I am shocked – shocked! – to learn that some information you see on social media is not entirely reliable. No, really, it’s true. You can’t trust everything you read on the internet. I know, I couldn’t believe it either.
Partly that’s down to the online platforms, which are either (a) piously devoted to the principle of free speech, or (b) making lovely lovely money from the increased online traffic that results from controversy. You decide which. But until they grow either some balls or a conscience, anyone who wants to keep using them needs to take responsibility for stopping the spread of disinformation.
So, a few thoughts on that.
1. We don’t need to get involved every time. Some people aren’t looking for a rational discussion –they’re just bullies or attention vampires. Engaging with them isn’t always pointless – they won’t change their minds, but if it’s online then there are always other people watching. But it’s often okay to ignore them. Or, if you want, post a counter-argument separately.
2. If we do engage, what are we trying to achieve? Are we making an argument against the point they are making, or are we just having fun at their expense? The latter is not always wrong, and is occasionally fun in a cheap sort of way – I’ve done it a few times; it’s mildly satisfying when a troll gives up and blocks you – but in the end it isn’t the person I want to defeat, but the argument they are making.
3. In that case, I’d better be pretty sure that my own argument is well founded. Sometimes that’s pretty easy. People arguing against gay rights, say, or against gender equality, are apt to finding the foundations of their arguments crumble under their feet.
4. Other areas are more treacherous. We might find that not all of our own positions are as eminently justifiable as we might think. For example: I eat meat (a bit) and dairy (a lot – mmm, cheese), which sits uneasily with my supposed support for animal rights.
5. Also, I hold some opinions which seem extreme to others, though of course they’re wrong and I’m right. One example: James Bond needs to end. A more important example: the first problem with racism is that race does not meaningfully exist in any way other than conceptually. It’s sometimes necessary to acknowledge that someone else takes a position that is internally consistent and arguably valid, even if I think it’s hopelessly wrong.
6. These are essentially arguments about values, though, and although they can be thorny, they’re pretty familiar. I’m less used to arguing about straight up matters of fact. Did Joe Biden win the US election? (Yes.) Is Covid-19 real, and distinct and more serious than seasonal flu? (Yes.) Do lockdowns work? (Yes, if (a) they reduce contact between people sufficiently, and (b) if by ‘work’ you mean ‘save at least some lives’.) These seem to me to be pretty irrefutable facts, and yet all of them are contested.
7. Encountering someone who seems thus to live in a parallel conceptual universe is alarming. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s like the wild-eyed man shouting at some invisible enemy on the train: he is probably not dangerous to anyone but himself, but you don’t know for sure, so you are automatically wary. Similarly, someone who thinks Covid-19 was deliberately engineered in a lab (I’m old enough to remember when people spouted the same loony nonsense about HIV) or that Bill Gates is using the vaccine to implant people with microchips (something they read on their smartphone, with tracking continually enabled) automatically makes me wary. If their view of reality is so misaligned with my own, will meaningful communication be impossible?
8. However, most people do believe at least to some extent in an objective reality, and in reference to evidence to delineate aspects of that reality. So why would someone else, with access to the same evidence as I do, come to such wildly different conclusions?
9. One possibility is: they haven’t; they don’t really believe what they claim to believe; they are arguing in bad faith. I don’t think this is common among real people on line – much more common in deliberately controversial opinion pieces (see the ones Boris Johnson used to do. Johnson never really believed anything he wrote or said; he still doesn’t). Others come to believe their own rhetoric and so talk themselves into increasingly extreme positions (see Katie Hopkins).
10. Some people might not really think what they think they think, were they to stop and think about it. For them, a good approach is (a) to identify the extent to which you agree – there is often some point of agreement; (b) to explain clearly why you think differently; and (c) to try to do this without seeking to belittle them. (I’ve sometimes started off trying to do this, but ended up in a slanging match. Such is life. But I tried.)
11. One element I find difficult is when I disagree with someone about what constitutes a reliable source of information. Not all information is created equal. I don’t believe everything the government says. I don’t think any news outlet is free from bias. But disbelieving everything is as bad as believing everything, and it seems to me that there are some real, reliable ways of gauging how much trust to place in a source of information online.
12. Some things are pretty obvious. The Twitter account that’s just been created with 150 followers might be a reliable source, but you would want to confirm your information elsewhere. Bots and bottom-feeding trolls are pretty easy to spot.
13. Does the source benefit in some way from what they are saying? With, say, a government source, it’s right to keep one eye on whether they are spinning information for their own political advantage; and the same goes for opposition politicians. Other sources might stand to gain financially from their position – are they selling something? Sometimes what they are selling is their hold on people’s attention – again, the professional controversialists.
14. Does the source correct itself publicly when it makes errors? No one likes to be wrong; but the next best thing to being infallible is admitting one’s mistakes. Good news sources correct their errors readily.
15. Similarly, does the source say where its information comes from? If not, then it’s just a rumour mill. (Even if it does, is it citing anonymous ‘sources close to the Prime Minister’? That sort of thing understandably raises doubts about the probity or at least the impartiality of Laura Kuenssberg and Robert Peston.)
16. The source thing matters. When you share or follow a source on social media, you’re effectively endorsing it, whether you want to or not: each follow and share feeds into the platform’s algorithms, which will then push that source to more people.
17. Correcting people also matters.People are less likely to share information when someone has commented with a fact check. They might not take down a particular post – pride, innit – but they might be more cautious next time.
18. In fact, despite continual misinformation, I think a majority of people are trying to do their best to identify a set of objective truths and to act accordingly. A majority of people do believe Joe Biden won the election (it isn’t a big enough majority for complacency, but it is still a majority). A majority of people believe Covid-19 is real and accept the need for some restrictive measures to keep people safe.
19. Even the social media companies considered that Donald Trump had gone too far in inciting violence. His ban from social media has had a real and fast effect: a recent article in the Washington Post said that online misinformation about election fraud dropped 73% after Donald Trump was banned from Twitter.
20. The best thing would be to develop a culture of fact-checking within the general public. There is some evidence that younger people – born in the internet age – are better at gauging the reliability of information they find online, but they won’t be immune from error either. We can all encourage each other towards the truth.