• Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Leadership and Governance
    • Our Members and Partners
    • Communities
    • History
    • Klaus Schwab
    • Media
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • World Economic Forum USA
    • Privacy and Terms of Use
  • EN ES FR 日本語 中文
  • Login to TopLink

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Notice.

I accept
    Hamburger
  • World Economic Forum Logo
  • Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
  • TopLink
  • Search Cancel

Report Home

<Previous Next>
  • Explore the survey results
    • The Global Risks Landscape 2018
    • The Risks-trends Interconnections Map 2018
    • The Global Risks Interconnections Map 2018
    • Evolving Risk Landscape, 2008-2018
    • Global Risks of Highest Concern for Doing Business 2018
  • Read the Report
  • Preface
  • Executive Summary
    • Arabic
    • Chinese
    • French
    • German
    • Portuguese
    • Spanish
  • Global Risks 2018: Fractures, Fears and Failures
  • Economic Storm Clouds
  • Future Shocks
    • Grim Reaping
    • A Tangled Web
    • The Death of Trade
    • Democracy Buckles
    • Precision Extinction
    • Into the Abyss
    • Inequality Ingested
    • War without Rules
    • Identity Geopolitics
    • Walled Off
  • Geopolitical Power Shifts
  • Hindsight
    • Antimicrobial Resistance
    • Youth Unemployment
    • Digital Wildfires
  • Risk Reassessment
    • Resilience in complex organizations
    • Cognitive bias and risk management
  • Appendices
    • Appendix A: Descriptions of Global Risks and Trends 2018
    • Appendix B: Global Risks Perception Survey and Methodology 2018
  • Acknowledgements
  • [—divider—]
  • Press Release
  • Shareable Infographics
  • Blogs and Opinions
  • [—divider—]
  • Download the Report
Global Risks Report 2018 Home Previous Next
  • Report Home
  • Explore the survey results
    • The Global Risks Landscape 2018
    • The Risks-trends Interconnections Map 2018
    • The Global Risks Interconnections Map 2018
    • Evolving Risk Landscape, 2008-2018
    • Global Risks of Highest Concern for Doing Business 2018
  • Read the Report
  • Preface
  • Executive Summary
    • Arabic
    • Chinese
    • French
    • German
    • Portuguese
    • Spanish
  • Global Risks 2018: Fractures, Fears and Failures
  • Economic Storm Clouds
  • Future Shocks
    • Grim Reaping
    • A Tangled Web
    • The Death of Trade
    • Democracy Buckles
    • Precision Extinction
    • Into the Abyss
    • Inequality Ingested
    • War without Rules
    • Identity Geopolitics
    • Walled Off
  • Geopolitical Power Shifts
  • Hindsight
    • Antimicrobial Resistance
    • Youth Unemployment
    • Digital Wildfires
  • Risk Reassessment
    • Resilience in complex organizations
    • Cognitive bias and risk management
  • Appendices
    • Appendix A: Descriptions of Global Risks and Trends 2018
    • Appendix B: Global Risks Perception Survey and Methodology 2018
  • Acknowledgements
  • [—divider—]
  • Press Release
  • Shareable Infographics
  • Blogs and Opinions
  • [—divider—]
  • Download the Report

Digital Wildfires

REUTERS/Baz Ratner

Share

Three years before the Brexit referendum and US presidential elections that brought the terms “fake news” and “post-truth” into broad circulation, a chapter in the 2013 Global Risks Report entitled “Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World” warned of the increasing danger of misinformation being spread by social media. Among the key issues raised were the intentional use of social media to spread misinformation (for example, through the use of fake accounts to smear or impersonate political opponents), the difficulty of correcting misinformation when it spreads within trusted networks, global governance challenges and the danger that some governments might use well-intentioned constraints on misinformation to limit freedom of speech.

