misinformation

Does history matter?

The promise of the internet was that people could access unprecedented volumes of information for the benefit of themselves and society as a whole. What has regrettably proven to be the case is that it is a fount from which people draw to “prove” falsehoods they choose to believe – or, for nefarious reasons, claim to believe.

Amid the oceans of “information” online, it is sometimes difficult to tell what people genuinely believe as opposed to what they say they believe in public to mislead their audiences. For example, does the U.S. member of Congress Marjorie Taylor Greene actually believe that reliance on solar energy means the lights will go out when the sun goes down? Or is her apparent stupidity a deliberate foil for her support of polluting energy sources? If she believes what she said, this is misinformation. If she knows she is telling a lie, it is disinformation.

The terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” are sadly necessary to understand what is happening in our era, as we have said in this space before and feel moved to repeat. In few places is this difference as consequential as in discussions of the history of the Holocaust.

Correspondence between Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and right-wing journalist Bronislaw Wildstein (and two others) leaked last week defines some of the world’s foremost Holocaust scholars as “enemies of the entire Polish nation.” There is other chilling language in the back-and-forth, detailing how top Polish authorities are expending enormous energies to rewrite the history of Polish collaboration in the Shoah.

A 2018 law forbids any suggestion that the Polish state or Polish people participated in Nazi crimes against Jews. International pressure saw the penalties for breaking this law reduced from a criminal conviction to a civil matter potentially resulting in a fine. But the intent and impact remain clear. Prof. Jan Grabowski, a Polish-born Canadian academic, and a Polish colleague, Barbara Engelking, were victorious in a 2021 appeal that saw an earlier court decision order to apologize to a descendant of a Shoah-era perpetrator for betraying Jewish neighbours to the German Nazis. But this court decision has not quenched the thirst for revisionism.

The obsession among top Polish officials on this subject is unabated. The email exchange includes the suggestion that Polish authorities should strategically coopt the Jewish experience in the Holocaust to their own benefit, recasting Poles as the Nazis’ primary targets and victims.

Poland also recently extended its Holocaust-related legislation to explicitly forbid financial restitution or compensation to survivors or their heirs.

The Polish government has steadfastly asserted that Nazi atrocities catastrophically affected non-Jewish Poles, which is plainly true. But two things can be true simultaneously. Many Poles were victimized by the Nazis and many Poles collaborated with the Nazis – and, in some cases, both involved the same individuals.

Wildstein, the journalist who seems to have the prime minister’s ear, makes threatening noises about top Holocaust research and archival bodies, including the Jewish Historical Institute, in Warsaw, and the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, and mentions “the possibility of introducing our people into their midst.” He accuses the Polish Centre for Holocaust Research of presenting “an almost obsessive hatred of Poles.”

There is paranoia in the idea that exposing historical truth is identical to hatred. Ironically, while Germany is the European country that has engaged in the most introspective contrition, as much as a society can hope to do for so unparalleled a crime, Poland has steadfastly dug in its heels. The society that bears more blame for complicity with the Nazis than any other is the one that is not only refusing to confront its grotesque past but most stridently whitewashing it.

All of this has led to strained relations between Israel and Poland. It should also be a source of friction with other countries, including Canada, partly because it is a Canadian citizen, Grabowski, who is among the most targeted objects of Polish scorn, and partly because all democracies should stand up to this appalling historical revisionism.

There is a grim silver lining in this “debate.” The Polish authorities understand, as too few in the world seem to, that history matters. What happened in the past informs our present and future. If they can recast the past, they can affect the future.

The question for us is whether we, as a society, have the same understanding of and commitment to historical power. Are those who seek truth as motivated as those whose goal is to subvert it?

Editor’s Note: For a contrary point of view, click here to read the letter to the editor that was published in the Jewish Independent’s Sept. 2/22 issue.

Stand for truth – again

Last week, John Horgan sent a welcome letter to the Pacific regional office of CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. The British Columbia premier committed to fighting antisemitism, including using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism as a measuring stick in the ongoing fight against anti-Jewish discrimination.

The premier’s statement came on the very day that Abacus Data, an opinion research firm, released data from a survey of 1,500 Canadians. The alarming results show that a huge number of Canadians subscribe to appalling ideas.

Nearly one in five Canadians, according to the survey, believe there is a cover-up to hide the “fact” COVID vaccines kill people, while fully another 25% of Canadians think that might be true or aren’t sure.

One in 10 believe that vaccines implant a microchip to control human behaviour, and another 14% think that could be accurate.

Things go downhill from there. More than half of Canadians say that official government statements cannot be trusted – a serious allegation in a democratic society.

The poll also found that 44% of Canadians believes a “secret cabal of elites” control world events. As alarming, about 37% of respondents agreed with the statement: “There is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native-born Canadians with immigrants who agree with their political view.”

