The time of "fake news" is over; "disinformation" has taken its place
This introduction to the special issue “Beyond Fake News: The Politics of Disinformation” contains four main sections. In the first, the authors discuss the major sociopolitical factors that have allowed disinformation to flourish in recent years. Second, they review the very short history of disinformation research, devoting particular attention to two of its more extensively studied conceptual relatives: propaganda and misinformation. Third, they preview the seven articles in this issue, which they divide into two types: studies of disinformation content and of disinformation reception. The authors conclude by advancing a few suggestions for future disinformation research.
Regulations against misinformation already exist in forty-eight states
The last two presidential election cycles have brought increased attention to the extent of misinformation – and outright lies – peddled by political candidates, their surrogates, and others who seek to influence election outcomes. Given the ubiquity of this speech, especially online, one might assume that there are no laws against lying in politics. It turns out that the opposite is true. Although the federal government has largely stayed out of regulating the content of election-related speech, the states have been surprisingly active in passing laws that prohibit false statements associated with elections.
This article finds forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have such laws (Maine and Vermont are the exceptions). For this report, the authors reviewed more than 125 state statutes that regulate the content of election-related speech. These laws take one of two basic forms: statutes that directly target the content of election-related speech, and generally applicable statutes that indirectly implicate election-related speech by prohibiting intimidation or fraud associated with an election. They show that these election-speech statutes deviate from longstanding theories of liability for false speech. First, the statutes cover a broader range of speech than has traditionally been subject to government restriction: the statutes cover everything from merely derogatory statements about candidates (defamation requires false statements that create a degree of moral opprobrium) to false information about ballot measures, voting procedures, and incumbency. Second, a substantial number of the statutes impose liability regardless of whether the speaker knew the information was false or acted negligently. If nothing else, these statutes provide a partial roadmap for identifying the types of speech – and election harms – that may warrant intervention.
The gaps and inconsistencies in the Foreign Agent Registration Act are highly problematic for defending democracy
In this study, the authors map the legal work seven U.S. digital consultancies and public relations firms undertook across social media and digital platforms of behalf of four foreign governments. They find that these firms used a range of different strategies on social and digital media, very few of which featured legally required disclosures linking the content to their country of origin. Firms targeted journalists and other elites, but exactly how is not clear. Our most powerful findings regard what is absent. Our study reveals as much about the inconsistencies and inadequacies of the current FARA disclosure process and gaps in tech firms’ ad archives as it does about the content and strategies of the messages themselves. We conclude with a series of recommendations for technology firms and the Department of Justice for enforcing FARA regulations as they relate to social and digital content.