The Third Person Effect

The Danger of Too Much Government

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” (Ronald Reagan)

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.” (Ronald Reagan – Inaugural Address 1981)

Introduction

New Zealanders seem to gravitate towards “the Government” for a solution to all problems. Despite the so-called “number eight wire” “self-help” myths about New Zealanders the solution to any problem lies with the Government. If something new turn up – a technology, social media, a modification in behaviour – the call goes out for regulation.

This article considers the proper role of government and what I see as an unhealthy reliance upon Government. We surrender too much of our autonomy to Government and its accompanying bureaucracy. Slowly, insidiously this eats away at our individuality, our capacity for self-reliance and our freedom of action, within the law of course.

The Government and the bureaucracy rely on a combination of paternalism and what I consider to be the “The Third Person Effect”. One way in which this insidious approach of Government works is to stifle initiative by prescribing rules and regulatory structures using a “we know best, one size fits all” approach. Another way is to crush opposition or contrary views in a number of different ways – not by brute force but by indirect means – by language, by attitudes, by stereotyping, by the use of proxies such as contracting out messaging or placing some distance between Government funding and the messenger - and by a gradual wearing down of any view that may differ from the accepted wisdom dictated by the Government.

Perhaps the most obvious area of control – and one that is frequently overlooked- is that of the message, the way that it is communicated, the way that the content of the message is controlled and the way that contrary views and arguments are addressed.

The most obvious dismissal of an opposing argument is that used by former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who would frequently “dismiss the premise” rather than engage with the proposition. There are other ways and means available, one of which is content control or as it may be more prosaically described “censorship” which I shall discuss in this article.

The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the problem. The solution to the problem lies within the hearts and minds of every individual citizen.

The Proper Role of Government

There is no universal description or definition for the proper role of the government. The specific functions and roles of government can vary widely based on the type of government system (e.g., democratic, authoritarian, socialist) and the priorities of the ruling authorities.

An early, clear and concise articulation of the role of government appears in the preamble to the United States Constitution 1787. The role then was to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty. The language is very general and non-specific.

Commentator Damian Grant sets out the role of the State as

“to protect the border, build roads and, arguably, provide welfare to those who need it. In the west this has extended to paying for education, health care and Spinoff podcasts, taking an exceptionally liberal interpretation of welfare”

As society has become more complex so too has the nature of government. The broad categories articulated in the preamble to the US Constitution remain but have become more nuanced and in some areas more specific. The various activities or what could be termed the proper interests of government can be classified as follows – the order of priorities is mine:

1. Public Safety and security

Protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of their citizens, such as the right to life, liberty, and property.

Includes national defence and protection from external threats.

Diplomacy and international relations to foster cooperation, negotiate treaties, and represent their country's interests on the global stage.

Provision of services such as fire departments, emergency medical services, and disaster response to ensure public safety during emergencies

Maintain a legal system to resolve disputes, protect individual rights, and ensure justice is served – support Rule of Law

Crisis management for natural disasters

2. Health

Provision of healthcare services

3. Education

Free schooling and funding of colleges and universities to ensure access to quality education

Preservation and promotion of cultural heritage and historical sites

4. Economic security and stability

Setting monetary and fiscal policy

Consumer protection

This includes measures such as taxation, monetary policy, and competition laws.

5. Provision of public services

Building and maintaining essential infrastructure such as roads, bridges, airports, and public transportation systems. This helps facilitate the movement of people and goods and supports economic development.

Protection of natural resources.

6. Safety Net for the Disadvantaged

Assistance for vulnerable or disadvantaged populations.

It is important to note that the specific functions and roles of government can vary widely based on the type of government system (e.g., democratic, authoritarian, socialist) and the priorities of the ruling authorities. Different countries may prioritize certain functions over others, and the role of government can evolve over time in response to changing societal needs and challenges.

When one considers the purpose of Government a similar assessment becomes apparent. The specific purposes of government can vary significantly from one country to another and can be influenced by the country's history, culture, political ideology, and the preferences of its citizens.

Different forms of government, such as democracies, autocracies, and monarchies, may prioritize these purposes differently.

