Fighting Fake News: A Generational Approach

Dear Colleagues,

To reach a state of equal opportunity in our society, access to credible, accessible information [1,2] across all generations is of the utmost importance. Access to (digital) information about services and products is crucial [3]. Van den Hoven [4], referring to Rawls [5,6], goes so far as to refer to accessible information as a “primary good”. As all citizens have an equal right to information, Bovens [7], Bovens and Loos[8] even advocate granting citizens’ information rights, following along the lines of the classic (freedom) rights.

We define fake news as “any kind of misleading information that could mistakenly be considered accurate, regardless of the mechanisms that led to its propagation” [9]. See [10] for a typology of scholarly definitions and [11] for a discussion of related terms, such as mis-, dis- and mal-information. Fake news endangers the accessibility of information for younger and older citizens [12–14], see also https://www.stopcoronafakenews.com/en/ (accessed on 8 March 2022). The question we are confronted with now is how to fight fake news so that all generations can continue to have access to credible, accessible information.

One approach involves introducing legal measures requiring tech platforms, such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, to self-regulate themselves. These platforms have been requested by the EU to provide monthly reports on the actions they have taken to combat the dissemination of fake news (https://reut.rs/3o19Kg8, accessed on 8 March 2022). Dumitru et al.[9] state that “As part of these self-regulatory measures, Facebook and Google committed to a more stringent policing of the content that is tolerated on their platforms” (https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/COVID-19-misinfo-update/, https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/google-news-initiative/news-brief-april-2021-updates-google-news-initiative/, accessed on 8 March 2022). Additionally, Twitter stated that “as the global community faces the COVID-19 pandemic together, Twitter is helping people find reliable information, connect with others, and follow what’s happening in real time (…)” (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/COVID-19#protecting, accessed on 8 March 2022).” Another such measure is the development of a code of conduct (https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-disinformation, accessed on 8 March 2022). Dumitru et al.(in press) [9] point to the statement issued by the Sounding Board of the multistakeholder Forum on Disinformation on 24 September 2018, which declared that “[… ] the “Code of practice”, as presented by the working group, contains no common approach, no clear and meaningful commitments, no measurable objectives or KPIs, hence no possibility to monitor progress, and no compliance or enforcement tool: it is by no means self-regulation, and therefore the Platforms, despite their efforts, have not delivered a Code of Practice”. They conclude: “In short, the extent to which a legal approach using self-regulation and a code of principles really works to fight fake news remains unclear”.

Technological innovation has opened the door for a second approach in the form of automatic deception detection [15,16]. Google has already started checking the factualness of the news presented on their platform, and Facebook recently introduced a new oversight board (an international committee of judges, journalists and academics) that will help steer the company’s policy on the freedom of expression. For more information, see the following EU initiative: https://www.poynter.org/international-fact-checking-network-fact-checkers-code-principles (accessed on 8 March 2022). Traditional fact checking and innovative technological detection might help to fight fake news to some extent, but they are not a solution in themselves. Apart from technical feasibility, fake news will become increasingly sophisticated and harder (if not impossible) to detect. Moreover, there is an even more fundamental issue: Who has the authority to decide the criteria for the credibility of online information—the state, the platform companies or the press? Using sophisticated tools to withhold certain news from citizens could in the end threaten their access to credible information, which eventually erodes democracy.

It may therefore be argued that a more durable solution would be to empower citizens so that they themselves are able to judge the credibility of information. We distinguished a third, educational approach based on media literacy [9,12,17] (see also https://www.stopcoronafakenews.com/en/toolkit-educatieve, accessed on 8 March 2022) focusing on interventions at schools, other educational institutions and community centers: “Media literacy should not only focus on people’s ability to use certain devices and technologies, but also on promoting a deep understanding of modern forms of media, how these work and how they produce and use news items, all of which may be attained through systematic media education programs [18]. It is not only important to investigate the feasibility of interventions at an early age to empower young citizens such that they are able to establish the trustworthiness of news. It is also essential to involve other generations as due to the paucity of studies in this field, it would be naive to assume that they are not vulnerable to fake news” [9].

This Special Issue of Societies comprises seven papers that present empirical research in Bosnia and Herzegiovina (1x) [19], one multiple-country study (Argentine, Australia, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, USA, Qatar, New Zealand and Costa Rica) [20], the USA (3×) [21–23], Romania (2×) [24,25], focusing on how different generations perceive fake news, including young and middle-aged groups of people [19], multiple age groups [22,25], university students and adults in general [20], elementary students (grades 1–5 in USA [21], children and adolescents [24], and paying attention to age, education and gender [23]. The use of an ad hoc analysis sheet, validated by the interjudge method [20], could represent an interesting approach to investigate how people in different professions discern reliable information from fake news, whereas descriptive observational data [21] might provide insights into how different age groups search for information and how often they are exposed to fake news. Some authors [19] used thematic analysis to investigate differences between generations in perceiving fake news; others [25] used surveys to describe the differences between generations in the perceived incidence of fake information. Study [23] used surveys to assess the impact of the characteristics of online articles and their authors, publishers and sponsors on perceived trustworthiness to ascertain how readers make online article trust decisions. In other studies [22,24], experiments were conducted to explore the rationale people use when deciding what information to trust. Overall, this Special Issue provides insights into the different methodologies available to research fake news from a generational perspective across different age groups.

