The intentional and widespread distribution of disinformation on social media networks is undermining democratic processes. Jurisdictions around the world are playing catch-up with this emerging and evolving form of targeted mass communication. The 2016 United Kingdom (UK) Referendum on membership of the European Union (EU) was no exception. The outcome of the advisory referendum was very close – 52% for the Leave side and 48% for Remain. This paper aims to assess some of the factors which led to a narrow victory for the Leave side and discuss if social media channels facilitated dark forces, foreign governments and their proxies to use these platforms to sew ‘fake news’; manipulating the electorate to vote leave and thus affecting the political and economic trajectory of the United Kingdom.
Keywords:
Brexit, United Kingdom, European Union, Fake News, Immigration, Clickbait, Trolls, Bots, Leave EU, Referendum, Voter Manipulation
Click here to download PDF version.
Introduction
The term ‘fake news’ has been widely used in political discourse since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016. It is highly contentious, politically loaded and has been used to discredit journalists and news organisations who express often valid, well-researched opinions (McGonagle, 2017, p. 203). Disinformation about topics such as immigration, shared widely through online communities on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were widespread in the lead up and during the 2016 UK referendum on EU membership which has led to the process widely known as Brexit. There is a compelling body of evidence that ‘fake news’ distributed on social media targeted voters in an attempt to manipulate citizens to vote in a certain way.
An infographic titled “Beyond ‘Fake news’ – 10 types of misleading news” has been created by the European Association for Viewers Interests (EAVI). The infographic is multifaceted and identifies ten categories of misleading news. It analyses motivations behind each category and likely impacts on viewers and listeners. In addition, motivations are listed as money, politics/power, humour/fun, passion and the aim to (mis)inform. Impacts are measured from neutral, low, medium and high (McGonagle, 2017, p. 204).
According to the EAVI the 10 types of misleading news
are:
- Propaganda
- Clickbait
- Sponsored content
- Satire and hoax
- Error
- Partisan content
- Conspiracy theory
- Pseudoscience
- Misinformation
- Bogus content
The EAVI provides a useful paradigm to assess the 2016 UK Referendum on European Union membership (“Beyond Fake News – 10 types of misleading news,” 2017).
Damien Collins is a British Conservative Member of Parliament (MP). He also chairs the cross-party Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. On the 18th February 2019 the committee published a 108-page report titled “Disinformation and Fake News”. Collins was forthright in his appraisal of the current threat to democracy in the UK:
“Democracy is at risk from malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised ‘dark adverts’ from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day. Much of this is directed from agencies working in foreign countries, including Russia” (Collins, 2019 pp. 5).
The report concluded that democracy in Britain is ‘under attack’ by perpetrators using social media networks to try and influence voters. Companies such as Facebook and Twitter are either unable or unwilling to prevent their platforms being used by third parties, foreign agents (or their proxies) to influence voters. Disinformation or ‘fake news’ is not a new phenomenon, especially when it comes to the immigration debate, but the way it is being used on social media networks is a growing concern. In 2010, the year which coincided with a Conservative led coalition government there was a sharp increase in the volume of immigration related articles in the press and discourse about the ability to control it (given Britain’s treaty obligations as a member of the European Union). The contentious issue of immigration has been something that has been fostered by certain elements of the press and newspaper owners in the UK for many years.
The official Vote Leave campaign and unofficial campaign led by Leave.EU used a full range of traditional and online marketing to communicate with the electorate before and during the referendum campaign. One of the more infamous advertising stunts was the “We send the EU £350m a week, lets fund our NHS instead” emblazoned on the side of a big red bus. This advertisement was quickly fact checked and reported as inaccurate. The “£350m” figure used was deemed misleading by the UK Statistics Authority (Dilnot, 2016 pp. 1). This scrutiny and fact checking of partisan political campaigns is welcomed and necessary part of the democratic process. However, the targeted and clandestine adverts on social media platforms, paid for by organisations such as Leave.EU, were seen by hundreds of thousands of people and yet because this activity was online and focused within selected online communities it was out of site of the main stream public gaze and was left unscrutinised. In addition, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter amplify posts and opinions which using the EAVI infographic could be seen to be “partisan”, “misinformed” and “bogus” (“Beyond Fake News – 10 types of misleading news,” 2017). This is especially the case around the topic of immigration.
The highly divisive topic of immigration was one of the central campaign elements for the Leave side. This was exasperated by emotive headlines and the manner in which the immigration debate was being framed by media outlets such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun. “The language used to describe EU migration tended to emphasise quantity and scale using words such as mass, vast, large scale” (Penncheva, 2019 pp. 7). Further research about this topic is examined in a report by the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory that highlights the increase in media stories related to EU migration from 2012 onwards and shows the media’s increased obsession with the scale and volume of EU migrants (Allen, 2016, p. 19).
The poisonous aspect of the immigration debate led to one of the most defining political events in the lead up to the referendum. Just one week out from the UK’s vote on EU Membership, Labour MP, Jo Cox was assassinated by a far-right extremist. Cox was an advocate for the remain campaign. The murder immediately shone a spotlight on the tactics of the leave side (“Jo Cox MP,” 2016 pp. 3, 7, 11). Her murder coincided with the launch of one of the most controversial images of campaign. Earlier that morning a leading campaigner backed by Leave.EU, Nigel Farage was photographed standing in front of a billboard. It showed a long line of impoverished refugees – with a red headline using deliberate tabloid media speak “Breaking Point”. The subheading read “The EU has failed us all – We must break free of the EU and take back control of our borders” (Farage, 2016). The highly partisan message of the billboard evoked the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis – still fresh in the minds of many voters. This poster targeted concerns about mass immigration which the leave side implied Britain was unable to control as an EU member. The fact that Britain was able to control migration and its borders – it has an opt-out of the Schengen Treaty which covers open borders between 26 European countries – was never discussed.
In the immediate aftermath of the death of Jo Cox and as a mark of respect, both sides in the referendum campaign suspended activities. Evidence has now emerged that this was not the case. Leave.EU – which was financially backed by millionaire businessman Arron Banks continued online campaigning through targeted Facebook advertisements or as the EAVI defines it “sponsored content”. Indeed, on hearing the news to suspend campaigning, Banks is reported to have told staff to continue and to “push harder”, believing that his ads would gain more traction given competitor ads were no longer active (Caesar, 2019 pp. 51). Banks knew his online ads were being seen and influencing a clearly defined target audience. The decline in other referendum themed ads (during the campaign suspension) would give Leave.EU the opportunity to reach more voters and influence their decision and thus affect the outcome of this tightly contested referendum.
According to Molz, “Individuals are empowered in the dissemination of information and the evolution of connectivity through social networking tools like Twitter’s RT (the ability to ‘re-tweet’ a posting) and Facebook’s ‘likes’ and comments. These mechanisms have a social effect” (Molz, 2013 pp. 37). Content created online can be sponsored and funded by organisations or groups who have an interest in advancing their own political objectives and ideologies. These groups target individuals whose data has been harvested with messages and clickbait which are eye catching and drive revenue for social media companies. Social media platforms are not sustained by factual content, but rather ads and posts “…whose algorithms prefer virality to veracity, where lies are spread faster than facts” (Freeland, 2019 pp. 21). This meant misleading posts around emotional topics such as immigration were far more likely to spread within loosely connected online communities than arguments related to for example the European Common Agricultural Policy.
The UK Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport Committee has published the ads placed by some of the leave campaigns, including those organised by Banks. 45% of Vote Leave Facebook ads were about immigration. One of the ads published showed a map of Europe with a big red arrow pointing from Turkey to Britain. The ad headline was “clickbait” and read “Turkey has a Population of 76 million” with a subheading “Turkey is joining the EU, Good idea???” It suggested that Britain would have no choice on Turkish membership of the EU. The likelihood of Turkey joining the EU is remote. And as an EU member state – Britain (as well as the other 27 members) would have the right to veto. (Gibbon, 2018 pp. 3).
