Michael Broening is the director of Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in New York and a member of the Basic Values Committee of the Social Democratic Party of Germany.
Faced with fake news, online hatred, and the disastrous consequences of misleading information, the government is increasingly accepting the role of an objective real-life mediator and inflaming “misunderstanding information”. We have established formal rules to combat the spread of news.
But if the authorities are in charge of objectivity, who opposes them?
In Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, India, Sweden and South Africa, the fight against “hate speech” is legal. The South Korean parliament has called for a committee of experts to separate the “truth history” from conspiracy theories and from the country’s overly critical readings of the country’s past. And in the United States, President Joe Biden’s administration has announced the establishment of a disinformation governance committee between ministries and agencies for “disinformation that threatens the safety of Americans.”
International organizations follow suit. The European Union has passed a new Digital Services Act, allowing members to withdraw political publicity and give hate speech. And at the United Nations, as promised in the Charter of the United Nations, there is a significant shift from saving the next generation from the tragedy of war to targeting the ever-expanding information warfare.UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres Repeated warning We have launched an initiative to solve the “incorrect information epidemic” problem and “provide life-saving information and fact-based advice by cutting noise.”
Apparently, when Russian national propaganda presented naked aggression as a fight against “Nazism”, militants distributed racist manifests online, and former President Donald Trump returned to social media. , The urge to defend the truth is understandable.
Still, there are good reasons to curb the enthusiasm for getting governments involved in the fight against false information.
Part of the problem is the simple truth — the truth is never simple.
In fact, data, and even scientific consensus, are often more multidimensional, inconsistent, and non-static than government boards and official communiqués can tolerate.
And because information requires context and interpretation, government-approved concepts of scientific truth are not really scientific. After all, the basis for the discovery of rational truth is the belief that even absolute certainty can and should be questioned. In the words of John Stuart Mill, it is possible to raise a “comprehensive, frequent, and fearless” question that can prevent the “living truth” from turning into a “dead doctrine.” Only by.
But this abstract issue has a concrete political side.
In a world of conflicting political ideals, it is very difficult to draw a line between disinformation, false information, and simply inconvenient truth. And the premise that political authorities are in the best position to draw this line and calmly identify reality misunderstands the essence of politics. This essentially overturns the ideal of telling the truth to power, which in turn suppresses legitimate opposition, silences the necessary criticisms, and ultimately boldens authoritarian tendencies, an almost unavoidable result. Will bring.
In essence, asking politics to define the line between fact and fiction leaves the wolf to take care of the sheep.
Democratic governments also need to be concerned. On the surface, even well-meaning attempts to strengthen politics through the participation of objective science can have unintended adverse effects. In many cases, instead of isolating the former, they politicize the latter and ultimately outlaw it. It has a devastating effect on political conditions, social cohesion and rational debate. For example, the vague line between government authorities and the role of science in the fight against COVID-19 is the reason for the suspension.
In a constantly changing world, truth does not benefit from politics ex cathedra Not by regulation, but from open discussions and unhindered interactions of competing views.
Given the incredible speed of press freedom shrinking around the world, guaranteeing and defending this open idea exchange is more than assuming the impossible role of a universal arbiter in reality. Is also a more urgent issue for well-meaning governments.
Freedom of speech is the operating system of a democratic society. It is not only a result, but a prerequisite for democracy.
Don’t tell me the truth in a world full of false information. Please discuss.
..