In democratic societies, for example, governments are typically expected to serve the interests of the people and uphold their rights, while in autocracies, the government's priorities may be more centered around maintaining political power and control.

The New Zealand Attitude to Government

The classification of the roles of government is premised on limited government involvement in the lives of citizens. The examples of the services provided – remembering that democratic governments do not “rule” or “lead” their citizens but are in fact the servants of the people – are limited and reflect what I perceive to be the proper role of a limited and non-interventionalist government. Government involvement in the lives of citizens should be as little as possible and to the minimum level required to fulfil the objectives which I have suggested.

However, the widely prevailing view in New Zealand  is that certain government interventions are necessary to address social and economic inequalities, protect the environment, and ensure access to essential services. Some go further and advocate a form of enforced egalitarianism. This is achieved by imposing wealth and capital gains taxes so that one element of society is not better off than another. This is a form of economic levelling which one would associated with a socialist or communist approach.

There is, however, a body of opinion, and one to which I subscribe,  that advocates for a more limited government role in these areas and that there should be smaller government involvement in these areas and greater reliance on the private sector to solve societal problems.

The disturbing characteristic that seems to have developed in New Zealand over the years is that whenever there is a problem the Government should be the first port of call. It matters not the nature of the problem. It matters not whether the problem falls within the limited taxonomy of Governmental activity that I have described. The call goes out – “The Government must do something”.

This attitude, of course, creates some significant problems, many of which impact upon essential aspects of human liberty. If the Government is called upon to “do everything” this creates a culture of dependency upon the Government. This in turn leads to a loss of initiative, an erosion of self-sufficiency and a loss of creativity. Ultimately this leads to an unhealthy over-reliance on the State.

Why is this unhealthy? Because the State is unable to provide a solution for individual difficulties or problems. The State will generally approach the matter from a “one size fits all” perspective which often is unsatisfactory and does not fulfil individual needs.

Individuals know what is best for themselves. That State is unable to do this. Solutions to problems should be left to individuals. If individuals within a community share a common problem the solution should lie with those individuals rather than going cap in hand to the State seeking a solution. The best solution for individuals is the solution devised by those individuals for those individuals – not one that is dictated by the State.

The difficulty that we have in New Zealand is that reliance upon the Government – upon the State – has almost become part of our culture. The fundamental roles of the State have been subject over the years to a frightening level of “mission creep”. The result of this is that the State takes on an attitude of paternalism, telling individuals what to do; dictating outcomes, interfering with personal liberty and individual initiative.

We have frequently seen this as the State begins to interfere in the lives of citizens to various degrees and in varying levels of detail to the point that the level of interference is so great that there is a push-back and a recognition that the State has gone too far – that a “nanny state” has taken over.

In some respects there is a shift to a benign dictatorship based upon paternalism or in the case of Helen Clark’s Labour Government, maternalism. Certainly Clark’s “nanny state” approach that characterized the latter stages of her term as Prime Minister was expected to continue after the Ardern Government was elected in 2017 and she expressed a number of policies that her protégé Ardern could undertake.

Another aspect of recent Government activity is centralization. The problem was eloquently described by former All Black captain David Kirk who said:

“If you’re a socialist, you’re someone who believes that collectivism and centralisation is the best way to run economies as this Labour government has shown – they’ve centralised the polytechs, they’ve centralised the health system, they’ve centralised the management of water.

“They’re just natural centralists. They don’t believe people are better at making decisions on their own behalf. The government needs to look after them, government needs to tell them what to do. That’s what socialists do; and these are pretty serious socialist-type people.…

I think economies need entrepreneurialism. They need people to risk their own capital. If you want innovation, growth and productivity, that’s the most important thing.”…

“You need to give people the opportunity to make mistakes and lose money, build businesses, actually be free to lead … and that goes on the social side, be free to lead their own lives, not to be weighed under by too much red tape and bureaucracy.”

Kirk was of the view that we need to build a society, where individuals and businesses are prepared to invest in social infrastructure through private or corporate philanthropy or environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles – rather than an over-reliance on taxes and inefficient government bureaucracy.

