{"id":21886,"date":"2020-12-23T12:00:10","date_gmt":"2020-12-23T12:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.publicknowledge.org\/?p=21886"},"modified":"2022-10-20T13:16:48","modified_gmt":"2022-10-20T13:16:48","slug":"a-superfund-for-the-internet-could-clean-up-our-polluted-information-ecosystem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/a-superfund-for-the-internet-could-clean-up-our-polluted-information-ecosystem\/","title":{"rendered":"A Superfund for the Internet Could Clean Up Our Polluted Information Ecosystem"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a recent interview,<\/a> former President Obama called the lack of a \u201ccommon baseline of fact\u201d the \u201csingle greatest threat to our democracy.\u201d Our increasingly polluted information environment — including the proliferation of \u201ccrazy lies and conspiracy theories\u201d on social media — divides society while undermining public faith in facts, impeding our ability to face global challenges that threaten our very existence.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s the point. That is, regardless of the topic, at the core of much of the disinformation we see on digital platforms today is the desire <\/em>to undermine democratic institutions and manipulate followers as a means of exerting political influence and control. It\u2019s not a bug; it\u2019s a feature.<\/p>\n

Right now, much of the debate in Congress about how Big Tech should moderate their platforms is focused on Section 230<\/a> of the Communications Act, the so-called \u201ctwenty-six words<\/a> that created the internet.\u201d Section 230 protects social media companies from liability related to hosting, editing, or taking down third-party content. At last count, efforts<\/a> to \u201cfix\u201d it include 16 different bills in Congress (some of which are fundamentally at cross-purposes); an Executive Order<\/a> and ensuing petition<\/a> by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration; a potential (and illegitimate) rulemaking<\/a> by the Federal Communications Commission; several Congressional hearings<\/a>; a set of recommendations<\/a> and proposed legislative text<\/a> from the Department of Justice; an out-there<\/a> presidential threat to defund the military; and, I\u2019m guesstimating here, kajillions of tweets from technologists, journalists, and politicians.<\/p>\n

Enough. We offer a creative, evidence-based policy proposal that lets regulators — and the new administration — step away<\/a> from the political black hole that most of the current Section 230 reform efforts have become and instead alleviate the twin problems polluting our information ecosystem: the virulent spread of misinformation on digital platforms<\/a>, and <\/em>the crisis in local journalism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A Superfund for the Internet: Content Moderation for the Public Interest, Not Political Interests<\/strong><\/p>\n

Toxic content on digital platforms has been compared<\/a> to toxic chemicals dumped by industrial companies into fresh water, and \u201cparanoia and disinformation\u201d dumped in the body politic has been described as \u201cthe toxic byproduct of [Facebook\u2019s] relentless drive for profit.\u201d This is why we\u2019ve modeled our proposal on the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s 1980 \u201cSuperfund\u201d to clean up toxic waste sites, which the EPA has done at more than 400 sites<\/a> around the country: a \u201cSuperfund for the Internet.\u201d We propose using public policy tools to create a market mechanism to clean up information pollution. This Superfund would create demand and payment for news analysis services such as fact-checking from the major information distribution platforms, and incentivize development and supply of these services among qualified news organizations. The payment would be collected from qualifying platforms and administered to qualifying news organizations through a \u201ctrust fund\u201d established and administered by an independent body — one with no role in the actual identification, review, analysis, or action on content.<\/p>\n

In the U.S., we\u2019ve mandated certain industries to conduct some of their activities in the public interest, either to guarantee the availability of certain goods and services or to address externalities that are not taken into consideration when unregulated firms make their decisions. For example, since the Communications Act of 1934 recognized the essential role of radio and television in the nation\u2019s public discourse and democratic self-governance, licensees have an obligation to serve \u201cthe public interest, convenience and necessity.\u201d In other industries that are deemed<\/a> critical infrastructure, such as utilities and finance, we have also established regulators and regulations to ensure that the public interest is protected. We believe that the dominance of digital platforms in our political and social discourse therefore qualifies them for a similar public interest mandate. The Superfund for the Internet compels the dominant information distribution platforms to include fact-checking in their content moderation approach, as a means of serving the public interest.<\/p>\n

