Danielle Preiss talks with Dr. Michael Bang Petersen, professor of political science at Denmark’s Aarhus University

MBP: We humans are what you could call an ultrasocial animal. We are not very big. We don’t have any natural weapons like fangs or claws. What we have is our ability to cooperate with others.
           
One of the most cooperative endeavors that humans can engage in is in fact conflict. When we are in a conflict with other people, then we’re trying to mobilize other people to help us in this conflict.
           
What really often will determine the outcome of a conflict between humans is which one of the adversaries are able to attract the most people to their side. Believing in misinformation and sharing misinformation can also be a signal to other participants in the group that you are part of the group. Everyone can believe the truth, but only a devoted group member will believe something that is obviously false.
           
If you need to find a really good opinion to signal a group membership, then you need to find an opinion or a belief that not so many other people have. That is why there is what you call “pressure” to come up with more extreme beliefs, beliefs that violate other people’s intuitions because those are the beliefs that only your group will hold and holding those beliefs will be a signal that you have access to a specialized kind of knowledge that only other group members will have.

DP: We often talk about and think about misinformation causing conflict as a modern phenomenon, especially linked to modern mass media and social media, but what can we learn about it from looking back at our early ancestors?

MBP: I think one of the key things to remember is that people have always been trying to influence each other with information to change the way that other people think about certain issues in a way that is aligned with one’s own interests. That sometimes involves not telling the complete truth, selectively choosing which facts to convey or even to outright lie.
           
This has been very well documented in the context of some of the most horrific events in human history such as ethnic massacres where you will almost never have a horrific event like an ethnic massacre without a preceding period of intense rumor circulation. Most of the rumors that are being circulated are completely untrue but serve the purpose of mobilizing the group against their presumed enemy.

This idea of using information to mobilize a group against a target, that’s just the way that we humans act in conflicts. Of course, that is then something that is now, in the age of social media, being even more widespread and presumably also something that can be done more effectively.

DP: Have we evolved to more likely believe false information?

MBP: In many situations, it’s a very, very bad evolutionary idea to not have an accurate representation of how the world works. Let’s say that you want to jump over a cliff. You need to know exactly how tall that cliff is in the same way if you are hunting for an animal, then you need to know the exact location of the animal. Human perception systems are highly accurate and are built to perceive the world accurately.
           
Not all problems are like jumping over a cliff or hunting an animal. A lot of the problems that we are facing are social problems. When it comes to social problems, it’s not always clear that it is important to have accurate representations of the world.
           
What is really helpful is often if the other person or persons who are involved think of you as better than you are, as stronger than you are. Your job in strategic social interaction is to provide information that will create these slight misrepresentations in social situations. What research suggests is that often you might actually be better at persuading others if you believe in the misinformation yourself.

DP:  It’s commonly understood that people believe in false information because of ignorance or not being well-informed. Does that mean that that’s not a very good explanation?

MBP: If we turn our focus to what is done with misinformation, the extent to which misinformation is shared, then ignorance plays a very little role.
           
In fact, in the research that we have been doing on the circulation of fake news on Twitter, we can see that the Twitter users who share more fake news, they are in fact more knowledgeable. They know more about politics than the average Twitter user. What is really the identifying features of these people is an intense hatred towards the other political party.
           
The people who are doing the sharing of fake news is not because they are ignorant, it is because they are selectively and strategically trying to find information that they can use to denigrate their opponents.

DP: I think a lot of people listening might be a bit skeptical that the platforms themselves in these tech giants are very motivated to take quick action. In the meantime, what can regular people do to combat this type of misinformation in our daily lives?

MBP: There is a lot of good evidence that you can actually learn to identify misinformation relatively easy.
           
Something that we have been working on in my research team is to look at videos from fact checkers and finding out to what extent a crash course of three minutes helps people identify misinformation. That actually seems to be the case.
           
I also think that what you can do as an individual user is to think about what your own motivations are for sharing a particular piece of information.
           
We also need to look inside ourselves and think about how we deal with information. You could say that information that fits your worldview will make all the reward centers in your brain light up in the same way as they will light up when eat a candy bar. Just as we need to manage our own relationship to calories, we also need to manage our own relationship to information and only spend our time and attention on the type of information that really matters.
           
My final advice for the individual user. It’s important for me to say that when I talk about what you as an individual can do, that doesn’t mean that it ought to be your responsibility to do all those things, but to a large extent it is up to you until we get tech giants to do more.
           
Also, do not think that the hateful comments that you receive is a reflection of what most people think. The people who are discussing politics online are the most angry, frustrated people that really want to assert dominance. Don’t engage with trolls and don’t be afraid of using tools that are available such as reporting, blocking and muting.

