Introduction
Information plays a critical role in our lives, acting as a beacon of truth in times of need but also posing significant risks when falsified. The distinction between helpful and harmful information is encapsulated in two closely related terms: misinformation and disinformation. Despite their linguistic proximity, these words diverge significantly in their underlying intent.
Misinformation refers to false information spread without the purpose of misleading. It encompasses common human errors, such as forgetfulness, misinterpretation, or the unintentional sharing of inaccuracies. An example is mistakenly stating that a party starts at 9 pm instead of the actual time of 8 pm. Misinformation does not hinge on intent but rather characterizes any dissemination of incorrect or false information.
In the contemporary era, technology facilitates the rapid spread of misinformation, especially on social media platforms. Instances like the widely shared but inaccurate story of dolphins in Venice canals underline the challenges in curbing misinformation. The responsibility of tech giants like Facebook and Google to mitigate misinformation’s impact sparks debates, raising questions about potential infringements on users’ freedom of speech.
Misinformation became a focal point, leading to its designation as the Word of the Year in 2018. Governments, businesses, and society at large grappled with the challenge of addressing dangerous misinformation, recognizing its potential transformation into deliberate disinformation.
The origins of “misinformation” date back to the late 1500s, combining “information” with the prefix “mis-,” denoting “wrong” or “mistaken.” “Misinform,” the verb form, entered usage around 1350–1400, similarly devoid of specifying the purpose behind the dissemination of incorrect information.
In contrast, disinformation refers to intentionally spread false information. It encompasses deliberately misleading narratives, biased information, or propaganda. Disinformation carries a potent, destructive nature, often employed in espionage or as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign by countries.
Journalists face challenges in navigating disinformation, as certainty about intent is elusive. Accusing individuals of intentional falsehoods can lead to legal repercussions, emphasizing the delicate balance between truth-seeking and avoiding libel.
The term “disinformation” emerged relatively recently, recorded between 1965–70, translating from the Russian “dezinformátsiya,” based on the French “désinformer,” meaning “to misinform.”
The concept of disinformation involves the intentional spread of false, inaccurate, or misleading information with the aim of causing public harm or financial gain. Globally, disinformation is on the rise, evolving into a more intricate trend that incorporates emerging deceptive techniques. This complexity is evident in the acceleration of deep-fake technology, increasingly sophisticated micro-targeted disinformation campaigns, and diverse influence operations.
Disinformation carries significant implications for human rights and democratic norms on a global scale. It poses threats to freedom of thought, the right to privacy, democratic participation, and various economic, social, and cultural rights. The impact extends to broader indicators of democratic quality, eroding citizens’ trust in democratic institutions by distorting elections and fostering digital violence and repression. As governments and corporations address this issue more seriously, it becomes apparent that some counter-disinformation initiatives may conflict with human rights and democratic standards. While disinformation undermines human rights and democratic practices, counter-disinformation measures can also have a prejudicial impact on human rights and democracy.
The intensification of these trends and issues is evident in the context of ongoing challenges posed by disinformation. The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to new, more intense, and diverse disinformation campaigns globally. Non-democratic regimes have exploited the pandemic to suppress political opposition by restricting freedom of expression and the media, exacerbating the threats posed by disinformation to international human rights.
Addressing disinformation requires effective responses at various levels, including formal legal measures, regulations, corporate commitments, and civil society action. Many countries have taken legislative and executive steps to regulate disinformation, developing codes of practice, guidelines, and verification networks to debunk false information. While some corporations have initiated efforts to contain disinformation, progress has been uneven. Civil society is increasingly mobilizing globally to combat disinformation, often with a primary focus on human rights and building democratic capacity at the local level.
It is crucial to support counter-disinformation efforts as a means of protecting human rights and ensuring that measures do not exacerbate human rights issues. Institutions worldwide are developing instruments to combat disinformation, emphasizing a human rights approach. Practical examples from around the world provide templates for aligning the counter-disinformation and human rights agendas, emphasizing collaboration between institutions and civil society as the foundation for building societal resilience to disinformation.
