Rapport från EU-kommissionens expertgrupp

Så kom då rapporten från EU-kommissionens ”High Level Group on Fake news”, som hade uppdraget att komma med rekommendationer om hur man ska hantera problemen med spridning av falska nyheter. Arbetet gick anmärkningsvärt snabbt, från starten i januari till rapportsläppet 12 mars. I samband med rapporten släpptes också en preliminär sammanställning av den enkät i frågan som samtidigt legat ute för allmänhet och olika organisationer samt en Eurobarometer om den allmänna opinionen i frågan som också gjorts.

Den kortkorta sammanfattningen av rekommendationer lyder:
”The multi-dimensional approach recommended by the HLEG is based on a number of interconnected and mutually reinforcing responses. These responses rest on five pillars designed to:

-enhance transparency of online news, involving an adequate and privacy-compliant sharing of data about the systems that enable their circulation online;
-promote media and information literacy to counter disinformation and help users navigate the digital media environment;
-develop tools for empowering users and journalists to tackle disinformation and foster a positive engagement with fast-evolving information technologies;
-safeguard the diversity and sustainability of the European news media ecosystem, and
-promote continued research on the impact of disinformation in Europe to evaluate the measures taken by different actors and constantly adjust the necessary responses.”

Fyra av medlemmarna (Clara Jiménez Cruz, Alexios Mantzarlis, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen och Claire Wardle) har skrivit en kommentar, de är förhållandevis nöjda och lyfter fram några punkter:

”Ultimately, the report includes a number of aspects that we think will make a significant contribution to the debate, our evidence base and our capacity to intervene, including:

1.A clear and unequivocal abandonment of the term “fake news,” which the European Commission was originally using. This is important because it is inadequate in explaining the complexity of the situation, and leads to confusion in the way researchers discuss the issue, it is reported on in the media, and discussed by policy-makers.
2.Clearly calls for significant financial support for independent news media, fact- and source-checking, and media and information literacy, with an emphasis on independent initiatives, free from potential interference from public authorities or from technology companies who might be tempted to use such projects as public relations exercises.
3.Calls for platforms to share data are including throughout the text. While the fact-checking and verification community has been calling for greater data-sharing for years, this instance is particularly significant because it has been signed by Google, Facebook and Twitter. They have now taken a public commitment to work with researchers who can independently assess the spread and impact of disinformation. The report specifically calls on major technology companies to provide data that would allow the independent assessment of efforts like Google’s fact-check tags, Facebook’s use of fact-checks as Related Articles or the downgrading of disinformation in the News Feed.
4.Calls for public authorities at all EU levels to share data promptly and efficiently when it is requested by trustworthy fact-checking organisations — and correct promptly when appropriate. This recognizes that political actors and institutions have a crucial role to play in improving the accuracy of our information ecosystem..
5.The creation of a network of Research Centers focused on studying disinformation across the EU. Our current knowledge based is almost entirely focused on the United States data and it’s vital that the EU have more data from cross-border studies to understand the differences and nuances in the scope, scale and impact of disinformation across the 28 Member States.
6.The insistence on a collaborative approach involving all relevant stakeholders, with a structured process ahead that will document progress made and expose anyone not taking their responsibilities seriously.”

En medlem i expertgruppen, Goyens från Europeiska konsumentorganisationen, ställer sig inte bakom rapporten. “Every day, consumers make decisions on the basis of information they find both online and offline. Sadly, these decisions are increasingly based on incorrect information. Biased restaurant ratings, fake product tests and false news reports and political advertising prevent consumers from making well-informed decisions. Fake news is a real problem for consumers.

“This report contains many useful recommendations but fails to touch upon one of the core causes of fake news. Disinformation is spreading too easily online. Evidence of the role of behavioural advertising in the dissemination of fake news is piling up. Platforms such as Google or Facebook massively benefit from users reading and sharing fake news articles which contain advertisements. But this expert group choose to ignore this business model. This is head-in-the-sand politics.

“Media literacy initiatives and transparency measures make sense but are no silver bullet. Experience from other sectors has shown that those people who are most prone to disinformation don’t get access to such initiatives. The burden for de-bunking fake news should not rest on people.”

-Consumer exposure to fake news needs to be addressed at its source. BEUC regrets that the report does not call for a sector inquiry to investigate the link between advertising revenue policies of platforms and dissemination of disinformation. Sector inquiries are carried out by the European Commission’s competition department to investigate whether markets operate as they should. If the result is that anti-competitive behaviour is identified, then it can carry out company-specific investigations.

-The high-level group recommends the drafting of a business code of conduct to minimise the spreading of disinformation via online platforms. However, its recommendations are non-binding. The risk is that the code will be a non-starter.”