An Evidence-Based Approach to Content Moderation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our proposal is based on research into what actually works, in practice, to counter misinformation. One concept<\/a> that comes up frequently<\/a> is that countering misinformation is as much about producing and elevating authoritative information<\/em> as it is about detecting and removing misinformation<\/em>. This \u201cinformation curation<\/a>\u201d must be accomplished without imposing on constitutionally protected speech. Information gathered from tracking the platforms\u2019 efforts to address misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic<\/a> and the 2020 U.S. election<\/a> can support the Superfund for the Internet. Both events showed that — in situations in which the potential for harm is high and the number of sources for authoritative information is finite — platforms can and will set new standards and develop new solutions to problems previously positioned as insoluble. One common strategy enabled their most effective approaches: partnering with fact-checking organizations and authoritative sources of information. These partnerships allowed the platforms to evaluate sources, verify the accuracy of claims, algorithmically up- and down-rank content, label posts, direct people who\u2019ve experienced misinformation to debunking sites, and understand what kinds of misinformation may create the greatest harm — all without placing the platforms in their dreaded position of being \u201carbiters of truth<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

But so far, these efforts have been entirely at the discretion of the platforms, and their incentives (including the desire to avoid bad publicity and the desire of their advertisers to avoid association with harmful content) are insufficient to address the individual, social, and political problems associated with other kinds of misinformation. Aligning platforms\u2019 incentives with those of the public interest requires<\/a> policy mechanisms that lower the cost of good behavior<\/em> and\/or raise the cost of bad behavior<\/em> while not mandating censorship of permissible speech.<\/p>\n

Elevating Sources of Trusted Information<\/strong><\/p>\n

Traditionally, local journalism was the primary source of authoritative information for communities. A Poynter<\/a> Media Trust Survey in 2018 found 76% of Americans across the political spectrum have \u201ca great deal\u201d or \u201ca fair amount\u201d of trust in their local television news (compared to 55% trust in national network news), and 73% have confidence in local newspapers (compared to 59% in national newspapers). A Gallup<\/a> survey in 2019 found 74% of Americans trust the accuracy of the news and information they get from local news stations (compared to 54% for nightly network news programs), and 67% trust their local newspapers (compared to 49% for national newspapers). A 2019 study from the Knight Foundation<\/a>\u2019s Trust, Media, and Democracy Initiative with Gallup found that 45% of Americans trust reporting by local news organizations \u201ca great deal\u201d or \u201cquite a lot,\u201d while 15% have \u201cvery little\u201d or no trust at all. But in the same survey the public\u2019s view of national <\/em>news organizations was more negative than positive: Only 31% expressed \u201ca great deal\u201d or \u201cquite a lot\u201d of trust, and 38% \u201cvery little\u201d or no trust in national news. In aggregate, the data suggests that the viability and availability of local news are important components of a trustworthy information ecosystem<\/a>, the vital link between informed citizens and a healthy democracy.<\/p>\n

Perhaps because of how much they trust their reporting, 71% of Americans think<\/a> their local news organizations are \u201cdoing either somewhat or very well financially.\u201d However, due in part to years of losses in circulation and advertising revenue to digital platforms (as well as by their own failure to address the changes in readership brought about by digital technology, plus consolidation and cost-cutting by financially-motivated owners), local journalism now faces what has been described as an existential threat<\/a>. Over the past 15 years, the United States has lost<\/a> over 2,100 or one-fourth of its local newspapers. About 1,800 of the communities that have lost a paper since 2004 now do not have easy access to any<\/em> local news source, such as a local online news site or a local radio station, creating \u201cnews deserts\u201d for these communities. A recent Congressional report<\/a> provides more of the historical perspective, including some hard truths about harms to the industry from the anticompetitive behavior of the dominant search and social media platforms. Most importantly, the report confirms it can and should be Congress\u2019s role to build a bridge between the present crisis in local journalism and new solutions like this one.<\/p>\n

Checking the Facts About Fact-Checking<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fact-checking (in the context of information pollution) is the process of evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of published information by comparing an explicit claim against trusted sources of facts. And it works: Research<\/a> has consistently shown that flagging of false news helps efforts to combat sharing of deceiving information on social media. A study<\/a> described as \u201cstate of the art\u201d in measuring the impact of fact-checking demonstrated that fact-checking has a positive impact in reducing misinformation about specific claims related to COVID-19, and that there are ways to extend and optimize its impact. It described fact-checking as \u201cparamount\u201d in mitigating the potential harmful consequences and enhancing societal resilience. A Debunking Handbook<\/a> written by 22 prominent scholars of misinformation summarized what they believe \u201creflects the scientific consensus about how to combat misinformation.\u201d It described the essential role of fact-checking in debunking and unsticking misinformation. And, importantly, some pitfalls that came out in earlier research, like the so-called \u201cbackfire effect\u201d in which corrections actually strengthened misperceptions, have themselves been largely debunked<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The dominant information distribution platforms, including Facebook<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, Google<\/a>, and YouTube<\/a>, already use fact-checking services. But today, the user experience for fact checks varies widely by platform, and is often opaque<\/a> or ambiguous. Researchers say it is impossible to know how successful or comprehensive the companies have been in removing bogus content because the platforms often put conditions on access to their data. Even the platforms\u2019 own access tools, like CrowdTangle, do not allow<\/a> filtering for labeled or fact-checked posts. The platforms control virtually every aspect of their interaction with fact-checking organizations, which have complained<\/a> that their suggestions for improvements to the process and requests for more information on results go unheeded.<\/p>\n

