Is Big Tech the Enemy of Fair Elections? What governments are doing to stem the spread of misinformation and paid influence, and Make Elections Fair Again

Is Big Tech the Enemy of Fair Elections? What governments are doing to stem the spread of misinformation and paid influence, and Make Elections Fair Again

In the digital age, the intersection of technology and democracy has become a battleground for truth and influence. Big Tech companies wield unprecedented power over the flow of information, and the influence of social media platforms and search engines in shaping public opinion cannot be overstated.

With algorithms designed to maximize engagement, these platforms often amplify and lend authority to sensational content, which can include misinformation. Add to this the dramatically increased effectiveness of political advertising via social media (as compared to traditional methods), with the ability to micro-target demographics with tailored messages. Concerns that these "Gatekeepers" could contribute to election engineering - whether intentionally or as an unintended consequence of their business models - do not seem too far fetched.

Governments are responding to these challenges. The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) is a pioneering regulation that imposes obligations on large online platforms (most of which are headquartered in the US but are nonetheless caught by the EU regulation in respect of their EU activities) to mitigate systemic risks including, among other things, requiring the transparency of online advertising. It requires large platforms (known as "the Gatekeepers") to conduct risk assessments and follow guidelines, aiming to mitigate the risks of misinformation and election interference.

In Australia, proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act seek to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to oversee digital platforms' content management, including political ads. The eSafety Commissioner has been granted authority to demand tech companies control harmful content, and some states have enacted laws to ensure truth in political advertising.

The United States, while lacking a direct counterpart to the DSA, has various legislative proposals that aim to define digital services' responsibilities in content moderation, which could indirectly influence election outcomes.

These initiatives reflect a growing consensus that, while Big Tech may not inherently be the enemy of fair elections, left unchecked, these huge and powerful organisations are capable of affecting behaviours in ways that could change the course of history. By ensuring transparency, data privacy, and user control, governments a the tech sector can work to stem the tide of misinformation and any undue influence on voters.

However, the challenge is complex. The internet's global reach and decentralized nature, and the size of the organisations wielding such control, make it difficult to regulate. Just last month (April 2024) a report by Mozilla and CheckFirst reported that none of the platforms to which the DSA applies currently comply with the transparency requirements in relation to advertising.

A separate but equally challenging problem is that sources of information are increasingly difficult to distinguish between - even sophisticated users cannot always tell when they are being sold a lie. And in any case, balancing misinformation control with freedom of expression is extremely delicate.

To sum up, while Big Tech is not inherently the enemy of fair elections, it plays a significant role in ensuring their integrity. One thing is clear: the fight against misinformation and unfair influence on elections is a collective responsibility, requiring the cooperation of tech companies, governments, and users alike.