Removing fact-checks on social media risks losing a vital harm filter

The Enron Egg has been viral on social media for a while. This white egg-shaped tabletop device is touted as a micronuclear reactor that can power a home for 10 years.

 

It’s fake, of course. After Enron went bankrupt, its name and logo were purchased by a content creator who specialises in satire, and clearly says so. The device was “launched” by Connor Gaydos, chief executive officer of the new Enron. Mr Gaydos is also the co-author of Birds Aren’t Real, a book that debunks online conspiracy theories.

 

The name itself triggers doubt since Enron suffered a spectacular bankruptcy. A passing knowledge of nuclear power is enough to tell you the Egg is pure science fiction. Dozens of fact checkers pointed this out, and  lots of posters have crafted jokes and memes about it. But thousands of credulous folks did assume it was true. The new Enron will presumably monetise this.

 

This is the fun side of social media’s amplification of “fake news”. Nobody got hurt. Someone built a campaign around an admitted hoax and deserves to reap the rewards. However, six months ago, we saw the dark side of social media’s amplification of fake news. On July 29, a teenager ran amok at a dance class in the small English town of Southport. He stabbed many children. Three died.

 

The perpetrator was Axel Rudakubana, a 17-year-old British citizen born in Cardiff. He is of Rwandan origin, from a Christian background. He is now being tried on charges of murder, attempted murder, and terrorism-related offences.

 

The names and backgrounds of minors are normally withheld. But the UK government was forced to release those details due to what followed in the wake of the stabbing. Individuals associated with the far right promptly claimed the attacker was a Muslim asylum seeker. Their incendiary social media posts triggered race riots across the UK and Northern Ireland in August. The Asian Muslim community and their places of worship were targeted.

 

Some of the rioters and instigators have been arrested and sentenced to varying jail sentences. Some social media posters have also been charged with criminal offences. Others have gone scot free.

 

At least some of the far-right individuals involved in whipping up the violence may have made money out of it. In the aftermath of the riots, journalists looked at the earnings patterns of several prominent posters from the far right, neo-Nazi British factions. Many of these individuals benefit from the revenue-sharing model on X, where the platform shares ad revenue with “premium posters.”

 

The connection is straightforward. The more engagement a post can generate, the more likely the ad revenue. The more controversial the tweet, the more likely it is to generate engagement.

 

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who goes by the name Tommy Robinson, and runs the extreme-right English Defence League, is supposedly worth well over a million sterling. Mr Robinson is serving an 18-month sentence for defying an injunction to post misinformation about a 15-year-old Syrian refugee.

 

He has over a million followers on X and a thriving presence on Facebook. He was kicked off Twitter in 2018, and reinstated by Elon Musk, who has also campaigned for his release. Mr Robinson is not only perpetrating an ideology based on lies and misinformation, he’s made a good living out of hate posting.

 

Contrast these two examples of exploiting the features of social media for personal gains. You get a sense of where the current free-speech versus fact-check debate could lead in terms of real life consequences.

 

Peddlers of misinformation often demand a suspension of fact checks “because it may impede free speech”. But a fact check doesn't impede free speech. Indeed Enron was upfront in fact-checking itself and “Flat earth physicists” are free to post “theories” as they please.

 

 But shouting “fire” where there isn’t one can trigger a stampede. Misinformation about a murderer’s antecedents can trigger riots. Recommending a drug used for deworming horses as a Covid-19 treatment can exacerbate a pandemic.

 

Free speech shouldn’t be curtailed merely for conveying misinformation or expressing unpalatable or hateful opinions. It should be limited only when it has the potential to cause harm.  Unfortunately, fact-checking misinformation doesn’t stop its spread on social media. But it does provide a filter that can reduce egregious harm. As fact-checking mechanisms are removed, we can expect more in the way of Southport-style riots.