En annan medlem i expertgruppen, Anja Bechmann från Danmark, lyfter fram ett par infallsvinklar:

– Anja Bechmann, der er lektor ved Aarhus Universitet og medlem af ekspertgruppen, peger især på, at Facebooks og Googles algoritmer er lukket land, som ingen andre har indblik i. Og skal man gøre sig forhåbninger om at komme desinformation til livs, må algoritmerne blive gennemsigtige, så forskere kan følge med i, hvilke historier der bliver spredt og hvordan.

“Vi har brug for en datagennemsigtighed i forhold til de her algoritmer, så vi kan få en større viden om, hvilken betydning algoritmer har for de her kaskader af desinformation, som vi har set ved demokratiske valg,” siger Anja Bechmann.

Derimod er censur ikke løsningen, påpeger rapporten. At have en statslig indblanding, der rydder ud i usande nyheder fra for eksempel Rusland, er uhensigtsmæssigt, siger Anja Bechmann.

SVT:s vd Hanna Stjärne är också medlem i gruppen och kommenterar så här:

– Det behövs etiska riktlinjer även för de internationella digitala plattformsföretagen. Medieföretag i Sverige har sedan länge etiska riktlinjer som följs upp öppet och transparent. Något liknande offentligt etiskt regelverk finns inte för de internationella plattformsföretagen och nu har gruppen tagit fram både en stomme till ett regelverk och en process för att sätta det i verket, säger Hanna Stjärne i ett pressmeddelande.
Trovärdiga nyheter digitalt – en nyckelfråga inför valet

I rapporten som finns att läsa här, presenteras tio principer som en sådan process bör bygga på.

Det handlar bland annat om att de internationella digitala plattformsföretagen ska öka transparensen vad gäller användardata och om hur deras algoritmer fungerar. Det finns också förslag som syftar till att begränsa plattformarnas möjligheter att tjäna pengar på desinformation.

Gruppen anser också att plattformarna bör förbättra synligheten och tillgängligheten av nyheter från avsändare med stor trovärdighet.

Redan i vår ska processen inledas och om ett år ska det utvärderas om den har gett tillräckligt resultat eller om någon form av reglering behöver införas.

– I samtalen i gruppen har det varit tydligt att betydelsen av journalistik och av trovärdiga oberoende medier ökar, inte minst i ljuset av spridningen av desinformation på nätet. De påverkanskampanjer som har synts i valrörelserna i flera europeiska länder har också diskuterats och inför valet i Sverige i höst kommer tillgången till trovärdiga nyheter digitalt att vara en nyckelfråga, fortsätter Hanna Stjärne i pressmeddelandet.

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, ävenledes han medlem i gruppen, skrev en artikel i Conversation utifrån rapporten. Han förespråkar ”soft power” i arbetet mot fake news/desinformation. ”Hard power” (lagstiftning, förbud etc) menar han innebär stora risker och han tycker rapporten pekar åt rätt håll. Samarbete är nyckelordet.

”Disinformation takes many forms and is driven by many factors. Foreign states sometimes try to subvert other countries’ political processes. People publish false and fabricated information masquerading as news for profit. Domestic politicians lie to their own people – and sometimes these lies are amplified by news media, by hyper-partisan activists, or spread far and wide via social media and other platforms.

These different problems are serious – and many have called on public authorities to tackle them. The question is how? Only a small part of what we encounter online is clearly demonstrable as simply true or false, and much of what ordinary people think of as “fake news” is simply forms of poor journalism or partisan political debate. In diverse societies, where we disagree deeply about many important issues, disinformation is hard to define clearly and objectively. As a result, government responses are difficult to target precisely.
(…)
If civil society organisations, news media, researchers and technology companies work together, we can increase resilience to disinformation by investing in media and information literacy, increase the supply of credible information, better understand the threats at hand, limit the dissemination of harmful information online, and help people find quality news.

Meanwhile, the role of governments and institutions such as the European Commission in such a soft power approach should be to encourage and support collaboration to counter disinformation and increase resilience – not to try to use hard power to directly crack down on a poorly defined and perhaps necessarily unclear problem.

Like many other soft power strategies, this sounds complex and does not generate headlines like unilateral actions such as the US Congress’ commitment of US$120m to combat Russian propaganda, or public authorities doing their own fact-checking has done.

For a soft power approach to disinformation to work it is critical that all stakeholders do in fact work together – and that public authorities primarily focus on rewarding such collaboration. This is precisely the kind of approach that the recently published EC report on disinformation calls for.

If it fails, cruder responses may be the only ones left. But let’s hope not.”