Viewing Disinformation from a Global Governance Perspective | IGF 2023 WS #209

Report

The analysis explores several key aspects of global governance, regulations, misinformation, and digital regulation. One of the main challenges in defining global governance arises from the presence of different models and guidelines, which leads to variations in the level of guidelines and enforcement, resulting in a lack of consensus on the precise meaning of global governance.

Concerning global governance regulations, it is crucial to distinguish between basic standards and additional issues.

Examples such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the European Union and online safety regulations in Singapore and the UK emphasize the significance of addressing both fundamental standards and more complex issues in regulating global governance. These regulations play a significant role in achieving Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Governments can have contradictory impacts on global governance efforts.

On one hand, they can be a source of misinformation, hindering progress towards effective global governance. However, governments also possess the authority and skills necessary to continuously update legislation to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. This ability is essential for achieving Goal 16 of the SDGs.

Interoperability, the ability for different systems to communicate seamlessly, is a vital aspect of digital regulation.

Aaron Maniam highlights the importance of interoperability among different countries, as it enables coherent communication and collaboration. This is linked to Goal 9 of the SDGs: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

A polycentric approach is crucial in combating disinformation. Governments should move away from solely having an authority-based role and embrace a convening function.

By engaging in consultation and deliberation, governments can prioritize and address issues related to disinformation in a bottom-up fashion. Additionally, community building, space building, and urban planning should be part of the government’s role in fighting disinformation.

Education and literacy play a pivotal role in tackling disinformation.

In Singapore, various organizations, including the National Library Board, the Information and Media Development Authority, and the Cybersecurity Agency, collaborate to operationalize strategies. Education that starts at home and in schools and libraries is highlighted as a key factor in enhancing literacy among citizens.

This aligns with Goal 4 of the SDGs: Quality Education.

In summary, the analysis underscores the complexities and challenges of global governance and the importance of clear regulations. It also highlights the dual role of governments as potential sources of misinformation and as crucial actors in updating legislation.

Interoperability is crucial for effective digital regulation, and a polycentric approach is essential in combating disinformation. Lastly, education and literacy are vital components in mitigating the impact of disinformation.

Report

The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of perspectives on disinformation in South Africa, covering various viewpoints and arguments. One viewpoint suggests that disinformation is not a major problem in the country, with more concern placed on trusting the government. The public tends to rely on the media, which is regarded as well self-regulated and proficient in dealing with disinformation.

Fact-checking is also a common practice in South Africa, swiftly and efficiently debunking false information.

Another argument highlights the successful media regulation in South Africa, which ensures accuracy across different ideological spectrums. It is noted that a commitment to accuracy exists among right-wing, center, and left-wing media outlets in the country.

Fact-checking is a prevalent practice, further enhancing the reliability and trustworthiness of the media. This observation supports the notion that media regulation in South Africa effectively maintains accuracy and minimises the spread of disinformation.

The analysis also emphasises the need for careful consideration in the international regulation of disinformation.

It is crucial to explore the implications of such regulation on access to information and freedom of expression. While national initiatives regarding disinformation regulation are controversial, existing international instruments may serve as a baseline for effectively governing disinformation.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the distinct dynamics of weaponising disinformation in online platforms compared to traditional broadcasting platforms.

Unlike traditional platforms, online platforms allow for the widespread distribution of disinformation without requiring significant political or economic power. This observation emphasises the need for tailored approaches in combating disinformation across different digital platforms.

A noteworthy observation from the analysis is the advocacy for considering bottom-up approaches and self-regulation measures alongside governmental regulations.

Anriette Esterhuysen argues that jumping to governmental regulations without exploring more bottom-up ways may be premature. While a regulatory response might be necessary, Esterhuysen highlights the importance of not dismissing self-regulatory and bottom-up approaches to tackle disinformation. This perspective demonstrates a concern that solely relying on governmental regulations might overlook effective alternatives.

Overall, the analysis offers valuable insights into the various dimensions of disinformation in South Africa.

The perspectives presented shed light on the strengths of the country’s media regulation, the challenges faced in international regulation, the dynamics of online platforms, and the importance of considering diverse approaches to combat disinformation.