When distinguishing between misinformation and disinformation, the crucial factor is intent. Misinformation arises from unintentional errors, while disinformation involves purposeful deceit. Despite their interchangeability in casual usage, precision is vital. Reserve “disinformation” for cases where false information is intentionally spread to harm, and use “misinformation” when the intent is uncertain.
In the digital age, rampant misinformation and disinformation manifest through conspiracy theories, propaganda, deep fakes, fake news, hoaxes, frauds, Photoshops, and scams. Enhancing media literacy through reputable guides and resources becomes imperative for discerning fact from fiction.
Disinformation is the intentional dissemination of false information with the purpose of deceiving people. It involves orchestrated adversarial activities where actors strategically employ deceptions and manipulate media tactics to advance political, military, or commercial objectives. This form of disinformation employs attacks that weaponize various rhetorical strategies and forms of knowledge, including falsehoods, truths, half-truths, and value judgments. The aim is to exploit and amplify cultural conflicts and identity-driven controversies.
In contrast, misinformation refers to inaccuracies resulting from inadvertent errors. Misinformation can evolve into disinformation when known inaccuracies are purposefully and intentionally spread. While “fake news” has been associated with disinformation, scholars caution against using these terms interchangeably, especially in academic writing. The term “fake news” has been weaponized by politicians to describe any unfavorable news coverage or information.
The English term “disinformation” is derived from the Latin prefix “dis-” applied to information, indicating the “reversal or removal of information.” The word has been in use since at least 1887, with its current usage appearing in dictionaries in 1985. It is not defined in some sources like Webster’s New World Thesaurus or New Encyclopædia Britannica in 1986. Originating from the Russian term “дезинформация” (dezinformatsiya), associated with the KGB black propaganda department, the Soviet planners in the 1950s defined it as the “dissemination (in the press, on the radio, etc.) of false reports intended to mislead public opinion.”
The term “disinformation” gradually broadened in the English language, encompassing any government communication, whether overt or covert, containing intentionally false and misleading material. By 1990, the term had firmly established itself in the political lexicon. By 2001, it had also come to be known as a more diplomatic way of accusing someone of lying. Stanley B. Cunningham noted in his 2002 book, “The Idea of Propaganda,” that “disinformation” had become widely used as a synonym for propaganda.
The Shorenstein Center at Harvard University defines disinformation research as an academic field that examines the spread and impacts of misinformation, disinformation, and media manipulation. This includes studying how these phenomena propagate through online and offline channels, understanding why individuals are susceptible to believing false information, and identifying successful strategies for mitigating its impact.
According to a research article published in New Media & Society in 2023, disinformation circulates on social media through various deception campaigns, employing tactics such as astroturfing, conspiracy theories, click bait, culture wars, echo chambers, hoaxes, fake news, propaganda, pseudoscience, and rumors.
Scholars collectively agree on specific definitions to differentiate between similar terms such as misinformation and misinformation. Disinformation involves the strategic dissemination of false information with the intention of causing public harm; misinformation denotes the unintentional spread of false information; and misinformation refers to factual information disseminated with the intention of causing harm. These terms are abbreviated as ‘DMMI.’
Debates regarding the overlap between disinformation and propaganda exist. Some, like the U.S. Department of State, define propaganda as the use of non-rational arguments to either advance or undermine a political ideal, using disinformation as an alternative name for undermining propaganda. Others consider them as separate concepts. One distinction suggests that disinformation also describes politically motivated messaging explicitly designed to foster public cynicism, uncertainty, apathy, distrust, and paranoia, all of which disincentivize citizen engagement and mobilization for social or political change.
Disinformation is commonly used to describe Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI). While studies on disinformation typically focus on the content of activities, the broader concept of FIMI is more concerned with the behavior of an actor, as outlined by the military doctrine concept of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).
Disinformation tactics may involve the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs or the spreading of dangerous rumors and fabricated intelligence. While these tactics are intended to achieve specific goals, they can result in unintended consequences, such as defamation lawsuits or damage to the reputation of the disseminator.
