1932

Abstract

This article reviews the fate of truth and falsehood outside of the courtroom, largely—but not exclusively—in the United States. Describing opportunities and techniques to mislead or deceive on and off the Internet and social media, it focuses on the evolving social control response undertaken by institutions and increasingly by distributed networks: government regulators, private actors, self-regulators, crowds, third parties, platform architecture, and technology. The review highlights the turbulent legal and regulatory challenges encountered as existing rules do not quite fit the virtual world, free speech protections tie the hands of legislators and regulators in some parts of the world, and massive private corporations—whose profitability is maximized by user engagement with inflammatory and often false messages—control much of what can and cannot be said. Competing media, platforms, and regulators usher in a post-truth era with contested arbiters of truth and dire warnings of an epistemological crisis.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-100547
2022-10-18
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/18/1/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-100547.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-100547&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrahao B, Parigi P, Gupta A, Cook KS. 2017. Reputation offsets trust judgments based on social biases among Airbnb users. PNAS 114:9848–53
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen J, Arechar AA, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2021. Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds. Sci. Adv. 7:eabf4393
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bail C. 2021. Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  4. Barrett PM. 2020. Who moderates the social media giants? Rep. Stern Cent. Bus. Hum. Rights, NYU https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/tech-content-moderation-june-2020?_ga=2.154100861.418040095.1634323211-432393013.1634323211
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Benson ML, Cullen FT. 1998. Combating Corporate Crime: Local Prosecutors at Work Boston: Northeast. Univ. Press
  6. Best A. 1985. Controlling false advertising: a comparative study of public regulation, industry self-policing, and private litigation. Ga. Law Rev. 20:1–72
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloyd-Peshkin S, Sivek SC. 2017. Magazines find there's little time to fact-check online. Columbia Journalism Review March 23. https://www.cjr.org/b-roll/magazine-fact-checking-online.php
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Borel B. 2016. The Chicago Guide to Fact-Checking Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  9. Borel B. 2018. The State of Fact-Checking in Science Journalism Cambridge, MA: Knight Sci. Journal. Program MIT
  10. Botsman R. 2017. Who Can You Trust: How Technology Brought Us Together and Why It Might Drive Us Apart New York: PublicAffairs
  11. Bourget D, Chalmers DJ. 2014. What do philosophers believe?. Philos. Stud. 170:465–500
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Braithwaite J. 1982. Enforced self-regulation: a new strategy for corporate crime control. Mich. Law Rev. 80:1466–507
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Briloff AJ. 1981. The Truth about Corporate Accounting New York: Harper & Row
  14. Brown NI. 2020. Deepfakes and the weaponization of disinformation. Va. J. Law Technol. 23:1–59
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Casey MJ, Vigna P. 2018. The Truth Machine: The Blockchain and the Future of Everything New York: St. Martin's
  16. Chen AK. 2021. Cheap speech creation. UC Davis Law Rev 54:2405–54
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chesney B, Citron D. 2019. Deep fakes: a looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. Calif. Law Rev. 107:1753–819
    [Google Scholar]
  18. D'Agata J, Fingal J 2012. The Lifespan of a Fact New York: Norton
  19. Diamond SS, Franklyn DJ. 2014. Trademark surveys: an undulating path. Tex. Law Rev. 92:2029–73
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Diamond SS, Swann JB. 2012. Trademark and Deceptive Advertising Surveys: Law, Science, and Design Chicago: ABA Publ.
