but by false and misleading information specifically (Posetti and Bontcheva 2020). It focuses on the potential harmful consequences of mis- and disinformation, as well as the specific challenges associated with an information landscape polluted with false and misleading content.

Mis- and disinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic was spread virally. According to data presented in UNESCO’s 2021/2022 edition of the World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Report, over 1 million posts circulated on Twitter in September 2021 with inaccurate, unreliable, or misleading information related to the pandemic (UNESCO 2022). From the start of the pandemic up until August 2021, Facebook reported that it had removed over 20 million posts on Facebook and Instagram on the grounds of promoting COVID-19-related misinformation (Rosen 2021). Encrypted messaging apps also provided a platform for the rapid spread of false information that proved difficult to monitor and trace. The scale of the problem and its social consequences should not be underestimated.

The issue of false and misleading information is not only in its scale as measured by total amount of content, but also in the number of users it reaches online. In addition, the way that biased and selective sharing (fuelled by algorithms designed to maximize user engagement) of both true and false news skews overall constructions of reality for users (Roozenbeek and van der Linden 2019). Combined with a lack of trust in quality information, and a lack of overall media and information literacy, this creates an information environment in which citizens are vulnerable to false and misleading content with potentially negative social consequences (Kim et al. 2020; Pennycook et al. 2021).

Within the sea of content encountered online, and particularly during moments of great uncertainty, people are most likely to share false content that is novel, emotionally evocative, and confirms existing ideologies, biases, and attitudes (Guess et al. 2019; Rathje 2021) – the type of content that social media algorithms have been designed to deliver to targeted individuals. As an often-cited study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, false news travels faster than true stories (Soroush et al. 2018). When citizens do not trust, cannot access, or do not have the necessary media and information literacy skills to analyze verified information provided by media outlets, they are especially susceptible to mis- and disinformation.

COVID-19 showed us the potential varied social harms these dynamics can cause. While there is limited evidence to suggest widespread public belief in COVID-related misinformation, those susceptible to mis- and disinformation (e.g., due to low levels of trust in traditional media outlets or science institutions) report lower levels of compliance with public health guidance, including accepting vaccination (Roozenbeek et al. 2020).

The way we understand the drivers behind the disinfodemic matters. If we assume that the main problem behind mis- and disinformation is simply that there is too much of it circulating online, then the solution may seem to lie in simply reducing the amount of false and misleading content in circulation. However, this solution is far from straightforward as content often reappears through shares, screenshots, and other forms of dissemination that can be difficult to track. Attempts to reduce the amount of false information online have, as noted previously, often been implemented through content moderation by social media companies, penal sanctions by governments, and even large-scale legal bans. These have had complicated implications (outlined in Sect. 9.4).

Shifting our attention to the supply side, trustworthy information, however, reveals multiple benefits of this approach. The role of the media is particularly important in crisis situations, when accurate information can help alleviate human suffering and save lives. The media can also reduce risks by contributing to preventing, mitigating, and preparing people for disasters. Among the many key roles in this context, the media can help rectify and prevent the spread of mis- and disinformation at a sensitive time, provide access to public information adapted to the needs of different groups across societies, monitor the respect for human rights during crises, and act as a watchdog of public entities in charge of crisis response and disaster risk reduction. In short, the media empowers individuals, humanitarian workers, and decision-makers to take informed decisions, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increased demand for reliable information as readership and viewership of trusted news sources surged around the world (Pollack 2020; UNESCO 2022).

At the same time, reporting on sensitive topics requires skills and knowledge. During the pandemic, journalists needed greater skills in areas such as crisis communications and fact-checking. Medical knowledge and skills in science journalism also proved essential. With this in mind, it is important to consider how efforts to stifle the flow of false and misleading content may create a backlash, preventing the very antidotes needed to counter them: true and reliable information (Bontcheva and Posetti 2020). It is vital that any measures aimed at tackling mis- and disinformation do not hinder the production and accessibility of quality information that citizens can trust in order to navigate a crisis. This means protecting and respecting freedom of expression. The following section underlines the international human rights standards that outline when freedom of expression can and cannot be legitimately restricted.

