Public Service vs Big Brother: Feds looking at fighting online misinformation…online.
May 25, 2010 · By Sean
From the CTV News story here.
So a story was released on Sunday regarding online facts vs ‘misinformation’. Apparently the Federal Government is looking at means to fight misinformation (and sometimes outright lies) in online forums such as Facebook Groups and Comment Sections:
The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation….
…The seal hunt pilot project was set up in part “to establish foundations and recommendations for future programs and campaigns to use social media as another way to listen to, inform and engage with Canadians”
Right off the top, those of us experienced in Blogging and Commenting online about various issues know that there are those out there who will immediately assume that this will be nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government in power. Having read through the comments of the story, I’m sorry to say that I wasn’t disappointed in my expectation.
Now in all fairness, this could very well be true. The potential for abuse and propaganda peddling is self-evident. However, I believe that those who will be most threatened by this, are those who intentionally misrepresent information, stories and facts in order to further their own personal agenda. I also believe that those who shout loudest about Big Brother et al. are those who have the most to lose if a Federal Representative were to intrude upon their rant with actual facts (and in this statement, I’m assuming that only facts are what will be posted). Such comments/replies will of course become subject to ridicule and further attack.
On the bright side, this is also a government who is recognizing that as more and more Canadians resort to online forums of all sorts to obtain their information, they too will have to go where the people are. Provided that it’s “just the facts ma’am“, and rhetoric and propaganda are left at the door so-to-speak, then I believe that this is truly a responsible proposal.
With Governments falling victim to shoddy “Gotcha!” reporting tactics where the Headline and By-line are far more important than the actual facts and issues at hand (not to mention the importance or lack thereof), misinformation is spreading like wildfire among the populace. The natural reaction of any responsible government would be to take advantage of any means by which to provide factual information wherever possible.
As someone who is more interested in facts and truth, I wouldn’t mind in the least if a member of the Federal Government were to show up and post corrections on something I had written online. If I disagreed, I would be able to challenge them directly, visibly, for all to see, and then be proven right or wrong. Again: Publicly. Visibly. I have no issues with this, and in fact, encourage it.
So the Pros and Cons? On the pro side, it engages people with their government, and facts can be set straight. A laudable and credible endeavour. It may also create a pressure for commentators and authors to clearly state that this is ‘their opinion‘ and that it ‘should not be taken as fact.’ On the con side, if abused, it will only serve to forever widen the gap between the Government and Public Trust. The danger of this can not be over-emphasized, and should the Federal Government embark on this initiative on a larger scale, they absolutely must do so responsibly with an eye to the public good and stick to the facts.
It sounds more like an online loser just happened to convince the right people in government to pay him for what he was previously doing for free.
Well, as the article indicated, this was something that was initially set up to counter the misinformation that was being spread by special-interest groups about the Seal Hunt. An outside agency was hired to find questionable ‘facts’ and forward them to the government to respond to.
Some of these agencies don’t like having facts thrown in their faces when it doesn’t further their cause. But as was noted by one of these groups, they’re concerned that it might just be propaganda as opposed to facts.
So how do I get me one of those cushy guvmit surf-the-web jobs with a wicked pension? :)
Umm… I’m in full agreement. I just think the agencies that might object most to having facts thrown at them are political parties and bureaucracies.
Further, how on earth do we think it’s healthy for the country to have agencies like DFAIT empowering themselves with the authority to decide what is “misinformation” and what is fact?
as more and more people become engaged in online discussion and news surfing, it is inevitable that they will find the truth. there is no such thing as one all encompassing govt agency that will use its coercive powers in a benign way to keep the populace informed in the correct manner.
when you take a policy idea such as this to its absurd conclusion, it smells like a cyber CBC Corporation in the making. it will eventually be staffed by political friends of the ruling party of the day and impossible to be rid of it.
what we need is the politburo to leave the internet alone. period. what we need is more bloggers who have put immense pressure on the MSM reporters and the corporations that hire them. the internet is still in its infancy as far im concerned. we cannot allow a govt intervention, no matter the size of its initial intrusion, because once you open the door but a crack, special interests will wrestle it wide open for all sorts of malevolent attacks on our freedoms.
sorry sean, cant go with you on this one.
Okay Brad. I can understand that. But the questions I have are as follows:
What obligation does the government have to ensure that the correct information is getting to the public about their actions?
If the vast majority of the misinformation being used to attack government position/policy/actions is being taken from online sources and is being represented as fact, what responsibility/obligation does the government have to respond to that with the actual facts and where should they do it?
If the government can’t rely on the MSM to deliver the correct information, what other recourse is available to them for mass distribution of information?
Or, should the government allow misinformed people to influence public opinion on matters of legislation which may thereby affect such legislation?
a greater amount of news in the next ten years will be online content only. the government should use the internet the same way everyone else does, by keeping its profile high on the search engine and using its constituent and ministerial websites to ensure proper dissemination of its content. while i agree with you that a conservative viewpoint is lacking in the MSM, i will forever be against any got intrusion into the regulation of the internet or other types of meddling. it only opens the door for abuse down the road, it always happens.
cheers