Syndetics omslagsbild
Bild från Syndetics

Fake News – What's the harm? Four ideas for fact-checkers, policymakers & platforms on countering the consequences of false information & defending free speech

Av: Medverkande: Materialtyp: ArtikelUtgivningsinformation: University of Westminster Press 2025Beskrivning: 1 electronic resource (281 p.)Innehållstyp:
  • text
Medietyp:
  • computer
Bärartyp:
  • online resource
ISBN:
  • 9781915445360
Ämnen: Onlineresurser: Sammanfattning: Former news reporter and founder of Africa's first fact-checking organisation Peter Cunliffe-Jones argues that since concern about 'information disorder' soared in 2016, we have laboured under flawed assumptions about the nature and effects of 'fake news' and misinformation. Based on a four-year review of 250 case studies, Cunliffe-Jones sets out four ideas for fact-checkers, policymakers and platforms to curb harmful consequences and protect wider freedom of speech. First, information disorder is about more than misinformation. Second, misinformation in offline settings can cause as big a problem as misinformation online. Third, misinformation that affects policymakers can be as bad as misinformation that affects the public. Fourth, he proposes a model for fact-checkers, researchers and platforms to distinguish false claims that do and do not have substantive potential to cause substantive consequences.
Inga fysiska exemplar för denna post

Open Access Unrestricted online access star

Former news reporter and founder of Africa's first fact-checking organisation Peter Cunliffe-Jones argues that since concern about 'information disorder' soared in 2016, we have laboured under flawed assumptions about the nature and effects of 'fake news' and misinformation. Based on a four-year review of 250 case studies, Cunliffe-Jones sets out four ideas for fact-checkers, policymakers and platforms to curb harmful consequences and protect wider freedom of speech. First, information disorder is about more than misinformation. Second, misinformation in offline settings can cause as big a problem as misinformation online. Third, misinformation that affects policymakers can be as bad as misinformation that affects the public. Fourth, he proposes a model for fact-checkers, researchers and platforms to distinguish false claims that do and do not have substantive potential to cause substantive consequences.

Accessibility options of PDF file not available

Creative Commons Licence cc by-nc-nd cc https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

eng

Freely available e-book