HLS Faculty Scholarship

In this chapter, law and technology scholar Jonathan Zittrain warns of the danger of relying on answers for which we have no explanations. There are benefits to utilising solutions discovered through trial and error rather than rigorous proof: though aspirin was discovered in the late 19th century, it was not until the late 20th century that scientists were able to explain how it worked. But doing so accrues ‘intellectual debt’. This intellectual debt is compounding quickly in the realm of AI, especially in the subfield of machine learning. Whereas we know that ML models can create efficient, effective answers, we don’t always know why the models come to the conclusions they do. This makes it difficult to detect when they are malfunctioning, being manipulated, or producing unreliable results. When several systems interact, the ledger moves further to the red. Society’s movement from basic science towards applied technology that bypasses rigorous investigative research inches us closer to a world in which we are reliant on an oracle AI, one in which we trust regardless of our ability to audit its trustworthiness. Zittrain concludes that we must create an intellectual debt ‘balance sheet’ by allowing academics to scrutinise the systems.

The architecture and offerings of the Internet developed without much steering by governments, much less operations by militaries. That made talk of “cyberwar” exaggerated, except in very limited instances. Today that is no longer true: States and their militaries see the value not only of controlling networks for surveillance or to deny access to adversaries, but also of subtle propaganda campaigns launched through a small number of wildly popular worldwide platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. This form of hybrid conflict – launched by states without state insignia, on privately built and publicly used services – offers a genuine challenge to those who steward the network and the private companies whose platforms are targeted. While interventions by one state may be tempered by defense by another state, there remain novel problems to solve when what users see and learn online is framed as organic and user-generated but in fact it is not.

John Perry Barlow’s insights were inseparable from his lyrical way of conveying them. Paragraphs like this from his seminal 1994 essay The Economy of Ideas come to mind: What was previously considered a common human resource, distributed among the minds and libraries of the world, as well as the phenomena of nature herself, is now being fenced and deeded. It is as though a new class of enterprise had arisen that claimed to own the air and water.

The governance of online platforms has unfolded across three eras – the era of Rights (which stretched from the early 1990s to about 2010), the era of Public Health (from 2010 through the present), and the era of Process (of which we are now seeing the first stirrings). Rights-era conversations and initiatives amongst regulators and the public at large centered dominantly on protecting nascent spaces for online discourse against external coercion. The values and doctrine developed in the Rights era have been vigorously contested in the Public Health era, during which regulators and advocates have focused (with minimal success) on establishing accountability for concrete harms arising from online content, even where addressing those harms would mean limiting speech. In the era of Process, platforms, regulators, and users must transcend this stalemate between competing values frameworks, not necessarily by uprooting Rights-era cornerstones like CDA 230, but rather by working towards platform governance processes capable of building broad consensus around how policy decisions are made and implemented. Some promising steps in this direction could include delegating certain key policymaking decisions to entities outside of the platforms themselves; making platforms “information” or “content” fiduciaries; and systematically archiving data and metadata about disinformation detected and addressed by platforms.

The rise of fake news highlights the erosion of long-standing institutional bulwarks against misinformation in the internet age. Concern over the problem is global. However, much remains unknown regarding the vulnerabilities of individuals, institutions, and society to manipulations by malicious actors. A new system of safeguards is needed. Below, we discuss extant social and computer science research regarding belief in fake news and the mechanisms by which it spreads. Fake news has a long history, but we focus on unanswered scientific questions raised by the proliferation of its most recent, politically oriented incarnation. Beyond selected references in the text, suggested further reading can be found in the supplementary materials.