Online Content is a Commodity: The Information Value Chain as a Framework for Tackling Disinformation
Etienne Koeppel / Nov 21, 2024Etienne Koeppel is a Senior Program Officer at ARTICLE 19.
Whether in the field of human rights, media, technology, or security, online disinformation has emerged as one of the most pressing issues of our time. However, are we addressing it with the right strategies?
Information integrity is fraught with misunderstanding. Competing definitions and terminologies abound, as do the methods for combating disinformation. Camille François’ ABC model (since expanded to ABCDE) introduced Actors, Behaviors, Content, Degree, and Effect as a framework of analysis. Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, looks at Actors and Vectors, Targets and Victims.
Such models are helpful but don’t give us the full picture. They often fall short of capturing how different actors influence the propagation of online information, be it ‘true’ or ‘false,’ and what they stand to gain from it. This, in turn, is an obstacle to impactful human rights, security, or regulatory responses.
What if we started to look at information as a commodity? It isn’t just a question of ‘fake news’ vs. ‘real news.’ Online content is a product – one that is built, traded, bought, sold, used, and tampered with by actors who have unique interests.
Enter the information value chain.
The information value chain has three stages: production, distribution, and consumption. Claire Wardle proposed an early version of this framework in 2017. Since then, scholars have suggested tackling disinformation through an economics lens. Using this approach, we can understand production as supply, consumption as demand, and distribution as a marketplace. In so doing, we can single out key stakeholders at each stage and determine how best to engage them to combat disinformation.
By seeing disinformation as a commodity, we can better identify and address the underlying motivations of its producers, distributors, and consumers – in other words, regarding it as the currency they trade. Sometimes it is money, such as advertising revenue on social media platforms. Sometimes, it is power or political influence, such as in the case of government-backed fake news or foreign information operations. Sometimes it is entertainment, such as in the case of conspiracy theories, trolling, or mere ‘shitposting.’
Yet, disinformation experts have been overly preoccupied with the supply side of disinformation while neglecting its demand.
Experts have overwhelmingly focused on the production of false, misleading, or manipulated content. We have sought to single out the various malign actors producing disinformation, thwart their efforts, and deplatform their agents. Other approaches have understood disinformation and influence operations as akin to security attacks and sought to build the public’s resilience to these aggressions.
Much less attention has been given to the demand side of disinformation. Research has shown that some people are not just more likely to consume disinformation but actively seek it out. Many choose to believe information that has been verified as false because it feels true or confirms their pre-existing beliefs (confirmation bias). In the context of societies that are increasingly polarized, some information consumption may have little to do with knowledge and more with identity and belonging. Some individuals consume attitude-confirming information or content from friendly sources because they feel like they belong to a special community (a phenomenon known as congeniality bias).
When it comes to the disinformation marketplace, disinformation experts mostly agree it is appropriate to point the finger at Big Tech. Profit-driven social media platforms have understood for years that our attention is the ultimate gold mine and that inflammatory content is what attracts the most attention. There is, therefore, a direct correlation between how much disinformation circulates on a platform and how much money it makes from advertising. And there is a lot of money to be made. A 2023 Statista study estimated that the global Digital Advertising market could reach US$740.3 billion this year — more than double the figure from 2019.
To tackle disinformation, we must think like economists, not just like fact-checkers, technologists, or investigators. We must understand the disinformation value chain and identify the actors and their incentives, obstacles, and motivations at each stage.
Here are some examples of what this looks like.
- Production: Independent journalists and public interest media produce high-quality, accurate content, but they’re up against synthetic media and traffic redirection that hurts their advertising revenue. How can we help them survive—and thrive— in this new media landscape?
- Distribution: Big Tech controls what we see and how we see it. We must consider how to break up monopolies, make platforms more accountable, and explore alternative business models that embrace interoperability and unbundled social media services.
- Consumption: We must empower consumers. How can we improve the public’s critical thinking skills and create an environment where truth is valued more than sensationalism?
Disinformation poses a complex, existential challenge not just to our democracies but also to the very fabric of our societies and our shared sense of reality. If we are to meaningfully tackle it, our response must be just as nuanced, and consider not just the social, technological, and security dimensions of disinformation, but the economic ones too.
Related reading
Authors