Bank’s aim was to cut through the technocratic subject of EU membership. In contrast the remain side focused on benefits of EU membership such as the single market, trade policy, integrated food and medical supply chains – topics which some voters felt had no relevance to them. The Leave side focused on communities who felt ignored and used arguments related to immigration and “being swamped”. Accuracy of the information was unimportant to Leave.EU – it was about emotion. The UK electoral commission has requested the National Crime Agency investigate Banks. They were concerned that funding he used as part of the Leave.EU campaign was channelled through him from overseas interests. Under British law it is illegal to use money in electoral campaigns from non-British citizens. “A number of criminal offences may have been committed,” the commission declared. (Caesar, 2019 pp. 8).
The critical difference between traditional offline advertising methods and social media is the precise microtargeting of ads which leads to the amplification of ‘news’ stories within online communities. Stories which have no basis in fact are shared and become viral. By the time they can be fact checked or debunked, it is too late. It is perhaps no surprise that in the year of the UK Brexit referendum, Oxford Dictionaries announced “post-truth” as the word of the year for 2016. It is defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief” (Freeland, 2019 pp. 3).
Facebook was not the only platform which played a role in the dissemination of inaccurate news and targeted advertising. The role of other social media platforms such as Twitter has also been under the spotlight. The use of the hashtag in the Brexit referendum debate, especially on Twitter allowed for the spread of information to occur rapidly between loosely connected communities (Huberman, Romero, & Wu, 2009 pp. 1) “…computer programmer Chris Messina propagated the use of the hashtag (#) to label intrinsic topics”. (Gruzd, Wellman, & Takhteyev, 2011, p. 1301). Hashtags such as #EURef and #Leave created connected community networks which disseminated news to other users.
The right leaning British broadsheet Daily Telegraph reported “Russia mobilised an army of trolls”. This included 3,800 accounts which tweeted out 1,102 posts using the hashtag #ReasonstoLeaveEU. The article goes on to say that “…data from Twitter showed Russian and Iranian internet trolls sent more than 10 million tweets in an attempt to spread disinformation and discord… including a day-long blitz in the day of the Brexit vote.” (Field & Wright, 2018 pp. 2). While there were also pro-remain tweets, pro-leave activity was more visible and more likely to influence online conversation. Their stories were often more emotional and controversial. The pro-leave community on twitter was dominated by a handful of non-authoritative news sources and a significant number of non-UK accounts (Sattler, 2019 pp. 37). Whilst twitter does not have the same mass appeal as Facebook, it is an important means to connect online communities. These troll factories were creating content for other users to share within their own networks and across other social platforms.
Today, very few countries have managed to effectively legislate social media platforms to take responsibility for their output. Indeed, it has caused a debate between advocates of freedom of speech and those who seek more government oversight. Many nations look to actions taken by Germany. It has introduced legislation to prevent the spread of hate speech and ‘fake news’. This is perhaps because of its painful past which has meant that opinions like holocaust denial can result in imprisonment. The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz or Network Enforcement Act (also known as NetzDG) law came into force in January 2018. As a result, large social media platforms with more than two million users have 24 hours to act and remove content once notified. Failure to remove “obviously illegal” content (including hate speech and ‘fake news’) could mean fines of up to €20 million. According to a British government report, one in six of all Facebook content moderators are now based in Germany. The report goes on to say that this is “…practical evidence that legislation can work” (Collins, 2019, p. 13)
The debate surrounding social media platforms being responsible for content on their sites is arguably one of the most important issues we face. Aguiton and Cardon suggested that Web 2.0 services as being “…a small step towards the democratisation of the use of weak ties, traditionally limited to the ruling class and the elites” (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007, p. 62). It speaks of almost a liberation and freedom to create and publish content which is now, thanks to technology, available to almost anyone. While this democratisation has brought many benefits to society, there are also risks and social media platforms have been reluctant to self-regulate. In March 2019, the Guardian published a story titled Ukip 2.0: young, angry, digital and extreme. The article highlight that UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) backed Unity News Network and their activity in distribution of clickbait and conspiracy theory to support the party’s hard line agenda, all from a small flat on the outskirts of Glasgow (Halliday & Walker, 2019 pp. 1).
The micro targeting of social media audiences traditionally used by advertisers to compel consumers to purchase goods and services – is now being used to deliver disinformation, in its many forms including extreme ideologies. Social media technology “has made it easy for a wide range of actors to create content, including ‘fake news’, in a variety of formats…” (McGonagle, 2017, p. 206). In the United States the Wall Street Journal reported that Russian troll factories used social media networks to influence American voters in the 2016 Presidential Election (Volz, 2018 pp. 1). In Australia, a recent Sydney Morning Herald article voiced concerns that the 2019 Federal election could see Facebook’s advertising tools being used to target Australians interested in “opposition to immigration” and “nationalism” (McDuling & Duke, 2019 pp. 2).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign is
just one instance of social media networks being used effectively to peddle
disinformation and fake news to influence political outcomes. The argument of
national sovereignty and ‘taking back control’ was a mantra for the Leave
campaign. Ironically, what is becoming evident from the referendum campaign and
the subsequent aftermath of the vote is about how democratic ‘control’ has been
ceded to those who have the means to infiltrate our lives; through highly targeted
content on social media platforms we use on a daily basis. These platforms
which were founded on the basis of bringing people together are now having far
reaching, unintended consequences. Without legislation similar to what has been
enacted in Germany, it is unlikely social media networks will self-regulate to
prevent the mass manipulation of populations. If robust legislation is not
forthcoming democracy as we know it will end.
References
Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65, 51-65.
Allen, W. L. (2016). A decade of Immigration in the British Press. Retrieved: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Report-Decade_Immigration_British_Press-1.pdf
Beyond Fake News – 10 types of misleading news. (2017). Retrieved from https://eavi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/beyond-fake-news_COLOUR_WEB.pdf
Caesar, E. (2019). The chaotic triumph of Arron Banks, the bad boy of Brexit. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/25/the-chaotic-triumph-of-arron-banks-the-bad-boy-of-brexit
Collins, D. (2019). Disinformation and ‘fake news’: Final Report published. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/fake-news-report-published-17-19/
Dilnot, A. (2016). UK Statistics Authority statement on use of official statistics on contributions to the European Union. Retrieved from https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/uk-statistics-authority-statement-on-the-use-of-official-statistics-on-contributions-to-the-european-union/
Farage, N. (2016). [Nigel_Farage] (June 16, 2016) The EU has failed us all. [Tweet] Retreived from https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/743383974119079937
Field, M., & Wright, M. (2018, 17th October 2018). Russian Trolls sent thousands of pro-leave messages on day of Brexit referendum, Twitter data reveals. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/10/17/russian-iranian-twitter-trolls-sent-10-million-tweets-fake-news/
Freeland, J. (2019, 9th March 2019). Anti-vaxxers, the momo challenge … why lies spread faster than facts. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/08/anti-vaxxers-the-momo-challenge-why-lies-spread-faster-than-facts
Gibbon, G. (2018). 45 per cent of Vote Leave Facebook ads were on immigration. Retrieved from https://www.channel4.com/news/by/gary-gibbon/blogs/45-per-cent-of-vote-leave-facebook-ads-were-on-immigration
Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imaging Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist(55), 25. doi:10.1177/0002764211409378
Halliday, J., & Walker, P. (2019, 4th March 2019). Ukip 2.0: young, angry, digital and extreme. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/03/new-ukip-gerard-batten-corbyn-hard-right-momentum
Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2009). Social Networks that Matter: Twitter under the Microscope. First Monday, 14.
