Fake news” bill: imprecise terms, an unenforceable text?

Syntec Numérique, ASIC and Tech In France unambiguously support all measures designed to preserve the smooth running of electoral processes at a time when massive campaigns to spread false information are being set up to destabilize the democratic process. However, the three organizations have serious reservations about the effectiveness and applicability of the measures currently set out in the text.

In fact, the content targeted by this proposed law is not sufficiently precise. For example, the notion of “information content relating to a debate of general interest” in Article¹ of the text is very imprecise, and could concern a very large amount of content that is not at any time related to the electoral debate.

To make it operational, we therefore need to clarify the scope of this obligation by adding the notion of a “link with current events and the electoral debate”, as explicitly recommended in theexplanatory memorandum to the proposed law.

The same problem of precision and applicability arises with regard to the statistics to be published for each piece of content posted online by platforms “using algorithms for recommending, ranking or referencing information content relating to a debate of general interest”, in article 9 bis B.

The lack of a constituency for this provision casts doubt on the feasibility of its implementation. The organizations have repeatedly pointed out that scientific studies have already shown that the virality of “fake news” is ensured by Internet users themselves, without the help of algorithms.

Given the difficulty of legislating on these issues, and the uncertain effectiveness of existing legal provisions, the European Commission is advocating a self-regulatory approach to combating misinformation on online platforms. A code of best practice will be introduced to ensure greater transparency on sponsored content and facilitate, in cooperation with European news organizations, measures to increase the visibility of reliable and credible information.

Similarly, in France, a report submitted to the Prime Minister by the Centre d’analyse, de prévision et de stratégie (Caps) and the Institut de recherche stratégique de l’Ecole militaire (IRSEM) on September 4 on the risks of information manipulation recommends that states “keep a light footprint” on proposed regulations, before stating that “the first bulwark against information manipulation, in a democratic and liberal society, must remain civil society (journalists, media, digital platforms, NGOs etc.).”

Finally, TECH IN France, Syntec Numérique and ASIC support all initiatives by civil society and the media to identify dubious information on the Internet and propose counter-articles, to find out who’s behind an advert or to detect doctored videos.

Media education, however, is the most relevant and effective measure for combating this phenomenon in the long term.

For all these reasons, the organizations question the effectiveness of such imprecise provisions, which are complex to coordinate with French and EU law, and are ready to work with the public authorities to develop a more effective framework for combating fake news.