Scientific Disinformation and the Public Sphere in Brazil: How pseudo-science impairs democracy

政治人物利用平行的“科学”来诋毁社会中的信息系统，包括大学、专家和新闻界，以建立一种有利于极端意识形态的激进相对主义环境。科学虚假信息理论包括反疫苗接种，历史修正主义和否认气候变化。关注这一政治和科学的虚假信息，本文建立在巴西的公共领域的规范框架。目前的监管和执法无法阻止这些对民主制度的攻击，因此需要一个理论模型，保护可靠的信息来源和知识生产，同时促进公共辩论的分割空间。在线公共领域的概念框架和协商民主的理论将被用来产生一个模型，保护民主辩论所固有的权利，同时确保，关于在线公共领域：（i）公众有充分的机会，（ii）在大多数私人环境中保护公共利益，以及（iii）保护审议所固有的权利和自由（例如，语音、信息、汇编，这一分析对巴西和其他民主国家管理在线公共领域的公共和私营机构安排具有影响。它将对科学虚假信息对政治舆论形成的影响进行实证评估。这将为其他民主模式提供信息，并制定规范性变革，使民主沟通进程得以蓬勃发展。进一步的成果将是了解私人平台的可供性和重要性如何在管理在线讨论机制方面发挥二阶制度作用。2018年至2019年期间，70多个国家受到虚假信息活动的影响，这一数字正在迅速增加。几乎所有民主国家都面临着保护表达自由和网上公开讨论的挑战，而YouTube、WhatsApp、Facebook和其他人则被用来破坏民主审议和参与。这项研究将提高对法律的和规范措施的理解，这些措施可以使其他民主国家的在线公共领域蓬勃发展。

Political figures use parallel "science" to discredit information systems in society, including universities, experts and the press, to establish an environment of radical relativism which favours extreme ideologies. Scientific disinformation theories include anti-vaccination, historical revisionism and climate change denial. Concerned with this political and scientific disinformation, this thesis builds upon the normative framework of Brazil's public sphere. Current regulation and law enforcement cannot prevent these assaults on the democratic system, so a theoretical model is needed that protects credible sources of information and knowledge production, while promoting segmented spaces of public debate.The conceptual framework of online public sphere and theories of deliberative democracy will be used to produce a model that protects rights inherent to democratic debate, while ensuring, in relation to the online public sphere: (i) ample access for the general public, (ii) protection of public interests in mostly private environments, and (iii) protection of rights and freedoms intrinsic to deliberation (e.g. speech, information, assembly, privacy).This analysis has implications for public and private institutional arrangements governing the online public sphere in Brazil and in other democracies. It will provide an empirical assessment of the impact scientific disinformation has on political opinion formation. This will inform other democratic models,and formulate normative changes that enable democratic communicative processes to thrive. A further outcome will be understanding how private platform affordances and materiality play a second-order institutional role in governing online discussion mechanisms.Over 70 countries were affected by disinformation campaigns between 2018 and 2019, and this number is increasing rapidly. Virtually all democratic countries share the challenges of protecting freedom of expression and public discussion online, whilst YouTube, WhatsApp, Facebook and others are weaponized to sabotage democratic deliberation and participation. This research will improve understanding of the legal and normative measures that can enable online public spheres in other democracies to flourish.