Jo Cox MP. (2016). Retrieved from Wikipedia, Retrieved March 22 2019 from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Cox
McDuling, J., & Duke, J. (2019, 25th February 2019). Facebook targeting of extremists, fringe movements in Australia stokes civil unrest fears. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/facebook-targeting-of-extremists-fringe-movements-in-australia-stokes-civil-unrest-fears-20190220-p50yyn.html
McGonagle, T. (2017). “Fake news”: False fears or real concerns? Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 35(4), 203-209. doi:10.1177/0924051917738685
Molz, J. G. (2013). The Social Affordances of Flashpacking: Exploring the mobilty nexus of travel and communication. Retrieved from doi:10.1080/17450101.2013.848605
Penncheva, D. (2019). Brexit and migration: our new research highlights fact-free news coverage. Retrieved from https://vip.politicsmeanspolitics.com/2019/03/07/brexit-and-migration-our-new-research-highlights-fact-free-news-coverage/
Sattler, J. (2019). Pro-leave Brexit Twitter activity boosted by suspicious activity, foreign support. Retrieved from https://blog.f-secure.com/pro-leave-brexit-twitter-activity-boosted-suspicious-activity-foreign-support/
Volz, D. (2018). Russians Took Aim at Black Voters to Boost Trump, Reports to Senate Find. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/russians-took-aim-at-black-voters-to-boost-trump-reports-to-senate-find-11545066563
Impacts of disinformation and ‘fake news’ related to the immigration debate, disseminated through social media platforms by the leave side in the 2016 European Union referendum in the United Kingdom. by David Newberry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2019Open/.
Hi David.
This was a riveting read.
Created with the intention of connecting people for the greater good, the same technology is now driving us apart through the spread of disinformation, fake news and microtargeting of ads. This is in particular reference to Facebook which clearly has ‘broken democracy’, as a speaker and investigative journalist, Carole Cadwalladr, has proclaimed in her recent TED talk. Certainly, multiple ‘crimes’ have taken place in the ‘darkness’ on Facebook, with illegal cash unleashing disinformation through micro-targeted ads during the UK referendum. As you have mentioned in your paper, this contentious and highly divisive topic of immigration had persuaded or manipulated voters to leave the EU.
In her Ted Talk, Cadwalladr argues that Facebook has the evidence to these crimes that you reference in your paper. However, Mark Zuckerberg has refused on multiple occasions to provide the evidence, not just to Britain, but to nine other parliaments. Facebook and Twitter, and the rest of the so-called ‘Silicon Valley Gods’ should be held accountable. And yes, it is up to us, the users of these social platforms who have the ultimate say; we need to reclaim control from these tech giants who seem to have this ‘unchecked power’. I concur with your final sentiment that “if robust legislation is not forthcoming democracy as we know it will end”.
https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy
Thank you for taking time to read and comment on my paper. I have been following Carole Cadwalladr on Twitter since 2016. Her work on uncovering the Brexit “Crime scene” has been incredible and also utterly depressing. Her recent tweet on 4th April is yet another shocking indictment of the Brexit Vote:
Cadwalladr’s Ted Talk covered many of the same themes as my paper. As a result of an internal dispute within the British Conservative Party, Britain is now a nation of two tribes, Leave and Remain – it is bitterly divided. Traditional party political loyalties between Left and Right have been subsumed.
Unfortunately the British Conservative Government and leadership of the Labour opposition seem intent of pursuing some kind of Brexit in spite of the fact the vote was fraudulent. Mainstream Political parties are moving to their extremes (Sophr, 2019 P.151). The tories have seen membership numbers plummet one of their MP’s (who has now defected) Sarah Wollaston confirmed that it was in the midst of a “bl-UKIP” and ERG takeover from the far right of the party (Woolaston, 2019).
Labour has been consumed by Corbynism and is battling allegations of institutional antisemitism which forced one Jewish MP, Luciana Berger, to leave the party earlier in the year.
One of things that makes me so nervous about Facebook and other SNSs is that they create the perfect platform for those with power and money to influence millions of people and change the course of a nation’s political trajectory through massive manipulation.
Ewan McGaughey from the London School of Economics argues that: “the greater a vote’s impact, the greater must be its integrity; but there is a bigger question to consider: whether we want to redo the referendum, until technology is made safe for democracy” (McGaughey 2018). And that is the crux of the issue. When and how can we make technology safe for democracy?! There is a power struggle unfolding behind the scenes being funded as Cadwalladr points out by “money from God knows where”. It’s almost as if we are living in an oligarchy, where politics is ‘decided by the deepest pockets (McGaughey 2018).
It is all truly depressing as I watch my country of birth descend into chaos which certainly has no end in site. Britain’s democracy is broken on so many levels and needs a complete overhaul – the fraud which took place and delivered the Brexit outcome is an existential threat to the United Kingdom as a political entity. And if it can happen in Britain it can happen anywhere. As Cadwalldr also noted Brexit was the “Petri Dish” for the Trump’s election in the United States.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/fraud-unravels-everything-brexit/
https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy
Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150-160. doi: 10.1177/0266382117722446
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1113900190505807873
https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1097154861962022913?lang=en
https://twitter.com/lucianaberger/status/1097609017663340550?lang=en
Hi David
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment, “One of the things that makes me so nervous about Facebook and other SNSs is that they create the perfect platform for those with power and money to influence millions of people and change the course of a nation’s political trajectory through massive manipulation “. This was exactly my thoughts when this (Brexit) and the Trump election had taken place, and which Cadwalladr’s sensational TED talk highlighted. I would like to know why the UK is still so focused on leaving the EU in spite of mounting evidence that the election was indeed fraudulent. This is quite concerning as our own Federal election looms closer. It makes me wonder to what extent SNSs like Facebook will impact the Australian vote and outcome. Are people being microtargeted (again)? Many people are permitting their lives to be ‘controlled’ by algorithms that are feeding on their social profiles. So right now, I am not quite confident that the technology will ever be ‘safe for democracy’.
Thanks for your question! Here are my personal thoughts on the issue.
To understand why Britain is still pursuing Brexit even though the vote has been found to be fraudulent you have to understand that we are in this problem because of the British Conservative Party. The Tory party has been ripping itself to shreds over the European issue for decades (it ended Margaret Thatcher’s and John Major’s Premierships). This has been a battle between their free market side of the party and the English nationalist side of the party.
The former Prime Minister David Cameron believed he could lance the boil be putting the highly complex issue of EU membership back to the electorate and offer a binary yes or no choice. His hubris has led to this. The internal fight in the Party has now infected and paralysed the whole country.
Theresa May is in a no win situation for a Conservative leader, she either: goes ahead with Brexit; the government’s own forecasts have shown that this will trash the economy and make the country poorer and will undermine the union. Make no mistake, there will be another independence referendum in Scotland (Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU) and this time I have a feeling the result will be different. The imposition of a hard border in Ireland will destabilise Northern Ireland and put the Good Friday peace agreement under enormous stress.
Or she cancels Brexit and the Conservative Party will tear itself apart.
I prefer the later, but to any Tory leader the unity of their party comes before everything else.
In short, I think there is money and power struggle at play behind the scenes, and I hope one day we see a public enquiry into the whole debacle and people go to prison.
Hi David and Kogie
What a great read, there certainly are similarities between our papers as you pointed out!
I didn’t come across the list of the top 10 types of fake news, but seeing propaganda listed as number 1, although reinforcing what I thought, was still a shock. I would think that most people consider gossip and click bait would be at the top. What royal is pregnant? That kind of thing.
Carole Cadwalladrs TED talk came up on my suggested viewing today (algorithms working for good!) How I wish this was mandatory viewing.
Her statement “ Our democracy is broken, our laws don’t work anymore, and it’s not me saying this, it’s our parliament published a report saying this. This technology that you have invented has been amazing. But now, it’s a crime scene. And you have the evidence. And it is not enough to say that you will do better in the future. Because to have any hope of stopping this from happening again, we have to know the truth” was so passionate.