Danielle Preiss talks with Berhan Taye, an independent peace researcher

BT: In the letter, we were asking very, very basic things. One of the things was to take down content that is hateful. Take down content that is inciting violence. Take down content that is extremely dangerous speech. Those were the basic questions that we had.
           
Because we’ve had a series of conversations with Facebook, this is not the first time we’ve had a chat about configuration and platform accountability. We were asking them to publish their Human Rights Impact Assessments that they did previously. This was in February of 2020.
           
We were also asking them to set up an escalation mechanism because this is not the first time that this has happened. It continues to happen, but every time it happens, they are surprised. They run around trying to figure out what the context is.
           
We recommend that they put in more human moderators within the staff that understand the context and has training in human rights and international norms and standards on how to moderate content.
           
We were also asking them very basic things about localized content. What we mean with localization is that when content is reported on the platform, it can only be reported in English. A multibillion-dollar company could easily implement language options.

DP:  Yes, on the language point, the Facebook whistleblower Francis Hogan made a statement that 87% of the spending on combatting misinformation at Facebook was spent on English content and only 9% of the users are English speakers. It seems like there is a huge mismatch there.

BT:  Oh yes, and there is a huge mismatch everywhere in terms of how the platform invests in human rights. We know that they don’t have enough content moderators. We know that the content moderators that they do have, the majority are dedicated to English even though over 80% of Facebook users are not based in the U.S. or Western Europe and Canada. You would assume that their investment would be proportional to the reality that the users are facing on the platform but that’s not the case. It seems like if you’re not an English speaker, you are an afterthought.

DP:  Could you give an explanation of how misinformation and hate speech has played a role in violence in Ethiopia?

BT:  For the past 27 years, Ethiopia was highly censored. I’m not saying that folks are not censored now. There were many websites that were blocked. Journalists were arrested left, right and center and social media was the only space where you could really get alternative narratives around human rights issues and political and economic issues in the country.
           
In 2017, social media was really important for the country. The regime that had ruled the country for 27 years was forced to leave and a new prime minister came in. A lot of the websites that were blocked were unblocked. There was a lot of changes in terms of how the narrative online was happening.
           
At the same time, you could see a lot of misinformation and disinformation happening in the country. There was a lot of insecurities even before the conflict started. Twitter accounts, Facebook accounts were really fueling the disparities and animosities between the different communities in the country.

DP: While we push for and hope for tech companies to be more accountable, what can regular people do to address this issue and to reduce violence online? Should people boycott these platforms?

BT: It’s a conversation about privilege. In a country like Myanmar and other places where there are no independent media and people can’t access information as readily as others, Facebook might be the only platform to access information.

If you’re in the information sector that uses Facebook to sell products online, you can’t really boycott these platforms.
           
Boycotting the platform is for the privileged. If you’re privileged enough to do that, please go for it. Don’t let these guys make money off your clicks, your data, your face and all of those things.
           
For those of us who are not that privileged and cannot boycott the platform, I think we need to have a lot of conversations about digital literacy, having the basic conversation of gauging content online. With older folks, with parents and grandparents, having that basic conversation that everything they see on these platforms may not be true. It’s starts there.
           
Also, being responsible. It’s not just the platform, it’s also individuals that are perpetrating content that incites violence, content that is problematic. We should also be going with litigation against those individuals so that they are held accountable for the content that they put on the site that is harming individuals.

DP: Is there anything that people who are in privileged positions can do to help fight violent speech in other countries?

BT: In some ways. The usual things like calling your Congressperson, your elected officials to have a conversation about this making sure that the FCC and others are regulating better.
           
If you’re someone in the U.S., you definitely might have the privilege to boycott these platforms but also to raise the issue with elected officials because they are the ones who regulate. That is going to be critical.
           
When these conversations are happening in the legislative chambers, there have been a lot of conversations about data protection and how the issues that we’ve seen with Facebook can be dealt with and a data protection law in the U.S., but that’s not going to make any difference for us.
           
This is beyond data protection. Having that knowledge to say yes, it’s important to have a data protection law for the U.S., but how do we penalize these companies so that they are not exploiting violent content globally. If this was about violent extremism, all of the platforms would come forward to say what they have done, but when it comes to ethnic violence of the most vulnerable around the world, not many people care.
           
Making sure that the folks who are making these rules and regulations are also well informed is essential. We’ve seen testimony given and you can see that some of the lawmakers don’t really understand how these platforms work. It also starts with electing people who have an understanding of how the 21st century is working. That’s really important.

But if you can boycott the platform, please go for it and do that. Also, calling your elected officials and explaining that this is an important issue for the world is critical.

Danielle Preiss talks with Jerusalem Girmay, the Chief Communications Officer for Omna

JG: A lot of what is happening right now is something my parents witnessed and escaped. The hatred and the trauma are multigenerational which is sad to see. With this generation, we are hoping that we can put an end to it so that this never happens again.

