黑料不打烊 researchers鈥� work informs Lords report warning of 鈥榩andemic of misinformation鈥� in democracy

The advice of two researchers at 黑料不打烊 has informed a report into democracy and digital technologies by a House of Lords committee.

Vian Bakir, Prof. of Journalism and Andrew McStay, Prof. of Digital Life, gave evidence to the House of Lords鈥� research into the need for transparency in political groups鈥� digital campaigning.Vian BakirVian Bakir

Their are in the report,, published by the House of Lords Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies.

The House of Lords report states that we are in a 鈥減andemic of 鈥榤isinformation鈥� and 鈥榙isinformation鈥欌�� that, if unaddressed, could lead to 鈥渢he collapse of public trust, and without trust democracy as we know it will simply decline into irrelevance鈥�. 

In their evidence to this Select Committee, the 黑料不打烊 professors emphasised how use of digital technologies in political campaigning can benefit the democratic process, such as through mobilising and engaging people who might otherwise not vote. 

However, they focus on how such technologies can also harm democracy if there is no transparency in how these technologies are Andrew McStayAndrew McStayused. 

鈥淭here are many potential democratic problems with digital campaigning, if the profiling of target audiences and the optimisation of messages is done opaquely, so that people don鈥檛 understand that they鈥檙e being targeted with emotive or deceptive messages that have been personalised to press their buttons,鈥� Vian Bakir said.

鈥淔or instance, if one voter is privately presented with quite different messages to the next, then how can voters make informed choices, and how can people hold those elected to account? Also, how can we ensure that people aren鈥檛 discouraged from voting via personalised messages intended to suppress their vote? 

鈥淗ow can we ensure that political campaigners don鈥檛 try to exploit people鈥檚 own psychological vulnerabilities by preying on their private anxieties? If we don鈥檛 know what political campaigners are up to, what messages they are sending, to whom and why, then it makes answering any of these questions difficult. 

鈥淲e do know that the digital political campaigning spend has increased a lot in the UK in the last few years, and that some political parties are quite liberal in their in social media campaign messages.鈥�

Transparency

In their evidence, the professors illustrate these issues by focusing on the various 鈥楲eave鈥� groups鈥� campaigns in the UK鈥檚 2016 Referendum on whether or not to Remain in, or Leave, the European Union (EU).

To prevent further harm, they recommend greater transparency of digital campaigns. Voters should know:

鈥� Which audiences were targeted;

鈥� What the basis of the targeting was (including demographics and psychographics); 

鈥� What sort of messages were used; 

鈥� To what end (e.g. voter mobilisation, suppression); 

鈥� Which aspects of the campaign most succeeded in engaging voters (e.g. specific adverts, messages, themes, memes). 

To further enact such transparency, and alongside other organs of civil society, they also endorsed the need for imprints in political adverts on social media 鈥� so that at the very minimum, it will always be clear to citizens who sent them the political message online. 

They also recommended better media literacy for voters, and self-reflection by political campaigners on things like the informativeness and civility of their own campaign. 

鈥楳补苍颈辫耻濒补迟颈辞苍鈥�

Building on such evidence, the House of Lords鈥� report makes an urgent case for reform of electoral law as well as our overwhelming need to become a digitally literate society. 

For instance, one of its 45 recommendations is that the Government should establish an independent, public-facing hub that provides information about basic democratic procedures, and also shares best practice in digital democracy between policymakers and civil society organisations. 

Such media literacy on democratic procedures is important. Vian Bakir points out that a recent nationwide YouGov commissioned by the Open Rights Group shows that almost a third of the UK electorate are still unaware, or not very aware, of how political parties target or tailor adverts based on the analysis of their personal data (political microtargeting). 

鈥淚f we aren鈥檛 aware of attempted manipulation through political microtargeting, then we won鈥檛 have our guards up when campaigners try to influence us through our Facebook news feeds, and in the digital messages that appear in our filter bubbles when we鈥檙e online,鈥� Vian Bakir said. 

鈥淭his cannot be a healthy state of affairs for any democracy. Voters want to be informed, not manipulated.鈥� 

Publication date: 3 July 2020