Whenever phrases like “secret cabal of elites” are employed, informed people know exactly to whom that dog-whistle refers. And the second concept, dubbed the “Great Replacement” theory, was the motivation for the mass murder of 10 Black people in Buffalo, N.Y., last month. The “group of people” frequently accused of masterminding such alleged “replacement” are, of course, Jews. This was something that came to broader public awareness during the fatal white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., five years ago, when tiki torch-bearing racists chanted “Jews will not replace us!”

It is above our paygrade to understand or explain the socio-psychological reasons why, at the first sign of crazy, attention seems inevitably to turn to Jews. (At least the caricatured Jews of the antisemites’ imaginations, a pathology that inevitably has impacts on actual Jews.)

For whatever reasons, as we noted in this space a month ago, when a society leans into conspiracies, it seems inevitable that sights turn to Jews. These poll numbers suggest Canadians are further down this slippery slope that we might have imagined.

Canadians – Jewish and otherwise – can be forgiven for feeling a sense of smugness in recent years as we have watched some seriously messed up stuff happening with our nearest neighbours. Many of us have hedged our bets, knowing that, in societies that are in some ways going off the rails – not only the United States, but parts of Europe and other erstwhile stable liberal democracies – Canada cannot be immune from some of these tendencies. And, it seems, we are not.

It is important that government officials say the right things, as Horgan did last week. Of course, that so many Canadians do not trust elected officials presumably dulls the impact of these actions somewhat, but this does not detract from the urgency of forging ahead with what we know is the right thing to do.

The answer remains, as it was when we wrote about this issue (albeit less urgently) a month ago: we must stand verbally and forcefully against misinformation and disinformation. We must recommit, every day, to liberal values of tolerance, pluralism and the quest for truth and justice. We must ourselves exercise as well as teach young people the critical thinking skills to discern truth from fiction, and how to evaluate facts. And we must challenge politicians, commentators, family and friends who promote, or justify, the sorts of ideas that, we now know, are held by far too many Canadians.

Race to the bottom

It may not be a total coincidence that one of the most recent conflicts over book banning is taking place in McMinn County, Tenn., less than an hour from the town of Dayton, in the same state, which was the site of the renowned Scopes “Monkey” Trial, 97 years ago.

The fight over whether Art Spiegelman’s graphic memoir about the Holocaust, Maus, is suitable reading for high schoolers echoes the earlier debate over whether teaching the theory of evolution was appropriate fare for students in a place and time where the biblical creation story was the only accepted narrative.

The debate over the banning of books and ideas is a hot topic these days, though hardly a new one.

Fortunately, we live in an age when banning ideas is nearly impossible in a free, or even partly free, society. Only in totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are governments able to block information. Around the world, in many countries, gaining access to forbidden ideas is relatively easy. In North America, the New York Public Library, among others, has made it easier for people anywhere to access specifically banned or challenged materials. People who want to seek out publications that authority figures try to limit are generally able to do so.

A phenomenon less easily addressed is the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation. This proliferation is the flip side of the ability to access banned ideas. In a world where anyone with a computer can access information, anyone with a computer can just as easily invent information and then circulate it widely.

Misinformation and disinformation have always existed. But almost certainly never have they so dramatically defined civil discourse. The difference between these two terms is important. One source calls misinformation “false information that is spread, regardless of intent to mislead.” Disinformation, from the same source, is deemed “deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.” Both are problematic, but intent matters. Misinformation can sometimes be righted through correctives. Disinformation is often formulated in ways that actively deter correction.

For example, the greatest threat to American democracy right now is a narrative that has been formulated in such a perverse, Orwellian manner that the perpetrators of the lie that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was illegitimately “stolen” are the very people who are trying to steal a legitimate election. Those who perpetuate a lie accuse opponents of lying.

The first issue of The Atlantic magazine this year was almost entirely devoted to this subject and the thesis, if we may summarize crudely, is that, unless some dramatic corrective is applied, American democracy has less than two years to survive.

The internet, which is the keystone of our 21st-century ability to read and write virtually anything, has also emerged at a time of massive diffusion of so-called “mainstream media.” The grandchildren of those who grew up with three TV channels can now access thousands. We self-select our information and entertainment, with the impact that we have more, but smaller, frames of reference. One of the results of this is that we have largely been able to choose our own “truths.”

There are no simple solutions to these problems. But, if there is an antidote to ignorance, misinformation and disinformation, it is a recommitment to liberal values of free expression and unbridled academic inquiry. Applied to younger generations, this means inculcating in them an ability to assess and analyze context, information and sources. This sounds like a simple remedy but, of course, learning to think critically is a lifelong pursuit and cannot be taught in a single semester.

Yet, this is the primary way forward. As a society, we need to acknowledge that critical thinking is the foundation upon which democracy and civil society rests. We have abandoned balanced discussion and nuanced consideration of topics in favour of memes and slogans that suit our purposes.

We face a tough crawl out of the hole we find ourselves in – that is, assuming we have stopped digging – but confronting and contending with challenging ideas is the ideal we must strive for. Every banned book is another shovelful of dirt in our democracy’s race to the bottom.

