The Ghost of the Maxim Gorky: Disinformation in the Digital Age
In 1934, the Soviet Union unveiled the ANT-20 "Maxim Gorky," a colossal aircraft designed to disseminate propaganda across the vast expanse of the nation. Equipped with a printing press, a film projector, and a "Voice from the Heavens" loudspeaker, the Maxim Gorky embodied the state’s ambition to control information flows. Nearly a century later, in a digital landscape dominated by social media giants and billionaire tech moguls, the specter of the Maxim Gorky looms large, raising concerns about the spread of mis- and disinformation. The Australian government’s recent legislative attempt to combat this digital deluge highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in regulating online content.
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, introduced by the Australian government, represents a significant step towards addressing the pervasive issue of false and misleading content online. While the bill includes positive measures, such as promoting media literacy and requiring social media companies to report to regulators, its core function of establishing a code-based system for dealing with mis- and disinformation has sparked controversy. Critics argue that the bill’s vague definitions and broad powers could lead to unintended censorship and exacerbate existing societal divisions. The bill’s attempt to address a complex issue through a rigid framework raises concerns about its efficacy and potential for misuse.
The challenge of controlling information flows is not new. Throughout history, political leaders have sought to shape public narratives, employing various strategies from outright propaganda to subtle manipulation of the press. In democratic societies, a delicate balance has traditionally existed between the free press and the government, with journalists acting as both conduits for information and critical watchdogs. The rise of the internet and social media has disrupted this balance, decentralizing information dissemination and empowering individuals and non-state actors to participate in the public discourse. While this democratization of information has its benefits, it also creates an environment ripe for the spread of mis- and disinformation.
Defining mis- and disinformation, however, is fraught with challenges. While commonly understood as verifiably false or misleading content that causes harm, the line between legitimate dissent and deliberate deception can be blurry. The subjective nature of "harm" and the potential for political bias in determining what constitutes misinformation open the door for abuse. This ambiguity becomes a weapon itself, with accusations of misinformation used to discredit opposing viewpoints and stifle debate. The battle over defining mis- and disinformation becomes a propaganda war in its own right, a struggle to control the narrative and shape public opinion.
The rise of the internet initially promised a more democratic and decentralized information landscape. However, the libertarian dreams of early internet pioneers have largely failed to materialize. Instead of liberating individuals from the control of traditional gatekeepers, the digital realm has given rise to new forms of power, concentrated in the hands of tech companies. The algorithms that govern social media platforms prioritize engagement and profit over truth and accuracy, inadvertently amplifying sensationalist and polarizing content, regardless of its veracity. This creates a fertile ground for the spread of mis- and disinformation.
The commercial model underpinning social media platforms incentivizes the creation and dissemination of engaging content, even if it is false or misleading. Revenue-sharing systems reward creators who generate high levels of interaction, encouraging them to prioritize clicks and shares over factual accuracy. This dynamic is further amplified by traditional media outlets, which often report on trending social media content, regardless of its veracity, in pursuit of ratings and clicks. This creates a feedback loop, where misleading content is amplified across multiple platforms, reaching ever-larger audiences. The pursuit of profit, rather than a deliberate intent to deceive, often drives the spread of mis- and disinformation, making it a systemic issue rather than a series of isolated incidents.
The exploitable nature of these platforms has not gone unnoticed by state-sponsored actors. Authoritarian regimes and foreign governments have readily leveraged social media to spread disinformation and manipulate public opinion. From accusations of Facebook’s complicity in the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar to Russia’s sophisticated disinformation campaigns, the manipulation of online platforms for political gain is a growing threat to democracy. These orchestrated efforts demonstrate the potential for mis- and disinformation to cause real-world harm, undermining trust in institutions and exacerbating social divisions.
The current approaches to tackling mis- and disinformation often fall short, focusing on superficial solutions like fact-checking and content removal, without addressing the underlying structural issues. The Australian bill, while well-intentioned, exemplifies this flaw. Its overly broad definitions and lack of transparency raise concerns about censorship and potential misuse, while its exemption of professional news content creates a double standard. Effective solutions require a deeper understanding of the political economy of the web and a willingness to challenge the dominant business models of social media platforms.
A more effective approach would be to address the root cause of the problem: the commercial exploitation of personal data. Stricter privacy regulations, limiting the collection and use of personal information, could force social media companies to rethink their business models, shifting away from the relentless pursuit of engagement. Such reforms would not only protect individual rights but also create a less fertile ground for the spread of mis- and disinformation. However, enacting meaningful privacy reform will require overcoming the resistance of powerful vested interests, including social media companies, advertising agencies, and the data analytics industry.
The struggle against mis- and disinformation is a battle for the future of democracy. The digital landscape, while offering unprecedented opportunities for communication and information sharing, also presents new challenges to the integrity of public discourse. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach, focusing on structural reforms, robust privacy protections, and a critical examination of the commercial incentives that drive the spread of false and misleading content. Just as the Maxim Gorky ultimately met its demise, the predatory business models that fuel the current disinformation crisis can be dismantled, creating a more just and equitable digital future.