The prevalence and impact of digital wildfires have surged in the five years since we first discussed them. Even as the potential social, political and geopolitical risks are intensifying, however, the ways in which widely shared misinformation can influence human behaviour are still far from fully understood. While social media becomes increasingly deeply ingrained in daily life, mitigating adverse impacts will require sustained efforts by both policy-makers and technology leaders, and there will need to be a careful balance struck between regulation and preventing infringements of individual liberties.

The prevalence of online misinformation has surged…

Digital misinformation is not a new phenomenon—Freedom House has been tracking the use of paid pro-government commentators to mimic grassroots supporters since 2009. Nor is it confined to the United States: Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net report found 30% more countries using fake online grassroots activity in 2017 than 2016.37 

However, it was during the 2016 US presidential election that “fake news” acquired global prominence, and much of the wave of research now underway has focused on this example. According to one study, in the three months immediately prior to the election, the top 20 false news stories outperformed—in terms of shares, reactions and comments—the top 20 stories from major news sources.38 Engagement with fake news stories increased by 53% compared with the previous three-month period.39 Another study noted that social media platforms directed 40% of the web traffic that went to fake news websites, compared with only 10% for the top mainstream news websites.40 

…but its impact is difficult to gauge

Studies have found that people have a hard time distinguishing between accurate and fake headlines. One survey in late 2016 presented respondents with a random selection of six headlines—three accurate and three false—and asked them to rate the accuracy of the headlines they could recall having seen before.41 It found that 75% of the time respondents judged the false headlines to be “somewhat accurate” or “very accurate”—only slightly lower than 83% for the accurate news headlines.42 However, another study conducted in 2017 suggests a greater level of user scepticism about news consumed via social media—it found that while 55% of respondents said they consumed news from Facebook, only 18% said they trusted news from Facebook most or all of the time.43 

Efforts are underway to bolster safeguards

Numerous efforts are now underway to limit the prevalence and potential disruptiveness of online misinformation by helping the public to critically evaluate news sources. Since early 2016, Facebook has launched a number of efforts to address false news, clickbait, and sensationalism, including a partnership with fact-checking organizations and a network of researchers called the News Integrity Initiative.44 An early study by Yale researchers suggests that these types of warnings reduce the likelihood of stories being shared, but has only a limited effect on users’ perceptions of accuracy when stories are shown repeatedly.45 And in 2017 the OECD announced plans to add critical thinking about information sources to its Global Competency tests.46 Programmes to teach students to evaluate online sources critically are a growing trend around the world.47 

Amid increasing pressure from governments and users, technology companies have also been taking steps to reduce the financial incentives for the creators of fake news and to enhance the transparency of material on their platforms. For example, Google announced in November 2016 that it would restrict its AdSense ads on sites that “misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose of the web property.”48 Facebook has taken action against ads on its platform that are “illegal, misleading or deceptive, which includes fake news”;49 however, these restrictions notably do not prevent users from writing or sharing inaccurate content.50 

In September 2017, it was announced that a Russia-based organization spent US$100,000 on advertisements promoting divisive political issues during the US presidential campaign; Facebook said it would provide the ads to congressional investigators,51 and has launched tools to make all ads it runs publicly accessible in the future. In October, Twitter announced it would ban RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik, two major media organizations, from advertising on the platform following an internal investigation and the identification by the US intelligence community of these companies as vehicles of Russian government interference in the 2016 presidential election.52 Twitter also announced that it is launching an “Advertising Transparency Center” and new policies that will (1) provide details about all ads carried on its platform, (2) place clear visual markers on political advertisements, (3) disclose how political ads are targeted and (4) strengthen policies regarding political advertising.53 