I am interested as to whether Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg will be attending Christchurch Call and whether examples outside of the tragedy in Christchurch, including the assassination of Jo Cox – which I believe to be related for social media flaming the fires.
Cheers
MJ
A lot of interesting points here. I am curious to see whether a study will emerge on the impact of social media on the upcoming Australian election, and whether the recently passed social media laws will have any positive effects. Given the flood of advertising from politicians such as Clive Palmer via text, Facebook and YouTube, and the issue of misleading content from members such as Kevin Bailey in falsely including an endorsement from the SAS, do you believe that political advertising should be banned from social media altogether in order to stop fake news from spreading? To clarify, I believe that political conversations should be allowed as Web 2.0 encourages those who might not have a voice to participate, but perhaps political advertising should be prohibited.
Karp, P. (2019, April 04). Australia passes social media law penalising platforms for violent content. Retrieved May 11, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/04/australia-passes-social-media-law-penalising-platforms-for-violent-content
Oops, meant to add another source to that.
Knaus, C., & Evershed, N. (2019, May 06). Australian Conservatives candidate warned over SAS insignia in Facebook election ad. Retrieved May 11, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/06/australian-conservatives-candidate-warned-over-sas-insignia-in-facebook-election-ad
Thanks for your comment Joel. Social media and it’s associated hand held technology in my opinion is the greatest disrupter of our time. I don’t believe Australia is immune from this – and we will see how that pans out next week! In addition, I don’t believe the law passed in Australia will have a big impact on the dissemination of fake news, correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to be focusing much more on violent content.
There is a debate happening in the UK at the moment to have a second referendum, given the first was tainted by fraud and misinformation on an industrial scale.
Ewan McGaughey from the London School of Economics argued that:
And that is the crux of the issue. When and how can we make technology safe for democracy?! If you haven’t listened to Carole Cadwalladr’s TED talk on Brexit – I recommend that you do! I agree with her in the assertion that there is a power struggle unfolding behind the scenes being funded as Cadwalladr points out by “money from God knows where.”
Online debates are important but as other papers have argued, algorithms and confirmed bias create robust echo chambers which become powerful in propagating extreme ideologies.
There needs to be laws against “Fake news” in all its forms. People with money and power are using social media platforms to misinform on a massive scale. This is having real life consequences and will continue to do so until national parliaments legislate to stop it. But there is a delicate balancing act. How do you legislate to ensure political debate can still take place online but keep harmful misinformation away from people who can’t make the distinction between what is fake and what is truth?
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/fraud-unravels-everything-brexit/
https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy
“I don’t believe the law passed in Australia will have a big impact on the dissemination of fake news, correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to be focusing much more on violent content.”
You’re spot on. I had a look over the details again and they definitely seem geared towards violent media, although do you think they could be extended in the future?
“…there is a power struggle unfolding behind the scenes being funded as Cadwalladr points out by “money from God knows where.””
This is a really good point, especially given Cadwalladr highlights with the town of Ebbw Vale, and how the population seems decided on leaving the EU when they have benefited quite a lot from investments. It’s so easy to say something inflammatory or influencing online and then disappear, especially with competing foreign interests etc., especially with the associated biases with the echo chambers you have highlighted here.
I was recently in the Netherlands and the topic of Brexit came up. There was quite a mix of nationalities (Belgian, Romanian, Finnish, Dutch. Colombian), but they were all bemused by the idea of Britain complaining about the EU and wanting to leave, as apparently the UK does quite well out of investments from EU interests, but has the toxic feedback loop with movements such as “Leave EU” and anonymous advertising by parties with hidden agendas. Of course, the EU isn’t perfect either, but it’s amazing just how different the picture is painted online.
“There needs to be laws against “Fake news” in all its forms. People with money and power are using social media platforms to misinform on a massive scale. ”
I wholeheartedly agree. Politics should be (in a lot of respects) localised, not to the point where conversations are stifled, but with measures that parties possibly can’t advertise on Facebook, Twitter etc.?
“But there is a delicate balancing act. How do you legislate to ensure political debate can still take place online but keep harmful misinformation away from people who can’t make the distinction between what is fake and what is truth?”
That’s a tricky issue. Possibly by banning parties from advertising via social media, but allowing people to discuss politics between themselves. Of course, that still doesn’t stop the issue of echo chambers, and I have no idea how you’d tackle that problem, as it risks stifling freedom of speech. Any ideas?
Hi Joel
Thanks for the interesting debate! In answer to your final question:
“That’s a tricky issue. Possibly by banning parties from advertising via social media, but allowing people to discuss politics between themselves. Of course, that still doesn’t stop the issue of echo chambers, and I have no idea how you’d tackle that problem, as it risks stifling freedom of speech. Any ideas?”
If i knew the answer to that question, I’d be a wealthy man! In all seriousness we are living in an age of rapid change and disruption, some good some bad. But we need to learn from our mistakes and I don’t think that is really happening right now. I feel we will shut down one avenue for misinformation and another with pop up…. it’s going to be a constant and ever changing struggle, but doing nothing is not the answer.
This is a really well written paper outlining the effects of Facebook and social media on Brexit. I have been looking forward to reading it for some time.
I wish to take a bit of a devil’s advocate role in response (and hopefully stimulate some good debate) and question the extent to which Facebook communities played a role in the outcome of the Brexit referendum. Whilst I understand the power of targeted messaging and advertising, Hall, Tinati and Jennings (2018) in their analysis of social media’s role in Brexit point out the algorithms employed by these platforms are designed to target members within a network, and for the most part, members share and receive information from others within this network. This phenomenon is often referred to as the social media echo chamber, and I wonder whether users who received advertising from the Leave campaign and nefarious outsiders and then shared these posts within their network would have voted to leave anyway, despite the plethora of targeted messages.
I also think when discussing this topic that an analysis of the demographics of those who voted to leave should be considered. Bastos and Mercea (2019) point out that the younger and better educated demographic are more likely to access their news via social media whereas the older and perhaps less educated generation still rely on print newspapers, particularly tabloids, for their news, and you acknowledge the inflammatory nature of the tabloid press in your paper. In my opinion, this second demographic is also the one that pines nostalgically for the days of old, so playing on their fears of the ‘other’ makes them an easy target for manipulation. Perhaps the Murdoch press should also be held accountable for influencing the result.
It appears a certain amount of complacency existed within those in power before the referendum, believing that Brexit would never happen. The polls at the time proved remarkably unreliable yet Hall et al (2017) reveal that an analysis of discussions on social media clearly indicated the result of the referendum would be to leave. I also think this complacency spilled over into the general population. The day after the referendum, one of the news channels had a reporter interviewing people on the street gauging their reactions to the result. One woman claimed, and I’m paraphrasing now, “If I had known this would be the result I would have voted to stay.” She believed her vote would just be a protest, not actually effect the outcome.
And this brings me to democracy. I believe protecting and participating in a democracy is the responsibility of each and every citizen. It is our obligation to question the veracity of news and political rhetoric. As Manuel Castells (2004) stated, “power does not reside in institutions, not even the state or large corporations. It is located in the networks that structure society” (p.224). While I don’t discount the power of targeted messaging, we are the networks in the online context and therefore we hold the power. If we become complacent, believing the society we live in will not be affected by the decisions we make then it is our fault if the social media behemoths and the fake news they ignore on their platforms, as you say, ends democracy as we know it.
Bastos, M., & Mercea, D. (2019). The Brexit botnet and user-generated hyperpartisan News. Social Science Computer Review, 37(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317734157
Castells, M. (2004). Afterword: Why networks matter. In H. McCarthy, P. Miller, & P. Skidmore, (Eds.), Network logic: Who governs in an interconnected world? (Demos Collection, 219-225). Retrieved from https://www.eldis.org/document/A15840
Hall, W., Tinati, R. & Jennings, W. (2018). From Brexit to Trump: social media’s role in democracy,” in Computer, 51(1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2018.1151005
Thank you for your thorough feedback and for playing devil’s advocate!