Report

The analysis delved into the multifaceted nature of misinformation and disinformation. One of the speakers put forth the argument that these actions have the potential to incite individuals to act against democratic institutions. To support this claim, they highlighted the example of the January 6th Capitol riots, which they believed were inspired by misinformation and disinformation.

The speaker’s sentiment was negative, suggesting concern about the impact of these actions on democracy.

However, another speaker expressed a more neutral stance, highlighting the challenge of settling on a clear definition of disinformation. They pointed out that assessing the longitudinal impact of disinformation is challenging.

This sentiment indicates a level of uncertainty regarding the extent to which misinformation and disinformation can influence actions and outcomes.

A disagreement emerged regarding the possibility of completely eliminating disinformation. One speaker argued that efforts should be directed towards reducing its spread and minimizing the damage caused, rather than striving for complete elimination.

This sentiment aligned with a more positive outlook on the issue.

In the specific context of Switzerland, it was suggested that disinformation does not possess enough influence to significantly sway elections. The speaker based this claim on the observation that Switzerland has a stable multi-party system with relatively consistent voting patterns over the past 30 years.

This sentiment reflects a more neutral perspective on the impact of disinformation in the Swiss political landscape.

The analysis also examined the potential effects of disinformation on internet infrastructure and connectivity. There was evidence suggesting that disinformation governance can impact internet infrastructure, with an example cited of Europe implementing IP blocking of Russian websites spreading disinformation.

This negative sentiment implies the belief that the weaponization of disinformation through online platforms has had widespread consequences.

The audience raised concerns regarding the potential threat disinformation poses to the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Historical examples, such as the information war of the Cold War and the use of radio for propaganda during Nazi Germany, were provided to illustrate this point.

This sentiment highlights the importance of protecting freedom of expression in the face of disinformation.

Notably, the analysis explored the effectiveness of the Christchurch Call initiative in response to live-streamed terrorist attacks in New Zealand. The sentiment here was negative, as it was argued that rushed solutions to govern and regulate disinformation can cause unintended harm.

The speaker stressed the need for a nuanced approach to address disinformation, referencing the impact of tackling disinformation in G7 declarations.

The audience member supporting the Christchurch Call initiative expressed a positive sentiment, believing in its effectiveness. They emphasized the significance of trust-building and multi-stakeholder involvement in addressing terrorism facilitated by online platforms.

This aligns with the overall positive sentiment of utilizing a multi-stakeholder model and engaging governments, tech firms, and civil society in combating disinformation.

In conclusion, the analysis highlighted the complex nature of misinformation and disinformation. The arguments presented ranged from the potential dangers of these actions in undermining democratic institutions to the challenges in defining and assessing their impacts.

The disagreement regarding the elimination of disinformation reflected a difference in perspectives, with one side advocating for reducing its spread. The analysis also shed light on the specific impacts of disinformation on internet infrastructure, the threat it poses to freedom of expression, and the potential effectiveness of initiatives such as the Christchurch Call in preventing terrorism.

Overall, the analysis underscores the need for nuanced approaches and multi-stakeholder involvement to address disinformation and its various repercussions.

Report

The impact of disinformation on democracy is a complex issue that is influenced by various factors and is context-dependent. Different perspectives exist on the extent to which disinformation can affect democratic processes. Some argue that disinformation can have a significant negative impact on democracy, while others caution against oversimplifying the issue and relying on false dichotomies.

It has been observed that a considerable amount of disinformation originates from broadcast media and is then amplified through social media platforms.

This highlights the interconnectedness between different forms of media in the spread of disinformation. Several studies have indicated this behavior, emphasizing the importance of understanding the role played by different media channels in the dissemination of disinformation.

One key aspect that complicates the issue of disinformation is the lack of a standardised definition.

Leading organisations like the European Union and the UN Special Rapporteur have differing definitions of disinformation, which can give rise to confusion and inconsistencies in tackling this problem. It becomes crucial to establish a common understanding to effectively address disinformation.

Tribal loyalty is identified as a significant factor that can lead individuals to believe in disinformation.

