The problem of hostile foreign powers using social media sites to spread disinformation and misinformation is a real one.
Ideally, this problem would be solved by a wiser, more discerning, and less credulous American public. But that’s . . . something of an uphill climb. The next-best solution is for social-media companies to sniff this stuff out quickly and take it off their platforms. While we’ve seen some progress on that front, that kind of response is also easier said than done. America’s intelligence community can also help sniff it out and, in some cases, temporarily take the foreign troll farms offline.
But there’s probably never going to be a perfect solution that quickly stops any foreign intelligence service’s disinformation effort before it gains any traction among any group of Americans. And for the First Amendment to have any meaning, no government at any level should be censoring the speech of American citizens — even if what those citizens are saying is echoing the statements of foreign-intelligence agencies.
The notion of the Aspen Institute forming a “Commission on Information Disorder” — something that is not an official national or state government entity, but has current government officials on it — seems like a particularly troubled attempt at a solution. It is not reassuring to hear this not-quite-government, not-quite-entirely private commission will “focus on interventions that reduce the worst harms of disinformation, such as threats to public health, election integrity, and the targeting of communities through hate speech” with the open admission that “new rules or terms of service intended to address these challenges will undoubtedly be abused or exploited to suppress dissent, as they always have been.”
Putting the current Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford — a man with the authority to start criminal investigations and indict people for violations of law — on this commission is troubling. Will the commission be guiding Ford’s decisions on enforcing Nevada’s laws against those who make controversial or disputed statements? If the commission concludes that someone in Nevada is a particularly egregious contributor to disinformation, will the state attorney general’s office seek to take action to stop him?
Putting former U.S. officials and lawmakers — even ones I like, like former congressman Will Hurd — further blurs the line on whether this is an independent think-tank, or a quasi-government commission.
It is also not encouraging when the commission begins by saying it “will not recognize criticism from those who present false information as differences of opinion or partisan in nature.” A lot of allegedly objective “fact-checking” is actually disputing other people’s viewpoints. In May 2020, an NBC News “Fact Check” assessed President Trump’s claim that a vaccine could be ready by the end of the year and concluded, “experts say that the development, testing and production of a vaccine for the public is still at least 12 to 18 months off, and that anything less would be a medical miracle.” The first American was vaccinated against COVID-19 on December 15.
Putting Katie Couric on the commission to fight disinformation and misinformation — the same Katie Couric who apologized for deceptively editing her interviews to mislead viewers in a documentary about guns — should not reassure anyone.
But as Mickey Kaus observes, the absolute cherry on top is putting Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, on this “Commission on Information Disorder.”
Yes, a member of the British royal family will be assessing what kind of statements should be barred from sharing on social media and other platforms. The commission apparently couldn’t even find a member of the British royal family who had NOT dressed up as a Nazi for a costume party. To fight foreigners who spread disinformation to Americans, the commission picked the guy who falsely claimed his family had financially cut him off.
We fought a revolution so that one of Harry’s ancestors couldn’t tell Americans what they can do and what they can say. Why would anyone in their right mind want to invite a British royal to get back into that habit?