Accountability, prominence and impartiality
A meta-analysis of misinformation research published this week found that, despite the large number of studies conducted since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is little consensus on which interventions are effective. The paper, authored by researchers from Brown University’s Information Futures Lab, found a wide divergence in study design and revealed an emphasis on individual behavioural effects over social or public outcomes, particularly those relating to health. A larger systematic analysis published earlier by the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) noted similar limitations.
This lack of consensus is due in part to the interdisciplinary nature of the field, and in part to the intrinsic complexity in the causes and effects of misinformation. Both studies urge greater collaboration and standardisation, as well as a broadened focus beyond the US and Europe. Both the IPIE and follow-up research from Brown point to the lack of platform data as a critical barrier to research, with the IPIE arguing that ‘directing more efforts toward making accurate data more available and enhancing technical infrastructure holds greater potential than the current focus of developing new policies and content moderation measures’. This holds lessons for Australia’s approach to misinformation regulation, which, as we have previously argued here and in policy submissions, must look to incentivise improvements in the broader information environment rather than focus narrowly on problematic types of content. This means holding platforms accountable for platform design, as well as ensuring access to data.
Ruth Janal, professor of civil law, intellectual property law and commercial law at Germany’s Bayreuth University, and CMT visiting fellow, argues in this week’s newsletter that Australia would do well to look at Europe’s broad approach to platform accountability under its Digital Services Act (DSA), which has an ‘overarching goal on fostering a safe and responsible online environment’. She notes in particular its differing approach to data access and enforcement.
Amongst other requirements, the DSA imposes a stringent takedown regime for illegal content using a system of ‘trusted flaggers’. Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, head of UTS’s Behavioural Data Science lab and also a CMT associate, has recently published a study that demonstrates the potential effectiveness of the DSA regime in reducing the proliferation of harmful online content, despite the scale and speed required. These are important findings for policymakers beyond the DSA, including in Australia.
On a similar theme, Sacha introduces Californian tech-lawyer Richard Whitt, who visited CMT last week to discuss his ideas for promoting platform accountability and improving trust in the digital media space. Meanwhile, Derek looks at the contradictory findings in the research conducted by Free TV and ASTRA on public attitudes to imposing rules on television manufacturers to increase the prominence of free-to-air content and services. And finally, Monica discusses the difficulty of reporting on Gaza when so much is at stake, the subject of an online forum held last week.
Two weeks ago, Ayesha talked to three exiled journalists from the Global South – Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia – about the impact of transnational displacements on their reporting practices, journalistic independence, and cross-border collaborations. The declining reputation of exiled journalists in their homeland was a particular concern. You can watch the video here.
Michael Davis, CMT Research Fellow