  21. Diekmann A, Jann B, Przepiorka W, Wehrli S. 2014. Reputation formation and the evolution of cooperation in anonymous online markets. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:65–85
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Douek E. 2019. Facebook's “oversight board:” Move fast with stable infrastructure and humility. N.C. J. Law Technol. 21:1–77
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Douek E. 2021. Governing online speech: from “posts-as-trumps” to proportionality and probability. Columbia Law Rev. 121:759–833
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Edelman LB. 2016. Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Compliance Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  25. Edelman LB, Suchman MC. 1997. The legal environments of organizations. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:479–515
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Einav L, Farronato C, Levin J. 2016. Peer-to-peer markets. Annu. Rev. Econ. 8:615–35
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ferrara E, Varol O, Davis C, Menczer F, Flammini A. 2016. The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM 59:96–104
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Franklin MA. 1980. Winners and losers and why: a study of defamation litigation. Am. Bar Found. Res. J. 5:455–500
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Frenkel S, Alba D. 2021. In India, Facebook grapples with an amplified version of its problems. New York Times Oct. 23
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Giansiracusa N. 2021. How Algorithms Create and Prevent Fake News: Exploring the Impacts of Social Media, Deepfakes, GPT-3, and More New York: Apress
  31. Gillespie T. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  32. Goel S, Anderson A, Hofman J, Watts DJ. 2016. The structural virality of online diffusion. Manag. Sci. 62:180–96
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldberg J. 2020. Why Obama fears for our democracy. Atlantic Nov. 15
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Goldman E 2020. An overview of the United States’ Section 230 internet immunity. Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability G Frosio 155–71 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Grabosky PN, Braithwaite J. 1986. Of Manners Gentle: Enforcement Strategies of Australian Business Regulatory Agencies Melbourne: Oxford Univ. Press
  36. Graves L. 2016. Deciding What's True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  37. Grimmelmann J. 2015. The virtues of moderation. Yale J. Law Technol. 17:42–68
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Grundfest JA. 1994. Disimplying private rights of action under the federal securities laws: the Commission's authority. Harvard Law Rev. 107:961–1024
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Harrison K, Leopold A 2021. How blockchain can help combat disinformation. Harvard Business Review July 19
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hasen RL. 2020. Deep fakes, bots, and siloed justices: American election law in a ‘post-truth’ world. St. Louis Univ. Law J. 64:535–68
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hastak M, Mazis MB. 2014. Three decades of marketing academic input at the Federal Trade Commission: contributions to research, policy making, and litigation. J. Public Policy Mark. 33:232–43
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Haughey MM, Muralikumar MD, Wood C, Starbird K. 2020. On the misinformation beat: understanding the work of investigative journalists reporting on problematic information online. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4:1–22
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ice J. 2019. Defamatory political deepfakes and the First Amendment. Case West. Res. Law Rev. 70:417–56
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Isaac M. 2021. Whistle-blower to accuse Facebook of contributing to Jan. 6 riot, memo says. New York Times Oct. 2
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Johnson VR. 2016. Comparative defamation law: England and the United States. U. Miami Int. Comp. Law Rev. 24:1–97
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Katz J. 1979. Legality and equality: plea bargaining in the prosecution of white-collar and common crimes. Law Soc. Rev. 13:431–59
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Katzmann RA. 1980. Regulatory Bureaucracy Cambridge, MA: MIT Univ. Press
  48. Kaye D. 2019. Speech Police: The Global Struggle to Govern the Internet New York: Columbia Glob. Rep.
  49. Keller D. 2019. Who do you sue? State and platform hybrid power over online speech Aegis Ser. Pap. 1902. Hoover Work. Group Natl. Secur., Technol., Law, Hoover Inst. Stanford, CA: https://www.lawfareblog.com/who-do-you-sue-state-and-platform-hybrid-power-over-online-speech
  50. Kessler G, Rizzo S, Kelly M. 2021. Trump's false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years. Washington Post Jan. 24
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kitchens B, Johnson SL, Gray P. 2020. Understanding echo chambers and filter bubbles: the impact of social media on diversification and partisan shifts in news consumption. MIS Q. 44:1619–49
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Klass G 2020. False advertising law. The Oxford Handbook of the New Private Law AS Gold, JCP Goldberg, DB Kelly, E Sherwin, HE Smith 391–408 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Klonick K. 2018. The new governors: the people, rules, and processes governing online speech. Harvard Law Rev. 131:1598–670
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Klonick K. 2020. The Facebook Oversight Board: creating an independent institution to adjudicate online free expression. Yale Law J. 129:2418–99
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kosseff J. 2019. The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  56. Levi M. 1987. Regulating Fraud: White-Collar Crime and the Criminal Process London: Tavistock Publ.
  57. Lev-On A 2009. Cooperation with and without trust online. eTrust: Forming Relationships in the Online World KS Cook, C Snijders, V Buskens, C Cheshire 292–318 New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J. 2012. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13:106–31
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lewis SC, Sanders AK, Carmody C. 2019. Libel by algorithm? Automated journalism and the threat of legal liability. J. Mass Commun. Q. 96:60–81
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Lewis-Kraus G. 2015. ZPM Espresso and the rage of the jilted crowdfunder. New York Times Magazine April 30
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Martin SL. 2015. Compliance officers: more jobs, more responsibility, more liability. Notre Dame J. Law Ethics Public Policy 29:169–98
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Mayer J. 2016. Trump's Boswell speaks. New Yorker July 25
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Merrill JB, Oremus W. 2021. Five points for anger, one for a ‘like’: how Facebook's formula fostered rage and misinformation. Washington Post Oct. 26
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Nature Neuroscience. 2006. Editorial: Can peer review police fraud?. Nat. Neurosci. 9:149
    [Google Scholar]
  65. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 1964.)