One of the things that worries me so much about Brexit vote is how tight the margin of victory was. Especially for a referendum that was purely “advisory” and is now known to have been fraudulent. Add to that that 2 of the 4 constituent parts of the UK – namely Scotland and Northern Ireland voted remain, it is astonishing that the government is proceeding at all. I touched upon why I think that is the case in an earlier response.
What you have to remember with the UK is that voting is not compulsory. One of the tactics leave side seem to have done well is to get a marginalised and poor cohort of voters to vote leave. This cohort is not politically engaged and rarely votes in any UK election. The incentive they used to mobilise this electorate was to tie immigration (including immigration from non European countries) and 10 years of Conservative Party austerity (cuts in public services, wage stagnation etc) to the Brexit debate. This was enough to sway the vote to leave. Unfortunately for this cohort of voters, since the referendum we know the opposite is the case. Madeleine Sumption, the director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said: “The overall story the data tell on EU migration is clear. Britain is not as attractive to EU migrants as it was a couple of years ago.” (Partington, 2019) At the same time migration from non EU countries has increased to replace EU workers who are leaving Britain in their droves.
You are right in terms of education levels and propensity to vote leave. Younger people with university education are much more likely to be remain voters. And yes they access news and information via social media, but I think this cohort is much more likely to question information they see online.
The Murdoch press and other tabloids have been pushing eurosceptic news and myths for decades. In 2016, highlighting the role media coverage has played in shaping Eurosceptic opinion, Dr Oliver Daddow, Nottingham Trent University, reported that ‘The ratio of readers exposed to anti-EU messages in the press in comparison to pro-EU messages is about 8-1 in terms of readership numbers’.
These stories that used to be printed have made an almost seamless shift to the online space and have found a captive europhobic online communities. And it is the associated Facebook algorithm of these messages which has really changed the game.
Your point about people voting leave to teach the government a lesson is also valid. Vote leave successfully in my opinion cast this referendum as a vote against the “the establishment”. After 10 years of cuts and austerity instigated by Westminster and the constant blame game which has played out in the media that all of Britain’s ills are the fault of “unelected bureaucrats in Brussels” and immigrants – Vote leave found a captive market for this narrative. In addition, I think Britain’s First Past the Post Voting system which I believe is profoundly undemocratic and has produced majority governments with less than 40% of the popular vote has also contributed to the feeling of powerlessness held by many.
Many people in the Brexit vote cast votes without knowing the full facts or cast their votes on the basis of wrong information supplied to them through an orchestrated misinformation campaign, the consequences will be felt by everyone. The Swiss democratic system is very much reliant on referenda – they are experts in how to inform, consult and engage the public to vote. Last month the Swiss high court overturned the result of a referendum after it was found “voters were not given sufficient information.” (Giordano, 2019). I think the problem we have here is knowledge of the electorate. As Franklin D Roosevelt said “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”
The issue of education and creating a population that is critical and analyses information, rather than taking everything as gospel, will in my opinion take much longer to fix.
Giordano, C (11 April 2019) Switzerland’s highest court overturns referendum as voters were poorly informed in country first. The Independent. retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerland-referendum-result-overturn-supreme-court-brexit-eu-vote-a8866131.html
Partington, R (1 March 2019), Net migration to UK from EU falls to lowest level in 10 years . The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/28/migration-from-non-eu-countries-reach-highest-level-in-15-years
https://www.uea.ac.uk/political-social-international-studies/events/the-uk-and-eu/reporting-europe-the-uk-media-and-the-eu
Hi David
I actually agree with your analysis of the Brexit outcome and the role of Facebook in the leave campaign and from your response to my post makes me so grateful Australia has compulsory preferential voting. While social media may be able to control the message through algorithms, at least every person in Australia has to confront that ballot paper and think about what their vote might mean (well that’s the hope anyway).
I agree education is vital for a well-functioning democracy. It is unfortunate that current political discourse views those who are educated as ‘elites’, therefore demonising critical analysis and scientific fact – the debate (and I can’t believe we are still having it) on climate change is case in point.
I wonder on a personal note and from the research you have conducted, whether you believe legislative reforms such as those enacted in Germany actually have the power to eliminate the spread of fake news and hate speech. From my research it appears that once a message is posted it spreads so quickly that by the time it is reported it has ‘gone global’. And it also seems nothing ever really gets deleted from the internet. I wonder how you think the current set of regulations can seriously combat this.
J
Hi J
The UK voting system has a lot to answer for in terms of people feeling powerless and without a voice!
I don’t think the German law is a panacea – however, it is an important start. I think if people like or share a viral post on a social media site which is then found out to be untrue – they should be told. Something like “the post you shared on…. about Brexit, guns, anti-vax, a flat earth, refugees etc was false and inaccurate. To get the full story click here.”
Most people probably wouldn’t investigate further, but if users kept getting these notifications, I think it would make people think twice about what they’re seeing, reading and sharing.
There has been a levelling of information online whereby people seem to think that everything they read is true and can be trusted, that is profoundly dangerous and is clearly not the case.
Hi David
I think your suggestion about social media companies being required to advise users of posts found to be untrue is an excellent one although – call me cynical – one that may only work in a utopian world of responsibility.
Further complicating the dissemination of ‘fake news’ via social media is that fact that so many of these stories, including those which you mention in your post, are often picked up and run with by mainstream media as well, with seemingly few consequences for reporting untruths. People will often trust this medium above SNS making it that much harder to discern fact from fiction.
J
Hi David,
Great article, it is very well written and persuasive. One point that strikes a chord with me is about the time it takes to debunk the false claims. The damage is done before there is a chance to communicate that these are false or misleading claims, despite the fact that through the internet we are connected to the world in an instant. On top of this with governments cutting funding to organisations like ABC Fact Checker here in Australia, it seems ever more important that organisations like this exist especially in times such as you have highlighted in your article.
What do you think the future holds for this type of fact checking, and do you think a real-time fact checker, or at least a screening process for posting on social media, without resorting to 1984-esque control, is possible for social media sites? Do you think there are alternative solutions to this problem?
Thank you in advance,
Regan
Hi Regan
The change in how we consume news and information has been swift and far reaching.
As Hyun and Kim point out “….social media provide users with more active engagement with news than simply receiving and following it. Instead of being limited to a recipient role, users of social media can participate in dissemination of news and political information.” (Hyun and Kim, 2015).
In relation to ‘fake news’ and the Brexit debate – the misinformation game is ongoing. Just one example, in the last few months I began to see bizarre posts shared on UK social media about how the Lisbon Treaty (which was signed back in 2007 and came into effect in 2009) was going to force the UK into a Federated European Superstate. The post published by an ‘ordinary members of the public’ went viral and contained a catalogue of errors, misinformation and lies. The viral posts start like this:
“Just got through reading the Lisbon treaty! OMG!!!” and “Why is no one talking about the Lisbon treaty that comes into force in 2020???”
Polly Toynbee at the Guardian summed up the posts main claims:
“in 2020 all EU countries lose their veto. In 2022 all become states of the new federal nation and must join the euro. The London Stock Exchange will move to Frankfurt to an EU exchange and the EU parliament and court of justice become “supreme”. Borders are lost as Schengen becomes compulsory and countries lose control of planning and tax policies. The UK hands over its armed forces and nuclear deterrent to an EU force”. (Toynbee, 2019)
Facebook’s algorithm has spread that around the UK to people who are not questioning its content or accuracy in anyway. None of these claims hold any truth whatsoever. But it’s too late. The damage has been done. Its be liked, shared, commented on by people, shared to family, friends, acquaintances, work colleagues.
