Democracy has become a shared value around the world. It not only embodies the idea of representative government, but also of human rights. Indeed, the term has become synonymous with a set of fundamental values which we as citizens respect and our government is deemed to protect.

Unfortunately, we are faced with increasing challenges to democracy both from within our borders and from our neighbors. One of the main consequences is enhanced exposure to manipulation of information, the electoral processes and ultimately our minds.

The Dark Side of the Net

There is no need to reiterate praise of the Internet and the wonderful gifts it bestows upon humanity in allowing inclusiveness, education, communication and empowerment. Enough has been said and written about the overwhelmingly auspicious features and qualities of the Net, but just like any other technology, the Net also has its dark sides.

This essay will not deal with those dark sides as in "Dark Net", but with the impact of the Internet (The Web) as such on individual integrity, dignity, tolerance, democratic values and ultimately world peace and stability.

These consequences are often "justified" in the name of free speech and one of the favorite theories advocated to that end is that free and unregulated speech will allow the Net to autoregulate. Egregious content will more or less automatically disappear.

Given that the Net will regulate itself any other regulation is unnecessary and constitutes a violation of Free Speech, it is believed.

The concept of the "Marketplace of Ideas"

The concept often referred to under this theory is that of the "Marketplace of Ideas": Just like the physical Marketplace will find its equilibrium under the weight of the "natural forces" of supply and demand, so will content on the Net regulate itself under the influence of similar "natural" forces.

As a metaphor, the 'Marketplace of Ideas' dates back to the writings of Milton, and as a legal theory it can be traced back to the late US Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case Abrams v. United States (1919): "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market" (Abrams vs. United States, 1919).

The theory is generally that ideas will "fight each other" in open debate and that the "best idea" (whatever that means) will survive. It draws inspiration from a sort of Darwinistic or utilitarian model and it was actually also used by John Stuart Mill.

The 'Marketplace of Ideas' is constantly quoted in debates on Free Speech without any detailed definition or explanation as to how it is deemed to work its wonders. The theory leads to at least 2 analytical misapprehensions since it implies that not only will «the best idea survive», but also the best technology.

This is based on (1) an erroneous understanding of the current business model / an archaic application of Malthusian growth theory within the parameters of said model and (2) a failure to properly identify the importance of the cost side of the equation.

Digital Manipulation: Fake News is no news

The second subject that we will have to analyze and which is directly related to the Marketplace of Ideas is the impact on democracy of unregulated "information" or "content".

This leads us to debate on "Fake News" and on this particular point the difference between those that have, generate and control information and those that do not. The term "Pariah Bay" appropriately indicates that some cyber citizens possess information while others do not. These latter "Information Pariahs" are excluded from educated judgement. The Digital Divide is a major problem as such, but it relates to equal information access and net neutrality. It does not cover "Digital Manipulation" of those that do not have access to credible information.

Fake News has become a term designating potential manipulation of the electoral processes of democracies by dissemination of false information. The term implies a reference to "politically motivated false information" as opposed to "commercially motivated false information" ("Astro-turfing").

The impact of information on society and ultimately world peace and stability is typically referred to under the heading of "Fake News". It is interesting that commercially motivated false information is regulated heavily in both the US, Europe and Asia.

To what extent such Fake News has had an impact on the electoral debate and results in certain countries may itself be open to debate and dispute, but it is beyond such debate and dispute that there is a correlation.

Fake News is actually no news, but it is not a fake problem. Fake news is a predictable but not foreseen problem.

Manipulation, deceit, lies, rumors and gossip have been around since the dawn of mankind (Goulet and Shefet, 2017). Even the Bible addresses the problem:

You shall not spread a false report (Exodus 23:1).

Greek mythology had a "goddess of rumors". Her name was Fame and she was depicted as spreading false news destabilizing those that were seduced by her trumpet. For the Roman historian the eponymous term "Tacitean Rumors" was coined.

The use of fake news for propaganda purposes is well known and a vivid example is the purported crucifixions of allied soldiers by the Axis powers during WW1 which caused widespread panic to both troops and the civilian population.

Rumors about Jews poisoning wells and devouring Christian children during the plague in the 14th century is another poignant example of the devastating consequences of Fake News. The Harlem Riots in 1935 (caused by false rumors about the assassination of a Porto Rican born child) is a classic. No assassinating had taken place. The boy was fine. He had suffered no harm, yet all hell broke loose on the back of pure fiction (New York Daily News, 2015).

During WW2 a specific "Rumor Project" was launched under the auspices of the Office of War Information pursuant to Executive order of June 13, 1942. The purpose was to provide an informed and intelligent understanding of "the status and progress of the war effort, war policies, activities, and aims of the United States government". The list is unfortunately long (National Archives, 1995).

The borderline between Fake News and different content is very difficult to draw.

The impact of Fake News on democracy - Communication Meltdown

If we relate "Fake News" to content which has a societal impact or in other words content which may change ultimately the course of history rather than the destiny of one person (which is typically referred to as defamation, denigration, harassment, cyberbullying etc.), we find borderline situations like the late French Prime Minister Joseph Caillaux who (had he not been driven to suicide by a heinous campaign against him personally) might have prevented World War 1 (Monnin, 2013).

The impact of the Internet on the democratic processes is not restricted to Fake News, but also intervention in electoral laws in many countries.

In India the humoristic site "Fakingnews" (http://www.fakingnews.firstpost.com/ ) reminds us of the attitude we should adopt towards manipulated news, but India was also severely affected in august 2012 by Fake News against the Prime Minister leading to civil unrest.

Most countries have laws that ban publication of opinion polls before the ballot takes place. In some countries, such restrictions apply a couple of weeks before, in other countries the time frame is different, but the principle is the same: The legislator has long since accepted that the impact on voter behavior of opinion polls is significant.

Unfortunately, the Internet being beyond many sovereign state regulations does not respect these laws and often allow not only opinion polls but also unequal media time to influence the electoral process.

In India, both the constitution and the elections laws seek to protect democracy against internet driven and empowered manipulation, but when faced with domains controlled by other jurisdictions the problem of defending democracy is no longer a question which may be solved by the sovereign state alone.

It is about time that the international community realizes that the effect of toxic content on the Internet is just as dangerous as toxic emissions are to the atmosphere.

The difference is that the problem of global warming may well be eclipsed by the consequences of a "Communication Meltdown".

We need a COP 21 on The Internet of Values.

Speech needs company,

Silence needs solitude.

Speech wants to conquer others,

Silence helps conquer oneself.

Speech makes friends or foes,

Silence befriends all.

Speech demands respect,

Silence commands it.

Speech is earth-bound,

Silence is heaven-bound.

Speech educates,

Silence exalts.

Speech is subjective,

Silence objective.

Speech has regrets,

Silence none.

Speech has limitations,

Silence is boundless.

Speech needs effort,

Silence a lot more.

Speech is human,

Silence is Divine.

While speaking you are heard by creatures,

In silence you hear the creator.

Silence leads to a stillness of the mind,

Then to introspection,

Then to self-cleansing,

Finally to liberation.

Prema Pandurang ("What is Hinduism? Modern Adventures into a Profound Global Faith", 2007, April)

Dan Shefet: Lawyer and Individual Specialist to UNESCO

Dan Shefet, a French lawyer born in Denmark, holds a Philosophy Degree and a Law Degree from the University of Copenhagen. Specialized in European Law, Competition Law as well as Human Rights in general and in the IT environment in particular, he participates in conferences in academic venues on IT Law, Data Privacy and Human Rights on the internet.