In recent decades, fake news—whether intentionally or unintentionally spread—has emerged as a significant challenge for countries worldwide. Widespread claims of voter fraud on social media following the 2020 U.S. election eroded trust in the electoral process, leading to reduced voter turnout in subsequent elections. Similarly, social media disinformation has fueled dangerous and violent behavior during events such as the Rohingya genocide, Southport murders, and COVID-19. Accordingly, many have argued for government regulations to suppress disinformation. However, given the practical, ethical, and economic risks of such an approach, fake news is better addressed through independent mechanisms, such as third-party fact-checkers and media literacy initiatives.

The foremost consideration when evaluating the efficacy of government regulations is their feasibility, namely, the practicality of their enforcement mechanisms. In Germany, the 2017 Network Enforcement Act, which relied on content removal via user complaints, prompted platforms to over‐block content, often erring on the side of deletion to avoid potential fines, while producing little reduction in disinformation. Utilizing AI to evaluate content is also challenging, as AI-based takedowns yield an “enormous number of false positives.” Furthermore, algorithmic fact-checking is largely limited to English due to insufficient multilingual training data. Another concern is that government regulations push platforms to prioritize legal compliance over responding to evolving disinformation threats, especially as disinformation outpaces slow regulatory frameworks. Ultimately, the technical and structural limitations of government enforcement render it a restrictive, inflexible, and ineffective means of combating the spread of disinformation.

Another major challenge relates to the classification of misinformation: who gets to decide what “fake news” constitutes? As historical examples illustrate, especially in countries with weak political institutions, governments have used misinformation laws to silence dissent under the guise of public safety or national unity. In Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand, criticism of the government is classified as “fake news. “Malicious intent” clauses within such regulations justify arbitrary arrests, extended pretrial detentions, and excessive fines. Singapore’s regulations allow government officials to simply declare the falsity of online information and even order the removal of said information if doing so is “deemed to be in the public interest.” Often, regulation in democratic countries is used as a pretext by other, illiberal states to curb speech-related freedoms. Even if well-intentioned, laws enabling government regulation of social media risk concentrating undue power under state control. Thus, empowering governments to define and police fake news carries inherent risks of overreach.

Evidently, government regulation is an inadequate solution for the issue of fake news. Combating such an issue requires an alternative approach: third-party fact-checkers. This is supported by empirical evidence favoring third-party involvement,in contrasted to the lack of empirical evidence supporting government regulation. While third=party fact checkers consistently produce a 10–14% decrease in false belief and a roughly 60% reduction in the resharing of debunked posts, rigorous studies of government regulation are scarce, most likely due to the logistical and ethical challenges of testing national laws through randomized controlled trials. Although less rigorous than randomized controlled trials and given the aforementioned challenges, public-opinion surveys offer an alternative to gauge the perceived effectiveness of regulation. One survey conducted in Singapore indicated that only approximately 34% of respondents reported that the 2019 Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act stopped the creation of fake news. This data underscores a significant weakness of government regulation: not only is there a lack of rigorous evidence supporting its effectiveness, but even the sparse survey-based evidence that exists suggests it may have little real-world impact. Fact-checkers are only a temporary solution; however, a far more sustainable and preventive approach is media literacy. Although media literacy programs yield a smaller drop in belief in fake news (~0.27 SD), they produce a significant drop in the sharing of fake news (~1.1 SD). Furthermore, fact-checking requires ongoing human effort and is less effective when dealing with fake news in non-English languages, leading to higher long-term costs. In contrast, media literacy can be applied more broadly, requires fewer recurring resources, and equips individuals to assess the reliability of new information on their own (long-term impact). Together, fact-checking and media literacy provide a more effective response to fake news than government regulation. 

In essence, while the harms of fake news on social media are pressing, the challenges of enforcement, the threat of political abuse, and the suppression of competition make government regulation an ill-advised solution. Instead, independent fact-checking and scalable media literacy programs offer empirically supported, rights-preserving alternatives. The true solution lies not in restricting speech but in equipping individuals with the tools to evaluate information critically, ensuring a more informed and resilient society.