Lawful but Awful: Evolving Legislative Responses to Address Online Misinformation, Disinformation, and Mal-Information in the Age of Generative AI

TL;DR

This paper analyzes global legislative responses to online misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information, highlighting trends, motivations, and the evolving landscape of laws addressing false information in the age of generative AI.

Contribution

It provides a novel dataset of statutes and examines how perceptions and legislative approaches to online false information have changed across different countries and regions.

Findings

Legislation mainly targets national security and public health.

Less free and poorer countries adopt more robust laws.

Growth of such laws is steepest in Western states.

Abstract

"Fake news" is an old problem. In recent years, however, increasing usage of social media as a source of information, the spread of unverified medical advice during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the rise of generative artificial intelligence have seen a rush of legislative proposals seeking to minimize or mitigate the impact of false information spread online. Drawing on a novel dataset of statutes and other instruments, this article analyses changing perceptions about the potential harms caused by misinformation, disinformation, and "mal-information". The turn to legislation began in countries that were less free, in terms of civil liberties, and poorer, as measured by GDP per capita. Internet penetration does not seem to have been a driving factor. The focus of such laws is most frequently on national security broadly construed, though 2020 saw a spike in laws addressing public health. Unsurprisingly, governments with fewer legal constraints on government action have generally adopted more robust positions in dealing with false information. Despite early reservations, however, growth in such laws is now steepest in Western states. Though there are diverse views on the appropriate response to false information online, the need for legislation of some kind appears now to be global. The question is no longer whether to regulate "lawful but awful" speech online, but how.