Manipulation

'Online Manipulation: Hidden Influences in a Digital World' by Daniel Susser, Beate Roessler and Helen Nissenbaum comments

 Privacy and surveillance scholars increasingly worry that data collectors can use the information they gather about our behaviors, preferences, interests, incomes, and so on to manipulate us. Yet what it means, exactly, to manipulate someone, and how we might systematically distinguish cases of manipulation from other forms of influence — such as persuasion and coercion — has not been thoroughly enough explored in light of the unprecedented capacities that information technologies and digital media enable. In this paper, we develop a definition of manipulation that addresses these enhanced capacities, investigate how information technologies facilitate manipulative practices, and describe the harms — to individuals and to social institutions — that flow from such practices. 

We use the term “online manipulation” to highlight the particular class of manipulative practices enabled by a broad range of information technologies. We argue that at its core, manipulation is hidden influence — the covert subversion of another person’s decision-making power. We argue that information technology, for a number of reasons, makes engaging in manipulative practices significantly easier, and it makes the effects of such practices potentially more deeply debilitating. And we argue that by subverting another person’s decision-making power, manipulation undermines his or her autonomy. Given that respect for individual autonomy is a bedrock principle of liberal democracy, the threat of online manipulation is a cause for grave concern.

The 2018 A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation, the final report of the European Commission High Level Expert Group on Fake News and Online Disinformation, states 

The analysis presented in this Report starts from a shared understanding of disinformation as a phenomenon that goes well beyond the term «fake news». This term has been appropriated and used misleadingly by powerful actors to dismiss coverage that is simply found disagreeable. Disinformation as defined in this Report includes all forms of false, inaccurate, or misleading information designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause public harm or for profit. It does not cover issues arising from the creation and dissemination online of illegal content (notably defamation, hate speech, incitement to violence), which are subject to regulatory remedies under EU or national laws. Nor does it cover other forms of deliberate but not misleading distortions of facts such a satire and parody. 

 

Problems of disinformation are deeply intertwined with the development of digital media. They are driven by actors — state or non-state political actors, for-profit actors, media, citizens, individually or in groups — and by manipulative uses of communication infrastructures that have been harnessed to produce, circulate and amplify disinformation on a larger scale than previously, often in new ways that are still poorly mapped and understood.

 

The HLEG acknowledges that, while not necessarily illegal, disinformation can nonetheless be harmful for citizens and society at large. The risk of harm includes threats to democratic political processes, including integrity of elections, and to democratic values that shape public policies in a variety of sectors, such as health, science, finance and more.

 

In light of these considerations, the HLEG points out that disinformation problems can be handled most effectively, and in manner that is fully compliant with freedom of expression, free press and pluralism, only if all major stakeholders collaborate. In addition, continuous research, increased transparency and access to relevant data, combined with regular evaluation of responses, must be permanently ensured. This is particularly important as disinformation is a multifacet-ed and evolving problem that does not have one single root cause. It does not have, therefore, one single solution.

 

The HLEG advises the Commission to disregard simplistic solutions. Any form of censorship either public or private should clearly be avoided. Fragmentation of the Internet, or any harmful consequences for its technical functioning should also be avoided. The HLEG’s recommendations aim instead to provide short-term responses to the most pressing problems, longer-term responses to increase societal resilience to disinformation, and a framework for ensuring that the effectiveness of these responses is continuously evaluated, while new evidence-based responses are developed.

 

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:

 

1. enhance transparency of online news, involving an adequate and privacy-compliant sharing of data about the systems that enable their circulation online;

 

2. promote media and information literacy to counter disinformation and help users navigate the digital media environment;

 

3. develop tools for empowering users and journalists to tackle disinformation and foster a positive engagement with fast-evolving information technologies;

 

4. safeguard the diversity and sustainability of the European news media ecosystem, and

 

5. promote continued research on the impact of disin- formation in Europe to evaluate the measures taken by different actors and constantly adjust the necessary responses.

