Identifying and Countering FAKE NEWS Mark Verstraete1, Derek E. Bambauer2, & Jane R. Bambauer3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fake news has become a controversial, highly contested issue recently. But in the public discourse, “fake news” is often used to refer to several different phenomena. The lack of clarity around what exactly fake news is makes understanding the social harms that it creates and crafting solutions to these harms difficult. This report adds clarity to these discussions by identifying several distinct types of fake news: hoax, propaganda, trolling, and satire. In classifying these different types of fake news, it identifies distinct features of each type of fake news that can be targeted by regulation to shift their production and dissemination. This report introduces a visual matrix to organize different types of fake news and show the ways in which they are related and distinct. The two defining features of different types of fake news are 1) whether the author intends to deceive readers and 2) whether the motivation for creating fake news is financial. These distinctions are a useful first step towards crafting solutions that can target the pernicious forms of fake news (hoaxes and propaganda) without chilling the production of socially valuable satire. The report emphasizes that rigid distinctions between types of fake news may be unworkable. Many authors produce fake news stories while holding different intentions and motivations simultaneously. This creates definitional grey areas. For instance, a fake news author can create a story as a response to both financial and political motives. Given 1 Fellow in Privacy and Free Speech, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law; Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Arizona, Center for Digital Society and Data Studies. 2 Professor of Law, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law; Affiliated Faculty, University of Arizona, Center for Digital Society and Data Studies. 3 Professor of Law, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law; Affiliated Faculty, University of Arizona, Center for Digital Society and Data Studies. this, an instance of fake news may exist somewhere between hoax and propaganda, embodying characteristics of both. The report identifies several possible solutions based on changes to law, markets, code, and norms. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Legal solutions to fake news are likely to conflict with strong constitutional (First Amendment) and statutory (section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) protections for speech. Market-based solutions are likely to only reach a subset of fake news. Code solutions may be limited by the difficult judgments required to distinguish satire from other types of fake news. Norms and other community solutions hold promise but are difficult to create through political mechanisms. Some types of fake news are more responsive to regulation than others. Hoaxes are produced primarily in response to financial motivations, so solutions that remove (or decrease) the profit from fake news stories are likely to reduce the number of hoaxes created. By contrast, propaganda is produced primarily for non-financial motivations, so changes in its profitability are unlikely to significantly reduce its output. The report introduces several solutions that can serve as starting points for discussion about the practical management of fake news, and networked public discourse more generally. These starting points include: expanding legal protections for Internet platforms to encourage them to pursue editorial functions; creating new platforms that do not rely on online advertising; encouraging existing platforms to experiment with technical solutions to identify and flag fake news; and encouraging platforms to use their own powerful voices to criticize inaccurate information. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 Part I. A Typology of Fake News ............................................................................... 5 A. Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 5 B. Typology ............................................................................................................................. 8 Part II. Problems ............................................................................................................. 9 A. Mixed Intent ....................................................................................................................... 9 B. Mixed Motives ................................................................................................................. 11 C. Mixed Information (Fact and Fiction) ........................................................................... 12 Part III. Solutions .......................................................................................................... 13 A. Law .................................................................................................................................... 14 B. Markets ............................................................................................................................. 17 C. Architecture / Code ......................................................................................................... 18 D. Norms ............................................................................................................................... 20 Part IV. A Way Forward ............................................................................................... 21 A. Law .................................................................................................................................... 21 B. Markets ............................................................................................................................. 24 C. Architecture / Code ......................................................................................................... 27 D. Norms ............................................................................................................................... 29 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 32 3 INTRODUCTION Fake news4 has been the subject of constant discussion since commentators suggested it played a critical role in the 2016 election results.5 President Donald Trump has fueled further discussion of fake news by invoking it in a variety of contexts from discussions about unfavorable polling data to an epithet for CNN.6 The term has been used to refer to so many things that it seems to have lost its power to denote at all; as a result, several media critics have recommended abandoning it entirely.7 Although the term “fake news” is confusing, it does point to several real threats to meaningful public debate on the Internet. This report maps the field of fake news and describes why proposed solutions have been ineffective thus far. It offers recommendations for new approaches. In Part I, we describe the several distinct phenomena that have been placed under the rubric “fake news.” We introduce these problems in a matrix to show how they are related and how regulatory solutions interact among them. Part II addresses some general problems with reducing the influence of fake news. Part III surveys current regulatory approaches while assessing which methods of constraint are best suited to deal with particular species of fake news. We argue that applying single constraints in isolation to solve fake news problems is often unwise and that propaganda—the most serious threat from fake news—requires new thinking to solve. Part IV introduces a set of model reforms that can ameliorate fake news problems, and evaluates the costs and benefits each one poses. 4 In this report, we use “fake news” as a general catchall term to describe a series of phenomena: hoaxes, satire, propaganda, and trolling. Our conclusions do not turn on our choice of terms for species for fake news. It makes no difference for our descriptions and prescriptions if “bias” is considered a species of “propaganda” or a stand-alone concept. Our hope is that people will not focus on the definitions but instead use our matrix as a tool to see how regulatory decisions will impact multiple categories of fake news. 5 Olivia Solon, Facebook’s failure: did fake news and polarized politics get Trump elected?, THE GUARDIAN (Nov. 10, 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-fake-news-election-conspiracy- theories. 6 Callum Borchers, ‘Fake News’ Has Now Lost All of Its Meaning, WASH. POST (Feb 9, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/09/fake-news-has-now-lost-all- meaning/?utm_term=.9a908273d3d8. 7 Id. 4 PART I. A TYPOLOGY OF FAKE NEWS A. Definitions In this section, we enumerate the species of fake news while pointing out relevant features that can be leveraged to encourage or discourage their production and dissemination. Specifying different categories of fake news based on their content, motivation, and intention supplies a useful framing strategy