In common parlance, this expression is used to refer to the discipline of not criticizing the bearer of bad news, but focusing on the source of the problem. As far as we know, the origin of the expression would be the order given by Darius III, king of Persia, when he received news of his army's defeat by Alexander the Great. Instead of facing the reality of defeat, he ordered the Greek messenger to be beheaded. The popular saying instructs us to focus on the root of the problem.
As the Western landscape worsened, with COVID-19, attacks on democracy, the war in Ukraine, the tightening of central bank monetary policies, and global food insecurity, the extreme polarization of ideas and hate speech worsened, and attacks on the media and digital platforms increased.
All things considered, the aggressive debate surrounding the Fake News Bill sounds like a classic story: instead of reflecting on the root of the problem, the formulation of deliberately false news, the focus is on condemning the media outlets that disseminate the content.
Freedom of expression vs. censorship: the debate runs much deeper
Of course, the platforms themselves are doing a terrible job of crisis containment and image management, allowing themselves to be positioned as opposed to combating fake news. They should be the most interested in creating technological mechanisms to help in this fight and could lead the way due to their greater knowledge of the intricacies of social media. The fake news bill has been pending in the Brazilian Congress for three years, without the platforms having done anything concrete to help mitigate this technological social cancer of incitement to crime via electronic means. They prefer, casuistically, to stick to the simplistic discussion of the freedom of expression vs. censorship dichotomy. They are missing the opportunity for a good debate on how platforms can help curb the spread of illegal content that is harmful to human beings, society, the environment, and democracy. There is growing global discussion about the role of social media and its business model. If they do not change their stance quickly, they will be overwhelmed by events in the near future. A few years ago, the United Nations formally accused Facebook of allowing its technology to contribute to one of the worst genocides since World War II in Myanmar.
Social platforms lack a face, a person, a legitimate representative in the societies where they operate. We know that figures such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Pavel, and Nikolai Durov represent the global internet universe, but they are distant, inaccessible, and insensitive to the everyday problems of third world countries and, as such, have little credibility in Brazilian society, which follows them more for their eccentricities than for their occasional social, educational, or philanthropic work. Furthermore, they preach conflicting messages, as they claim to be anti-state, but control companies that have received public subsidies, such as Tesla, or control companies that survive on contracts with the US government, such as Space X. There is also a lack of transparency regarding the remuneration earned by these companies, which, despite not charging for internet services, manage to earn billions of dollars every year. If everyone clearly knows how companies make a profit, it is legitimate and acceptable for these companies to defend their business and their source of wealth.
An opportunity for improvement that cannot be missed
The so-called big tech companies, already a pejorative nickname, are strangely opposed to any specific legislation aimed at regulating content moderation, arguing that this would impact the lives of many people. How so? These companies, managed, born, and developed in an acute capitalist society (nothing against capitalism), now claim to be defenders of the most humble, poor Brazilian citizens? The stance of these companies demonstrates a total ignorance of the society in which they operate. It is atrocious arrogance.
Whenever a crisis arises, a bill is quickly drafted to increase penalties, regulate conduct, or hold those responsible accountable. As a result, they miss the opportunity to help create a good bill, one that would truly deter the creators of fake news or prevent its spread. They do exactly the opposite, recognizing that fake news can exist and be disseminated, but wanting to exempt themselves from responsibility. They incite parliamentary debate to criticize the bill across the board, promoting false or radical parliamentary positions.
And since we are talking about legislative eccentricities, it is typical in Brazil, especially in these emblematic bills, for protection clauses to be inserted, or clauses that provide commercial benefits to certain economic groups. In the case of the fake news bill, we find a provision that establishes payment to large media companies for the use of journalistic content. This issue should not be included in this bill. It contaminates the essence of the discussion and facilitates the opposing discourse of those who disagree. A good bill is one that is unassailable in its concept, but allows for discussion regarding its form. Bringing payment for journalistic content into the same agenda that contains the defense of democracy, crime prevention, transparency, and the prohibition of illegal practices weakens the discussion. If media companies are truly concerned about the central issue, they should drop this topic and instruct the media caucus in Congress to remove it from the bill. This discussion is valid, but it belongs in another forum.
Electronic platforms, on the other hand, should focus on what really matters, namely how to prevent the dissemination of criminal news. What technology and financial resources are available to contain the spread of this evil? What new technologies can be developed to curb this damage? Electronic platforms are a global business, and there is a need for systematic, gradual, and adaptive adjustment to the limits and consequences of the speed of information, not only in Brazil but in other countries as well. In fact, the European Union already regulated social networks last year, and big tech companies also made a lot of noise. The result there was the approval of the strictest law in existence, with fines of up to 6% of the company's global revenue. Brazilian law was inspired by European law, but ended up making so many concessions to exclude punishment that it watered down the original bill. The current approach focuses on removing posts and imposing penalties, as the ideal way to curb the spread of fake news has not yet been found. This is where platforms can contribute, with technology and strict policies on the use of their digital tools. Certain positions they are adopting only serve to increase society's distrust of what they really want. Is there justification for Twitter refusing to take down accounts that encourage violence, or for Telegram refusing to comply with a court order, which resulted in a temporary suspension throughout the country? Why does doubt persist about the manipulation of the algorithm?
Combating fake news is a cultural issue
Society needs to demand that schools teach social education, with a focus on the correct use of social media. This would be a return to a kind of moral and civic education, without the militarized bias of the past. The issue of fake news is unlikely to have a single solution, whether through legislation or restrictive measures. There is no silver bullet for this issue, as it requires a change in habits, customs, mentality, and the way we think. The problem can be mitigated through a set of actions, depending on social acceptance at a given time and place.
The timing of the discussion of a bill to curb fake news is opportune, and the debate is having an impact on society. It could take a more educational stance, but for that to happen, platforms must fully engage in the solution, helping with financial and technological resources, data disclosure, transparency, and a contributory stance, so that they are seen as they want to be seen: mere messengers. Currently, the stance points to the opposite. They seem to be an enabler of human problems that end up on social media, whose business model is to keep people glued to the platform for as many hours as possible, with underlying technology to achieve this goal. There is no way to blame platforms for the individual psychological weaknesses that lead us to do harm or act against the social interest, destroying the notion of common well-being, but when platforms are no longer perceived as institutions that defend social governance and the common good, they cannot expect to be exempt from any responsibility. Being the arbiter of a democracy determined to destroy itself is a thankless task, but if platforms do not impose limits on themselves, these will be imposed on them through state regulation.
More about
Politics