37
37 Thirty of 65 countries surveyed in 2017, compared to 23 in 2016. See Freedom House. 2017. “Freedom on the Net 2017: Manipulating Social Media to Undermine Democracy”. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2017
38
38 Silverman, C. 2016. “This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News on Facebook”. BuzzFeed News. 16 November 2016. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.ffl44oMY1q#.ekqAAlbogq
39
39 Ibid.
40
40 Allcott, H. and M. Gentzkow. 2017. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 (2): 211–236. Document1
41
41 Silverman, C. and J. Singer-Vine. 2017. “Most Americans Who See Fake News Believe It, New Survey Says”. BuzzFeed News. 7 December 2017. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/fake-news-survey?utm_term=.tr022QWPGx#.rj5ZZD280O
42
42 Ibid.
43
43 Silverman, C. 2017. “People Read News on Facebook But They Don’t Really Trust It, A Survey Found”. BuzzFeed News. 19 January 2017. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/people-be-reading-but-not-trusting-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.hxYqqmbnQL#.yt8DDzPQ1W
44
44 Silverman, C. 2016. “Facebook Is Turning to Fact-Checkers to Fight Fake News”. BuzzFeed News. 15 December 2016. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/facebook-and-fact-checkers-fight-fake-news?utm_term=.efQzzlDoka#.qg3ddQbW4y
45
45 Pennycook, G., T. D. Cannon, and D. G. Rand. 2017. “Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News”. 26 August 2017. Updated 11 December 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246
46
46 Siddique, H. 2017. “Teach Schoolchildren How to Spot Fake News, Says OECD”. The Guardian. 17 March 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/18/teach-schoolchildren-spot-fake-news-says-oecd
47
47 Holcombe, M. 2017. “Reading, Writing, Fighting Fake News”. CNN. 29 March 2017. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/29/health/school-kids-fight-fake-news-trnd/index.html; CNN. 2017. Czech Republic Tackles Spread of Fake News. Video. http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/02/02/czech-republic-tackles-fake-news-soares-pkg.cnn; Roden, L. 2017. “Swedish Kids to Learn Computer Coding and How to Spot Fake News in Primary School”. The Local. 13 March 2017. https://www.thelocal.se/20170313/swedish-kids-to-learn-computer-coding-and-how-to-spot-fake-news-in-primary-school; Smith, N. 2017. “Schoolkids in Taiwan Will Now Be Taught How to Identify Fake News”. Time. 7 April 2017. http://time.com/4730440/taiwan-fake-news-education/; and Horowitz, J. 2017. “In Italian Schools, Reading, Writing and Recognizing Fake News”. The New York Times 18 October 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/world/europe/italy-fake-news.html
48
48 Love, J. and K. Cook. 2016. “Google, Facebook, Move To Restrict Ads on Fake News Sites”. Reuters. 14 November 2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-advertising/google-facebook-move-to-restrict-ads-on-fake-news-sites-idUSKBN1392MM.
49
49 Ibid.
50
50 Pierson, D. 2016. “Facebook Bans Fake News from Its Advertising Network—But Not Its News Feed”. Los Angeles Times. 15 November 2016. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-facebook-fake-news-20161115-story.html
51
51 Solon, O. 2017. “Facebook Says Likely Russia-Based Group Paid for Political Ads during US Election”. The Guardian. 7 September 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/06/facebook-political-ads-russia-us-election-trump-clinton
52
52 Twitter PublicPolicy. 2017. “Announcement: RT and Sputnik Advertising”. Twitter Blog. 26 October 2017. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2017/Announcement-RT-and-Sputnik-Advertising.html
53
53 Falck, B. 2017. “New Transparency for Ads on Twitter”. Twitter Blog. 24 October 2017. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/product/2017/New-Transparency-For-Ads-on-Twitter.html
Back to Top
Subscribe for updates
A weekly update of what’s on the Global Agenda
Follow Us
About
Our Mission
Leadership and Governance
Our Members and Partners
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Communities
History
Klaus Schwab
Our Impact
Media
Pictures
A Global Platform for Geostrategic Collaboration
Careers
Open Forum
Contact Us
Mapping Global Transformations
Code of Conduct
World Economic Forum LLC
Sustainability
World Economic Forum Privacy Policy
Media
News
Accreditation
Subscribe to our news
Members & Partners
Member login to TopLink
Strategic Partners' area
Partner Institutes' area
Global sites
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Open Forum
Global Shapers
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship
EN ES FR 日本語 中文
© 2019 World Economic Forum
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service