Photo/Illutration A smartphone screen (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

A panel of experts acting for the internal affairs ministry has proposed how to tackle false and misleading information on the internet.

At the core of this debate is how far the government should be involved.

Misinformation is recognized globally as a serious threat to societies and democracy. It can disrupt social connections and interactions, and it can interfere with elections when voters are manipulated by propaganda.

Misinformation spreads quickly and easily on social media and video-sharing platforms, but regulation raises sensitive and potentially controversial issues concerning the freedom of expression.

In its recommendations, the panel defined the material that providers need to address. Misinformation, it said, is anything that contains falsehoods that can be identified and refuted, and has clear “illegality or objective harmfulness” and “significant social impact” that justify a strong response.

The panel gave examples of misinformation that platform operators should respond to. It cited claims about unscientific medical measures during an infectious disease outbreak, which if used could damage people’s health.

It also gave the example of a request for disaster relief using a nonexistent address.

The panel proposed different levels of response, depending on the severity of the misinformation. These include slapping a warning on it at the time of posting and deleting the information.

Beyond these responses by platform operators, the panel underscored the need for the government to develop a system to tackle misinformation.

It called for policy measures to encourage operators to act swiftly and transparently in response to harmful misinformation.

It also proposed setting up a task force of providers and research institutions to address the structural issues that allow misinformation to influence people and to spread so fast and easily. The council should be tasked with developing guidelines to mitigate the impact, the panel said.

Notably, the panel’s proposals include a recommendation for transparency rules governing how administrative bodies can act. These rules would include how the state hands requests to platform operators, publishes the status of requests and notifies the poster of which administrative body was involved.

As for instances when false information violates the law or other regulations, and when an administrative organization asks a provider to step in, a system is needed to get quick action by that company, the panel said.

But it also called for a list of the laws and regulations that might be involved.

The panel’s call for a system to tackle rampant misinformation stems from the recognition that the government needs to be involved. 

The recommendations are clearly of the view that the government should ensure freedom of expression and the right to know by not only keeping non-interference but also creating an environment where diverse information can be disseminated and read.

However, it is vital to design a system that does not allow arbitrary intervention by administrative bodies, a theme that came up repeatedly in the panel’s meetings.

If the government is allowed overreach and mutes information that is not illegal, or if it takes control of the new task force of platform providers and research institutes, it could result in uncontrolled state actions akin to censorship.

Another factor to consider when drafting policy is the implication for information warfare with other countries.

But the bottom line is that we must ensure no expansion in the scope of information targeted by the state under the pretext of addressing “confusion in society.”

--The Asahi Shimbun, July 18

Related News