Unveiling the Trifecta of Deception: Misinformation, Malinformation, and Disinformation in the Modern Age

The latest advancements in technology have not come as a surprise to those exposed to it interminably, which can be linked to the increased interest of academic communities in the growing problem of malicious circulation of false information, commonly called misinformation. Misinformation and its kind are not new but rather have become increasingly more powerful as they are fueled by advancing technology and instantaneous dissemination. As a result, digitally oriented misinformation risks overshadowing quality journalism, and the truth.

Historically, propaganda such as misinformation and disinformation dated back to the Roman times, when Antony met Cleopatra, and their relationship was publicized and slandered by Octavian, who convinced the unsuspecting public that their relationship had caused Antony’s career to take a turn for the worse. This criticism took the form of “archaic tweets”, and similar instances grew in occurrence with the introduction of Gutenberg’s press, which perpetuated the circulation of freely available information that could be produced by the masses, with the attainability of a means of publishing uncensored and easily accessible information.

The word misinformation, which can be traced back to the 1580s, briefly, refers to false or inaccurate information which is intended to deceive. The advent of social media and other “interactive technologies that facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks” have been directly linked to the eminence of misinformation, coupled with disinformation, a highly dangerous means of stimulating fear and distrust. While misinformation includes false or inaccurate information such as rumors, insults and pranks, disinformation is deliberate and includes content such as hoaxes, phishing and propaganda. The rise of artificial intelligence has led to the birth of new forms of misinformation and disinformation termed ‘synthetic media’, and includes speech duplication and deep fakes, media that can potentially have devastating consequences.

Misinformation and disinformation, characterized by the minor difference in their prefixes, are actually vastly different. While misinformation can be as simple as someone getting their information wrong, e.g. when President Joe Biden mistakenly said that he traveled to 54 states rather than 50, disinformation involves deliberate deception, like the time a forward sent by a supposed police officer demanding women to delete their profile pictures on various social media platforms to prevent misuse by a feared terror organization plagued the Indian subcontinent. This detriment can be exponentially harmful when used by authorities of power. The largest and most destructive purveyors of disinformation in the world are governments, which engage in propaganda to ensure parliament stability or create instability in their adversaries. The Russian government, for example, waged disinformation campaigns in its war on Ukraine to maintain public support for the war among the Russian people and sap the morale of the Ukrainian people.

In the midst of misinformation and disinformation, malinformation, a new form of malevolent information, has emerged. For instance, as part of the 2016 Indian banknote demonetization, India introduced a new 2,000-rupee currency note. Following this, multiple fake news reports about intrusive technology added in the banknotes went viral via social media and required government intervention.

To understand how to battle malicious information, it is necessary to understand how it is spread as well. UNESCO identifies three major enablers of misinformation, mainly collapsing traditional business models, digital “transformation” of newsrooms and storytelling, and the creation of new news ecosystems, which continue to pose problems for authentic journalism.

Combating misinformation remains a critical issue to this day, and MIL (Media and Literacy) campaigns have played an active role in recognizing and combatting misinformation. Fact-checking is central to strategies to combat misinformation and has grown considerably in recent years due to the increasing spread of harmful propaganda. Alongside MIL strategies and campaigns, social media verification is garnering increased attention in the fight against false news and misinformation.

Despite the importance of freedom of expression, not all speech is protected by international law, and some forms of speech are required to be prohibited by states. However, the need for a clear definition of the term “hate speech” arises, along with a set of objective criteria that can be used to determine the damage caused by a piece of information remains necessary. On the other hand, over regulation of media can be counterproductive with concerns of censorship and denial of the right to expression. The measures taken by different countries, therefore, are required to be effective, precise, globally cooperative, and ethically promising to guarantee the efficacy of the process against misinformation.

In Australia, the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation commits ‘to safeguards to protect Australians against harm from online disinformation and misinformation, and to adopting a range of scalable measures that reduce its spread and visibility.’ A major attempt to curb misinformation in the United Kingdom recently came to a halt. Prior to the prime minister’s resignation, the House of Commons had been expected to advance the proposed Online Safety Bill in mid-July. However, due to schedule limitations, the legislation has been tabled at least through the fall. The Educating Against Misinformation and Disinformation Act bill passed by the United States of America establishes a commission and requires other activities to support information and media literacy education and to prevent misinformation and disinformation, with the European Union too majorly strengthening their Code against misinformation, a long-drawn process spanning nearly 6 years.

Other prominent countries like Russia and China, which have direct control over media, have taken measures on their own front. On March 18, 2019, Russian president Vladimir Putin signed two laws passed by the Russian parliament aimed at countering the creation and dissemination of fake news: Article 15-3 of the Federal Law on Information and the Information Technologies and Protection of Information Act. China has some of the strictest laws in the world when it comes to misinformation. In 2016, the government criminalized creating or spreading rumors that “undermine economic and social order,”, while another law in 2017 requires social media platforms to solely republish and link to news articles from registered news media. Recently, authorities went one step further and started requiring microblogging sites to highlight and bar rumors on their platforms.

In India, the Information Technology Rules, 2021 impose obligations on intermediaries to take down unlawful content, including misinformation, within 36 hours of receiving a notification from the government. Section 66D of the IT Act deals with the punishment for cheating by impersonation using a computer resource. Misinformation spread through impersonation can be addressed under this provision. Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with statements contributing to public mischief. If misinformation is spread with the intent to cause fear or alarm to the public, it can be punishable under this provision. Under Section 153A and 295A of the IPC, misinformation aimed at furthering communal tension or disrespecting national sentiments is addressed. Further, during elections, the Election Commission of India often issues guidelines to regulate and prevent the spread of misinformation that could influence voters.

Recently, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology released draft changes to the 2000 IT Act that would require social media platforms to start tracing the originators of messages when compelled by the government. The effort is aimed at curbing the spread of unlawful content and misinformation. However, this amendment falls short. Firstly, the amendment uses terms such as ‘fake’ and ‘false’, which are imprecise enough to allow for the targeting of fabricated content as well as genuine expression through satire and comedy. Secondly, there is a lack of specific objective criteria granted to the fact check unit to indicate which data is inaccurate. Finally, the ability conferred to this body and its exercise remains unchecked as there are no provisions within which it functions, heightening the need for an efficacious body charged with the same responsibility, that counters misinformation by enhancing its own transparency and reinforcing its commitment to freedom of expression and press freedom.

In a liberal democracy like that of India, the need for an informed and educated audience that can make the distinction between fact and fiction, coupled with the functioning of a government body and government regulation remains ever necessary.