Addressing Misinformation – Digital CxO Podcast EP101

Hello, and welcome to the digital CXO podcast. I'm Amanda Razani, and with me today I have Mark W. Brennan.

He is the leader of Hogan Level's global technology policy practice. How are you doing today? I Am Amanda.

I'm doing great. Uh, and glad to be here with you today and and to connect with you and your listeners. So, uh, hi everybody.

Happy to have you on our show. Can you talk a little bit about your company and what you do exactly? Happy to.

Amanda Hogan Levels is a global law firm, and I lead, as you mentioned, our tech policy practice. So I work with clients across the technology ecosystem on all the issues that you see in the headlines today, whether it be social media, ai, online safety, privacy, and other digital and online service issues. Wonderful.

Well, that means you're the person to talk to about our topic today, and that is the responsibility of technology platforms and leaders when it comes to misinformation, which I know is a, a key issue of concern around the globe. So first, let's talk about what kinds of misinformation are we most concerned about and are we seeing? Yeah, it's a really important and timely question, uh, one that, uh, we saw a lot of attention on, uh, during Covid and the 2020 election and now, uh, the series of elections across the globe this year.

And, and we continue to see misinformation popping up in a variety of context. Uh, one of the, one of the important things to keep in mind is that in some instances, and at least to a certain extent, misinformation can be in the eye of the beholder. Um, there, there can be in some scenarios a difference of view, difference of opinion.

When we think about misinformation, usually some of the underpinnings, uh, relate to disputes where some of the, the claims seem, um, readily, uh, contradicted by known accessible factual information. And what sorts of technology are we seeing misinformation come in through? Where are we finding it?

Yeah, I, I think it's fair to say that it can appear across mediums, uh, across media. So, uh, and that, uh, if you think about misinformation as, uh, people having a point of view and pushing a particular point of view, you know, sometimes it, it gets, uh, labeled conspiracy theories, um, uh, false, uh, false information, false narratives. Um, the, the verbiage here can vary, but from a certain pers perspective, we have had, uh, things like this pop up across media over the history of technology, uh, the news industry, media and publishing industry.

So from a certain perspective, it's not new. What we are seeing more attention on in recent years is the scale at which information and claims about certain information can be distributed. And so just like other information, just like social connections, the, the rise of global technologies in the last several decades that allow us to connect, uh, tie into some of these themes because of the scale and, um, the speed at which the information can travel.

Yeah, we are all much more digitally inclined these days and all connected online a lot. I know that, um, the most recent election you mentioned, um, there were a lot of misinformation things happening. There were, um, robo phone calls using, uh, fake voices, um, AI to make fake voices that sounded like, uh, real candidates telling them how to vote.

There were deep fakes and we're seeing a lot of deep fakes in general, and it's kind of hard to know what's real and what's not real anymore, kind of to the point where some people are like, just don't trust anything. It's, We, I, I hear that I use, uh, social media and I pay attention in the headlines, and I, I see this segment of the population that feels, um, concerned. Um, and may maybe there's a, a creeping apathy that, that, that, that the trust mistrust the distrust, lack of trust that the whole spectrum of, of outcomes.

Uh, and it's, it's disappointing. I mean, I, I think in particular, it's disappointing to people that are engaging, in fact-based science-based efforts to, you know, provide research, distribute information. But again, um, there, there are a lot of related issues when we talk about misinformation, disinformation.

So for example, you know, in the, in the US we have the first amendment. And so just in the general matter, people have freedom of speech, uh, and that extends in, and there are some nuances here, but that extends to the ability of businesses to, to exercise speech as well. So when we think about online services, when we think about, uh, newspapers, magazines, uh, this, this, uh, this platform for example, there is not only the ability of the, the, uh, speakers on the, on the individual shows to express a view or the individual articles, the users on the platforms, but, but the business behind it is able to express a view.

And we can all think of a few examples of, well-known media entities that express their own point of view. Um, and, and that's where, at least in the US for the, for the basic behind the First Amendment, the idea was that we wanna promote more speech, not less. I think what we've seen as an evolution in the last few years, let's say the, maybe the last decade or so, is that the scale of the speech can, can, uh, change quickly.

Uh, and sometimes you don't always see the, the competing narratives feeling like they're getting sufficient airtime. So we've seen, uh, individuals, uh, and, and this can have a a political piece to it, but some, some political, uh, uh, candidates, uh, elected officials have expressed a view that there, there are platforms that are targeting speech against them or that are promoting speech against them or, or suppressing speech that, that they want to pursue. And, and ultimately it's a very difficult exercise, whether as a, as a publisher, as a, as a newspaper, as an online platform, uh, how to engage in that exercise of content moderation or, or speech, speech curation on the platform, it's very difficult.

