The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 2.
Submission to the Facebook Oversight Board in Case 2021-008-FB-FBR: Brazil, Health Misinformation and Lockdowns
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-in-case-2021-008-fb-fbr-brazil-health-misinformation-and-lockdowns
<b>In this note, we answer questions set out by the Board, pursuant to case 2021-008-FB-FBR, which concerned a post made by a Brazilian sub-national health official, and raised questions on health misinformation and enforcement of Facebook's community standards. </b>
<h1 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Background </h1>
<p dir="ltr">The <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/tag/oversight-board/">Oversight Board</a> is an expert body created to exercise oversight over Facebook’s content moderation decisions and enforcement of community guidelines. It is entirely independent from Facebook in its funding and administration and provides decisions on questions of policy as well as individual cases. It can also make recommendations on Facebook’s content policies. Its decisions are binding on Facebook, unless implementing them could violate the law. Accordingly, Facebook <a href="https://transparency.fb.com/oversight/oversight-board-cases/">implements</a> these decisions across identical content with parallel context, when it is technically and operationally possible to do so. </p>
<p dir="ltr">In June 2021, the Board made an <a href="https://oversightboard.com/news/170403765029629-announcement-of-case-2021-008-fb-fbr/">announcement</a> soliciting public comments on case 2021-008-FB-FBR, concerning a Brazilian state level medical council’s post questioning the effectiveness of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the post noted that lockdowns (i) are ineffective; (ii) lead to an increase in mental disorders, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, economic damage etc.; (iii) are against fundamental rights under the Brazilian Constitution; and (iv) are condemned by the World Health Organisation (“WHO”). These assertions were backed up by two statements (i) an alleged quote by Dr. Nabarro (WHO) stating that “the lockdown does not save lives and makes poor people much poorer”; and (ii) an example of how the Brazilian state of Amazonas had an increase in deaths and hospital admissions after lockdown. Ultimately, the post concluded that effective COVID-19 preventive measures include education campaigns about hygiene measures, use of masks, social distancing, vaccination and extensive monitoring by the government — but never the decision to adopt lockdowns. The post was viewed around 32,000 times and shared over 270 times. It was not reported by anyone. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Facebook did not take any action against the post, since it had opined that the post is not violative of its community standards. Moreover, WHO has also not advised Facebook to remove claims against lockdowns. In such a scenario, Facebook referred the case to the Oversight Board citing its public importance. </p>
<p dir="ltr">In its announcement, the Board sought answers on the following points: </p>
<ol><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Whether Facebook’s decision to take no action against the content was consistent with its Community Standards and other policies, including the Misinformation and Harm policy (which sits within the rules on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/credible_violence">Violence and Incitement</a>). </p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Whether Facebook’s decision to take no action is consistent with the company’s stated values and human rights commitments. </p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Whether, in this case, Facebook should have considered alternative enforcement measures to removing the content (e.g., the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/false_news">False News</a> Community Standard places an emphasis on “reduce” and “inform,” including: labelling, downranking, providing additional context etc.), and what principles should inform the application of these measures. </p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">How Facebook should treat content posted by the official accounts of national or sub-national level public health authorities, including where it may diverge from official guidance from international health organizations. </p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Insights on the post’s claims and their potential impact in the context of Brazil, including on national efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19. </p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Whether Facebook should create a new Community Standard on health misinformation, as recommended by the Oversight Board in case decision <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-XWJQBU9A/">2020-006-FB-FBR</a>.</p>
</li></ol>
<h1 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Submission to the Board</h1>
<p dir="ltr">Facebook’s decision to take no action against the post is consistent with its (i) <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/credible_violence">Violence and Incitement</a> community standard read with the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/230764881494641">COVID-19 Policy Updates and Protections</a>; and (ii) <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/false_news">False News</a> community standard. Facebook’s<a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2018/08/hard-questions-free-expression/"> website</a> as well as all of the Board’s <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-6YHRXHZR/">past</a> <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-QBJDASCV/">decisions</a> refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ (ICCPR) jurisprudence based <a href="https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf">three-pronged test</a> of legality, legitimate aim, and necessity and proportionality in determining violations of Facebook’s community standards. Facebook must apply the same principles to guide the use of its enforcement actions too, keeping in mind the context, intent, tone and impact of the speech. </p>