Dr. Eugène Loos
Dr. Loredana Ivan
Guest Editors

References

1. Flanagin, J.; Metzger, M.J. The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media Soc. 2007, 9, 319–342.
2. Bråten, ; Stadtler, M.; Salmeron, L. The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In Handbook of Discourse Processes; Schober, M.F., Rapp, D.N., Britt, M.A., Eds.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018.
3. De Jong, ; Rizvi, G. The State of Access: Success and Failure of Democracies to Create Equal Opportunities; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
4. Van den Hoven, J. Towards ethical principles for designing politico-administrative information systems. In Computer Ethics; Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; pp. 193–213.
5. Rawls, A Theory of Justice; Belknap Press and Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971.
6. Rawls, Political Liberalism; Columbia University Press: New York City, NY, USA, 1993.
7. Bovens, A.P. Information rights. Citizenship in the information society. J. Political Philos. 2002, 10, 317–341.
8. Bovens, A.P.; Loos, E.F. The digital constitutional state: Democracy and law in the information society. Inf. Polity 2002, 7, 185–197.
9. Dumitru, -A.; Ivan, L.; Loos, E.F. A Generational Approach to Fight Fake News: In Search of Effective Media Literacy Training and Interventions. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population (Accepted); Gao, Q., Zhou, J., Eds.; Cham: Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2022.
10. Tandoc, C., Jr.; Lim, Z.W.; Ling, R. Defining “Fake News” A typology of scholarly definitions. Digit. Journal. 2018, 6, 137–153.
11. Wardle, ; Derakhshan, H. Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. Council of Europe, 27. 2017. Available online: http://tverezo.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/PREMS-162317-GBR-2018-Report-desinformation-A4-BAT.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2022).
12. Loos, F.; Ivan, L.; Leu. D. “Save The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus”: A hoax revisited. Or: How vulnerable are school children to Fake News? Inf. Learn. Sci. 2018, 119, 514–528.
13. Loos, ; Nijenhuis, J. Consuming Fake News: A Matter of Age? The perception of political fake news stories in Facebook ads. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population; Zhou, J., Gao, Q., Eds.; Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2020; pp. 69–88.
14. Brites, J.; Amaral, I.; Simões, R.B.; Santos, S.J. Generational Perspectives on EU Documents Tackling Disinformation. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; Gao, Q., Zhou, J., Eds.; Cham, Swittzerland: Springer, 2021; pp. 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78108-8_26.
15. Conroy, ; Rubin, V.L.; Yimin Chen, Y. Automatic Deception Detection: Methods for Finding Fake News. In Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, St. Louis, MO, USA, 6–10 November 2015.
16. Zhou, ; Zafarani, R.; Shu, K.; Liu, H. Fake news: Fundamental theories, detection strategies and challenges. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Melbourne, Australia, 11–15 February 2019; pp. 836–837.
17. Leu, J., Jr.; Kinzer, C.K.; Coiro, J.; Cammack, D. Towards a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th ed.; Ruddell, R.B., Unrau, N., Eds.; National Institute of Child Health and Development: Newark, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 1570–1613.
18. Buckingham, The Media Education Manifesto; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019.
19. Trninić, ; Kuprešanin Vukelić, A.; Bokan, J. Perception of “Fake News” and Potentially Manipulative Content in Digital Media—A Generational Approach. Societies 2022, 12, 3. doi.: 10.3390/soc12010003.
20. Herrero-Diz, ; López-Rufino, C. Libraries Fight Disinformation: An Analysis of Online Practices to Help Users’ Generations in Spotting Fake News. Societies 2021, 11, 133. doi: 10.3390/soc11040133.
21. Pilgrim, ; Vasinda, S. Fake News and the “Wild Wide Web”: A Study of Elementary Students’ Reliability Reasoning. Societies 2021, 11, 121. doi:10.3390/soc11040121.
22. Michael, B.; Sanson, M. Source Information Affects Interpretations of the News across Multiple Age Groups in the United States. Societies 2021, 11, 119. doi: 10.3390/soc11040119.
23. Straub, J.; Spradling, M.; Fedor, B. Assessment of Factors Impacting the Perception of Online Content Trustworthiness by Age, Education and Gender. Societies 2022, 12, 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12020061.
24. Dumitru, -A. Testing Children and Adolescents’ Ability to Identify Fake News: A Combined Design of Quasi-Experiment and Group Discussions. Societies 2020, 10, 71. doi: 10.3390/soc10030071.
25. Buturoiu, ; Udrea, G.; Oprea, D.-A.; Corbu, N. Who Believes in Conspiracy Theories about the COVID-19 Pandemic in Romania? An Analysis of Conspiracy Theories Believers’ Profiles. Societies 2021, 11, 138. doi:10.3390/soc11040138.

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as conceptual papers are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Societies is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.