The collectivism about which Kirk comments was manifested most clearly in the rhetoric from the Prime Minister. Rarely if ever did she embrace individuals. When she spoke she spoke for all New Zealanders. She tended to collectivise groups at times of tragedy – “they are us” was a catchcry after the Christchurch massacre - the team of 5 million during COVID.

A recent extraordinary example of the collectivist State interference with the liberty of citizens came with the Covid pandemic and the extreme measures that were undertaken by the Government. In a complete reversal of the fundamentals of a democratic society under the Rule of Law, everything was prohibited unless it was permitted.

In many respects, at least at the outset when there were a number of unknowns surrounding the nature of the virus, those measures fell within the category of both public health and public safety – both legitimate areas of governmental involvement in the lives of citizens.

I have discussed the intrusive nature of the legislative framework that surrounded the Covid pandemic here and here. One of the collateral matters surrounding the pandemic and the way in which the State became even more intrusive in the lives of citizens than appeared on the face of the legislative framework was in the messaging. There was only one authoritative source of information and that was the Government – the message that regularly emanated from “the podium of truth” and the answer that Prime Minister Ardern gave to a question about “the single source of truth”. She said

“I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public: we will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health. For that information, do feel free to visit at any time—to clarify any rumour you may hear—the covid19.govt.nz website. Otherwise, dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth. We'll provide information frequently. We will share everything we can. Everything else you see—a grain of salt."

That statement dismisses any suggestion that there may be other sources of information that go against that of the Government and it led, indirectly, to a form of demonization of dissent.

Controlling the Message

But it demonstrates another very important factor in terms of the overweening power of the State and that lies in the control of the message. Involved in this aspect of the matter are not only politicians but bureaucrats and civil servants in various Government agencies. Two agencies in particular play a part in messaging – The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) and the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).

At the beginning of the pandemic it was seen by the Government as important  to separate the State from the message and dress the message up with the garments of authority. Thus, an organization of academics operating under the umbrella of Te Punaha Matatini based at the University of Auckland provided the authoritative voices about the effects of the pandemic coupled with messaging from the Director-General of Health. One organization which came to the fore was the Disinformation Project who swiftly became the “go-to” group for commentary on the rising tide (as they saw it) of misinformation and disinformation about Covid but which would be characterised, in a less febrile atmosphere as “contrary opinion”.

Another means of controlling the message was the Public Interest Journalism Fund, ostensibly set up to ensure the disseminsation of factual information but with a number of political tags attached. Once again, distance was placed between the Government as the source of funding and the distributor of the funds – New Zealand OnAir. The PIJF has now closed.

The problem is that although the pandemic emergency is now passed, messaging is still important. The DPMC still has an interest in misinformation and disinformation and to my knowledge is funding two studies on the subject. While I classify misinformation as “rumour” and disinformation as “lies” one wonders why it is that these issues are exercising an arm of the State.

Another issue regarding messaging and controlling the message lies with the DIA which, since before the pandemic, has been looking at methods of content control on the Internet. It has put forth a Discussion Paper entitled Safe Online Services and Media Platforms which I have discussed here, here, here and here. I have also discussed some recent moves by the DIA to centralise control of cybercrime and online harms here

These moves give rise to some concerns about the way in which arms of the State operate. Bureaucrats increasingly rule us in our day to day living, as they tell us what we can say and not say, think and not think.

This approach by Government and its servants can be summed up in what is called the “Third Person Effect” – a phenomenon which is particularly present in the control of information, expression and the content and censorship of communications.

The Third Person Effect

The term “The Third Person Effect” as developed by Jeff Jarvis was put forward in an academic paper by sociologist W Phillips Davison in 1983.  The third person effect “predicts that people will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behaviour of others …. its greatest impact will not be on me or you but on them - the third persons.”

The third person effect is the conviction that everyone else, the ordinary people, are vulnerable to the influences of disinformation, advertising, pornography, immorality in movies, violence in television and games, racism or misogyny in song lyrics, hate or conspiracies in social media and media in general  - but I am somehow immune which puts me in the position to prescribe their protection.