<p dir="ltr">First, none of Facebook’s aforementioned rules contain explicit prohibitions on content questioning lockdown effectiveness. There is nothing to indicate that “misinformation”, which is undefined, includes within its scope information about the effectiveness of lockdowns. The World Health Organisation has also not advised against such posts. Applying the principle of legality, any person cannot reasonably foresee that such content is prohibited. Accordingly, Facebook’s community standards have not been violated, </p>
<p dir="ltr">Second, the post does not meet the threshold of causing “imminent” harm stipulated in the community standards. Case decision <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-XWJQBU9A/">2020-006-FB-FBR</a>, notes that an assessment of “imminence” is made with reference to factors like context, speaker credibility, language etc. Presently, the post’s language and tone, including its quoting of experts and case studies, indicate that its intent is to encourage informed, scientific debate on lockdown effectiveness. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Third, Facebook’s false news community standard does contain any explicit prohibitions. Hence there is no question of its violation. Any decision to the contrary may go against the standard’s stated policy logic of not stifling public discourse, and create a chilling effect on posts questioning the lockdown efficacy. This will set a problematic precedent that Facebook will be mandated to implement.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Presently, Facebook cannot remove the post since no community standards have been violated. Facebook must not reduce the post’s circulation since this may stifle public discussion around lockdown effectiveness. Further, its removal would have resulted in violation of the user’s right to freedom of opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the ICCPR, which are in turn part of Facebook’s Corporate Human Rights Policy. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Instead, Facebook can provide additional context along with the post through its “<a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/inside-feed-article-context/">related articles</a>” feature, by showing fact checked articles talking about the benefits of lockdown. This approach is the most beneficial since (i) it is less restrictive than reducing circulation of the post; (ii) it balances interests better than not taking any actions by allowing people to be informed about both sides of the debate on lockdowns so that they can make an informed assessment. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Further, Facebook’s treatment of content posted by official accounts of national or sub-national health authorities should be circumscribed by its updated <a href="https://transparency.fb.com/features/approach-to-newsworthy-content/">Newsworthy Content Policy</a>, and the Board’s decision in the <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ/">2021-001-FB-FBR</a>, which had adopted the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/freedomopinion/articles19-20/pages/index.aspx">Rabat Plan of Action</a> to determine whether a restriction on freedom of expression is required to prevent incitement. The Rabat Plan of Action proposes a six-prong test, that considers: a) the social and political context, b) status of the speaker, c) intent to incite the audience against a target group, d) content and form of the speech, e) extent of its dissemination and f) likelihood of harm, including imminence. Apart from taking these factors into consideration, Facebook must <a href="https://transparency.fb.com/features/approach-to-newsworthy-content/">perform</a> a balancing test to determine whether the public interest of the information in the post outweighs the risks of harm. </p>
<p dir="ltr">In the Board’s decision in <a href="https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-XWJQBU9A/">2020-006-FB-FBR</a>, it was recommended to Facebook to: a) set out a clear and accessible Community Standard on health misinformation, b) consolidate and clarify existing rules in one place (including defining key terms such as misinformation) and c) provision of "detailed hypotheticals that illustrate the nuances of interpretation and application of [these] rules" to provide further clarity for users. Following this, Facebook has <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20491921/covid-19-response-full.pdf">notified</a> its implementation measures, where it has fully implemented these recommendations, thereby bringing it into compliance.