DP: What is the situation like in Tigrayan right now? Are you able to communicate with people there?

JG:  No. Since November 4, 2020, [Prime Minister] Abiy Ahmed and the Government of Ethiopia set in motion a telecommunications blackout, so restriction has been implemented. In terms of phoning or internet, there is relatively no communication.

I am able to talk to some family members outside of the region, but even so, our conversations are pretty brief because a lot of them are fearful that they are being tapped into. They can’t go into specifics.
           
I and some other Tigrayans hear about our family deaths subsequently potentially weeks after it happens.

DP: It sounds incredibly difficult.

JG: It is. It’s incredibly difficult. I just learned about a week or two ago that two of my family members, civilians were killed in an airstrike. They had no military ties. This is part of an ongoing strategy to terrorize the people of Tigray in the literal sense physically and also mentally.

DP: I’m so sorry for your loss.

JG: Thank you. It’s hard to think about direct family members or even second cousins because this is a shared experience by all Tigrayans. When everybody is under attack, it almost feels selfish to just think about who you are directly impacted by because we know that this is a threat to our collective existence.

DP: Why does Omna Tigray focus so much on disinformation? What role has that played in the war?

JG: One of the big reasons why we focus on disinformation is because of its impact on the people of Tigray. At the beginning of the war and why we really started was because of the telecommunications blackout. We noticed that it was really only the Federal Government of Ethiopia that had a voice to speak. What we were hearing from them compared to Tigrayans that have fled to Sudan, (which at the beginning was the only real voice of Tigrayans impacted by the war) was a huge, stark contrast.
           
With disinformation, we see that it’s an attempt by the Ethiopian government to dismiss the crimes that have been committed against the people of Tigray. It’s really important that we combat that so that the gravity of what is happening in Tigray is understood and to make sure that the voices of Tigrayans don’t get silenced.

DP:  The disinformation that you’re talking about here is coming from the Ethiopian Government? Is it also from civilians?

JG:  The Ethiopian government at one point even called on the diaspora globally to partake in this disinformation campaign. It’s essentially to silence all Tigrayan voices and activists in the diaspora who have been calling for an end to the war, particularly an end to the suffering of the Tigrayan people.

DP:  Is this strictly disinformation or have there also been calls for hate speech or violent rhetoric?

JG:  Oh, absolutely hate speech has been a hallmark of pretty much every genocide. It was started even before November 4, 2020 against the Tigrayan people. Language like “cancer,” “junta” “hyenas” have even been spoken by the Prime Minister himself and we’ve seen that level of hate speech and that type of hate speech has resulted in real life violence and death.
           
For example, the Prime Minister vilified NGOs and humanitarian aid agencies saying that they were helping and facilitating war efforts. We know directly after that happened three members of MSF staff were brutally massacred. That’s just one example.

DP: What can be done specifically to combat the disinformation that is causing this violence? What can regular people do?

JG:  For regular people, don’t underestimate the value of reporting things that are disinformation or hate speech just because now we’ve almost become numb to it because it has been so prevalent. In any instance, if someone sees something wrong related to Tigray or not, it should be reported. Social media environments can be toxic. It’s better to do your part to remove some of that.

DP: Is that something that Omna Tigray works on in terms of giving tools or supporting the process of reporting?

JG: Something we have done before is called for cases of hate speech and disinformation. Sometimes it’s for documentation, sometimes it’s to request that action be taken, but it’s large community efforts that are bringing attention to and calling out some of these repeat offenders. We have seen some of the most egregious accounts be temporarily suspended for some time. That’s a positive step.

DP:  So, you are seeing actual results from what might seem like the small step of doing the reporting?

JG: I think in terms of scale, it’s such a miniscule amount of people that we’ve seen in terms of results. With hate speech and the demonization of Tigrayans being so prevalent and consistently spread, we know that it is influencing a lot of people. The risk to Tigrayans is just too great for the response to be so nonchalant. We have seen so many people being killed as a result of disinformation and hate speech. We need to ensure that it is given the level of attention that it deserves.

DP:  Do you think that we all have a responsibility to report disinformation wherever we see it no matter how small it might seem? To report a post or false information is something that everybody should consider their own responsibility.

JG:  Absolutely. Obviously, the number of social media users is in excess of hundreds of millions. Because of that, there are a lot of vulnerable groups like older generations who won’t be able to discern disinformation. We have a younger demographic. People even around my age aren’t able to discern disinformation.
    
When the same message is consistently being spewed, whether it’s disinformation or not, it’s not something that they are entirely aware of, they just know that it’s something that has been repeated, so maybe it does have some credence to it.
           
No matter how big or small the disinformation or hate speech, even if it doesn’t impact you directly, everyone should make an effort to report any instances of disinformation.