It is November 2018 when Metro journalist Visser claims on Twitter, "Do you know anyone from Etten-Leur? Have you ever been to Etten-Leur? Do you know anyone who has been to Etten-Leur? Three times no? Exactly, Etten-Leur does not exist. Is your answer "yes" to one or more questions? That is exactly what someone who is part of the conspiracy would answer". Several people respond and provide evidence by, for example, telling us that the train does not stop at Etten-Leur station. A real map of the West Brabant region is shown on which Etten-Leur is blotted out.
The first apps and other kinds of messages on social media are trickling in to me. Our newly hired town clerk apps "should I start worrying?". I ask myself, "If Etten-Leur doesn't exist, do I still exist?" Then is the mayor of Etten-Leur fake too? Am I fake? Craziness or a playful representation of a very serious problem? As far as I am concerned, the latter.
Philosophical questions combined with a realistic concern. If we can twist the truth and we live in a world where information is shared at lightning speed, what does that mean for our democracy? What does micro targeting of political movements look like and what are the consequences? When is news real and when is it not? And finally, how can we become resilient to fake news?
The discussion is about answering the above questions distinguishing between what tech companies like Google or Facebook could do, and what can or should the government organize? What can journalists do and what are they already doing? Weather-beaten questions that the Council for Public Administration is considering and to which we hope to formulate the beginnings of an answer this spring.
I briefly share some lines of our thinking that should lead to the opinion:
Digitization has fundamentally changed the way people gather and disseminate information in democratic debate. Both reality and disinformation can easily be efficiently disseminated.
In addition, digitalization affects the way people integrate different perspectives in democratic debate; people can easily gather like-minded people around them but also just as easily exclude dissenters. Parallel worlds can emerge that have little in common. Think bubbles, echo chambers and spirals of silence.
Digitalization also affects how democratic debate relates to institutions. Less authority is given to traditional gatekeepers such as the church, journalism or science.
All these changes I link back to the tweet I started with. Fake news, of course, but the question is whether we always recognize fake news so easily as such and how fake news subconsciously influences our opinions. Think back to Trump's inauguration photos. The discussion was about which inauguration was busier attended, Trump's or Obama's. Later, photos turned out to be manipulated.
Sometimes fake news is easy to spot and refute as in the case of "Etten-Leur does not exist," but ask yourself when you may have unknowingly encountered fake news and to what extent your opinion formation has been affected by it?
Source: Council for Public Administration
