How Can Social Media Platforms Combat Fake News? A Conversation with Evelyn Douek

Social media expert Evelyn Douek has called for more nuanced approaches to combating misinformation online, arguing that blanket content removal policies are ineffective and potentially harmful to free expression.

Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School and affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, emphasizes that “fake news” requires careful categorization rather than oversimplified solutions. In her research on global regulation of online speech, she draws on established frameworks that distinguish between disinformation (deliberately false content intended to cause harm), misinformation (false content without harmful intent), and mal-information (factual content weaponized to cause damage).

“It’s no wonder platforms and regulators are struggling to find the right approach! It’s hard!” Douek acknowledges, pointing to the significant differences between profit-driven clickbait and coordinated state-sponsored disinformation campaigns.

She cautions against policies that require platforms to make binary judgments about content veracity. “Requiring platforms to adjudicate whether all the content on their platforms is true or not and take down anything deemed ‘false’ is not the right path,” Douek explains. “It’s not practically possible, it will endanger legitimate freedom of expression, and it’s not clear that simply removing content is necessarily the best way of correcting people’s false beliefs.”

Instead, Douek advocates for moving beyond the “take-down/leave-up paradigm” toward a more diverse toolkit. These approaches include adding fact-check labels, providing contextual information, implementing friction to slow viral spread, highlighting authoritative sources, and facilitating effective counter-messaging. Such interventions require ongoing experimentation and empirical assessment, she notes.

On the structural front, Douek believes regulatory focus should shift toward process rather than content. “Substantive disputes around the proper limits of free speech are intractable,” she says, suggesting that universal agreement on ideal policies is unlikely. Instead, she proposes emphasizing rule of law principles like transparency and due process in content moderation.

This process-oriented approach demands detailed explanations from platforms about their policies, along with accountability mechanisms to ensure consistent enforcement. “Facebook can say it’s banning hate speech,” Douek notes, “but we need a mechanism for assessing how Facebook is interpreting those rules in practice.”

Regarding Facebook’s Oversight Board, Douek expresses cautious optimism about its potential impact. She identifies two primary benefits: an independent check on Facebook’s decision-making that prioritizes public interest over business concerns, and greater transparency around content moderation processes.

“Having a process for people to challenge decisions and have their point of view heard is an important step forward and can help people accept rules even if they continue to disagree with them,” she explains.

The Facebook experiment raises broader questions about industry-wide governance approaches. Douek describes the Oversight Board as “a wager by Facebook” that potential legitimacy gains will outweigh the obligation to follow occasional unfavorable rulings. Other platforms appear less concerned with such legitimacy, though their stance may evolve depending on Facebook’s results.

Douek’s research explores whether content moderation should be centralized or diversified across platforms. Her paper, “The Rise of Content Cartels,” examines the tension between standardized rules and competing governance models, suggesting different content types may require varied approaches.

As social media companies and regulators continue developing governance frameworks, Douek’s process-focused perspective offers valuable insights into the complex challenge of moderating online speech while respecting fundamental freedoms.