The problem?
Law lagging behind technology.
History shows that law inevitably trails behind technological change.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the information revolution, defined by widespread and instantaneous access to the internet. Social media, in particular, presents regulators with unprecedented difficulties. Traditional media operates within a comprehensive regulatory framework overseen by government‑approved bodies. By contrast, social media platforms exist in what is more accurately described as a regulatory wild west.
The argument advanced here is that stronger legal safeguards must be built into the online sphere and that the state cannot avoid this responsibility.
The rise of fake news
One of the most harmful consequences of technological change is the proliferation of fake news.
Although false information has long been used to manipulate public debate, the combination of social media and artificial intelligence has intensified the problem. Algorithms can target individuals using data drawn from their online activity.
Examples of viral disinformation are numerous.
According to Snopes, widely shared false stories from 2017 to 2018 included claims that Black Lives Matter protestors blocked emergency services from reaching hurricane victims, claims that illegal immigrants started California wildfires and claims that leaders of Islamic State had Barack Obama on speed dial. Evidence of coordinated online disinformation campaigns has been found in 48 countries since 2018.
Why fake news is so harmful
Part of the answer lies in human psychology. Social psychologist Sander Van Der Linden argues that fake news spreads rapidly because it exploits pre‑existing biases. Once individuals have been exposed to false information, it is difficult to remove the impression even after the myth has been debunked.
This has serious implications for democratic life. If citizens do not share a basic understanding of what is broadly true and false, meaningful public debate becomes impossible. The consequences can also be immediate and dangerous. In India, more than twenty people were killed after false rumours alleging the presence of child abductors went viral across several villages.
The current legal position
The existing regulatory framework is largely ineffective.
As a platform rather than a publisher, Facebook is not legally responsible for the content it hosts. It is required to remove only clearly illegal material, such as child sexual exploitation or incitement to violence, and only once notified. In relation to harms with less precise definitions, such as disinformation, the platform enjoys even greater discretion.
Nick Clegg has clarified that political content will be treated as “newsworthy” by default, even if it breaches platform standards. Such content will not be fact‑checked. This means political actors may continue to disseminate false information without regulatory consequence.
The UK Government’s White Paper on Online Harms
The Government’s recent White Paper on Online Harms seeks to address this regulatory gap.
Central to the proposals is the creation of a statutory duty of care requiring social media companies to take reasonable steps to protect users. This duty would be enforced by an independent regulator.
Although welcome, the proposals do not go far enough. There is a strong case for strict liability rather than negligence‑based liability. Social media companies possess powerful AI tools capable of filtering harmful content before it is posted. A stricter regime would incentivise proactive use of these technologies.
Furthermore, an effective response must include a public education element.
Researchers at the University of Cambridge have developed a technique to psychologically inoculate individuals against fake news by exposing them to the methods used to spread disinformation. Finland has already adopted a similar approach. Following its 2014 Anti‑Fake News Initiative, all high school students receive training designed to build a digital literacy toolkit.
Finland now ranks first in the Press Freedom Index for public trust in both media and democratic institutions.
The free speech debate
Critics argue that increased regulation risks chilling free speech.
Many are uncomfortable with the idea of a government agency determining what constitutes harmful speech. However, this libertarian concern overlooks the reality that rules are already being set. At present, these rules are determined by private companies such as Facebook, whose commercial interests are tied to user engagement. Emotive content that plays on fear keeps users online longer, increasing advertising revenue.
The question is not whether rules should exist, but who should set them, how they should be set and for what purpose. A legally accountable public regulator may offer greater transparency and fairness than private actors driven by profit.
More broadly, the concept of freedom requires careful consideration. From the consumer’s perspective, genuine freedom of thought depends on informed choice, which is only possible within a reasonably accurate and unmanipulated media environment. From the publisher’s perspective, freedom of the press has historically been paired with a responsibility to exercise that freedom ethically.
Conclusion
The challenges posed by fake news and online disinformation demand a robust regulatory response.
Although the Government’s White Paper marks an important step, further measures are needed to ensure both public protection and democratic integrity.
The debate over online regulation is ultimately a debate about how best to safeguard freedom, truth and responsible public discourse in the digital age.
Not sure how close you are to qualifying?
The path-fit quiz reads your situation and shows you which routes you are ready for, and exactly what to do next. Four minutes, no account needed to start.
Check your readiness