Fake News is a Real Problem

Over the past few years, the widespread circulation of fake news on social media has sparked debates about the government’s role in regulating online content. While many argue that freedom of speech is a foundational American principle enshrined in the First Amendment, unobstructed disinformation can be just as harmful as infringing on free speech. Fake news can tarnish the integrity of the democratic process, undermine public health efforts, and compromise trust in institutions. As social media outlets like Instagram and TikTok become the go-to platforms for public discourse, the government has a responsibility to shut down intentionally false information that poses a direct threat to public safety, national security, and democracy. Therefore, while concerns about censorship are understandable in some repressive regimes, limited and transparent regulation focused on the most harmful kinds of fake news is both justified and necessary in a democracy like the United States. 

The advent of social media has made the dissemination of news instantaneous and accessible to billions worldwide. However, this free-range access has come at a hefty cost: the truth. Misinformation (false information shared mistakenly) and disinformation (false information shared deliberately to mislead) have proliferated so much that it has become harder than ever to differentiate between fact and fiction. But this is no accident. A 2018 study published in Science found that fake news spreads more quickly and reaches a wider audience than true stories on platforms like Twitter (Vosoughi et al., 2018, p. 1146). Such findings show how the algorithms of social media platforms, which prioritize virality over veracity, unintentionally incentivize the spread of falsehoods by favoring distorted, provocative, or outright outrageous content.

This attack on the truth has inevitably led to numerous problems. For example, a 2016 conspiracy theory falsely claiming that a Washington D.C. pizzeria was a hub of child trafficking led an armed man to enter the restaurant and fire a gun (LaCapria). In the same light, during the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about vaccines made people hesitant to get vaccinated, causing preventable illness and death. In Brazil, false online rumors during the 2018 elections accused innocent people of being child kidnappers, which caused throngs of people to break out in mob violence. Similarly, in India, viral WhatsApp messages falsely warning of child traffickers directly led to a wave of lynchings in rural villages. In all of these cases across the globe, fake news has put real lives in danger. When falsehoods incite violence or undermine public safety, governments must intervene to prevent harm.

Detractors argue that government regulation of online content is a slippery slope that risks infringing on freedom of speech. These would be valid concerns if we lived in authoritarian regimes like China or North Korea, where the term “fake news” is used loosely to suppress dissent. However, in democratic societies with constitutional protections and independent courts, regulations can be implemented in ways specifically targeting harmful falsehoods without overstepping boundaries. For instance, laws can hone in on content that is intentionally false and likely to cause imminent harm, such as fake medical advice, election disinformation, or incitement to violence.

Furthermore, regulation does not mean the government polices speech directly. Governments can enforce transparency standards for platforms, like requiring them to flag manipulated content, disclose the workings of their algorithms, and provide users with tools to verify the sources of information. The European Union’s Digital Services Act, for example, obliges platforms to assess and mitigate the spread of false information (“The Digital Services Act”). This type of indirect regulation empowers users by providing them with the tools to conduct their own research and fact-checking rather than censoring mere controversial content.

Some believe that the burden should fall on social media companies themselves rather than governments. While platforms like Meta and X have content moderation policies, their enforcement is often lax and hindered by profit-driven considerations. As such, matters affecting public welfare should not be left solely to the discretion of private corporations, which have their own incentives that may not always align with the public interest. Stricter government oversight ensures a healthy degree of accountability that might otherwise not exist.

More importantly, these regulatory policies should be grounded in hard evidence. The government should not attempt to eliminate all falsehoods online, which would be an impossible task; instead, it should focus on mitigating the deliberate spread of harmful lies. Safeguards, such as judicial review and independent oversight bodies, can help make sure that such regulations are not abused or used for nefarious purposes. Moreover, these efforts must be complemented by media literacy education campaigns that equip citizens with the knowledge and resources necessary to evaluate the veracity of online information. This way, the burden is shared among the government, the platforms, and the people themselves to ensure a higher standard of truth and quality in online discourse. 

All in all, governments must play a stronger role in regulating what is shared on social media to prevent the most dangerous forms of fake news. As technology continues to evolve, we must reassess the responsibilities that come with digital freedom. In short, the right to speak must be balanced with the duty to tell the truth.

Works Cited

LaCapria, Kim. “Comet Ping Pong and Pizzagate Conspiracy Theories.” Snopes, 4 Dec. 2016, www.snopes.com/news/2016/12/04/pizzagate-conspiracy-theory/. Accessed 18 June 2025.

“The Digital Services Act.” European Commission, 27 Oct. 2022, ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_6425. Accessed 18 June 2025.

Vosoughi, Soroush, et al. “The Spread of True and False News Online.” Science, vol. 359, no. 6380, 2018, pp. 1146–1151. DOI:10.1126/science.aap9559.