Removing harmful scientific misinformation from the internet is not a viable solution for eradicating the issue, a report by the Royal Society has warned.
The UK’s national academy of science has said governments and online platforms must invest in fact-checking and improving digital literacy rather than censorship, which it warns could drive it to harder-to-address corners of the internet and exacerbate feelings of distrust in authorities.
The Royal Society’s Online Information Environment report also warns that the Government’s upcoming Online Safety Bill, designed to regulate online harms for the first time, is too focused on harm to individuals and not on the wider societal harms that can be caused by misinformation.
During the pandemic, misinformation has spread online about issues such as vaccine safety and the origin of Covid-19, while the Royal Society also highlights the widespread issues caused by misinformation about other scientific issues such as climate change.
Professor Frank Kelly, chair of the report, said: “Science stands on the edge of error and the nature of the scientific endeavour at the frontiers means there is always uncertainty.
“In the early days of the pandemic, science was too often painted as absolute and somehow not to be trusted when it corrects itself, but that prodding and testing of received wisdom is integral to the advancement of science, and society.
“This is important to bear in mind when we are looking to limit scientific misinformation’s harms to society.
“Clamping down on claims outside the consensus may seem desirable, but it can hamper the scientific process and force genuinely malicious content underground.”
Rather than focusing on just removing content, the report recommends that governments should take steps to protect independent news media, and platform policies around algorithms that determine an outlet’s trustworthiness or position in online feeds should be carefully scrutinised.
It also recommends long-term sustainable investment in fact-checking organisations and in education on digital literacy, not just in schools and colleges, but for older adults too.
In addition, the report suggests increasing the mitigation tools of messaging services to help slow the spread of misinformation, including limiting how many times messages can be shared at once.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here