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Finally, Brazil is one of the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51235105">worst affected</a> countries in the pandemic. It has also been <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ea62950e-89c0-4b8b-b458-05c90a55b81f">struggling </a>to combat the spread of fake news during the pandemic. President Bolsanaro has been <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/01/28/brazil-crackdown-critics-covid-19-response">criticised</a> for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/07/democracy-and-freedom-of-expression-are-under-threat-in-brazil">curbing free speech</a> by using a dictatorship-era <a href="http://www.iconnectblog.com/2021/02/undemocratic-legislation-to-undermine-freedom-of-speech-in-brazil/">national security law</a>., and questioned on his handling of the pandemic, including his own controversial <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56479614">statements </a>questioning lockdown effectiveness. In such a scenario, the post may be perceived in a political colour rather than as an attempt at scientific discussion. However, it is unlikely that the post will lead to any-knee jerk reactions, since people are already familiar with the lockdown debate on which much has already been said and done. A post like this which merely reiterates one side of an ongoing debate is not likely to cause people to take any action to violate lockdown.</p>
<p dir="ltr">For detailed explanation on these questions, please see <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/facebook-oversight-board-submission-brazil">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-in-case-2021-008-fb-fbr-brazil-health-misinformation-and-lockdowns'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-in-case-2021-008-fb-fbr-brazil-health-misinformation-and-lockdowns</a>
</p>
No publisherTanvi Apte and Torsha SarkarInternet FreedomMisinformationIntermediary LiabilityInformation Technology2021-07-01T07:34:09ZBlog EntryRumours, Misinformation and Self-Verification of Facts in the Age of COVID-19
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rumours-misinformation-and-self-verification-of-facts-in-the-age-of-covid-19
<b>Efforts taken by the government or social media platforms can only be realised if an individual asks herself -- 'what can I do to verify this piece of information'?</b>
<p>This article was first <a class="external-link" href="https://thewire.in/tech/rumours-misinformation-covid-19">published</a> in The Wire. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>My father is someone who usually trusts any forward he receives on WhatsApp. Recently, he was terribly upset to learn that ‘<em>rasam</em> powder’ is now the ‘best antibiotic’ for the coronavirus, because he is not a fan of rasam himself. He also showed me an article <a href="https://www.dtnext.in/News/City/2020/03/04124412/1218320/Coronavirus-Rasam-to-the-rescue-Chennai-doctor-explains.vpf">wherein a doctor in Chennai</a> stated that rasam has ingredients that can ‘kill a foreign host’. I had to show him <a href="https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/fake-news-buster-no-evidence-to-back-claim-turmeric-fights-virus/articleshow/74619958.cms">a fact checked article </a>on how turmeric and lemon cannot cure the coronavirus infection and then I introduced him to <a href="https://www.altnews.in/"><em>AltNews</em></a>. This led to a visible positive impact on his mental health in these trying times.</p>
<p>As a result, I wondered, is it time to start placing greater emphasis on self-verification of facts as a more optimal way of tackling misinformation? </p>
<p>With the global pandemic controlling every aspect of our lives, one naturally gets curious about it and tends to look for every available information about it. Misinformation via social media platforms may start by being a common form of entertainment. Sadly, for many, it soon transforms into a ‘reliable’ source of information. From articles about <a href="https://www.altnews.in/no-medicine-will-be-sprayed-in-the-air-to-kill-coronavirus-fake-message-viral/">medicines being sprayed in the air to kill the coronavirus</a> to <a href="https://www.altnews.in/no-saddam-hussein-did-not-say-us-had-threatened-iraq-with-coronavirus-in-1990/">a statement by Sadam Hussain saying that the US had threatened Iraq with the virus in 1990</a>, there is absolutely no dearth of creativity in spreading false news. The problem is that it is easy for people to fall prey to fake news and more importantly, they do not know how to get out of the rabbit hole.</p>
<p>However, the question which must be raised is whether the use of an official chatbot to advance ‘right information’ is the most efficient way to handle misinformation? In another recent example, the AYUSH ministry <a href="https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/indian-authorities-propose-use-of-homeopathy-to-prevent-coronavirus-67075">released advisories </a>on how homeopathy can prevent the coronavirus infection, which was <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/homeopathic-drug-arsenicum-album-30-cant-prevent-coronavirus-infection-as-claimed-by-ayush-ministry-800083.html">proved to be false by many scientific sources</a>. This heightens the problem of fake news or the spread of i.e. incorrect information as it comes from an official source. This leads to a certain air of distrust because of how often the so-called reliable institutions and organisations themselves get entangled in the web of misinformation. </p>
