Regulating computational propaganda: lessons from international law
A historical analysis of the regulation of propaganda and obligations on States to prevent its dissemination reveals competing origins of the protection (and suppression) of free expression in international law. The conflict between the ‘marketplace of ideas’ approach favoured by Western democracies and the Soviet Union's proposed direct control of media outlets have indirectly contributed to both the fake-news crisis and engineered polarisation via computational propaganda. From the troubled League of Nations to the Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970, several international agreements and resolutions limit State use of propaganda to interfere with ‘malicious intent’ in the affairs of another. Yet State and non-State actors continually use a variety of methods to disseminate deceptive content sowing civil discord and damaging democracies in the process. In Europe, much of the discourse about the regulation of ‘fake news’ has revolved around the role of the European Union's General D
A historical analysis of the regulation of propaganda and obligations on States to prevent its dissemination reveals competing origins of the protection (and suppression) of free expression in international law. The conflict between the ‘marketplace of ideas’ approach favoured by Western democracies and the Soviet Union's proposed direct control of media outlets have indirectly contributed to both the fake-news crisis and engineered polarisation via computational propaganda. From the troubled League of Nations to the Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970, several international agreements and resolutions limit State use of propaganda to interfere with ‘malicious intent’ in the affairs of another. Yet State and non-State actors continually use a variety of methods to disseminate deceptive content sowing civil discord and damaging democracies in the process. In Europe, much of the discourse about the regulation of ‘fake news’ has revolved around the role of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and the role of platforms in preventing ‘online manipulation’. There is also a common perception that human rights frameworks limit States' ability to constrain political speech; however, using the principle of subsidiarity as a mapping tool, a regulatory anomaly is revealed. There is a significant lack of regulatory oversight of actors responsible for, and the flow of, computational propaganda that is disseminated as deceptive political advertising. The article examines whether there is a right to disseminate propaganda within our free expression rights and focuses on the harms associated with the engineered polarisation that is often the objective of a computational propaganda campaign. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of maintaining this status quo and some suggestions for plugging the regulatory holes identified.
Executive Summary
The article 'Regulating computational propaganda: lessons from international law' explores the historical and contemporary challenges of regulating propaganda, with a focus on the role of international law. It highlights the tension between the 'marketplace of ideas' approach and state-controlled media, tracing the evolution of regulations from the League of Nations to the present day. The article argues that existing frameworks, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and human rights frameworks, are insufficient to address the modern threat of computational propaganda. It identifies a regulatory gap in the oversight of actors and the flow of deceptive political advertising, concluding with suggestions for plugging these regulatory holes to mitigate the harms associated with engineered polarization.
Key Points
- ▸ Historical analysis of propaganda regulation reveals competing approaches to free expression in international law.
- ▸ State and non-State actors use various methods to disseminate deceptive content, causing civil discord and damaging democracies.
- ▸ The GDPR and human rights frameworks are perceived to limit States' ability to constrain political speech.
- ▸ A regulatory anomaly exists due to the lack of oversight of actors responsible for computational propaganda.
- ▸ The article concludes with suggestions for addressing the regulatory gaps identified.
Merits
Comprehensive Historical Analysis
The article provides a thorough historical analysis of the regulation of propaganda, offering valuable insights into the evolution of international law in this area.
Identification of Regulatory Gaps
The article effectively identifies significant regulatory gaps in the oversight of computational propaganda, highlighting the need for targeted interventions.
Practical Implications
The article discusses the practical implications of maintaining the status quo, providing a clear rationale for the need for regulatory reform.
Demerits
Limited Scope of Analysis
The article focuses primarily on European regulations and may not fully address the global dimensions of computational propaganda.
Perceived Limitations of Human Rights Frameworks
The article could benefit from a more nuanced discussion of how human rights frameworks can be adapted to address the challenges posed by computational propaganda.
Lack of Empirical Data
The article would be strengthened by the inclusion of empirical data or case studies to support its arguments.
Expert Commentary
The article 'Regulating computational propaganda: lessons from international law' offers a rigorous and well-reasoned analysis of the challenges posed by computational propaganda in the context of international law. By tracing the historical evolution of propaganda regulation, the article provides valuable insights into the competing approaches to free expression and the limitations of existing frameworks. The identification of regulatory gaps in the oversight of actors responsible for computational propaganda is a significant contribution to the scholarly discourse. However, the article could benefit from a more nuanced discussion of how human rights frameworks can be adapted to address these challenges. Additionally, the inclusion of empirical data or case studies would strengthen the arguments presented. Overall, the article provides a balanced and objective analysis that is suitable for publication in a premium legal or academic journal, offering genuine value beyond the original article.
Recommendations
- ✓ Expand the scope of analysis to include global dimensions of computational propaganda, particularly in regions with different regulatory frameworks.
- ✓ Incorporate empirical data or case studies to support the arguments and provide a more robust foundation for the analysis.