9.3 International Standards on Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression encompasses the right to seek, receive, and impart information. These rights are central to combatting mis- and disinformation. During the pandemic, proactive disclosure by governments of statistics on health and public spending on the pandemic was vital. In addition, open data, open access to scientific information, and accessibility to information for minority and marginalized groups were also essential. The work of a free, independent, and pluralist media, which is also protected under the umbrella of freedom of expression, was also critical for holding governments accountable and investigating wrongdoings perpetrated by a variety of actors during the public health crisis.

Yet these aims often not only fail to be met but, in some cases, are actively counteracted. Government restrictions on freedom of expression that do not meet international human rights standards, threats to journalist safety and media viability, as well as opaque practices among both states and internet companies have, in many cases, repressed freedom of expression (and its corollaries, press freedom and access to information) and worsened the effects of the disinfodemic. The following sections outline how these standards are defined and applied under international human rights law.

9.3.1 Alignment with International Human Rights Standards and Sustainable Development

Freedom of expression and access to information are universal human rights guaranteed by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948) and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations 1966). Freedom of expression is both a right in itself, as well as enabler of all other human rights, including the right to health.

With these objectives in mind, legal approaches to combatting mis- and disinformation have appeared and given greater priority on the agendas of many governments. It is important to note that false content and/or the production and distribution of such content is not criminalized per se under international human rights law. However, international human rights law does offer us guidance on when and how freedom of expression can be restricted in order to address potentially harmful speech. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) stipulates that any limitations to freedom of expression can “only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals” (UN General Assembly 1966).

Box 1: The ICCPR 3-Part Test

According to international law standards (and particularly Article 19.3 of the ICCPR), the right to freedom of expression entails duties and responsibilities for those who exercise it, although these should never legitimize unjustified restriction of this freedom.

This means that in order to be legitimate, all restrictions on freedom of expression must comply with a three-part test that must follow these principles:

  • “Principle of legality – any restriction to the freedom of expression must be expressly, straightforwardly, and clearly prescribed by law in its formal and material aspects.

  • Principle of legitimacy – any restriction must serve to attain the imperative objectives expressly enumerated in the ICCPR to ensure the protection of the rights of others, national security, public order, public health and morals.

  • Principle of necessity and proportionality – any restriction must be strictly necessary in a democratic society for the attainment of its imperative aims. It must also be strictly proportionate to the aim pursued and reasonably suited to the attainment of its imperative aim. The test of necessity is applied in a stringent way and requires a demonstrable imperative or absolute need to introduce restrictions” (Barata 2020, p. 6).

Box 2: The Rabat Plan of Action Six-Point Threshold Test

The way to apply these narrow conditions through which human rights may be restricted was further defined in the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence (OHCHR 2012). This plan came out of a series of expert workshops organized by the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.

While the Rabat Plan of Action is focused on addressing hate speech, its principles can also guide the standards for evaluation of restrictions aimed at countering mis- and disinformation, particularly as these phenomena often go hand in hand with hate speech. According to the Rabat Plan of Action, when such restrictions are imposed, they must pass a six-part threshold test that determines the context of the speech in question to determine whether it should be limited to stop its potentially harmful effects. The following criteria must be taken into account:

  1. 1.

    The social and political context of the speech.

  2. 2.

    The status of the speaker.

  3. 3.

    Intent to incite an audience toward a targeted group.

  4. 4.

    The content and form of the speech.

  5. 5.

    The extent of dissemination.

  6. 6.

    The likelihood of harm, including its imminence.

In addition, the protection and promotion of freedom of expression has been recognized as relevant to many other areas related to human welfare and sustainable development.

The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015) recognizes that freedom of expression, access to information, and the safety of journalists are pivotal to building peaceful, just, and inclusive societies. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, Target 10 calls for “fundamental freedoms and public access to information.” This target is measured through SDG indicator 16.10.1 on the safety of journalists and SDG indicator 16.10.2 on public access to information. Indicator 16.10.2 measures: (i) constitutional and/or statutory guarantees of public access to public-sector information; and (ii) effective implementation of statutory guarantees of public access to public sector information.

Therefore, although very specific restrictions to freedom of expression may be authorized by international law, in accordance with concrete rules, the overall recommendation of the universal system of human rights is that we need more freedom of expression (including access to information and press freedom) to counter phenomena such as mis- and disinformation, not less.

9.4 Responses to Counter Mis- and Disinformation

Many governments, internet companies, and other actors have introduced measures in response to mis- and disinformation. Some of these measures have been in line with international standards on freedom of expression, while others have not. Governments, private companies, and other actors have, in some instances, addressed the COVID-19 pandemic by reinforcing their efforts to build social resilience to mis- and disinformation, including boosting their strategies for improving media and information literacy. Other efforts were more problematic. In some cases, governments have used anti-“fake news” or disinformation laws to restrict legitimate speech, leading to criminal penalties against journalists and media organizations. While the ICCPR does allow for temporary restrictions of freedom of expression in cases of emergency, as described above, many of these laws do not pass the “3-part test” (Barata 2020).

In addition, technological solutions, particularly those that rely on automated detection of potentially harmful content, with limited human intervention, have also had limited effectiveness, particularly when tested against the highly diverse linguistic and cultural contexts in which disinformation and misinformation are spread. Below, we outline some of the responses that governments, companies, and other actors have taken to address the mis- and disinformation online.

9.4.1 Actions Taken by Governments

During the pandemic, many governments were confronted with the additional challenges posed by mis- and disinformation. As a result, policymakers often displayed heightened awareness of the importance of addressing the disinfodemic in all its complexity. The responses by governments included legal measures, as well as initiatives to improve access to quality information and support media and information literacy.

Yet, there has been a trend in recent years toward the introduction of legislation aimed at curbing mis- and disinformation, hate speech, and other forms of potentially harmful content, both online and off-line. While many of these laws and policies have been introduced with the stated objective of combatting the negative effects of such phenomena, some have had concerning implications. According to the 2021/2022 UNESCO World Trends Report, since 2016, at least 44 countries have enacted legal measures that threaten online freedom of expression and media freedom (UNESCO 2022). These laws and policies often contain overly vague definitions and disproportionate punishments for crimes such as “spreading rumors.”

Legal researchers have expressed concern that these restrictions may have long-term “chilling effects” on freedom of expression. A “chilling effect” occurs when legal measures that restrict, or are perceived as restricting, freedom of expression deter further speech. For example, journalists may refrain from reporting on a corrupt politician for fear of legal repercussions for criminal defamation.

As a blunt instrument, legal measures alone can be problematic as an approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. Even when they respect international standards for freedom of expression, the impact of these laws and policies on the supply of information needs to be considered. For this reason, government initiatives to support the sustainability of news media have also been crucial. Such measures include funding for media (including regional media) in COVID-related bailout packages, as seen in countries such as Indonesia and Australia. Efforts to step up national commitments to media and information literacy have also been vital (outlined in Sect. 9.5.2).

The pandemic also highlighted the need to build public trust. Government initiatives to improve transparency and accountability constituted important steps toward this end. Governments publishing open data related to both the spread of the virus and their public health measures, including vaccination campaigns, on accessible public platforms is one example of how to improve transparency for the purposes of building public trust (Calgua 2022).

9.4.2 Actions Taken by Social Media Companies

The rapid spread of false and misleading content is facilitated largely on digital platforms, which have become a primary news source for many people around the world. A 2019 study of respondents in 36 countries found that in 14, Facebook was in the top three channels for people’s sources of news (Kennedy and Pratt 2019). The policies and practices of social media companies matter greatly in terms of determining what kind of content reaches whom, and at what speed.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media companies took steps to counter mis- and disinformation through revising their content moderation policies, directing users to official public health information (such as WHO), donating or partnering with credible media outlets and/or fact-checking institutions, and banning advertisements that contained COVID-19-related misinformation (Pollack 2020).

Given the massive volume of content circulating on social media platforms, companies like Meta, Twitter, and Google have increasingly turned to automated systems for detecting false and other potentially harmful content. While these allow for greater speed and scale in detection, automated approaches have limited ability to consider nuance. They also carry the potential for false negatives or false positives in identifying problematic content, with the latter risking the penalization of legitimate content. The automated detection systems of many platforms have been shown to lack nuance, particularly in multilingual environments, further increasing the risk for errors in this regard (UNESCO 2021b).

