Misinformation.

Malinformation.

Disinformation.

Fake news.

Whatever we call it, it is now a problem for New Zealand. The spread of information that is causing harm, which is directly contrary to established facts and trusted expert opinion, is becoming rife and it’s leading to real problems for New Zealand.

Amid the calls of online harm and hate speech we are also seeing more conversations about what the balance and limits on the rights to freedom of expression are and on the individual’s right to say something that may cause harm, online or not.

This month, I’ve been questioning content regulators over these issues and trying to think about how New Zealanders should be addressing these problems, particularly in an age of digital platform aggregation of many views that are controversial, misleading or potentially damaging to our Kiwi way of life.

The Classifications Office and the Broadcasting Standards Authority were both called to Parliamentary scrutiny in the Annual Review process and both were upfront and clear that we have deep problems in New Zealand. Below is an excerpt from Chief Censor David Shanks that I think is particularly telling about the issue we are all facing:

“New Zealanders—84 per cent of New Zealanders—felt that something should be done about the problem of misinformation primarily promulgated digitally or on social media platforms. But it’s not clear for most people as to exactly what should be done or who should be acting in response to it. And I was clear in releasing that report that I don’t think criminalising misinformation per se is the answer to this problem. If we look overseas, we see the trend with overseas authorities is looking at the responsibility of platforms and content promoters themselves in having standards and approaches to deal with that. “

In simple terms, we know misinformation is a problem but don’t know how to fix it and our country’s lead content regulator doesn’t think it should be criminal. This puts the question as to how to end or to mitigate misinformation into uncharted waters.

As a country that prides itself on education, achievement and innovation we can’t allow misinformation to derail amazing innovative technologies like telecommunications upgrades that allow for our industries to thrive and neither do we think it is okay for ideas to circulate that end up causing medical and mental harm to New Zealanders. We also believe firmly in our freedoms to say, think and express ourselves while balancing that with the justified limitations where criminal actions and illegal harms may result but, it is not clear where the boundary is and it is a problematic thing to allow the Government of the day to make that decision.

We are all concerned about the levels of misinformation online but also deeply concerned at the way some digital platforms choose to self-regulate, impacting on our own concepts of free speech; indeed, the several thousands of submitters on the Free Speech Union’s (of which I must disclose I am a member)  concerns regarding the potential of a proposed New Zealand Online Safety Code, as proposed to be administered by Netsafe, show how impassioned we all are that speech, our media, our digital messaging and our tools to engage with one another in an increasingly digital democracy may become limited. I should note I raised my own concerns with several platforms on these issues prior to the consultation going live and I’m pleased to be hearing that the Code may be getting another look in light of such heavy opposition.

The problem that exists is how we regulate because, in an age of terrorist content, violent extremist material and other online abuses there have to be tools for Government and Industry alike to protect families and communities beyond any personalised tools they wish to use to avoid harmful content. The argument to just change the channel rather than to regulate doesn’t work when your 5 year old sees an ISIS beheading video on auto play and to shut the platforms out of the market completely is no longer tenable for our economy or our democracy. The debacle in Australia over Facebook and news saw hundreds of pages disabled and millions of Australian disenfranchised from their networks until the digital conflict reached a détente.

I am unsure yet where the discussion is going on misinformation for the people of New Zealand but we need to have it and even the Government’s own research agrees. It’s time to have a frank conversion about our digital identity and our digital media landscapes and how we are defining misinformation as opposed to purely obscene or controversial opinions. This is a conversation that will be uncomfortable for everyone. For the public, for the industry, for the Government and for our digital nation.

When we now have many in the media questioning themselves after seeing how vitriolic their presence was met with in recent protests against the Government, When we have a Government openly admitting in Cabinet Papers it may further limit freedom of expression, the failed mandatory web filter attempt comes to mind, and when we have digital infrastructure changing every aspect of the way we consume content, converse and hear ideas we need to be more frank and comprehensive about what we want to do about misinformation as a country.

We need to be willing to talk though. That’s going to be the first step.

Note: this article originally ran on Indian Newslink on 21 February 2022