<p>Another popular way of tackling misinformation are the initiatives that are taken by intermediaries like WhatsApp and Facebook wanting to become more responsible platforms of engagement. Facebook has claimed that it will take initiatives to tackle misinformation like developing an <a href="https://thenextweb.com/neural/2020/03/04/how-facebooks-new-ai-system-has-deactivated-more-than-100m-fake-accounts/">Artificial Intelligence system that can</a> investigate and deactivate fake accounts disseminating fake news. In another such effort, it <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/26/822245048/facebook-steps-up-efforts-to-combat-the-spread-of-coronavirus-misinformation">has introduced</a> pop-ups and an information centre page which directs the users to the resources of WHO, and <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/03/combating-covid-19-misinformation/">immediately removes any content</a> likely to cause ‘imminent physical harm’. Meanwhile, WhatsApp, on the other hand, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8125541/WhatsApp-launches-coronavirus-information-hub-tackle-misinformation.html">launched a ‘coronavirus information hub’</a> which will help people stay more connected during the lockdown. While the efforts taken by the social media intermediaries is much appreciated, it is difficult to understand if these methods would effectively tackle misinformation? In 2016, Facebook’s automated ‘trending stories algorithm’ was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/29/facebook-fires-trending-topics-team-algorithm">proved to be disastrous</a> and was found to have rolled out inaccurate political information.</p>
<p>Following this disaster, Facebook was forced to take down the inaccurate headlines and dismiss this system. This raises the issue of the accountability of the intermediaries having a global user base exercising immense power over what, where and how information is spread. The damage done by them cannot be fixed in the wake of inadequate liability mechanisms. </p>
<p>In light of the above, the only efficient and effective way to prevent the spread of misinformation is self-verification, which means that people who consume the data on an everyday basis educate themselves and acquire the skills to tackle it. This can be done simply by a quick search on Google, or checking for that information or news item on <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.altnews&hl=en_IN">AltNews App</a>, or visiting the official websites to verify the accuracy of the data.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330666590_Recognize_Misinformation_and_Verify_Before_Sharing_A_Reasoned_Action_and_Information_Literacy_Perspective">Empirical research conducted</a> in Indonesia analysing the perceived ability of individuals to recognise false information on social media proved that this ability is affected by the levels of income, education, internet skills and attitude towards information verification. This research proved that individuals lie at the centre of “any efforts in tackling the spread of misinformation”. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28622038">Another study verified </a>that ‘everyday users’ have the power to reduce or mitigate the effects of health misperceptions on social media. Both these studies prove that consumers who play the central role in the spread of misinformation, are also the most efficient and effective in debunking the various myths and fake news. Especially, during a health emergency in the internet era, when the spread of fake news and misinformation is rapid and rampant, it is important for the consumers of information to act responsibly.</p>
<p>There are various ways in which this skill can be taught: creating awareness on television and social media, or <a href="https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/kerala-government-schools-teach-how-to-spot-fake-news-2877961.html">innovative initiatives like ‘Fake News Classes’</a> introduced in government schools in Kerala, where they teach students how to identify and spot misinformation. Even asking questions like “What is the source of that (post/forward)?” is an effective way of averting the mass spreading of misinformation.<br /><br />In these trying times, it is really important to shift towards a system where self-verification of information is an ‘internet skill’ and an important duty. This is not to say that the efforts made by social media intermediaries and government aren’t appreciated – it is that those steps can be effectively realized only if individuals, i.e. the consumers actively participate by learning to deal with misinformation so that they do not become the carriers of misinformation.</p>
<p>Every stakeholder and especially, the consumers must understand the larger impact of a meagre forward or post on social media. As a result of one such effort, my father did not drink rasam that day but neither should you – it is alright to trust, but verify first.</p>
<p>There are many ways in which misinformation can be tackled. There are government initiatives like the introduction of an <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/21/india-whatsapp-mygov-corona-helpdesk-bot/">official chatbot on WhatsApp</a> named ‘MyGov Corona News Desk’ which answers queries about the virus with an aim to prevent spreading of rumours during this pandemic. With this initiative, it also intends to calm people and prevent chaos as the chatbot basically helps in creating awareness by providing official documents verifying information about the virus. The government has also launched <a href="https://www.firstpost.com/health/coronavirus-outbreak-govt-launches-mygov-corona-news-desk-group-on-telegram-to-fight-misinformation-on-covid-19-8190911.html">an official Telegram group </a>which addresses the same concerns.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rumours-misinformation-and-self-verification-of-facts-in-the-age-of-covid-19'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rumours-misinformation-and-self-verification-of-facts-in-the-age-of-covid-19</a>
</p>
No publisherMira SwaminathanFake NewsMisinformation2020-04-21T13:09:53ZBlog Entry