Government Responses to Disinformation on Social Media
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 9-2019 Government Responses to Disinformation on Social Media Platforms: Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, European Union, France, Germany, India, Israel, Mexico, Russian Federation, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom Ruth Levush Law Library of Congress Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Mass Communication Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, Scholarly Publishing Commons, Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons, and the Social Media Commons Levush, Ruth, "Government Responses to Disinformation on Social Media Platforms: Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, European Union, France, Germany, India, Israel, Mexico, Russian Federation, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 178. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/178 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Government Responses to Disinformation on Social Media Platforms Argentina • Australia •Canada • China • Denmark Egypt • European Union • France• Germany India • Israel • Mexico • Russian Federation Sweden • United Arab Emirates United Kingdom September 2019 Report for Congress LL File No. 2019-017919 The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal R esearch Directorate (202) 707-5080 (phone) • (866) 550-0442 (fax) • [email protected] • http://www.law.gov This report is provided for reference purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not represent the official opinion of the United States Government. The information provided reflects research undertaken as of the date of writing. It has not been updated. Contents Comparative Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Argentina ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Australia .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Canada ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 China .......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Denmark .................................................................................................................................................... 50 Egypt .......................................................................................................................................................... 60 European Union ....................................................................................................................................... 65 France ......................................................................................................................................................... 73 Germany .................................................................................................................................................... 82 India ........................................................................................................................................................... 92 Israel ......................................................................................................................................................... 110 Mexico ...................................................................................................................................................... 127 Russian Federation ............................................................................................................................... 130 Sweden .................................................................................................................................................... 142 United Arab Emirates ............................................................................................................................ 150 United Kingdom .................................................................................................................................... 157 Comparative Summary Ruth Levush Senior Foreign Law Specialist Concerns regarding the impact of viral dissemination of disinformation on democratic systems of government, on political discourse, on public trust in state institutions, and on social harmony have been expressed by many around the world.1 These concerns are shared by countries with advanced economies as well as those with emerging and developing economies.2 The term “disinformation” as used in this report refers to “false information deliberately and often covertly spread . in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.”3 Disinformation for this purpose, does not cover issues arising from the creation and dissemination online of illegal content (notably defamation, hate speech, incitement to violence) . , nor other forms of deliberate but not misleading distortions of facts such a [sic] satire and parody.4 The use of technological tools and techniques, including bots, big data, trolling, deep-fakes, and others, enables those intending to manipulate public opinion by spreading false, inaccurate, or misleading information, to reach targeted and potentially endless audiences. The use of technology in influencing campaigns becomes harder to spot when individuals or foreign adversaries anonymously facilitate the creation of internal tensions within the country. The inability to trace sources further enables dissemination of political ads by foreign or domestic sources in violation of campaign financing rules, in countries where such rules apply. While the dangers associated with the viral distribution of disinformation are widely recognized, the potential harm that may derive from disproportional measures to counter disinformation should not be underestimated. Unlimited governmental censorship of online communications; an expansive definition of what constitutes “disinformation”; broad application of emergency powers to block content based on grounds of national or public security; draconian penalties for alleged offenders without the ability to present an effective defense; and strict enforcement of defamation laws in the absence of journalistic defenses are just a few examples of potential threats to the principle of free speech and the administration of the rule of law posed by overreaching regulations concerning disinformation. 1 See, e.g., National Endowment for Democracy, Issue Brief: How Disinformation Impacts Politics and Publics (May 29, 2018), https://perma.cc/UGZ2-ETBG. 2 Conor Sanchez, Misinformation Is a Threat to Democracy in the Developing World, Council on Foreign Relations (Jan. 29, 2019), https://perma.cc/S4CB-GK8M. 3 See, e.g., “Disinformation,” Merriam-Webster, https://perma.cc/9TY2-5D6J. 4 Press Release, European Commission, Final Report of the High Level Expert Group on Fake News and Online Disinformation (Mar. 12, 2018) (describing the term for purposes of the European Commission report), https://perma.cc/Y4TC-WBR8. The Law Library of Congress 1 Government Responses to Disinformation on Social Media Platforms: Comparative Summary This report is composed of individual surveys of the European Union (EU) and fifteen selected countries from around the globe. The countries surveyed vary geographically, culturally, in their systems of government, and in their commitment to democratic principles of governance, which include protections for freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and transparency and oversight of governmental actions, among other things. The surveys were prepared by the foreign law specialists and analysts of the Law Library of Congress’s Global Legal Research Directorate based on primary and secondary sources available in the Law Library of Congress’s collections, legal databases to which it subscribes, and open sources. The following summary of the report’s findings is based on more expansive information contained in the individual surveys. It addresses reported instances of alleged disinformation and highlights governmental responses to challenges posed by the spread of disinformation on social media platforms. I. Reported Instances of Online Distribution of Disinformation The dissemination of disinformation to create tensions in society, to further political agendas, or to delegitimize political opponents has been utilized by foreign as well as domestic actors. A. Foreign Intervention The spread of disinformation on social platforms has been considered a threat to national security and to democratic systems of government in a number of the surveyed countries. In particular, concerns ahead of national elections were expressed in Argentina, India, Israel, Mexico, and Sweden.