The problem with clamping down on ‘fake news’

In the aftermath of misinformation spread via tech platforms during the recent riots, there is talk of the government requiring tech platforms to remove ‘fake news’ – as well as introducing a duty to remove ‘legal but harmful’ content as part of a review of the Online Safety Act.

‘Fake news’ could presumably take a number of forms. There could be specific ‘crisis-triggering’ fake news, such as malicious false claims about the identity of a murderer (risking lynch mobs or riots), about bank runs (triggering financial crises), about vaccine side effects (deterring urgently-required vaccinations – such as during a pandemic) or about terror attacks (triggering panic). Then there could be broader, more persistent false claims, intended to undermine individuals, institutions or confidence required for crucial things.

When people are prosecuted, after the event, for malicious, harmful and illegal falsehoods, it is possible to test whether what was said was true. But if the idea is that tech platforms will be forced to delete ‘fake news’ postings in advance of any legal process or even in cases where the claims aren’t illegal at all, how is the truth or otherwise of alleged ‘fake news’ to be established?

Let’s consider a claim that is repeated frequently on social media: ‘Liz Truss crashed the economy’.