The post has been fact checked by Fullfact.org and you can see the outrageous misinformation and claims debunked for yourself. Try and get that information to go viral – Facebook’s algorithms don’t work like that and therein lies the problem.
Siva Vaidhyanathan, Professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia sums up mindless consumption of news and information with clarity – the below was published on a blog post by the London School of Economics.
…the very ubiquity of social media has in itself been an adverse development, particularly in terms of information pollution whereby all content seems equally important and reliable and it all hits you at the same time. This levelling of the information landscape and the ensuing onslaught have led to amplification of content with a strong emotional load, whether that is enthusiastic approval or equally visceral indignation. All one needs to do in order to further a message or just pollute people’s news feeds is to choose a divisive and highly emotionally-charged message.
I think far too many people are scrolling through their news feeds and not questioning or fact checking what they are seeing. I don’t believe the “Gods of Silicon Valley” (Cadwalladr, 2019) are evil people. I don’t believe It was the intention that their platforms would become the modus operandi for the alt right to communicate and cultivate the electorate to their ideologies but it’s happening and we need to deal with it. I think getting to grips with the social engineering which is taking place as a result of these enormous and ever present SNSs is one of the great challenges of our time. This is something so new and so different we need to think about how we manage it in a totally different way – and I freely admit I don’t know what that looks like right now, but doing nothing is not an option.
P Toynbee 2019 (2019, 5th March 2019). The anti- EU lies are back to explot Britain’s weak spot again. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/anti-eu-brexit-fake-news
K.D. Hyun, J. Kim / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 328–334
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/10/04/book-review-anti-social-media-how-facebook-disconnects-us-and-undermines-democracy-by-siva-vaidhyanathan/
https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy
Hi David
This is a fascinating paper and really well written and researched. I have spent this week really thinking about this subject and have some angles that I’d like to share.
Although not directly linked to the specificity of your subject on the immigration subject, I listened to an interesting lecture that the LSE gave, The Brexit Debate through Social Media: deliberative discussion, or deliberate dysfunction?
Wednesday 25 January 2017 6:30pm to 8:00pm
Hosted by LSE Works: Department of Methodology.
The professors focused primarily on Twitter and did some in-depth analysis on a large proportion of tweets in the run up to the referendum, I recommend listening when you have an hour and a half free! The do touch on the subject of echo chambers and also the issues of the boundaries between the two groups and how the discourse was quite separate. This is certainly interesting not just for this subject but also other political and social debates that have clear sides, how much if at all are the groups coming together for active debate and cross fertilisation of ideas, it is seemingly less and less in terms of social media. But that is another avenue for further research I believe.
One thing that did stand out for me was their analysis of the actual content and patterns of language of the Remain and Leave tweets. To summarise:
Leave: higher percentage of positive terms, more future focused, more certain and their power language was more definite.
Remain: higher percentage of negative terms, more focused on the past, dire and negative consequences, opposite of reward, more uncertain terminology and language less assertive, use of quantitive language with facts and figures.
I wonder if some of this discourse and language goes some way to shaping how people react and relate to the posts on social media. Do you have any thoughts on this? And can this help to shape how future campaigns might consider the way they promote their side?
http://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/2017/01/20170125t1830vHKT/The-Brexit-Debate-through-Social-Media
Hi Stephanie
Thank you for your thought provoking comment. I will certainly follow up on that link you sent me. To respond properly to your question, I have to go back and the origins of the Leave and Remain activism.
The campaign undertaken by vote leave groups was exceptional. They had a clear strategy and were extremely passionate in their delivery. The protagonists in the leave campaign had been preparing for this referendum for years. The United Kingdom Independence Party who’s sole aim was to remove the UK from the EU was founded in September 1993.
During this time they developed a strong offline community of grass root activists (and this was supported by media tycoons such as Rupert Murdoch) which was incredibly successful in raising the profile of their organisation and cause. When Web 2.0 technology emerged it very quickly transitioned online where these networks and communities connected and propagated. During this time UKIP became successful politically, winning seats on local councils and then winning seats in the European Parliament elections.
As and important side note, Britain’s First Past the Post voting system for Westminster elections makes it immensely difficult for smaller parties to gain representation in the Westminster parliament – even if they successfully win millions of votes if the votes are spread around the country it’s hard to win seats. Their success in local and European Elections and UKIP’s ability to draw voters away from primarily the Conservative Party ensured that the European debate continued to dominate the internal wranglings of the Tory Party until David Cameron yielded to pressure from the right of his party and agreed to hold a vote in EU membership.
The Remain side campaign was not nearly as effective. They had no clear strategy and the delivery of their message was extremely poor. Ironically since the referendum results – “Remainers” have become much more organised and vocal. There are a number of “Remainer” activist groups online (the 48% and Britain for Europe for example) which have been successful in organising and campaigning for a People’s Vote and an online petition to revoke Article 50 (the legal mechanism which removes the UK from the EU) gathered over 6 million signatures on the UK Parliament website.
When we look at the messaging of the Leave campaign outside of the immigration debate we can see a number of very positive arguments were articulated by them to the voting public. Here are a few published in the website Infact – with the realities we have seen emerge in the last three years:
1) More money for the National Health Service
The Vote Leave’s battle bus said: “We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead”. This was also shared widely online. I touched on this in my paper. This figure has been widely debunked as inaccurate. Under a No deal Brexit the Government’s own forecasts have predicted the UK economy will take a hit of 9% (O’Carrol, 2019). It is highly unlike any additional money will be forthcoming to the NHS in the event of any kind of Brexit. Government ministers and leave campaigners have distanced themselves from this promise.
2) We’ll get brand new trade deals all over the world.
The Leave side said that trade deals would be ready to go on the day Britain leaves the EU. On March 29th 2019 – the day in which Britain was meant to leave, the UK had signed just seven deals out of the 69 it enjoys as an EU member. These deals cover £16bn out of £117bn trade deals. (Partington, 2019). Indeed, Dr Matthew Bishop Senior Lecturer in International Politics, University of Sheffield argued in a blog post that “nostalgic conservative narratives about ‘trade’ are still rooted in eighteenth-century imagery of ships taking cotton or steel to the colonies.” Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary
3) No controls on the Northern Irish land border with the EU.
The reality of Brexit is that if Britain wants an independent Trade Policy from that of EU member Ireland, a land border on the island of Ireland between Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) and the Irish Republic is inevitable. That is why the Irish backstop has been such a sticking point in the Brexit negotiations. This will in effect keep Northern Ireland as a defacto member of the EU single market and customs arrangements. And mean customs checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Unionist Politicians in Northern Ireland and within Theresa May’s own government have said they will not support the withdrawal agreement which includes the Irish backstop. Brexit is a threat to the Northern Ireland peace process and is contrary to the Good Friday Agreement.
4) Free Trade, guaranteed in a treaty which we’ll sort out before 2020, which won’t have any obligation to follow EU laws.
This is referred to as “Cakeism” by remainers (having your cake and eating it) – basically Britain would enjoy all the benefits of EU membership but would not have to follow any of the rules or pay it’s membership fees. Leavers believed that Britain with a population of 65 million people could dictate to the European Union with a population of over 500 million people terms of trade. We have seen over the last few years how complex the Brexit process has been.
Leave activists online won the referendum with some really clever and highly targeted positive messages about what leaving the EU would mean for Britain. However, since that time “Remainer” activists and campaigns have become much more visible both in the online and offline space. Many of the claims and promises made by the leave side have also not eventuated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party
http://www.peoplesvote.org.uk/
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
https://infacts.org/cut-keep-list-top-19-brexiteer-promises/
O’Carroll, L (27 February 2019), Economy could be 9% weaker under no deal Brexit Government says. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/26/economy-could-shrink-by-9-percent-under-no-deal-brexit-government-says
Partington, R (13 February 2019), Brexit: UK has rolled over just £16bn out of £117bn trade deals
The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/13/brexit-uk-trade-deals-eu
Bishop, M Retrieved from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/02/01/brexit-and-free-trade-fallacies-part-two/
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cakeism
Hi David, thank you for your great paper. It was a great opportunity to be educated more on the subject. Just like you, “it is all truly depressing as I watch my country of birth descend into chaos which certainly has no end in site”, I finished a little depressed.
