How (not) to deal with fake news

WHEN a practice is widely recognised as doing harm, the usual reaction from much of the public is to call for something to be done about it. The problem is that a hasty response by those in authority that embraces the most obvious counter-measures might, in reality, fail to combat the problem they were supposedly designed to resolve, and even have negative consequences unforeseen by those who clamoured for them.

The classic example would be Prohibition in the United States. Intended to counter alcohol abuse, the measure was strongly backed by religious bodies and by women's organisations that had heard many accounts of the violence suffered by women at the hands of drunken husbands or other men.

During the years that Prohibition was in force, organised criminal empires grew up, based upon a continuing demand from a large sector of the population for alcohol. Prohibition turned millions of Americans who continued to seek out alcohol and drinking places into lawbreakers who, on various levels, were prepared to connive at the dishonesty, intimidation and fakery involved in supplying their wants.