There are strong signs that the effectiveness of the platforms\u2019 efforts could be increased through an independent oversight process. No academic study we know of has been able to exactly replicate what actually occurs when the results of fact-checking are used to label content, downrank it, create friction in the sharing experience, notify users of designations after exposure, and enact other strategies that are embedded in the actual user experience. From what we do know, there may be a critical multiplier effect. Facebook\u2019s website notes<\/a> that a news story that’s simply been labeled false sees its future impressions on the platform drop by 80%. Facebook has also claimed<\/a> that warnings on COVID-19 misinformation deterred users from viewing flagged content 95% of the time. Twitter reported<\/a> a 29% decrease in \u201cquote-tweeting\u201d of 2020 election information that had been labeled as refuted by fact-checkers. Our proposal would require the qualifying digital platforms to be more transparent in their practices as well as the results associated with them, to share best practices, to share privacy-protected data with researchers<\/a>, and to try alternatives from researchers and civil society groups to improve results.<\/p>\n

Some partisan groups have claimed fact-checking is arbitrary, or an extension of the liberal-leaning editorial bias of the organization doing the checking. This is demonstrably untrue. The fact-checkers themselves come from a range of backgrounds<\/a>, including journalism but also political science, economics, law, and public policy. In fact, some of the organizations certified by IFCN, the most prominent fact-checking organization, lean right, such as CheckYourFacts, part of the conservative site the Daily Caller, and the Dispatch, which says on its website it is \u201cinformed by conservative principles.\u201d Fact-checking is a fast-growing and diverse industry<\/a> with organizations taking different approaches to fighting misinformation. It\u2019s inevitable that some of the mistrust in the media as a public institution has migrated to the fact-checkers. There may be ways<\/a> to enhance or supplement its role, such as the addition of media literacy tools that help consumers evaluate the news themselves. Our proposal allows the platforms to select the fact-checking organizations most compatible with their own content moderation standards — and their audiences.<\/p>\n

A First Amendment-Friendly Solution to Misinformation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The First Amendment and general concerns for freedom of expression require<\/a> exercising a good deal of caution in any approach to content moderation. But the First Amendment doesn\u2019t prevent any legislative effort to protect individuals, or society as a whole, from harassing or fraudulent content or content that seeks to undermine democracy and civic discourse.<\/p>\n

The First Amendment pertains to the role of government in controlling or suppressing speech, not the role of private companies. Social media platforms may establish and enact their own content moderation standards pursuant to their terms of service and community guidelines, and they may label or demonetize content — this has been found by courts to be fully protected<\/a> First Amendment expression. Fact-checking itself, as well as resultant actions like warnings, labeling, and adding of interstitial content adjacent to posts actually represent counter speech, which is meant to be furthered by the First Amendment. Our proposal does not change these roles of the platforms, as the governing body established for the Superfund for the Internet has no role in the actual identification, review, or action on content. It is simply a mechanism for facilitating the payment for news analysis services from the major information platforms and requires there be such a fact-checking process in place. Although the act of fact-checking is inherently not content-neutral (nor is it required to be), the requirement that a fact-checking process <\/em>be in place is — and the involvement of the government<\/a> in establishing this requirement does not suddenly transform the platform into a state actor<\/a>.<\/p>\n

How and How Much To Fund the Superfund for the Internet<\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019re aware of several past proposals that call for taxing the platforms in order to create trust funds to help local journalism, but we prefer a different approach. We propose that digital platforms meeting the following standards be required to contribute a federal user fee (defined as a \u201cfee<\/a> assessed to users for goods or services provided by the federal government\u201d) to the Superfund for the Internet, in an amount based on their total number of monthly active users:<\/p>\n