This may be characterized as snobbery or paternalism but whatever the label the effect is the same. People – especially bureaucrats or eponymous “officials” - who perceive that others lack the common sense to defend themselves against the harmful effects of the content are more likely to advocate censorship and control.

The other side of the coin lies in the area of individual liberty and self-reliance. Many individual users of potentially harmful media content may defend their use by stressing that they themselves and others are smart enough not to be affected by the exposure.

A study as long ago as 2001 had college students evaluate violent and misogynistic rap and metal lyrics while answering questions to indicate their level of paternalism. A correlation between paternalism and censorship was one finding.  Another was that the more people already consume the content in question the less likely they are to think it harmful to themselves or others and the less likely they are to seek censorship - that is if I consume this content, then it must be okay and government another busy bodies should keep their censorial fingers out of my business. As Blake Shelton put in in “Kiss My Country Ass” “you just mind your own damn business, stay the hell out of mine.”

Associated with the third person effect is the social distance corollary. This says that the stranger the stranger is, the greater the perceived social distance between self and others, the easier it is to assume the third person will fall prey to the effects that “I” see through.

Inherent in this research into the third person effect is its inverse - the first person effect - the self-serving bias that places the me above the other, making me feel better about myself and giving me at least to the illusion of control. It is a variant of the “better than average effect”, in which researchers found the majority of people are prone to consider themselves better than average in a wide range of characteristics. Rational versus irrational,  sensitive versus insensitive, friendly versus unfriendly, intelligent versus unintelligent,  adjusted versus maladjusted, humorous versus humourless. Never mind the arithmetical impossibility of it.

The third person effect underlies not just censorship of media, but media genres as well. What is a game show but an opportunity for us on our couches to feel superior to those who can't solve the puzzle? Never mind the pressures of time and TV lights (if you focus properly those fall by the wayside – trust me), reality TV is a form tailor made for our self-aggrandisement,  confirming our own beliefs that we are superior to those feuding housewives or hapless bachelors or incompetent chefs we watch.

The field of journalism is designed for nothing so much as heaping scorn on criminals, miscreants, lying politicians, thieving business people, victims whom we secretly blame for their misfortunes, people who give stupid answers to pollsters and the other side in any argument.

There is a rising moral panic regarding the Internet and specifically, social media. This is perpetuated by news media which repeats the “official” line. This is a form of social control and readers of mainstream media will be well-familiar with the subtle inserts that may precede named contrarian figures. Rather than address the message, Mainstream media seems to prefer to shoot the messenger.

Then there is social control legislation such as Germany's NetzDG hate speech law the EU’s Digital Services Act  and the UK's online harm legislation. What is proposed by the DIA in their Safer Online Services Paper is part and parcel of this content control movement of which the Christchurch Call is a part.

A wider view of what is in effect the Third Person Effect comes from Damian Grant who comments:

“Is it the responsibility of the state to mandate that we, the citizens, must live our best lives? Why do we expect central government to assume the role of parent, and when did we collectively decide that it is appropriate to outsource the responsibility for how we choose to maximise the pursuit of our individual happiness?

This willing infantilisation of ourselves is an abrogation of our responsibility as free people to decide for ourselves how we live, and how we die.”

The Third Person and Safer Online Services

A disturbing aspect of “The Third Person Effect” – which primarily is an aspect of “we know best what’s good for you” bureaucrats - is the move towards greater control of the online space. Given that the Internet has developed into the primary means of communication for most people, and digital services are replacing analogue or kinetic ones, control of this space will have a significant effect upon our liberties and freedom of expression.

And the question that flows from that is whether or not this is a proper role for the State. The particular concern arises from the DIA paper on Safer Online Services and the ramifications that some of these proposals may have.

What is proposed is a classic example of the “third person effect”

Currently New Zealand’s censorship regime is governed by the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (FVPCA). This provides for a very limited scope within which the Censor may ban material – on the grounds that it is objectionable. The term was settled upon through the legislative process including public and select committee scrutinyand has been examined by the Courts.

Other less interventionist forms of content control are in the hands of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) and the New Zealand Media Council (NZMC) both of which address mainstream media.

There are no formalized regulatory controls of Internet platforms although material appearing on Internet platforms can be deemed objectionable by the censor. That was the case with the livestream of the Christchurch Massacre.

Platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have their own internal standards but because these platforms are off-shore different standards relating to content apply. Platforms based in the United States, for example, will rely on the free speech clause of the First Amendment to justify a light-handed control (if any) of content on their servers.

Recent studies by InternetNZ and by the Censor’s Office suggest there is a level of concern about what may be seen as harmful content on Internet platforms and inevitably the call has gone out for regulation of platforms and their content – in other words “the Government must do something.”  

As I have observed elsewhere, the move for a review on New Zealand’s media content regulation system started in 2019 which culminated in the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms Discussion Paper.

In essence this proposes a different model for content control. Structurally many of the functions of the Censor under the FVPCA will be folded into a new organization as will those of the BSA and the NZMC. There will be a single centralized organization responsible for content control of all media – press, radio, TV and broadcast and online.

Codes of Conduct will be settled for platforms. A platform will qualify for the requirement to develop a Code of Conduct if it has a certain number of subscribers or users. The Codes of Conduct will cover a number of matters including the means by which the platform will control content.

If platforms do not keep their contributors in line and properly monitor compliance with the Code there will be consequences. If individual contributors flout the standards set by the Code there may be personal liability, material may be taken down and that individual may be unable to access the platform – the vernacular term is “cancellation”.

From a structural perspective this may be seen as shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic but the Discussion Paper goes further. Although there are no suggestions that current categories of unlawful or illegal content will be extended there is an opportunity to require content to be taken down if it is deemed harmful or “unsafe”.

And the whole structure will be managed and controlled by a new Regulator. This is where the “Third Person Effect” really manifests itself. The Regulator will be able to approve Codes of Conduct. If Platforms are found wanting in developing their Codes the Regulator will impose a Code upon them. The Regulator will monitor compliance by Platforms and will field complaints about Platform compliance and other issues about “harmful” or “unsafe” content.

Apart from the particularly gross way with which this interferes with freedom of expression and robust debate, a wider issue about the way in which the State may control the message becomes clear.

At the moment the message that the State wishes to put out is by skilful use of press releases and public relations people, along with the demonization of any contrary view, a distinct failure to engage with any opposing arguments (a legacy of Prime Minister Ardern’s conflict evasiveness) the stereotyping of opponents as “conspiracy theorists” or “racists” and the only engagement with the content of opposition being to characterize it as “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

Under the Safer Online Services proposal the potential for more direct State interference with debate is heightened. To make matters even more concerning, apart from the structure that is proposed the contents of the Codes of Conduct will not have legislative scrutiny.

The standards set in the Codes for what is harmful or unsafe will be in the hands of the Regulator – what is described as “soft legislation”. Rules may change. Certainty – so critical in the setting of rules for behaviour – will be absent or diminished. The settings for standards of speech will be in the hands of the Regulator who, as a manifestation of the “Third Person Effect” knows what is best for everyone.

The Interfering State

What occurs in the example of censorship that I have discussed is typified in all areas of State activity. There is always the influence of the “third person effect” – the State knows what is good for you and knows better than you do. Grant puts it this way:

“The sanctimonious arrogance of these public servants, who know nothing about the lives, stresses and incentives of those they seek to control through this law, should be an affront to those who believe in personal autonomy [and] personal responsibility”

I have described the Third Person Effect as it relates to censorship and the control of online content. It is acknowledged that there are concerns about the wild free flow of information that Internet Platforms enable. And the inevitable call that arises as a result of these concerns is that the Government should do something – the by now familiar cry that the Government should regulate.

When one translates this it is a cry for censorship. But for one thing. These calls are from “third parties”. Please censor everyone else – just don’t censor us. But the trouble is that Governments don’t work that way and inevitably another element of our liberty is gone at the hands of an increasingly monolithic State.

And as in the field of censorship, so in the myriad other areas of intrusive State activity, blundering into areas where it has no business in operating. It is not only in the field of Internet content that concerns are expressed. Every time there is a perceived problem, the cry is always the same.

So when you hear the cry – “we need to regulate ..”  or “The Government must do something” – your answer should be “be careful what you wish for.”