In 2020, Covid-19 was not the only epidemic the world had fallen victim to. A disease of similar nature spread soon after patients started flooding hospital halls. The transfer of misinformation through media channels, at a pace that rivalled even the viruses in hospitals — an infodemic had proliferated.
A lack of legal regulation has caused loopholes enabling social media users to disrupt the delicate equilibrium of individual expression in public platforms. Thus turning social media into a breeding ground of polarisation and extremism. A contradiction to its supposed role as a fundamental pillar of transparency in any state supporting the notion of democracy.
However, the harms of an online infodemic are not exclusive to democratic states. They pose as a threat to the one thing authoritarian governments hold most dear to their hearts—power. Which is why the delegates of General Assembly 6, from the United States to China, are tasked with setting aside their differences to tackle the misinformation that threatens the very essence of their individual ideologies.
Soon after the opening speeches, two major blocs emerged with approaches tailored to their own country’s agendas, with a shared goal of mitigating misinformation.
To the surprise of no one, the major authoritarian powers in the council, namely China, The Russian Federation, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United Arab Emirates (as main submitter of their resolution), has banded together alongside Cuba, Somalia, Syria, and most of the remaining dictatorships within the committee to compose a universal framework. Their resolution offers a definition of misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech, which will be programmed into an A.I software, ingrained into social media platforms to detect posts that do not abide by the standards predetermined by the program. Moreover, such content will be flagged in order to make it known to the general public that online behaviour in this manner does not align with societal norms, putting psychological pressure on those people responsible thus, deterring them from repeating the same mistakes.
On the other hand, GA 6’s democracies, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and Sierra Leone, are taking a less AI-contingent approach. They criticise the UAE’s resolution which fully depends on a man-made artificial intelligence software to detect misinformation, conveniently giving those coding for the program the autonomy to tailor the standard of publications flagged in accordance to their subjective judgments. Instead, they have chosen to advance media literacy, promoting the people’s understanding of their digital footprints and how it claws at the very fabric of democracy.
Nonetheless, A.I will be integrated as part of their strategy, as a preset in social media algorithms to fact-check online publications, and sanction users engaging in disinformation. Elevating the degree of accountability for each social media user in regards to the content they choose to publish. Their hope is to stimulate a culture of responsible content creation that will slowly abolish the polarisation evident in online communities. The division they hope to conquer stems from misleading headlines asserting opinions onto anyone and everyone ignorant enough to abide by them. Hence, the bloc’s end goal of enabling a more diverse range of perspectives is a vital instrument in promoting a democracy these countries value.
A fatal flaw both blocs have failed to acknowledge thus far, is the contingency of their resolutions on stakeholders they have not guaranteed inclination to cooperation. For example, putting governmental footholds in social media makes users more wary, giving them a valid reason to decrease online activity to an extent that disadvantages the profit-oriented platforms. GA 6’s Chair, Ian Lin, proposes that additional funding should be allocated toward these private corporations as financial incentive, in order to secure collaboration between their governments and the private stakeholders both resolutions are still dependent on.
Only time will tell as today’s debates crystallise the committee’s path toward minimising the destabilisation of democracy rooted in social media, and maximising multilateral development through the people, by the people.