What Are the Reasons for the Existence of Disinformation?
Various factors contribute to the creation of disinformation, acknowledging the distinction between intentional and unintentional dissemination, as well as the potential for real news to be manipulated for negative impact.
Conspiracy Theories
Disinformation often thrives in environments where conspiracy theories abound. Individuals generating and spreading disinformation may genuinely believe in their worldview, unaware of the misinformation they propagate. A notable recent example relates to the COVID-19 pandemic, where a spectrum of conspiracy theories emerged, ranging from the virus being a harmless flu to claims of implanted tracking chips during vaccination.
Financial Motives
Financial considerations offer diverse scenarios for the existence of disinformation. Competing companies might deploy targeted disinformation to weaken rivals and gain a market advantage. Conversely, positive reporting can be strategically employed to influence stock markets and reap substantial profits. Clickbait, while distinct from disinformation, contributes to financial motives by luring internet users with sensational headlines to boost website traffic, leading to increased advertisement revenue.
Political Motives
Politically motivated disinformation aims to effect political change by manipulating societal sentiments. News may be taken out of context or presented incompletely to sway public opinion. Video editing can also distort messages, emphasizing the malleability of information dissemination.
For Fun or Satire
In some instances, disinformation is created for amusement without malicious intent. Trolls, individuals who delight in deceiving others, may seek attention through fabricated stories. Additionally, satire, using humor and exaggeration to critique societal issues, may inadvertently be misconstrued as disinformation if its satirical nature is overlooked.
Disrupting human rights and democracy through disinformation is undeniably a grave concern. However, countering disinformation introduces its own set of risks to the democratic equation. Addressing disinformation through a human rights lens requires navigating challenging trade-offs and delicate policy balances. While disinformation poses a significant threat to core human rights, countering it is a crucial contribution to safeguarding global human rights. Nevertheless, the efforts to counter disinformation can inadvertently constrain human rights, creating a complex dilemma.
Even though disinformation can easily inflict damage on human rights, both internationally and domestically, the so-called ‘fight against fake news’ has, in some countries, resulted in reduced freedom of expression and political dissent, posing a serious problem within and outside. Therefore, defending measures to tackle disinformation requires careful consideration of the human rights impacts resulting from disinformation itself and any unintended rights abuses caused by counter-disinformation attempts. Potential erosions of rights may arise from government interferences with internet services, state censorship or restrictions on online speech, and impediments to the proper functioning of media outlets. Actions, whether legal, administrative, extra-legal, or political, with the potential to breach freedoms of expression, assembly, and association, will inevitably lead to an erosion of the democratic space.
There is also a risk that the activities of digital platforms in combating disinformation may restrict freedom of expression. Reports by the former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, David Kaye, have warned against regulations that empower platforms to decide on content removal without public oversight. As the EU and the United States explore regulatory updates in response to disinformation challenges, there is a growing awareness of the dangers associated with counter-disinformation techniques that could inadvertently compromise rights.
In the United Nations, awareness about these dangers has increased, evident in the adoption of a resolution on cybercrime titled ‘Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes.’ The resolution, backed by Russia and China, raised concerns among major Western powers about the potential erosion of freedom of expression online. The resolution aimed at advancing the ‘fighting of cybercrime’ through information control and the suppression of political dissidents. Geopolitical debates surrounding cybersecurity reveal that human rights risk becoming casualties in both disinformation and counter-disinformation agendas.
References
- https://www.uu.nl/en/events/unraveling-the-impact-of-disinformation-on-society#:~:text=Due%20to%20the%20increasing%20digitization,to%20magnifying%20differences%20within%20society.
- https://huridocs.org/2023/12/the-harmful-effects-of-disinformation-and-how-to-combat-them/
- https://www.oasis-open.org/2023/05/17/recognizing-the-harmful-effects-of-disinformation-and-how-we-can-fight-back/
- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265734
- https://www.hindawi.com/journals/scn/2021/7999760/
- https://www.timesprime.com/blog/impact-of-fake-news-103834151
