A Critique of European Attempts to Regulate Online Disinformation

Abstract

To put it simply, information is useful, disinformation is harmful, however, just as it is completely impossible to force people to get informed, so it is almost futile to resist to disinformation solely by legal means. The goals and economic interests of the other two actors involved in (dis)information, the ‘channels’ (for example, large online platforms, social media and popular search engines) and the (dis)informers – even if unintentionally – may boost that of each others’. What can legislators do, without disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression, what can the audience do, breaking through various filter bubbles or echo chambers, and what can media companies do, without decreasing user experience and their own share price, to ensure that the veracity of communications be easily and quickly recognised, the acceptance and spreading of disinformation be reduced, and the information be factual? But, sometimes the remedy is worse than the disease. This paper highlights some issues and problems that illustrate the threats to freedom of expression posed by attempts to address the problem, and tries to make some cautious suggestions for regulations on disinformation that do not unjustifiably or disproportionately restrict individual freedom of expression.