The article references (but doesn't link to) a new report from the British Royal Society (100 page PDF) that asserts "governments and social media platforms should not rely on content removal as a solution to online scientific misinformation" (p.10). Instead, "The UK Government should invest in lifelong, nationwide, information literacy initiatives" (p. 21). Now if you read the BBC article, you would read "the report authors believe, social media sites should adjust their algorithms to prevent it going viral - and stop people making money off false claims." That's not what it says.
The closest we get to that is a remark in the foreward by Frank Kelly saying "we will need to see legislation which can address the incentives of business models that shape the algorithms determining the spread of content." But this sentiment is found nowhere in the recommendations. And that's the problem. If regulation and even censorship for accuracy in media are being considered, then state and commercial media are, arguably, equally in need of regulation. A better approach, generally, is open access, support for media plurality, and better media literacy. Which is what the Royal Society report actually says (see especially their extended discussion on this pp. 62-28).
Today: 1 Total: 1108 [Direct link] [Share]