  66. Nyhan B. 2021. Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. PNAS 118:e1912440117
    [Google Scholar]
  67. O'Neill ME. 2003. When prosecutors don't: trends in federal prosecutorial declinations. Notre Dame Law Rev. 79:221–90
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Oxford Languages 2016. Word of the year 2016. https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2016/
  69. Pennycook G, Epstein Z, Mosleh M, Arechar AA, Eckles D, Rand DG. 2021. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592:590–95
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Rabin RL. 1972. Agency criminal referrals in the federal system: an empirical study of prosecutorial discretion. Stanford Law Rev. 24:1036–91
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Resnick P, Zeckhauser R. 2002. Trust among strangers in internet transactions: empirical analysis of eBay's reputation system. The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce, ed. MR Baye127–57 Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Roberts ST. 2019. Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  73. Rosenberg E. 2018. Trump admitted he attacks press to shield himself from negative coverage, Lesley Stahl says. Washington Post May 22
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Rudder C. 2014. Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and IdentityWhat Our Online Selves Tell Us About Our Offline Selves New York: Broadway Books
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Schauer F 2005. The exceptional First Amendment. American Exceptionalism and Human Rights M Ignatieff 29–56 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Scheufele DA, Krause NM. 2019. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. PNAS 116:7662–69
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Secur. Exch. Comm. Hist. Soc 2021.. “ Access theory”—targeting the gatekeepers. The Enforcement Division: A History gallery curated by H Wells. https://www.sechistorical.org/museum/galleries/enf/enf04b_access-theory.php
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Segal J. 2018. The asset class no one knows they own. Institutional Investor Nov. 6
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Shapiro SP. 1984. Wayward Capitalists: Target of the Securities and Exchange Commission New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  80. Shapiro SP. 1989. Libel lawyers as risk counselors: pre-publication and pre-broadcast review and the social construction of news. Law Policy 11:281–308
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Shapiro SP. 1995. Caution! This article has not been fact-checked. Read at your own risk! Gatekeepers of truth at American newsmagazines Work. Pap. Am. Bar Found. Chicago:
  82. Smith R. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J. R. Soc. Med. 99:178–82
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Soloski J. 1985. The study and the libel plaintiff: Who sues for libel?. Iowa Law Rev. 71:217–20
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Starbird K. 2017. Examining the alternative media ecosystem through the production of alternative narratives of mass shooting events on Twitter Paper presented at the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media Montreal: May 3
  85. Streitfeld D. 2012. For $2 a star, an online retailer gets 5-star product reviews. New York Times Jan. 27
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Suzor N 2020. Understanding content moderation systems: new methods to understand internet governance at scale, over time, and across platforms. Computational Legal Studies: The Promise and Challenge of Data-Driven Research R Whalen 166–89 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Suzor NP. 2019. Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  88. Tadelis S. 2016. Reputation and feedback systems in online platform markets. Annu. Rev. Econ. 8:321–40
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Tufekci Z. 2018. How social media took us from Tahrir Square to Donald Trump. MIT Technology Review Aug. 14
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Varat JD. 2018. Truth, courage, and other human dispositions: reflections on falsehoods and the First Amendment. Okla. Law Rev. 71:35–57
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Volokh E. 1995. Cheap speech and what it will do. Yale Law J 104:1805–50
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359:1146–51
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Weaver S. 1977. Decision to Prosecute: Organization and Public Policy in the Antitrust Division Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  94. Werbach K. 2018. The Blockchain and the New Architecture of Trust Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  95. Whalen J, Timberg C, Dou E. 2021. Chinese businessman with links to Steve Bannon is driving force for a sprawling disinformation network, researchers say. Washington Post May 17
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Wilson M. 2018. The war on what's real. Fast Company March 6
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Woodward A. 2020.. ‘ Fake news’: a guide to Trump's favourite phrase—and the dangers it obscures. Independent Oct. 2
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Wu T. 2020. Is the First Amendment obsolete?. The Perilous Public Square: Structural Threats to Free Expression Today DE Pozen 15–43 New York: Columbia Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Zakrzewski C, De Vynck G, Masih N, Mahtani S. 2021. How Facebook neglected the rest of the world, fueling hate speech and violence in India. Washington Post Oct. 24
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Zuboff S. 2021. The coup we are not talking about. New York Times Jan. 29
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-100547
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error