Zimpapers Logo

New studies from two separate projects looked at how falsehoods circulate on social media — with some worrying conclusions for fact checkers

Delta Milayo Ndou #DigitalDialogue

Perhaps a more robust discourse around the value of truth telling and truth seeking on social media should ensue and a clear stand needs to be taken regarding whether freedom of expression means freedom to abuse others and infringe upon their rights.

Many people take social media falsehoods at face value and frenziedly share lies across their platforms without verifying, especially if those falsehoods confirm and reinforce what they already believe about the subject, issue, person, entity or institution, that is being misrepresented.

As a matter of principle and as a collective societal ideal, very few of us (if any) would object to the assertion that telling lies is wrong and that spreading falsehoods is malicious, harmful and should never be condoned.

But what happens when those social media falsehoods happen to be in sync with what we desperately want to believe? Are social media falsehoods easy to dismiss when the claims that are made work to our advantage? Is it easy to call out social media lies when those lies happen to happily coincide with and reinforce our deeply felt grievances? But more critically, how many of us would be willing to speak against social media falsehoods if those falsehoods happen to be centred on personalities we disagree with, dislike or detest?

On the surface of it very few people, if any, would have any objection to the idea that spreading falsehoods, in any context and about any person or event or thing, is inherently wrong, but some ideals are easier to hold, easier to defend and easier to embrace only when they confirm what we believe about certain people, certain issues and certain realities.

It is my considered view that the reason why social media lies flourish is because of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias refers to a selective manner of thinking wherein individuals seek out, notice and show strong preference for information that confirms what they already think, feel and believe. Confirmation bias works by way of belief perseverance, which is the tendency of clinging to our initial beliefs, views and attitudes even after receiving new information that contradicts or disconfirms the basis of what we believe. For instance, political supporters may steadfastly insist that their leader is infallible and when presented with evidence of his/her shortcomings, they may reject, disregard or undervalue the relevance of this new information simply because it stands in contradiction to and disconfirms what they already believe. I think many people gravitate towards social media falsehoods that confirm or reinforce what they already believe even when the claims being made are preposterous.

When the victims are those we disagree with
If lies are being spread on social media about someone you disagree with, would you speak out against the falsehoods or would you go along with the lies for the schadenfreude (i.e deriving pleasure from another person’s misfortune) thrill of it? To use a ready and recent example — on Monday, the ICT Minister, Hon Supa Mandiwanzira was on Star FM discussing social media abuse and clarifying that Government had no intention of banning or regulating social media, but was alarmed by increasing cases of social media abuse exemplified by the spreading of falsehoods, distribution of child porn, malicious impersonations and wilful misrepresentations. Ironically, an hour and a half after this interview one news site claimed on its Facebook page that -: Minister of Information Supa Mandiwanzira [offered] on Star FM “$50 000 reward for anyone who reports a known social media abuser. Brings evidence . . .” The page’s administrator/s then solicited for responses by inviting users to complete the phrase-: My message to Supa is_________________.

At the time of writing this article, that particular Facebook post had attracted over 200 mostly vitriolic comments directed at Mandiwanzira in response to utterances that he did not make. Many of the commentators did not bother to check the veracity of this Facebook post prior to expressing their explosive indignation and so the lie prevailed and prevails to this day. Using this incident as a case study, how many would — for the sake of principle — stick their necks out to defend a politician (they may or may not like) that is being savaged on social media over blatant falsehoods? I learnt of this deceitful Facebook post when someone on Twitter pointed out-: “@deltandou Look I’m not a fan of @SupaCollinsM and I listened to the whole interview but this [i.e $50 000 reward] didn’t come up”. What I found striking about this person’s response was that they felt the need to first issue a disclaimer and make sure it was understood that they were “not a fan” of Mandiwanzira, but also they were not going to just keep quiet when they knew the claims made in that Facebook post were false. It didn’t sit well with this person to let the lie go unchallenged; they felt the need to highlight the falsehood — because that’s what abiding by a principle demands — you speak up even if by speaking up you may be associated with those you may not agree with.

I have noted this ‘disclaim and then condemn’ approach when people want to stand by a principle, but want to make sure that, in taking that principled stand, their actions are not mistaken for endorsement of any person or entity. They want it to be clear that what they are defending is the principle not the person, so that they don’t attract the ire of those whose confirmation bias or belief perseverance cripples them from taking into consideration facts or information that contradicts what they prefer to believe.

I would hope to see more freedom of expression advocates take categorical stances when condemning falsehoods online in much the same way they ferociously defend free expression as a principle.

In my view, advocating for free expression should go hand in hand with ensuring that these rights are exercised and enjoyed responsibly without infringing on others.

Does the outcome justify the lie?
There is a Latin phrase that goes “exitus acta probat” which means “the outcome justifies the deed” and this seems to be an attitude that people adopt when confronted with social media falsehoods that happen to lead to an outcome they desire. Whether it is getting someone fired, humiliating another person, ruining a reputation, wrecking a marriage or raging against a political figure — there are people who will ride on social media falsehoods to achieve their desired (often malevolent) ends. In his radio interview, Mandiwanzira stated that his hope was that online users find ways of regulating themselves so that the State does not feel obligated to do so. In recent weeks, conflicting reports have been made to the effect that the Government was planning to ban social media while others maintained that Government intended to regulate social media.

These reports raised the ire of freedom of expression activists and bodies who responded by (rightfully) issuing strongly worded statements castigating what appeared to be drastic intervention on the part of the State.

While their stances resonated with me, I was left to wonder where is this fire and brimstone type of censure when increasingly social media abuses go unremarked upon on a daily basis?

Apart from the Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe, I am not aware of any other civil society body that has programmatic agenda that encapsulates promoting freedom of expression on the one hand and the denouncement of falsehoods on the other — I do look forward to being corrected.

It is simply not enough to defend the right to freedom of expression without simultaneously providing a strong voice to speak against things such as revenge porn, child porn, social media falsehoods, malicious impersonation through fake chat messages — which actions are not in keeping with the responsible enjoyment and exercise of freedom of expression. Perhaps a more robust discourse around the value of truth telling and truth seeking on social media should ensue and a clear stand needs to be taken regarding whether freedom of expression means freedom to abuse others and infringe upon their rights.

For some people, as long as the victims are those they dislike they are happy to ‘share, like and retweet’ falsehoods because the outcome is justifiable in that it hurts those they hate and confirms what they prefer to believe.

Delta is Head of Digital at Zimpapers and a PhD scholar researching on digital media, disruptive technologies and journalistic practice. Follow her on Twitter: @deltandou