The 2020 Pandemic, Plandemic or

President Donald Trump is not really sick with coronavirus. It is just a political strategy. Or just a small part of a grand plan to arrest Hillary Clinton, who is leading Democratic politicians and Hollywood’s elite in a global child trafficking ring, as followers of QAnon would have you believe. That being said, we have also heard that the pandemic is in fact a ‘plandemic’, created by Bill Gates and Big Pharma so that they can implant trackable microchips on a global scale under the guise of a vaccine. Or, the pandemic is real but coronavirus symptoms are actually caused by the toxic effects of bird-killing, tree-felling and cancer-causing electromagnetic radiation emitted from the erection of the 5G network.

To some, this may sound ludicrous and laughably far-fetched, but fake news and conspiracy theories have promulgated throughout social media with breathtaking speed as of late, garnering widespread attention. The World Health Organisation has aptly titled this overabundance of misinformation and conspiracy theories an ‘infodemic’, adding that fake news spreads faster than the virus and is equally dangerous. Accordingly, a recent study found that of 112 million public social media posts related to the pandemic, 40% came from unreliable sources. A survey conducted in the US showed that 29% of respondents believed that the threat of COVID-19 was exaggerated to damage Donald Trump’s reputation and 31% thought the virus was purposefully created and spread. In April this year, nearly half of the British population believed that COVID-19 was man-made in some way.

This whirlwind of lies and misinformation is also perhaps a feature of our ‘post-truth’ world, in which objective fact yields to emotion and personal belief.”

Lockdown-induced boredom and the uncertainty posed by the pandemic have created the perfect storm for this. This whirlwind of lies and misinformation is also perhaps a feature of our ‘post-truth’ world, in which objective fact yields to emotion and personal belief.

However, the advent of social media has undoubtedly played a significant role in accelerating both the reach of conspiracy theories and the speed at which they can spread. Individuals tend to be influenced by the media that they consume, particularly where they see others promoting or sharing this information. On social media, this means that the number of shares or retweets on a post is often treated as a proxy for credibility. This can have harmful effects in that it not only polarises certain groups and creates echo chambers, but it also has little basis for being used as a measure of its veracity. For example, ‘virtue signalling’ involves sharing or retweeting information to indicate membership of a group, regardless of whether its contents have been read and endorsed. Bots can also share and circulate information to falsely promote a piece and create fake ‘grassroots’ movements. Trending information, perceived as synonymous with credible information, can therefore be accepted as truthful by consumers. Clickbait, hyperboles and misinformation thus can distort the media landscape through these ‘engagement’ metrics.

What are conspiracy theories and how are they harmful? Conspiracy theories attempt to explain significant social or political events involving secret plots by two or more actors perceived to be powerful and malevolent. These theories often give oversimplified, illogical accounts in the face of major events which create uncertainty or unease. They can change beliefs and drive actions, sometimes with insidious effect. Conspiracy theories are linked to negative attitudes and prejudice against certain groups, particularly by reinforcing a ‘them’

Critics have pointed out that this has led to social media companies becoming increasingly self-regulating and overly cautious, leading to greater censorship, which is equally undesirable.”

versus ‘us’ dichotomy in majority and minority groups. For example, a 2012 study found that white U.S. participants who had negative contact with African Americans also questioned Barack Obama’s citizenship and his eligibility for presidency. Conspiracy beliefs can also influence poor health choices by supporting scepticism of advances in scientific research. Conspiracy theorists who endorsed the belief that health officials were hiding from the public that cell phones cause cancer had a greater preference for alternative, unconventional medicines and vaccine refusal. Similarly, over a third of Americans agree that global warming is a hoax, making it a mainstream belief. Therefore, the denial of science has been said to go ‘hand in hand’ with conspiracy beliefs.

Conspiracy theories also pose a significant threat to democracy. Believers fixate and vote on potentially groundless issues whilst disregarding or disbelieving genuine issues requiring immediate attention from society. The term ‘fake news’ quickly came to define the 2016 U.S. election as various posts circulated social media, including some alleging that Donald Trump called Republicans the ‘dumbest group of voters’. Others suggested that Hillary Clinton had accidentally paid the Islamic State group $US400 million. This was also an issue in Australia’s 2019 federal election: as fake news disseminated across Facebook that the Labor Party planned to introduce a death tax, the Liberal Party adopted this in an authorised attack ad. With clear potential to influence millions of people and cause harmful effects, the question arises how we ought to regulate the dissemination of conspiracy theories.

How should we regulate conspiracy theories? Countries such as Germany, Malaysia, France, Russia and Singapore have already passed laws against fake news, though they have not escaped criticism. In Singapore, the government is able to determine what constitutes fake news and can order its removal if it broadly conflicts with the public interest. Malaysia has criminalised fake news, punishable by up to $AU171,000 and/or six years imprisonment. These approaches are said to be undesirable as they have ‘chilling effects’ on internet freedom, vest too much power in public institutions by allowing them to be the final arbiter of ‘truth’ and undermine freedom of speech. Censorship also poses difficulties in enforcement as distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate information is increasingly difficult. Germany has adopted an approach which places the responsibility upon social media platforms to remove content which is ‘obviously illegal’, such as hate speech or defamation, within a strict 24 hour timeframe. Those who offend this provision face fines of up to 50 million euros. Critics have pointed out that this has led to social media companies becoming increasingly self-regulating and overly cautious, leading to greater censorship, which is equally undesirable. Alternatively, the European Union passed a voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation in 2018 which encourages transparency in political advertising and demonetises those who disseminate misinformation, though some believe it to be too lenient in practice.

Despite the difficulty in policing misinformation, the need to do so is becoming increasingly pertinent. Netflix’s new docudrama The Social Dilemma shrewdly observes that social media giants have successfully crafted a formidable web of confirmation bias. Algorithms and technology are used to create ‘individually curated rabbit holes’ or ‘2.7 billion “Truman Shows”’ which manipulate consumer behaviour and warp our shared perception of reality. Fact and fiction are now more indistinguishable than ever before. Thus, as the pandemic continues to unfold, the infodemic has emerged as another foe which requires our attention.

“... as the pandemic continues to unfold, the infodemic has emerged as another foe which requires our attention.