With our election looming, social media is full steam ahead with the targetted advertising and misleading information. During the week a radio station posted “the XXXXX want to ban wolfwhistling, what do you think?” I couldn’t believe it so did some research. A very minor platform the party has put forward is the introduction of a ban on public harrassment, a model which France has recently adopted, of which “wolfwhistling” is briefly mentioned. This is a targetted advertisement to divert public attention from the main platforms of the party and incite trolling in the comments below.
Social media, when it comes to political motivations has become a metaphorical “ultimate cage fight” where just do what ever to win mentality has become normal. And as you mentioned earlier, I totally agree … “One of things that makes me so nervous about Facebook and other SNSs is that they create the perfect platform for those with power and money to influence millions of people and change the course of a nation’s political trajectory through massive manipulation”.
Thanks everyone for the stimulating discussion.
Absolutely David, and thank you for responding, as I mentioned this paper and also David Poiner’s paper on the anti-vax movement which has similarities to some of the arguments you make in your paper have spurred me to investigate further the insidious and damaging influence from bots, trolls, malware and Russia’s influence on both the Trump and EU Referendum.
You rightly pointed out that Remain were not as well organised online and did not use it to the best of their advantage. However, there is also something to be said for the fact that on both sides, the influence of automated messaging could have had an influence on the outcome of the referendum.
I read an article that is an interview between historian, Timothy Snyder and a reporter promoting his book ‘The Road to Unfreedom’ and how historically Russia has taken it’s own strategies of misinformation and destabilising their population to the wider and more westernised world. They are masters at spreading misinformation online via bots, trolls and malware to the extent where both the Trump and EU Referendum have been discredited and considered fraudulent. As was pointed out in the discussion above it has in fact been evidenced that the EU vote was fraudulent. I found another LSE article to support this as well (below).
Russia is on the warpath to destabilise the West and take advantage of situations that arise from this. ‘The techniques they’ve been honing for decades are much more powerful in this new digital world, where emotion dominates and everyone is connected and there is so much information floating around. This is a world of information warfare, and that suits Russia’s strengths. War is about breaking the will of the enemy, and historically, combat was the means to that end. But you can break a country’s will without combat, and that’s how Russia uses misinformation. They use the internet as their main weapon.’
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/5/17172754/russia-fake-news-trump-america-timothy-snyder
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/11/14/the-extent-of-russian-backed-fraud-means-the-referendum-is-invalid/
Following the LSE lecture on Twitter, I found a couple more papers/articles focusing on bots influence on voters and the outcomes from the EU Referendum, although hard to absolutely prove it, there are a couple of interesting arguments that arise from this and also something for us to consider on how we can try and ensure people are not sucked in by all these tweets either for or against. Do we try and find a way to stop this at source or do we educate people better?
In their paper Social media, sentiment and public opinions: Evidence from #Brexit and #USElection’ Gorodnichenko, Pham & Talavera, discuss how bots influence Twitter activity of humans and that information flows are most intense among humans and weakest across the bots. Sentiment was also important, when there was a higher degree of emotion it had wider audience readership. They came to the conclusion that ‘the difference could have been sufficiently large to influence the outcome given how close the actual vote was….the rise of bots (automated agents) in social media potentially creates greater risks of manipulation as humans cannot detect bots and thus could be driven and possibly deceived by bots.’
And that ‘subsequent debates about the role of bots in shaping the campaigns raise a number of questions about whether policymakers should consider mechanisms to prevent abuse of bots in the future. ‘ They go on to point out that it is a sensitive area of discussion given the need for diversity of thought however ‘cherishing diversity does not mean that one should allow dumping lies and manipulations to the extent that the public cannot make a well-informed decision. Where one should draw the line (e.g., improve media literacy, introduce “code of practice” for social networks) is a central question’ which goes back to your conclusion on how to tackle the issues we now have in social media. What constitutes freedom of speech or censorship? Do we force the social media sites to prevent this and are they set up to tackle the bots?
Similarly another papers ‘Bots, #StrongerIn, and #Brexit: Computational Propaganda during the UK-EU Referendum’ also reaches some similar conclusions after examination of bot and non-bot tweets during the run up to the referendum. That ‘political actors and governments worldwide have begun using bots to manipulate public opinion, choke off debate, and muddy political issues.’ and that ‘political campaigns automate their messaging and many citizens who use social media are not always able to evaluate the sources of a message or critically assess the forcefulness of an argument. Fake social media accounts now spread pro-governmental messages, beef up website follower numbers, and cause artificial trends. Political strategists worldwide are using bot- generated propaganda and misdirection.’ Finally they highlight that as many people make a choice in the final days running up to the election, the monumental cascade of online messaging that appears at this time can have an influence on final decision making.
Social media, sentiment and public opinions: Evidence from #Brexit and #USElection’ Yuriy Gorodnichenko Tho Pham Oleksandr Talavera*
University of California, Berkeley Swansea University Swansea University
Current draft: 26.04.2018
Bots, #StrongerIn, and #Brexit: Computational Propaganda during the UK-EU Referendum, (2016) Philip N. Howard & Bence Kollanyi, SSRN Electronic Journal DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2798311
Thanks for your riveting reply! I listened to the podcast you pointed out in your earlier post. I must admit some of the information discussed was counter-intuitive. However, I was surprised when they referred to Bots – it was almost in a joking way. As you pointed out in the blog post by the London School of Economics – Russian influence over Brexit was far from comical. It is however, fantastic that the data is there and that researchers and academics are analysing it. As one of the questioners at the end said, it would be interesting to see how some of the campaign promises and fake news impacted the debate. I’d also be interested to look at the tone during the Brexit negotiation process which has led to two Brexit minister resignations and perhaps a realisation that unwinding 45 years off political and economic integration of the UK in the wider Europe is easier said than done.
I concur with Prof McGaughey’s verdict that Putin’s aim is to destabilise the west and has used the Brexit Vote and the US Presidential election to do that.
If Putin can bring about the end of the UK as a consequence of the Brexit Vote he would class that as an enormous success. The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has already indicated that Brexit means she has the mandate to go back to the people of Scotland in another independence referendum vote by May 2021. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU and many Scots believe that Scotland has been ignored by the British government in Westminster – this has rightly fueled the independence argument that Scotland is not an equal partner in the union with England.
Russia has a long history of attacking the west in the online space. In 2007 Russia instigated a massive politically motivated cyber attack on the tiny Baltic nation of Estonia. According to Rain Ottis from the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, in Tallinn, this was on the back of a decision made by the Estonian Government to relocate a statue of Lenin. The attack lasted 22 days. Estonia successfully repelled it. The Baltic nations (formerly part of the Soviet Union) have long been a target of Russian infowars and fake news and have built up their defenses against Russian hackers, trolls and bots which are seeking to undermine all the Baltic nations now members of NATO and EU.
I also understand that not all interference and misinformation will come from overseas sources. It’s time to redefine the parameters of the internet. We’re living in internet equivalent age of the wild west. It will take time to work through the many opportunities and threats that a more connected world has brought about. Let’s start by looking at the crime scenes on the internet which need to be investigated thoroughly. One of those is the Brexit Vote. Only once we have established how it occurred – at the moment there are just too many unknowns – can we begin to take steps in preventing it from happening again.