And in some ways, the, the, the goals, the rules, uh, with your users keeps evolving because as, as the audience on a platform, as the user base continues to shift, the norms also shift. So the things that we see that are acceptable or encouraged on platforms today are very different from the, the types of speech, the, the, the ways of communicating that we'd see even 10 years ago. And I think one example of that is when you go on, uh, say a social media page that you've had for 10, 15 years, and they'll show you, you know, 10 years ago you said this, it stands out, not because you also may have learned some things along the way about how you want to communicate publicly, but just the norms of change.

And I think we're continuing to see that, and that's where people are continuing in this, in this broader umbrella of, uh, misinformation disinformation, to really hone in on what that might be and how best to, um, address both concerns about false information being spread widely and encouraging people to have space to express a variety of views. Absolutely. And that is very difficult.

And, and, you know, we have this concern because, you know, we can easily manipulate, um, through media and misinformation. And so where, where can we put in some regulations? What, what advice do you have for businesses and, um, leaders as far as what regulations can we look at to try to make sure we're not spreading too much misinformation?

Yeah. Um, well, so hopefully here, there all already are frameworks in place. Um, but, and they vary across jurisdiction.

So what we might see for the US is gonna be different than, than what's available in other countries. So there's not a global standard, uh, for speech. Uh, and, and that, you know, you could, you could look to different examples where speech has had various impacts in different countries, different regions.

And so, you know, not everybody follows the, the same framework that we have in the US for the First Amendment, but we do have, um, we do have some different, uh, some parameters, uh, that, that are instructive here. So, um, first, like I mentioned, we've got the first amendment. So in terms of individual speech, uh, the government's incredibly limited in the ways in which it can look to censor or chill, uh, restrict individual speech, especially on, um, politically timely, politically impactful, uh, speech.

Um, where we tend to see the government having more room to, uh, impose those restraints are, uh, they, they tend to actually, um, appear more as required disclosure. So when you think about the, the food nutrition labels, um, there can be safety and, and health backdrops to that. Um, but once you go too much beyond the required disclosure, the government's really gonna get in trouble with the First Amendment, and that can be, um, federal or state governments.

Um, we also have, uh, a provision in the US that many, many of the audience will be familiar with. But section two 30 is, is, uh, how it's called. And ultimately this is a provision that says in short and there's nuances, but if you run an online service and you allow individuals to provide user generated content, whether it be, um, post or social networking features, or the, think of the traditional messaging, uh, message boards that we saw, um, that you as a platform are in most instances not gonna be liable for, uh, violations or legal claims against, uh, that, that involve or were caused by the, the, the users and more specifically the speech of the users, the conduct of the users on the platform.

You as the platform operator are not liable. It's the users. And that, that stems from a recognition that if you were to put a platform on the hook for anything and everything that could happen on the platform, that nobody would ever create these spaces for people to engage in.

Um, and that was a recognition back in the nineties, um, as internet connectivity was, was hitting a mass appeal and we were shifting into the broadband space. So with that backdrop then, your question of what, what should we be doing? What, what are, what are the regulations that are, you know, needed?

I think it's fair to say that at least in terms of terms, the, the individual users, we, we don't want to be shifting to limiting speech, censoring speech in the US and frankly, that that would, uh, at a certain point take a constitutional amendment. What we have used as a model is having the individual platforms be able to curate the community standards, community guidelines for their its specific platform. And that will vary.

And that's why you see today competition among platforms, some of which has, um, uh, involves competition on political views. So people that are, um, uh, leaning a certain way on, uh, you know, political issues may shift to one platform because it's viewed as an attractive space for like-minded individuals. Now, of course, it has side effects because then you start to lose that ability for the robust discussion unless somebody of a different view just wants to, uh, walk into the, the hot bench, whether and to what extent other regulations need to be imposed on the platforms themselves.

This I think is an area that has, uh, you know, it's getting a lot of debate, uh, and what we tend, what we see is that the platforms are continuing to navigate how to, how to address the, the differing challenges with misinformation, disinformation, user behavior. So when we think about it across the platform, this is just one area of content that they're trying to ultimately create the best environment for their users. Um, and I, I would say we want to find all the ways we can to support that approach because we're seeing, um, every year new platforms develop, spawn new community environments, new ways of engaging, and it really does underscore, um, the ways in which the American technology industry can continue to evolve by prompting these environments that people can communicate and express their ideas.

Where we have seen regulation imposed in the past where, for example, you know, in order to allow kids on the platform, you have to, um, verify their age or where certain content has to be filtered out. Inevitably things like content filtering have some over and under and they're not gonna be perfect. It's just a function of language.

And then when you talk about age verification, that has become a significant privacy issue, not only for the children, but also adults who end up not being able to engage in these discussions online unless they give up their ID or other personal information. So my view is that we don't need additional regulation on the platforms, but instead users and frankly and quite literally using their voice, um, are able to support and engage across platforms and find the community that best suits them. Yeah, absolutely.

