Thread by @PaulbernalUK

One ‘highlight’ of yesterday’s debate in parliament was Johnson’s use of a conspiracy theory about Starmer being responsible for Jimmy Savile not being prosecuted - and then Nadine Dorries failing to accept that this was ‘fake news’, and that Johnson was lying (a thread) 1/n

This matters, and more perhaps than is obvious. It demonstrates a number of things about the problems we have with misinformation - and why we get the regulation so wrong. This is *not* a thread about how manifestly unsuitable for their roles either Dorries or Johnson are… 2/n

…but about why the #OnlineSafetyBill is so ill-conceived. Remember, it makes Nadine Dorries (and indirectly Boris Johnson) responsible for the regulation of amongst other things misinformation on social media - via their political appointee as head of Ofcom. 3/n

Firstly, fake news is (and has historically always been) a tool used by politicians. Call it propaganda, call it misinformation, call it ‘spin’, it’s one of the common tools. Yes, Johnson is a particularly blatant use of it, but he’s not the first and won’t be the last. 4/n

That means having politician be in charge of *regulating* fake news is of itself both dangerous and bound for disaster. More obviously with blatant liars like Boris Johnson, but in practice for all politicians. None of them can or should be trusted with a role like this. 5/n

Secondly, that fake news isn’t restricted to the internet. Very much the opposite. What goes on on the net feeds *and is fed by* what politicians and the mainstream, traditional media say and do. Johnson’s meme can be found all over Facebook and Twitter. 6/n

Now, we can expect clips of Johnson saying it to be use to spread the fake news all over Facebook and Twitter. It’s a parasitic relationship - and one that’s mirrored in the relationships between the tabloid press and the social media too. 7/n

We’ve had anti-Semitic Soros conspiracy theories on the front page of the Telegraph, fake news about the benefits of Brexit pretty regularly on the tabloids - indeed, we can expect much, much more of this in the next few weeks. 8/n

And Johnson and Dorries are far from alone in this - I’ve written before about Jacob Rees-Mogg’s form in the area. paulbernal.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/fak… 9/n

So what does this mean? Firstly, that the #OnlineSafetyBill is a recipe for disaster in terms of the regulation of fake news. It will make it even more of a political football - labelling your enemy’s material fake and getting it banned, giving your own a free pass. 10/n

Secondly, that it misses the key to addressing fake news - that you have to look at the *whole* picture, including politicians and the mainstream media - and that’s almost impossible whilst maintaining even a semblance of freedom of speech. 11/n

We need to acknowledge that this is bloody difficult - and not give sweeping powers to those who are going to be compromised in their ability to wield them. This, of course is not the only thing wrong with the #OnlineSafetyBill. It should be enough to make us pause. 13/13