מבקריה הרבים של פייסבוק

חבר מפלגת הדמוקרטית החדשה צ‘רלי אנגוס: “פייסבוק איבדו את האמונה מצד הקהילה הבינלאומית.” (צילום: Marc DeMouy)

הוועדה הבינלאומית למאבק במידע מוטעה התכנסה לאחרונה בלונדון לדון בהתנהלות העסקית של פייסבוק, לאור מחדליה הרבים בתחום אבטחת מידע ופרסום מידע מוטעה בבחירות בארה”ב ובמקרים רבים נוספים. בוועדה חברות תשע המדינות הבאות: קנדה, בריטניה, צרפת, בלגיה, אירלנד, ברזיל, ארגנטינה, לטביה וסינגפור. יצויין כי לוועדה אין שום סמכות להטיל קנסות, סנקציות או עונשים, אך פעילותה מראה שיתוף פעולה בינלאומי נדיר, מול ההתנהלות הכושלת של פייסבוק. רבים רואים בכך תמרור עצור נוסף לחברה האמריקנית שמעשיה נבחנים היטב היטב כיום.

חברי הוועדה כעסו מאוד שמייסד פייסבוק והמנכ”ל מארק צוקברג, בחר שלא להופיע בפניהם לדיון המיוחד – מה שמראה עד כמה הוא מעדיף שלא לענות ישירות על שאלות קשות, הקשורות במישרין ובעקיפין בהתנהלות של פייסבוק, המעוררת ביקורת הולכת וגוברת ברחבי העולם. לאור כך שלא הגיע לדיון, אמר חבר בוועדה, נציג המפלגה הליברלית הקנדית נתניאל ארסקין-סמית: “זה מאוד מצער שצוקרברג לא נמצא כאן היום איתנו. אני חושב זה מלמד יותר מכל על אי קבלת האחריות מצידה של חברת פייסבוק ומנהליה. פייסבוק מאבדת את האמון של רבים”.

מבקריה הרבים של פייסבוק מציעים לחברה – מפעילת האתר החברתי הפופולרי בעולם שלא לסמוך יותר מדי על העובדה, שכשני מיליארד איש מחוברים אליו. אם פייסבוק תמשיך לתנהל כמו שהיא מתנהלת עד כה, רבים יתנתקו מהאתר שלה. כך הם חוזים.

במקומו של צוקרברג הופיע בפני הוועדה סגן הנשיא של פייסבוק לתחום המדיניות ריצ’רד אלן. במשך למעלה משלוש שעות הוא נחקר וענה על שאלות קשות וספיציפיות של חברי הוועדה. הם אמרו לו במפורש כי לפייסבוק יש כיום השפעה מאוד שלילית על ההליכים במדינות דמוקרטיות. החברים ציינו כי פייסבוק לוקחת כיום חלק פעיל בהפצת מידע חדשותי מוטעה (ראה את פרשת הבחירות האחרונות בארה”ב בהן ניצח דונאלד טראמפ את הילרי קלינטון. לדעת רבים פייסבוק עזר רבות לקמפיין של טראמפ בהפצת מידע כוזב נגד קלינטון, שהגיע מכיוון הרוסים). בנוסף החברה עושה שימוש רב במידע רגיש מאוד של המשתמשים הרבים של פייסבוק. החברים בוועדה הדגישו כי הגיע הזמן שפייסבוק תתן דין וחשבון על מעשיה ומחדליה הרבים. כך אי אפשר להמשיך. חלק מהם שאלו האם אי פעם הגבילה פייסבוק את הגישה של מפתחי האפליקציות השונות להשגת מידע על המשתמשים הרבים אם הם רכשו אצלה פרסום בפלטפורמת המובייל. אלן אמר מצידו כי פייסבוק לא נוהגת ולא נהגה לבצע עסקות חליפין שכאלה. הוא הוסיף עוד שפייסבוק מבינה היטב את הצורך בהנהגת רגולציה חדשה. אלן: “אכן פגענו באמון הציבור שלנו לאור מספר פעולות שעשינו. החמצנו מספר דברים והגבנו באיחור לבעיות שנוצרו”.

עם סיום הדיונים בלונדון אמר הנציג נוסף של קנדה בוועדה הבינלאומית, חבר המפלגה הדמוקרטית החדשה צ’רלי אנגוס: “פייסבוק איבדו את האמונה מצד הקהילה הבנלאומית”. חבר אחר בוועדה אמר כי הגיע הזמן להפעיל סנקציות קשות נגד פייסבוק ואף לפרק את החברה, המחזיקה בין היתר גם בוואטסאפ ואינסטגרם.

מי שכינס את הדיון המיוחד, חבר הפרלמנט הבריטי דמיאן קולינס, ציין כי לידיו גיעו מסמכים פנימיים של פייסבוק כולל אימיילים (משנת 2014), מהם עולה כי כבר אז נשאלו השאלות כיצד החברה העניקה לרוסים את הפלטפורמה שלה. כאמור הנושא הרוסי רגיש מאוד לעניין החקירות נגד הקמפיין של טראמפ, לאור מעורבותו כביכול בהשפעה על תוצאות הבחירות בארה”ב.