And that is, you know, kids, our kids are more connected than ever. They're more digitally inclined than any other generation. And so I do have concern for what the kids are seeing on these social media platforms and, um, and how to protect them, um, from manipulations 'cause they're so easily influenced.

It's tough. And, and I think there's generally a shared policy goal across, um, political parties, across stakeholders, both in the private sector and civil society that, uh, we want to be taking steps to protect children online and frankly, to be taking steps to protect, uh, our, our our public health at large. We talk about things like misinformation around Covid and so forth.

Um, what I, I think what could be helpful is, lemme lemme give an example of something that was introduced, uh, in the last few years and the side effects it can have and why trying to address these issues through, um, prescriptive regulation has proven challenging. Um, and, and frankly, uh, ineffective. So during, uh, during the, um, pandemic, there was a bill introduced, and this was by, um, Klobuchar, so a, a democrat that would have given, uh, HHS additional tools to limit the spread of information about particular health issues.

And there were, there were standards and it needed to be particularly important, but at the time, the idea was that, um, we needed to reign in HHS under a Republican administration and make sure that, that they, you know, didn't amplify what was seen by the Democrats as false narratives around covid and vaccines and so forth. But then you, you sort of flip that and you say, okay, well let's say you agree with that from a policy perspective. Once there is a, a Republican, uh, administration, you could see where that could be interpreted.

And this is without any commentary on the, the upcoming administration. I just, I I think it's something that is, um, you know, looking at general themes from the, from the election cycle, you could see an agency that would look to restrict or, or define certain information as okay and certain information as not okay. About family planning, uh, about sexual orientation, gender identity, and other, uh, health issues.

And, and I think that's where we see trying to regulate specifically about speech, um, ultimately can do more harm than good, especially if people disagree about which speech should be regulated and which is the, the, the one true, um, singular approach on kids. Where we have seen a lot of difficulty from a policy perspective, uh, ties into the recent legislation that a bill in Congress, the Kids Online Safety Act. So this is not enacted law, it's, it passed the Senate, it's pending in the house.

Uh, and the, the underlying goal is one in which stakeholders are generally, uh, unified. Let's keep kids safe online. But then once you talk about how to do that, there's a lot of variation.

And I think Cosa underscores a really interesting example where, you know, everybody can agree on the goal and the fact that it has had so much, um, strident discussion moving through the legislature shows just how, um, you know, misguided some of the proposed requirements might be. And, and when you think about the online safety piece, generally asking for age verification, where we see that really have impact for minors, you know, one example is with teens. So a lot of teens are trying to get online to get information about their health.

Um, they may be searching about religion, they may need family planning, they may need access to other resources. Uh, and at the end of the day, the, the political views can be varied, but this is just a reflection. That's what a lot of teens are going online.

They're, they're trying to go online to get information that they may not be able to get from their parents or from their families. Um, they may be in an abusive household, they may be looking for help in a variety of ways. They may be looking to learn information that they just don't otherwise have access to in their communities.

And when we require for all minors, so looping in teens, age verification or parental notice, parental, um, consent for access to information, then you've got some some pretty tough side effects for teens. Yeah, absolutely. It's, um, it's a really difficult topic to figure out a, a really good solution to.

So if there was one key thing you could leave our audience with today, what would that be? Oh, that's a, a great question. Uh, you know, we, we discussed earlier the, the creeping frustration that people may have.

Um, and, and while it remains true that you shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet, um, and everything you read, um, I'd encourage people to keep engaging online, keep using a variety of of platforms for networking and social media, keep exploring the new technologies, see what fits for you, discuss these issues with your friends and family, and learn from each other about both your, your experiences in, uh, online spaces. Hear people's views about how they've approached trying to, um, support their kids and, and the, the things that their kids are trying to learn, learn about, and, and continue those discussions. 'cause my view is, I don't think we've seen yet a model be proposed by the elected officials that really does protect kids and adults without significant side effects.

So in my view, I think everybody should, should keep talking about these issues, propose new ideas, and, and encourage the, the groups that they work with, um, to move in that direction. It seems like it always comes down to better communication in a lot of scenarios. I, I think so.

And you know, when there, there's a bit of irony in having that theme framed around social media, which really should be, uh, encouraging this. But I, I think we do see where some people will curate their list and it becomes a bit of an echo chamber and, and that can be, you know, other limiting in other ways and encourage people to, to keep looking at, um, the, the views of people who may disagree with them. Absolutely.

Well, thank you so much for coming on and sharing your insights with us today, Amanda. Thank you for having me. And thank you to, uh, the audience here.

Appreciate it. And thanks as well to the audience. Stay tuned.

There's more.