 

The HLEG calls on the European Commission to consider, in its upcoming Communication on “fake news” and online disinformation, a multi-dimensional approach based on these five pillars and consisting of concrete, inter-dependent actions. Its main features are discussed in detail in Section 4 of this Report and can be outlined as follows.

 

For the short to medium term, the HLEG suggests, as a first step, a self-regulatory approach based on a clearly defined multi-stakeholder engagement process, framed within a binding roadmap for implementation, and focused on a set of specific actions. All relevant stakeholders, including online platforms, news media organisations (press and broadcasters), journalists, fact-checkers, independent content creators and the advertising industry, are called upon to commit to a Code of Practices. This Code should reflect stakeholders’ respective roles and responsibilities. The intent should be to promote an enabling environment for freedom of expression by fostering the transparency and intelligibility of different types of digital information channels. In particular, the HLEG has formulated 10 key principles to be enshrined in this Code, which define clear objectives for platforms. To make sure that the necessary steps will be taken, the HLEG recommends establishing a Coalition representing the relevant stakeholders for the purpose of elaborating such a Code of Practices and ensuring its implementation and continuous monitoring and review.

 

As a second step, the Commission is invited to re-examine the matter in Spring 2019 and decide, on the basis of an intermediate and independent evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of these measures, whether further actions should be considered for the next European Commission term. This may cover options for additional fact-finding and/ or policy initiatives, using any relevant instrument, including competition instruments or other mechanisms to ensure continuous monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Code.

 

These good practices must be backed by a structured cross-border and cross-sector cooperation involving all relevant stakeholders, in order to foster transparency, algorithm accountability and public trust in media to an appreciable extent.. Given the fragmentation of the sector, public authorities should play a facilitating role. Therefore, the HLEG asks public authorities, both at the EU and national level, to support the development of a network of independent European Centres for (academic) research on disinformation. This network should be open to fact- and source-checkers, accredited journalists, researchers from different relevant fields and platforms, with a view to:

• continually monitoring the scale, techniques and tools, and the precise nature and (potential) impact of disinformation in society; 

• assessing the veracity of factual claims underpinning news and information across areas of general interest (public affairs and politics, health, science, education, finance, etc.); 

• identifying and mapping disinformation sources and mechanisms that contribute to their digital amplification; 

• providing a safe space for accessing and analysing platforms’ data and for a better understanding of the functioning of algorithms;

• contributing to the development of fair, objective and reliable indicators for source transparency; 

• sharing knowledge with news media and platforms to enhance public awareness about disinformation. 

In this context, the Commission should also consider establishing a Centre of Excellence, which would act independently and with full autonomy. Its goal should be to manage the infrastructure necessary to enable an effective networking of such national research centres and to ensure a wide dissemi- nation of their independent research outcomes. The commitment required from public authorities involves the provision of sufficient independent funding for both the establishment and operation of such a network, and a renewed effort to support R and D activities in critical fields. Examples include advanced content verification tools for newsrooms, artificial intelligence and big data for media. However, while necessary, these actions alone would not be sufficient to “dilute” disinformation with trustworthy content made more visible and findable online. Additional measures aimed at strengthening societal resilience in the longer term need to be implemented in parallel. Therefore, the HLEG recommends a set of complementary measures. These measures are designed to support the diversity and sustainability of the news media ecosystem on the one hand. On the other hand, they are designed to develop appropriate initiatives in the field of media and information literacy to foster a critical approach and a responsible behaviour across all European citizens.

 

The HLEG chiefly calls on EU and national authorities to step up their efforts in these two areas, this also requires the co-operation of civil society organisations, media organisations and platforms. In Section 5 of the Report, the specific actions that should be implemented to pursue these longer-term objectives are listed by reference to the role that public and private actors are called upon to play, taking into account their respective responsibilities. More detailed information on good practices, underlying fundamental principles and recommended actions can be found in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Report.