Paul Hunt: Drawing the line where fact becomes friction

Anti-government protests in New Zealand have included slogans drawn directly from the disinformation playbook. Photo / George Heard, File

OPINION

It used to be hard work to spread false information intended to cause social harm. It took time to call people, send letters, print flyers or arrange a meeting. There were logistical barriers limiting the spread of such disinformation.

In the age of social media, these barriers have all but disappeared. Now it’s simple to type some words or doctor an image and share it to Telegram, Facebook or other social media platforms. Opinions presented as “fact” now spread like wildfire, even if they have no basis in reality.

Irene Khan, a United Nations expert on freedom of opinion and expression, emphasises that disinformation is undermining freedom of expression and democratic institutions, polarising political debates, fuelling public distrust, and endangering human rights.

“The impact on individuals, communities, and institutions is real and deeply disturbing”, she says.

Disinformation is the deliberate spread of false information done with the intention to mislead or harm. Misinformation is similar, but refers to the spreading of false information, regardless of intent. Both cause significant harm.

A recent survey by the Classification Office found that 2 per cent of New Zealanders don’t think what happened in Christchurch on March 15, 2019, when a white supremacist gunman killed 51 people at two of the city’s mosques, really took place.

One in seven New Zealanders think the 5G mobile phone frequency is harmful to human health, and another 32 per cent are unsure, despite there being no evidence.

Three per cent said they believe Covid-19 is caused by 5G.

Anti-5G activists protest in the United States. Photo / AP

Analysts of disinformation highlight that in online spaces where misinformation and disinformation are allowed to flourish, anti-Māori, racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, misogynist, and homophobic sentiment is widely promoted.

These same analysts are now suffering alarming threats to their lives both online and in person.

As I wrote in a recent social media post, the increasing spread of disinformation is a significant risk to democracy. There is overwhelming evidence that the storming of the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021 was partially fuelled by dangerous disinformation.

The growth of disinformation cannot be attributed solely to technology or malicious actors. Other factors are at play, for example, the grievances of a growing number of people fuelled by decades of economic deprivation, market failures, political disenfranchisement, and social inequities, which make some individuals more susceptible to manipulation.

Of course, the free and open internet is vital to support freedom of expression and information. But these human rights are not absolute. They have to be balanced with other human rights. Also, with rights come responsibilities to each other.

Disinformation is problematic, so too are over-the-top governmental responses to it.

Khan advises that the best antidote to disinformation is the right to diverse and reliable information sources, independent media, digital literacy, and smart regulation of social media. By smart regulation, she means transparency, due process rights of users, and companies being required to respect human rights. Let’s not forget companies have human rights responsibilities.

The Classification Office’s survey concludes with a similar position, it calls for more corporate transparency and education at all levels to improve critical thinking.

Hundreds of comments on my social media post about disinformation criticised me for not engaging with any of the protesters in parliamentary grounds. But I met some of the leaders, listened to upsetting testimonies, conveyed important information they did not know, and called out violence, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, and homophobia. These meetings were actively supported by local iwi, the police, and others.

Within boundaries, we must listen and talk, otherwise our democracy and human rights will wither on the vine.

If either governmental or non-governmental sources are responsible for disinformation, they should be called out and their sources challenged.

Both disinformation and misinformation should be subject to regulation, for example, rules on transparency about how social media platforms operate, but not be made unlawful.

Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt. Photo / Supplied

I am not talking about hate or harmful speech which is a very narrow band at one extreme end of the spectrum. Harmful speech needs separate, distinctive attention.

It’s crucial New Zealand looks at the complex and novel issues arising from both misinformation and disinformation. If anyone wants to refer to the pandemic, protests, and harmful speech, that’s their choice, but New Zealand needs a wider, deeper, and challenging discussion about the causes and features of misinformation and disinformation and what needs to be done to ensure it does not undermine our society.

We should keep in mind the words of Daniel Moynihan, former US Senator, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”

Paul Hunt is New Zealand’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner.