ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ

Fact-free statements by politicians and influencers, rumours in Facebook groups and sensationalism fuelled by other social media lead to social unrest and sometimes even to riots, as recently seen in The Hague. The influence of disinformation is considerable, up to disturbances of public order. How can municipalities get a grip on this phenomenon, and what is the role of other local organizations such as libraries and education? Maarten Hillebrandt and Robert Weijers of Utrecht ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ explored the approach to disinformation in Utrecht, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and also asked citizens. Their study indicates that almost everyone is concerned about disinformation. And citizens expect action from the municipalities: 'Do something, and just do it' seems to be their message.

The exploratory study 'Supported behavioural policy for dealing with disinformation' provides insight into how three large Dutch municipalities (Utrecht, Amsterdam and Rotterdam) deal with disinformation, in collaboration with civil society, and mirrors this approach to the perspective of local citizens. The study is based on interviews with stakeholders in the municipality and civil society, literature research, and a survey among citizens in the three cities.

Three cities, different approaches

The three cities each choose their own approach. They also share their experiences with other municipalities and thus seek to stimulate a multiplier effect:

• Utrecht works through a network approach with community workers, youth workers, mental health professionals, and experts who deal with young people and media, inter alia. Utrecht mainly links disinformation to young people and polarisation and to public order and safety.
   
• Amsterdam sees it as a new policy domain and focuses on innovation through a knowledge network of academics and policymakers, with exchange meetings and a benchmark tool as outcomes. By generating ideas on how to tackle everything that is going on online.
  
  
• Rotterdam sees disinformation as a symptom of broader societal issues and opts for a more organisation-internal approach without a network structure, focused on communication, exemplary behaviour and cyber security: what should we do as a municipality (employees) ourselves? 

It is clear that more is needed than having conversations with citizens on the street. That is no longer enough, says Maarten Hillebrandt, one of the researchers. That no longer gets you all the information you need anymore. All kinds of things are happening online too.

Survey on tackling disinformation among citizens

For their exploratory study, the researchers spoke extensively with the three cities and local organisations about the extent to which disinformation is identified, what done about it, and to what extent municipalities cooperate with civil society organisations (libraries, education, other parties). Based on this, they conducted a representative survey among 266 residents of the three municipalities and asked their opinion on a number of (implemented, planned, or fictitious) policy measures against disinformation. These were submitted to them for assessment of effectiveness, acceptance, and support. From this survey, a number of clear trends emerged.

'Do something and just do it'

Citizens strongly support action against disinformation, in particular training in schools and libraries. The municipality is seen as the appropriate party for this, except when it comes to providing training in media literacy, for example, where citizens would prefer schools and libraries to take the lead. As the survey indicates, the more people are concerned about disinformation, the more they support any proposed measure. The extent to which people perceive disinformation as a threat is the strongest predictor of support.

Support for action against disinformation is not about (dis)trust in core societal institutions

Another striking outcome is that the subject of disinformation among citizens themselves does not seem to be subject to polarisation: almost everyone has concerns about disinformation. Support for action against disinformation is therefore not about (dis)trust in core societal institutions such as the government. In fact, citizens expect action from the municipalities, and do not think restraint is appropriate. 'Do something and just do it' seems to be the implicit but clear call from local residents.

As a municipality, you really have a mandate for action and if you don't take it, you are missing an important societal signal, says Maarten Hillebrandt. Citizens just expect government to step in. This conclusion also aligns with the findings of recent research by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research and the Dutch Media Authority. Citizens are quite concerned about disinformation. Our research shows that majorities of local citizens support almost every type of approach presented to them, even if they are not immediately convinced about its effectiveness.

Recommendations for municipalities to tackle disinformation

Based on the conclusions of their exploration, the researchers therefore recommend municipalities to act. They make a number of concrete recommendations for this:

• Get a better sense of the problem. Map the nature and impact of disinformation more accurately. Cooperation with civil society is indispensable on this front.
   
• Don't wait to act. Municipal government is widely expected to act. Supporting media or news literacy training in schools and in the public library constitutes a concrete and uncontroversial first step. 
   
• Prepare every employee. The subject of disinformation requires mainstreaming in the internal organisation. All civil servants must learn how to deal with online information, and how to assess it for quality and truthfulness cues. Draw up an internal protocol and set up a one-stop shop helpdesk that everyone must know.
  
  
• Map the network. Map out who in the city is already contributing to tackling disinformation, and in what way. This way you can avoid overlap, bundle knowledge, and link approaches.

How can we tackle disinformation?

What really works in tackling disinformation? That was not a subject for this specific study and the researchers are therefore cautious about providing detailed prescription. In any case, Hillebrandt is a proponent of options in which politicians do not so much act but mainly provide tools, a bit like the nutrition centre offers advice for a healthy diet.

Not so much performing but mainly providing tools

Trying to debunk incorrect information is in any case counterproductive,' he says. 'It is mainly reactive and leads you repeat the misinformation again, causing some people to hear it for the first time at that moment. You don't want that, because everything you hear lingers to a certain extent.

Hillebrandt thinks that a broad mix of measures works best. 

On the one hand, by setting standards (e.g. through screen time policy in schools, limiting time spent on social media platforms, and actively addressing politicians on their reflex to drive polarizing misinformation). 

On the other hand, by broadening the range of policy instruments, for example through more extensive financial support for local journalism (by municipalities or the national government) and measures to broaden the media diet of all Dutch people, through regulation of the feed algorithms of social media platforms, and by creating opportunities for people with opposing views of society to meet each other more often, for example by means of low-threshold, activities and meetings, whether entertaining or substantive, at neighbourhood or municipal level.

More information

Please read the full report ‘Gedragen gedragsbeleid voor de omgang met desinformatie. Een verkenning van de desinformatie-aanpak in Amsterdam, Rotterdam en Utrecht.’ ('Supported behavioural policy for dealing with disinformation. An exploration of the disinformation approach in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht') and take a look at the policy brief.

Or contact Maarten Hillebrandt, m.z.hillebrandt@uu.nl or Robert Weijers, r.j.weijers@uu.nl.