Misinformation Is Detrimental, But Its Prohibition Is Even More So
The Quillette Editorial Board has discussed the issue of misinformation, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 19 February 2020, just three weeks after the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 an international public-health emergency, a group of 27 prominent scientists published a letter in the Lancet. The letter warned against the spread of rumors and misinformation about the origins of the virus, condemning conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 did not have a natural origin.
The letter, led by microbiologist Charles Calisher, was influential among journalists and public-health officials during the first year of the pandemic. It asserted that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was caused by random genetic mutations and zoonotic spillover, not by a leak from a Chinese microbiology lab. However, in May 2021, US President Joe Biden ordered intelligence services to investigate evidence suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in a Chinese lab.
The editorial board emphasizes that the debate over the origins of COVID-19 is not the focus of this discussion. Instead, they highlight the fact that respected scientists have been on both sides of this debate. The ability of a leading group within one of these camps to stigmatize its opponents as agents of "misinformation" serves as a cautionary tale.
The Misinformation Debate and Its Political Backstory
The argument over COVID-19's origins has a political backstory. In early 2020, scientists worldwide were collaborating to understand and stop the pandemic. The authors of the Calisher et al. 2020 letter suggested that promoting the lab-leak accusations risked alienating the Chinese scientific establishment, thereby jeopardizing this international effort.
Some commentators even claimed the theory was inherently racist, as it was being pushed most aggressively in western nations by right-wing political actors. A Yale University pediatrics professor urged colleagues to suppress "inaccurate" references to China when discussing the disease, arguing that such references risked stirring up hatred against Asian colleagues and possibly compromising their safety.
The question of what does and does not constitute misinformation may soon have important legal ramifications in Australia, where Quillette is based. The country's Communications Minister, Michelle Rowland, has put forward a bill targeting digital platforms that publish content "reasonably verifiable as false, misleading, or deceptive," and "reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm."
The Risks of Misinformation Prohibition
The prohibition of misinformation is not without risks. Examples from authoritarian societies such as Russia and China demonstrate how such laws can be used to ban any information that embarrasses the government or contradicts their policies. While Australia is not an autocracy, the tendency of politicians and bureaucrats to bend censorship tools to their parochial purposes is universal.
The political backstory here is also important. In 2023, the governing Australian Labor Party (ALP) expected to prevail in a constitutional referendum on a proposal to enhance the political influence of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. When the No campaign prevailed by a large margin, many on the losing side suggested the result should be blamed, at least in part, on voter ignorance, racism, and misleading internet memes.
In all these debates, the definition of "misinformation" has expanded to encompass not just incontrovertible lies, popular delusions, and conspiracy theories, but also facts and arguments that are inconvenient to the culturally dominant class. This tendency further erodes public trust in mainstream news sources that channel the received wisdom among society’s elites.
The Bottom Line
Misinformation can indeed be exasperating and distort public discourse. In certain specific cases, the spread of actual misinformation can have serious real-world consequences. However, laws aimed at curtailing "misinformation," such as the one being advanced in Australia, are too broad for this purpose and have no place in a free society.
What do you think about this matter? Share your thoughts with your friends and sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is everyday at 6pm.
Misinformation Is Detrimental, But Its Prohibition Is Even More So
The Quillette Editorial Board has discussed the issue of misinformation, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 19 February 2020, just three weeks after the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 an international public-health emergency, a group of 27 prominent scientists published a letter in the Lancet. The letter warned against the spread of rumors and misinformation about the origins of the virus, condemning conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 did not have a natural origin.
The letter, led by microbiologist Charles Calisher, was influential among journalists and public-health officials during the first year of the pandemic. It asserted that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was caused by random genetic mutations and zoonotic spillover, not by a leak from a Chinese microbiology lab. However, in May 2021, US President Joe Biden ordered intelligence services to investigate evidence suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in a Chinese lab.
The editorial board emphasizes that the debate over the origins of COVID-19 is not the focus of this discussion. Instead, they highlight the fact that respected scientists have been on both sides of this debate. The ability of a leading group within one of these camps to stigmatize its opponents as agents of "misinformation" serves as a cautionary tale.
The Misinformation Debate and Its Political Backstory
The argument over COVID-19's origins has a political backstory. In early 2020, scientists worldwide were collaborating to understand and stop the pandemic. The authors of the Calisher et al. 2020 letter suggested that promoting the lab-leak accusations risked alienating the Chinese scientific establishment, thereby jeopardizing this international effort.
Some commentators even claimed the theory was inherently racist, as it was being pushed most aggressively in western nations by right-wing political actors. A Yale University pediatrics professor urged colleagues to suppress "inaccurate" references to China when discussing the disease, arguing that such references risked stirring up hatred against Asian colleagues and possibly compromising their safety.
The question of what does and does not constitute misinformation may soon have important legal ramifications in Australia, where Quillette is based. The country's Communications Minister, Michelle Rowland, has put forward a bill targeting digital platforms that publish content "reasonably verifiable as false, misleading, or deceptive," and "reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm."
The Risks of Misinformation Prohibition
The prohibition of misinformation is not without risks. Examples from authoritarian societies such as Russia and China demonstrate how such laws can be used to ban any information that embarrasses the government or contradicts their policies. While Australia is not an autocracy, the tendency of politicians and bureaucrats to bend censorship tools to their parochial purposes is universal.
The political backstory here is also important. In 2023, the governing Australian Labor Party (ALP) expected to prevail in a constitutional referendum on a proposal to enhance the political influence of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. When the No campaign prevailed by a large margin, many on the losing side suggested the result should be blamed, at least in part, on voter ignorance, racism, and misleading internet memes.
In all these debates, the definition of "misinformation" has expanded to encompass not just incontrovertible lies, popular delusions, and conspiracy theories, but also facts and arguments that are inconvenient to the culturally dominant class. This tendency further erodes public trust in mainstream news sources that channel the received wisdom among society’s elites.
The Bottom Line
Misinformation can indeed be exasperating and distort public discourse. In certain specific cases, the spread of actual misinformation can have serious real-world consequences. However, laws aimed at curtailing "misinformation," such as the one being advanced in Australia, are too broad for this purpose and have no place in a free society.
What do you think about this matter? Share your thoughts with your friends and sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is everyday at 6pm.