Additionally, reactive policies that focus on identifying, removing, or de-amplifying content as it appears are not fully able to work at the speed at which information is spread online. By the time even an automated system has picked up a piece of concerning content, it may already have been reposted elsewhere or been seen by millions of users.

Platform community standards are constantly evolving, particularly in terms of how much they rely on human versus automated approaches to content moderation. As detailed elsewhere in this chapter, greater transparency on the parts of tech companies is needed in order to allow users and other actors to understand and critically analyze the policies and processes that determine the functioning of these platforms.

9.4.3 Actions Taken by Civil Society

Given the urgency and severity of social consequences of mis- and disinformation, there has been a rise in civil society initiatives to address this issue using a wide variety of approaches. These include fact-checking initiatives, advocacy campaigns targeting governments or tech companies, and efforts to promote access to trustworthy information. It is worth noting that some civil society groups mobilized against public health advice, disseminating mis- and disinformation around topics such as vaccines in their campaigning efforts. This highlights the need to engage a wide variety of actors in addressing mis- and disinformation.

One example from the COVID-19 pandemic is the #CoronaVirusFacts Alliance, a network of more than 100 fact-checking organizations and news outlets. As reported in the 2021/2022 UNESCO World Trends Report, this network fact-checked as many as 1700 false claims per month related to COVID-19 in the spring of 2020 (UNESCO 2022). Fact-checking initiatives, whether in-house for media outlets or independently done, have also partnered with social media companies and other actors.

Several international initiatives have been mobilized to improve public trust in the media and improve transparency policies within the media industry. These include the Journalism Trust Initiative, the Trust Project, the Credibility Coalition, and United for News. Such coalitions and partnerships can be effective in building political will, mobilizing other actors around the importance of supporting trustworthy, independent media, and increasing the geographical and thematic spread of these initiatives.

9.5 Long-Term Solutions to Mis- and Disinformation Online

Responses that focus on a reactive approach based on limiting the amount of false information in circulation run into a number of pitfalls – not least when it comes to ensuring that freedom of expression is not unduly restricted. In order to counter the effects of such content in the long term, a range of other solutions must also be considered.

This focus on long-term solutions was supported by all 193 UNESCO Member States during the Organization’s 41st General Conference, when they formally endorsed the Windhoek+30 Declaration (UNESCO 2021a). This document was developed through a multistakeholder process in the lead up to, and during, the 2021 World Press Freedom Conference and states that to counter phenomena such as disinformation, we need to address three key areas: supporting the sustainability of media, improving transparency of internet companies, and enhancing media and information literacy.

Such solutions focus on providing access to verified, reliable information. This means both supporting quality journalism and ensuring that citizens have the necessary skills to receive and critically analyze such information. The former addresses the supply or production side of the equation, increasing the volume of information in circulation to which the public has access. The latter addresses the receiver side and reduces the impact and onward circulation of mis- and disinformation. Solutions are also needed in the distribution of information, pointing to the role of corporate policies, business models, and curational algorithms.

9.5.1 Research Needs

There are still many gaps in our understanding of how false and misleading online content is spread and how it can be addressed. Effective research requires greater access to data, both by governments and by internet companies regarding the presence and spread of information, misinformation, and disinformation in their public disclosures and on their platforms. Data about how these actors are responding to these challenges is also essential.

It is also important to consider the highly diverse contexts in which mis- and disinformation is spread. Existing studies suggest that exposure to false and misleading information does not affect individuals in the same ways across cultures and languages (Kim et al. 2020). Current research on mis- and disinformation and other forms of potentially harmful content are often focused on Western, English-speaking contexts and cannot be generalized globally. Refocusing efforts to cover more of the world’s population in all its cultural and linguistic diversity is crucial in order to fully understand the drivers and impacts of mis- and disinformation.

9.5.2 Supporting Journalism

Journalists are on the frontline of securing the public’s access to reliable information. Ensuring public access to quality information means supporting and encouraging innovation in the media sector. However, both in terms of economic viability, as well as journalist safety and press freedom, journalism is under threat. Fortunately, there has been an increase in international commitments to address these issues, with growing momentum to develop innovative funding models and to build greater political commitment for supporting media. The Windhoek+30 Declaration, mentioned above, notably calls for promoting “information as a public good” (UNESCO 2021a).

