A Comparison of False-Information Policies in Five Countries before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

This study analyzes five countries’ falseinformation policies before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Building upon existing discussions of regulation models, this paper uses a qualitative, comparative case study method to unpack the characteristics of false-information policies in each country. The before-after comparisons show that each country has a unique evolving path of falseinformation regulation and that the state has enhanced or attempted to enhance its role in battling against the infodemic during the pandemic. The regulatory practices are a dynamic process and involve not only government and social media platforms but also multiple other actors, which is leading to more complex practices and blurring the boundary of existing models. We discuss the limitation of existing regulation models and suggest a relational perspective to understand the underlying relations between the state, platforms, and other stakeholders.

[1]  K. Hartley,et al.  Fighting fake news in the COVID-19 era: policy insights from an equilibrium model , 2020, Policy Sciences.

[2]  Usha M. Rodrigues,et al.  Regulation of COVID-19 fake news infodemic in China and India , 2020, Media International Australia.

[3]  J. Pielemeier.  Disentangling Disinformation: What Makes Regulating Disinformation So Difficult? , 2020 .

[4]  J. V. van Dijck.  Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualizing platformization and its governance , 2020, New Media Soc..

[5]  P. Cavaliere.  From journalistic ethics to fact-checking practices: defining the standards of content governance in the fight against disinformation , 2020, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[6]  C. Tenove.  Protecting Democracy from Disinformation: Normative Threats and Policy Responses , 2020, The International Journal of Press/Politics.

[7]  Pawanpreet Singh,et al.  Addressing Misinformation on Whatsapp in India Through Intermediary Liability Policy, Platform Design Modification, and Media Literacy , 2020, Journal of Information Policy.

[8]  Alex Rochefort.  Regulating Social Media Platforms: A Comparative Policy Analysis , 2020 .

[9]  Christopher T. Marsden,et al.  Platform values and democratic elections: How can the law regulate digital disinformation? , 2020, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[10]  Media Sport,et al.  Online harms white paper , 2019 .

[11]  S. Lecheler,et al.  Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: a framework and research agenda , 2019, Annals of the International Communication Association.

[12]  Robert Gorwa,et al.  What is platform governance? , 2019, Information, Communication & Society.

[13]  Björnstjern Baade.  Fake News and International Law , 2018, European Journal of International Law.

[14]  C. Wardle.  The Need for Smarter Definitions and Practical, Timely Empirical Research on Information Disorder , 2018, Digital Journalism.

[15]  Jo Pierson,et al.  Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility , 2018, Inf. Soc..

[16]  Damian Tambini,et al.  Fake news: public policy responses , 2017 .

[17]  S. Schmitt.  Comparative approaches to the study of public policy-making , 2012 .

[18]  Guobin Yang,et al.  A Chinese Internet? History, practice, and globalization , 2012 .

[19]  Leon M. Hermans,et al.  Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  J. Olsen,et al.  The European Commission , 2020, The European Union.

[21]  A. Bârgăoanu,et al.  Tackling Disinformation: EU Regulation of the Digital Space , 2020 .

[22]  Mehmet Fatih Çömlekçi.  Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media , 2019 .

[23]  Ingo Rohlfing,et al.  Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework , 2012 .

[24]  Gillian Peele,et al.  The Government of the United Kingdom , 1980 .