A crucial factor in our humanity is that we are rationally able to make choices. The development of internet technologies and social media saw interference in our ability to do so. We believe that the choices we make are determined by us, from the information we intake in our environments. However, what if that information is biased or carefully chosen? Are we independent when deciding? The involvement of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 US elections was one of the notable events that showed the influence of technology in our decisions. The scandal dealt with the obtaining of personal data of millions of Americans for political advertising. Suddenly, what was presented to us through various algorithms in the form of carefully placed advertising was more ominous.
Four years later, we have a similar and perhaps a more dangerous set of circumstances. The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic brought on false information that was spread more rapidly than the fact-checked ones. To refer to this phenomenon, the term ‘infodemic’ was coined to represent the use of too much false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. This widely includes the rapid spread of conspiracy theories that reduce the virus to the idea of world domination by a few, population control and chipping. This phenomenon leads to the loss of trust in the government and media institutions. The following part of the text will explore the geopolitical implications of the COVID-19 virus.
In Serbia, the first weeks of the pandemic saw the rapid spread of viral WhatsApp messages from alleged ‘medical experts’ that propagated distorted facts of the origin, transmission and prevention of the virus. Right-wing QAnon conspiracy theory gained a footing in the Western Balkans and does so until today, however, the extent of it is still unknown. While the government of Serbia was reassuring the public that the virus was under control, anonymous videos that exhibited the grave conditions in COVID-19 hospitals resurfaced. Hence, the public turned away from the government-owned media institutions as a legitimate source of information.
The geopolitics of the COVID-19 virus
Apart from stirring panic with the public through disinformation and misinformation, the virus was quickly turned into a geopolitical weapon. Racist portrayals of Asians were spread throughout the Balkan media, with the culminations occurring in coastal towns of Croatia and Montenegro, with Asian tourists carrying ‘I’m not from China’ signs. Once the public image was fixed by the quick management of the virus, China started leading the fight against the pandemic with its “mask diplomacy”– shipping medical supplies to countries struggling with the virus, in the hope of improving its reputation. Videos of Chinese planes landing in Italy with medical equipment and medical teams, quickly spread throughout Europe, tarnishing the image of the European Union. Serbia’s President, Aleksandar Vucic, proclaimed that “European solidarity was non-existent” and that the Chinese President Xi Jinping is “a friend and a brother” to Serbia. Chinese aid to Serbia and the rest of the Western Balkans continued to be exaggeratedly welcomed by state officials, while the EU aid was welcomed modestly in contrast.
Serbia’s state-owned media has produced many articles claiming how the EU abandoned Italy and later, Western Balkans. The succession of fake news articles were published regarding the bans on the export of medical equipment and the disappointment of Italians was converted into an “Italexit”. Eventually, heads of state became the main source of misinformation. After Donald Trump’s speech, chloroquine therapy for COVID-19 or injecting any kind of disinfectants plagued the news for weeks. Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil, famously called the virus a “little flu”.
The question the aforementioned factors pose, is whether and to what extent should fake news be penalised or publicly limited? How would such restrictions impact free speech? Can the fight against misinformation infringe on our fundamental right to expression? In the case of Europe, by the end of 2020, the Council of Europe cautioned “crisis situations should not be used as a pretext for restricting the public’s access to information or clamping down on critics”. However, that is precisely what happened in the case of some countries in Southeastern Europe. Hungary criminalized the spread of fake news, while similar restrictions were introduced in Republika Srpska, a Serb-populated entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Serbia, you are eligible from three months to three years of imprisonment if you are accused of causing disorder and spreading panic. In the first two months of the pandemic, dozens of people were charged, according to the Ministry of Interior.
There are many similar cases throughout the world, some more extreme than others. In some cases, imposed restrictions on sharing false information did not receive widespread public acceptance. Therefore, it is hard to decide whether these restrictions cross a moral threshold. Should the public be safeguarded from fake news? Does the freedom of expression allow for the articulation of opinions, even though they may be dangerous? The answer is, perhaps, in the balance of the two. Today, t the meaning of free speech varies between different governments; hence the future generations need to adapt to the paradox of its malformed and ever-changing definition.