Reflections on fake news

The advent of fake news – false information that circulates extensively on the internet – is central to contemporary public debate. It's an old topic, but still poorly understood and explored. We know, however, that it has always existed. When Armstrong stepped on the moon on July 20, 1969, there was a strong wave of rumors (rumors being the direct ancestors of fake news) spreading the "news" that the images had been forged in some secret studio located in the USA. In Brazil, the death of Tancredo Neves (a victim of septicemia resulting from probable medical malpractice) was also associated with some dubious justifications – among them the claim that he had been the victim of an assassination attempt. During the Vargas regime, Carlos Lacerda (a journalist and politician linked to the right) faked an assassination attempt against himself in order to accuse the then-president of persecution. During the military regime, two military officers were discovered after attempting to detonate a bomb at a public event, later accusing left-wing movements of terrorism (an event known as "Rio Centro"). This same left wing would be held responsible, in 1989, for the kidnapping of businessman Abílio Diniz (electoral process experts say the event was strategic for the defeat of then-candidate Lula and the subsequent victory of candidate Fernando Collor in the presidential elections) when, in reality, the attack was orchestrated by members of the PCC (Primeiro Comando da Capital).

We could cite countless cases to conclude that, on the one hand, historically, the manipulation of information has always been used for political interests with ethically despicable biases. On the other hand, a large part of the population has lived with and exploited a precarious, incipient knowledge, fueled by prejudices, beliefs, and superstitions. It is true that the Enlightenment helped to shape individuals who, under the influence of a certain rationalism, tend to position themselves more critically in relation to available information. However, unfortunately, they are an increasingly large minority.

That said, we can reasonably assert that fake news is not a historical novelty. Its problem, as Evgeny Morozov states in his book *Big Tech: The Rise of Data and the Death of Politics* (published by Ubu), is the speed and ease of its dissemination. It only takes one click. According to Morozov, "this happens mainly because today's digital capitalism makes it highly profitable to produce and share false narratives that attract clicks." The novelty, therefore, is not in fake news itself, but in the appearance of this instrument that reproduces and disseminates it with unprecedented breadth and speed.

A second point that deserves attention is that which refers to the very meaning of fake news. It is not uncommon to see the term being used rhetorically, that is, to disqualify a discourse that opposes that of the person using it. In this sense, the term goes from simply false information to everything that is displeasing – not only the facts that are displeasing, but also the interpretations with which one vehemently disagrees. In other words, what is fake news for one fanatic is absolute and unquestionable truth for the fanatic of the opposite side.

The question is: can fake news jeopardize democracy or freedom of expression?

Ideas and ideologies form a continuous fabric, making it difficult to establish a dividing line between what is considered legitimate and what is considered improper, forbidden from being expressed. The free expression and circulation of these ideas allows society to have a wide range of options whose use – sometimes selective, sometimes not – constitutes the very line of evolution of customs and history. Thus, what seems unacceptable to us today may become the status quo tomorrow. Now, the more vigorous the practice of freedom of expression, the denser and more varied it is, the freer and more conscious the decisions that society will have to make... in theory.

In practice, besides the diversity of reasonable ideas, the internet and the supposed freedom it brings have given space (more than that, visibility) to conspiracy theories, detestable opinions, distorted versions, and hateful sentiments. For some reason, they get more attention. Thus, it is necessary to define the term. Fake news should encompass all information that, demonstrably false, harms third parties, having been forged and/or put into circulation in bad faith or simply through negligence.

One last point worth noting. Google's monopoly on the internet doesn't mean it is – or should be – responsible for the delicate task of selecting and/or censoring information. It has no interest in doing so. It's not even interested in upholding freedom of expression. This idea of ​​outsourcing responsibility is quite common here. Google, Facebook, and their affiliates are interested in you for two reasons: first, as a consumer, and second, for the information you generate from your personal searches, which in turn generate the data necessary to transform you into a consumer, regardless of who you are or what you think. Their ads are on pages that spread fake news as well as pages that combat fake news. They seek, more than anything else, audience hotspots. Nothing more.

Morozov says: "The 2018 Brazilian elections showed the high cost to be paid by societies that, dependent on digital platforms and unaware of the power they wield, are reluctant to consider networks as political agents. The Big Tech business model works in such a way that it ceases to be relevant whether the messages disseminated are true or false. All that matters is whether they go viral, since it is through the analysis of our clicks and likes, refined into synthetic portraits of our personality, that these companies generate their enormous profits. Truth [for them] is what generates the most views. From the perspective of digital platforms, fake news is simply the most profitable news."

But this comes at a price:

"If we don't find ways to control this infrastructure, democracies will drown in a tsunami of digital demagoguery; this, the most likely source of viral content: hate, unfortunately, sells much better than solidarity. It is therefore difficult to imagine a more urgent task than imagining a highly technological world, but at the same time, free from the pernicious influence of Big Tech. A daunting task that, if left aside, will still cause much damage to democratic culture."

So what to do? Would it make sense to demand that technology monopolies be compelled to adopt a radical transparency policy that would, in turn, allow for absolute oversight of their activities – which is currently completely nonexistent? Would it make sense for the Justice system to seek mechanisms to punish those responsible for malicious disclosures, even if this involved monitoring individual activities? To what extent would we be guaranteed that such monitoring would not simply shift the focus of the problem – currently on the generation of data for commercial purposes and, later, in the hands of the State, as a political instrument?

Ultimately – and even before we can formulate any answers to the questions above – the most effective tool against fake news, its greatest barrier, remains education. An education that is capable of stimulating discernment in choices, constant questioning, and healthy skepticism in the way information is absorbed. It is undoubtedly the longest path, but the only possible one.