I thought this was quite interesting with regard to the Australian election, I wonder how much information they will get from the general public.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-14/are-you-being-targeted-this-election-aus-votes-hidden-campaign/10799486
Good on the ABC for taking this initiative. I have been encouraged to see ads on Twitter and Facebook by the Australian Electoral Commission targeting voters and encouraging people to question what they see online. A few days ago I came across this article which looked at how Chinese Social Media networks were being used to target the large number of Chinese Australian voters. In electorates with high Chinese speaking populations this could potentially have an impact on the election outcome.
https://qz.com/1614329/fake-news-on-wechat-focuses-on-the-left-in-australia-election/
Great pick up David, the same thing happened here in Victoria in the 2016 election. Nothing like a bit of scaremongering to win a seat, seems that the same tactics are being employed the world over. The word democracy is frankly just a word now, it’s meaning has been tarnished.
Hello David
A very enlightening paper on the fake new regarding Brexit, I am now thinking just maybe Trump is telling some truth when he scoffs at media. The issue of immigration is so contentious across the world that any media or new on the subject causes mass hysteria for the ordinary people. The controversy of Brexit and fake news tricks that you have highlighted by the slogan on the bus was a conceited effort to lead the population astray. It is frightening to think that Facebook, Twitter and other online social media companies are reluctant to change their policies to stop the information on extremists and other movements.
I shudder to think what social media online will produce in the next five years, I have download a copy of your paper as I am interested in looking further into the references you have provided. An exceptionally great read.
Hi David,
This paper was awesome, and highlighted a number of elements that I either didn’t know or thought were bizarre. I liked how you approached this in a systematic way that addressed the different types of misleading content with sources, a good way of combating the misleading news that your paper acknowledges.
Firstly, your numerous mentions of immigration issues that the UK press sensationalises (e.g. immigrants will be the bane of the country), highlights a theme that I found while in Europe recently, especially when combined with your comment about Schengen visas. People visiting the UK still have to be approved in order to visit the country, so anti-immigration sensationalism in the media is somewhat confusing, given that the decision to let people into the country still (I believe) resides with the UK government, not with the EU parliament or council. While living in The Netherlands, a Belgian friend mentioned that people often camp in or near Brussels while they wait for their visas to be approved or to be smuggled over to the UK, drawing a comparison that attracts the attention of media to the camps in Calais and Dunkirk. While there might be a widespread fear that immigration could cause problems, it’s not actually beyond the control of UK authorities, as much as the EU receives the blame for it.
I was shocked to hear that an MP was actually assassinated in the lead-up to the vote. While I must admit that I don’t watch televised news, I believe that the impact of that wasn’t as big an issue overseas.
“According to Molz, “Individuals are empowered in the dissemination of information and the evolution of connectivity through social networking tools like Twitter’s RT (the ability to ‘re-tweet’ a posting) and Facebook’s ‘likes’ and comments. These mechanisms have a
social effect” (Molz, 2013 pp. 37). ”
Do you believe that anonymity plays a part in the dissemination of information? Something that I examined in my paper was the issue of disinhibition due to anonymity and how people chose behaviours they wouldn’t otherwise. Do you think that this could also be extended to the media, in that anonymity allows media outlets and individual creators of content to publish material they wouldn’t otherwise, and whether Web 2.0 makes it easier to do so?
” One of the ads published showed a map of Europe with a big red arrow pointing from Turkey to Britain. The ad headline was “clickbait” and read “Turkey has a Population of 76 million” with a subheading “Turkey is joining the EU, Good idea???” It suggested that Britain would have no choice on Turkish membership of the EU. The likelihood of Turkey joining the EU is remote. And as an EU member state – Britain (as well as the other 27 members) would have the right to veto. ”
This was another good point. While some control can be good against fake news, governments such as Turkey’s label real news as fake news, and attempt to censor discussion on platforms like Twitter as a reaction. It’s unlikely Turkey had a chance of joining the EU and Britain had a direct say in the matter, a sentiment also echoed by people I met in Europe.
The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz is a good example of tackling the issue of fake news, something which you’ve mentioned has been happening in Australia too. I would like to see if there are any ramifications for free speech arising from the bill, but so far the legislation seems to work well.
Essert, M. (2019, May 07). Turkish Protesters Are Spray Painting “8.8.8.8” and “8.8.4.4.” On Walls – Here’s What It Means. Retrieved May 11, 2019, from https://www.mic.com/articles/85987/turkish-protesters-are-spray-painting-8-8-8-8-and-8-8-4-4-on-walls-here-s-what-it-means
Townsend, M. (2018, December 01). Police with batons and teargas force migrants to flee Calais camp. Retrieved May 11, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/01/french-police-step-up-calais-refugee-evictions
Hi Joel
To specifically address your point about anonymity and its role in the dissemination of misinformation.
As we have seen with Brexit and Trump, we live in a post truth world. Politicians are now making outrageous comments that have no basis in fact. Look at Trump’s comments in the US in terms of the number of untruths he has made and Boris Johnson in the UK during the Brexit referendum; its frightening and they are not doing this anonymously. I think there are many anonymous trolls that make outrageous comments and claims online but they are no worse than many elected politicians. To come back to the Brexit debate in the UK. We have European Elections taking place at the moment – much to the chagrin of many Brexiters. The party leading in the polls with around 30% of the vote is Farage’s Brexit Party. This is a party which hasn’t even written a manifesto to inform the electorate what they stand for.
Experts and learned people are labelled the ‘elite’ for having an understanding of a critical issue which don’t fit in with the mindset of emotion and fear, its worrying. We live in a post truth, post politics world and I don’t know what happens next.
Dunt, I (2019, May 9) The Brexit party is a post-politics entity [blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/05/09/the-brexit-party-is-a-post-politics-entity
“As we have seen with Brexit and Trump, we live in a post truth world”
That is a really good point, and it ties in well with:
“I think there are many anonymous trolls that make outrageous comments and claims online but they are no worse than many elected politicians”
The lack of sources in online commentaries leaves something to be desired, given that parties can have a damaging impact without any credibility at all, such as trolls on Twitter. It seems to fit the trend of “strong man” politics, where the person who can shout the loudest and dominate the echo chamber the most will win a given election, not the people who have well-reasoned policies or arguments.
Hi David,
Very interesting and topical subjects which is happening right around the world now.
I am often amazed to hear people say they only get their news from Facebook as they don’t believe main stream media anymore due to its bias reporting but miss the fact that they do fact check in their news segments but don’t care in their sensationalist segments that run at night. One thing is evident though Facebook and other social network platforms do provide an echo chamber of thoughts that once tapped into rapidly expand across a community and that I think is the crux of how these platforms are being used to influence the outcomes of elections not a cyber attack to change votes. It was interesting to note that the Mueller report did talk about the influence of fake news on the voters but many politicians only try to make it about how many votes were not changed at the ballot box they do not want to talk about how many votes were influenced with misleading news items.
I am not sure where this will all lead but if social networks become classified as media and not tech then the checking of all news items would be mandatory and not self regulated the problem as you say is once it is out there it is hard to retract it.
Thanks Graeme, It seems to be that Facebook and others have a very cavalier approach to rolling out new technology on their platforms. Live video streaming for example, the most basic of risk assessment would have flagged big concerns with this technology on their platform being used in a malicious way. Others such as Periscope had done it before so there would be actual real world case studies they could analyse. But with this and almost everything else they have done, its been a case of roll it out and tweak it or change it when bad things happen or if they are ordered to do so by national governments.
Your other point about voters being influenced by cyber information attacks, I think it is part of the problem. Russian trolls, alt right trolls and others create sensationalist news content which are highly exaggerated or simply untrue. Once these stories are placed in these social media echo chambers they have a life of their own and reach hundreds of thousands of people in a very short period of time. I have seen examples of this quite recently in the UK with regards to pushing of a no deal Brexit which would be utterly catastrophic for the UK Economy and even the integrity of the the country, but is being pushed by the alt right as a “clean Brexit” – very worrying.