The financial sustainability of media institutions is another crucial dimension of ensuring access to information. The media industry has been experimenting with innovative alternative business models, including subscription, membership, and partnership-based funding streams. The latter two, in particular, can encourage positive effects in enabling trust in media institutions, as can editorial transparency policies.

International organizations and civil society could play an important role in supporting the media industry in this respect. During the pandemic, UNESCO led several projects to enhance reporting on COVID-19 and strengthen people’s resilience to mis- and disinformation.

With funding from the European Union as part of the project #CoronaVirusFacts, Addressing the “Disinfodemic” on COVID-19 in conflict-prone environments, UNESCO and partners strengthened the capacity of over 30,000 journalists, fact-checkers, and communicators from 157 countries to report on the pandemic and debunk misinformation. Targeted support included training, development of specialized guidelines, resource hubs for journalists and fact-checkers, and the creation of new networks to enable information sharing across professions and geographic areas.

Through this and related projects, UNESCO – in partnership with WHO, the United Nations Development Programme and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas at the University of Texas at Austin – offered Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and webinars available in up to 13 languages. Such resources provide journalists with rapid support on a global scale, complemented by activities for specific geographic contexts to address local needs.

9.5.3 Media and Information Literacy

Strengthening the ability of individuals to understand and critically analyze the information they encounter is a vital tool in building social resilience against mis- and disinformation. Such skills fall under the umbrella of media and information literacy. While schools and other formal educational institutions are vital for building such skills, media and information literacy skills can also be developed for both children and adults as part of lifelong learning.

International commitments to strengthening media and information literacy have increased through various instruments, including Windhoek+30 Declaration (UNESCO 2021b) and the Seoul Declaration on Media and Information Literacy for Everyone and by Everyone: A Defence against Disinfodemics (UNESCO 2020). Each year, more and more countries participate in the Global Media and Information Literacy Week, rallying to raise awareness of the importance of media and information literacy around the world. The UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Alliance, a multistakeholder network consisting of associations of media, libraries, NGOs, universities, and government institutions from over 100 countries, has also worked to provide a collaborative response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

9.5.4 Transparency

Greater transparency from social media and other internet communications companies is fundamental for understanding the origins, types, circulation, and treatment of mis- and disinformation (UN Dialogues on Disinformation and Data Transparency 2020). Transparency can also shed light on how corporate policy, business models, and associated algorithms impact the spread of such content.

Yet the practices and policies of internet companies problematize responses to the disinfodemic. Without clear and accessible insight into the processes that determine the spread of false and misleading content online, it is difficult for the public, as well as policymakers, to make informed decisions on how they use and regulate such platforms. While many companies have begun to release regular transparency reports, these often take widely disparate approaches to how they reveal information about company policies and practices to the public.

UNESCO’s 2021 policy brief, Letting the Sun Shine In: Transparency and Accountability in the Digital Age (UNESCO and Puddephatt 2021), presents a selection of 26 high-level principles ranging from content and process, through to data protection, commercial dimensions, and user empowerment. By providing guidance to policymakers, regulators, and companies, such principles take a step toward achieving the transparency needed to understand and counter mis- and disinformation.

UNESCO has also developed a set of indicators to map the extent to which the digital environment is aligned to the principles of human rights, openness, accessibility, and multistakeholder governance, in line with UNESCO’s framework of Internet Universality. More than 35 countries have used, or are using, this framework at the time of writing.

9.6 Conclusion

An evidence-based and holistic approach to countering mis- and disinformation requires consultation involving a wide range of actors. Just as the challenges related to the rapid spread of false and misleading information are many, there are also many opportunities for response. Maintaining a human-rights-based approach is crucial at every step of this process, including upholding respect of freedom of expression.

While COVID-19 brought the problem of mis- and disinformation into greater relief, there are many other fields in which false and misleading content can cause harm, in areas as varied as climate change and elections. Reactive measures may provide temporary solutions, but, in the long term, individuals must be empowered to access and analyze quality information. At the same time, institutions must be strengthened to counter mis- and disinformation without undermining human rights or the right to freedom of expression.