Wealth across the planet is distributed very unevenly. So is access to broadband. These two facts are related: broadband now tracks to areas with more wealth. In the future, when broadband is everywhere, we will have the opportunity to serve the poorest parts of the planet in ways heretofore impossible.

How unevenly distributed is wealth?

In 2017, Oxfam produced a report “An Economy for the 99%” which included a staggering statistic: The richest eight men in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the planet (around 3.6 billion people).

(For those keeping track at home, the richest eight men in early 2017 were Bill Gates, Amancio Ortega, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim Helu, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, and Michael Bloomberg — combined wealth of around $425 billion.)

Oxfam’s calculations are based on the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Data Book 2016

While all eight of the richest men could fairly be described as “self-made”, that isn’t true for the majority of billionaires (9 out of 10 of whom are men), according to Oxfam analysis. Over half of the world’s billionaires inherited their wealth or work in industries prone to cronyism and corruption.

82% of the wealth created in 2016 went to the top 1%.

Fake news is a terrible problem in the US. In many other countries it is much worse:

• According to Freedom House, only 13% of the world’s population live in countries with a free press;
• In many developing countries, citizens have lower media literacy than those in rich countries;
• In developing countries, there can be a blind trust of information via new technologies;
• Many people get information from social networks on Facebook or WhatsApp, immediatly trusting what others have to say;
• There often is a paucity of credible news sources or professional journalism to counterbalance rumor;
• Many forces use social media maliciously, often with the backing of the state (such as Russian efforts in Ukraine).

To combat fake news in developing countries, it is necessary to take the same steps required in developed countries.

Even more, however, is necessary.

Often an independent, trained local media will need to be built up from nothing. Internews programs in Afghanistan, for example, have covered the country with professional, local radio broadcasting in regional languages.

Low-tech options for citizen journalism exist. CGNet Swara, for example, lets anyone call in and record a report by cell phone. Submissions are reviewed and curated into a newsfeed for the community.

Media literacy programs become even more important. In Ukraine, for example, media training programs for youth are now included in the national curriculum.

And many organizations need to participate in fact-checking. In Kenya, for example, Safaricom (the mobile phone company and Kenya’s largest corporation) spends 50% of its communications team resources combatting fake news.

Fake news is a major challenge in developing countries. With the rapid expansion of broadband, problems are poised to become even more difficult.

Thanks to a perfect storm of political rancor, social media algorithms, and malicious actors, fake news has become a major challenge for American democracy.

Many researchers and journalists have proposed policies and interventions to combat fake news, including those as summarized in recent overviews by Brookings, BBC, the New York Times,  Forbes, and the Washington Post.

Here are commonly proposed solutions:

News Industry

The news industry needs to do all possible to define and promote honest, fair, professional journalism. Providing more background information and transparency enhances legitimacy of the industry.

Simultaneously, the industry needs to quickly and effectively identify and debunk fake news (easier said than done). The way fake news is corrected often matters: for example, researchers have shown that video often works better than text, repeating the fake news can unintentionally reinforce it, and partisan voices correcting the news (Republicans debunking conservative news, Democrats debunking liberal news) is most effective.

Government

The government needs to value and promote a free and fair press. Government programs should be careful not to censor nor constrain journalists, and should include programs to support and protect quality journalism. Since journalism and government are often (by design) at odds, support for journalism needs to be codified in law.

In addition, government bodies should identify and censure organizations promoting fake news. In the case of hostile activities by foreign actors, government should aggressively identify and sanction malicious entities working to undermine American trust in the media.

Technology Companies

Technology companies, especially social media companies, need to be strict and consistent in enforcing rules about malicious or fake accounts, such as in Twitter’s recent purge of thousands of accounts. In addition, companies require improved systems and algorithms for accurate and fair identification and removal of fake news. Technology firms have made great progress in combatting spam and demarcating pornography online. Similar progress is required for fake news.

Simultaneously, technology companies need to review their business models, particularly with respect to online advertising, to make sure that those purveying fake news are not financially rewarded for information going viral.

There are other specific steps which would also be useful. For example, in a recent New York Times Op-Ed, former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler suggests requiring social media companies to provide an API to their news algorithms. This would protect both IP and user personal identification, but allow third parties to monitor how the platform might be used for malicious intent.

Educational Institutions

Educational institutions — from kindergarten through university — need to expose students to the challenges of fake news, and train students to be sophisticated and informed consumers of news. This can happen in classes specifically designed for news literacy, but also any class demanding research, analysis, and presentation of ideas.

Individuals

Individuals need to recognize that the news environment is hostile, there are objectively better and worse sources of information, and it is everyone’s responsibility to enhance their own media literacy. Two good initial steps are to work to diversify the news sources you rely on, and to understand the skepticism and effort required to be an honest, productive consumer of news.

Is it possible to have a community with extreme poverty (under $1.25 per day per person) in an environment with inexpensive, reliable broadband?

On its face, this seems an absurd question: reliable broadband almost by definition tracks to communities with sufficient resources to afford it. It’s a bit like saying “is it possible to have extreme poverty in an environment where houses also have swimming pools?”.

But it isn’t so simple — in fact, all poor communities on the planet will be getting reliable, reasonably-priced broadband in the next few years. So what does that imply for extreme poverty?

Even if broadband isn’t affordable to individuals, it is typically affordable to government officials, health clinics, some schools, international NGOs, and others. Once broadband arrives, government programs can reach citizens. International efforts, including direct cash payments, are enabled. Economic advantages of better information and price data are available. Efficiencies around transportation and supply chains are immediately presented.

Or to think about it another way, for a community to really be stuck below $1.25 per person, it almost by definition needs to be isolated, cut off from any economic opportunities or support programs whatsoever. $1.25 per day is an amazingly low number.

So it is reasonable at least to postulate that extreme poverty is in fact incompatible with broadband. (Term this crazy idea “Cashel’s Law”?)