In cases like the United States, where tribal affiliations and identity politics play a prominent role, people may align with certain narratives or disinformation due to their loyalty to a particular group. This highlights how social and political factors can impact an individual’s susceptibility to disinformation.

Identity politics further compounds the issue, distorting the perception of truth.

Some individuals develop their identities around opposing certain groups or ideologies, leading them to embrace disinformation that aligns with their pre-existing biases. This phenomenon highlights the role of emotions and personal beliefs in shaping the acceptance of disinformation.

Efforts to regulate disinformation on a global level have been proposed, but doubts remain about their effectiveness.

Discussions in the United Nations have seen various proposals related to disinformation, such as China’s suggestion to criminalise its spread and UNESCO’s guidelines for digital platforms. However, the complexities and geopolitical divisions inherent in regulating disinformation make it challenging to achieve meaningful global regulation.

As a result, long-term engagement is advocated, focusing on building infrastructure to challenge disinformation effectively.

The proposal for a code of conduct on information integrity for digital platforms is seen as an attempt at global internet governance. This proposal aims to govern the information that flows through digital networks, aligning with the definition of internet governance.

It raises questions about the extent to which such regulations should be implemented and their potential impact on freedom of expression and privacy.

The primary responsibility to counter disinformation lies with states, according to the UN General Assembly’s resolution.

While platforms such as social media play a role, governments bear the primary responsibility to address the issue effectively. Simply pressuring platforms to act does not address the root causes of disinformation.

It is important to recognise that disinformation can originate from various sources, including the dark web.

This highlights the need for a comprehensive approach that looks beyond platforms alone. Strategies should encompass multiple sources and channels through which disinformation can be generated and disseminated.

Civil society participation is crucial in the discussion on countering disinformation.

While there have been limited discussions on proposals like the UN Secretary General’s Global Digital Compact, greater involvement of civil society in such initiatives can ensure diverse perspectives and balanced decision-making.

In conclusion, addressing the issue of disinformation requires a multifaceted approach that involves governments, platforms, and civil society.

The complex nature of disinformation and its impact on democracy necessitate a nuanced understanding, taking into account various factors such as media channels, definitions, tribal loyalty, and identity politics. Efforts to regulate disinformation at a global level should be complemented with long-term engagement and infrastructure-building, recognising the challenges and limitations faced in achieving effective global regulation.

Report

Disinformation has the potential to undermine democracy, although its impact varies depending on the context. While there is currently no solid empirical evidence to suggest that disinformation directly changes voters’ behaviors or affects election results, there is a consensus that further research is necessary to fully understand its implications.

The existing research on the impact of disinformation is primarily focused on the United States and Europe, highlighting a need for expanding studies to include other regions such as Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

It is important to understand how disinformation strategies can influence political transformations in different contexts.

Disinformation is considered a communication practice and an online harm, along with misinformation, propaganda, and fake news. Its intent holds significant legal relevance, further emphasizing the need to address the issue.

In some instances, disinformation serves as a form of political intervention.

For example, in Brazil, it has been used to express dissatisfaction or directly attack democratic institutions, including the electoral system and high courts. This highlights the destructive potential of disinformation as a tool in political disputes.

However, the concept of disinformation poses a challenge within statutory regulation, as there is no clear space for its definition and regulation.

Global governance solutions, although important, may not be sufficient to address the impact of misinformation and disinformation on political disputes.

It is necessary to confront the ultimate convertibility of economic power into political power, particularly within the media landscape. This is evident in countries like Brazil, where traditionally concentrated and unregulated media landscapes contribute to the spread of disinformation.

Additionally, global solutions often rely on consensus-based governance structures, which may lack the power needed to modify digital business models and data usage effectively.

More empirical evidence is needed, especially outside of the global north.

In countries like Brazil, internet usage is strongly associated with platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram, facilitated by zero rating policies. Understanding the impact of disinformation in these regions is crucial for developing effective countermeasures.

In conclusion, addressing the challenges posed by disinformation requires not only further research but also more institutional innovation.

This innovation should create an apparatus that allows diverse stakeholders and civil society to engage in the disputation of truth and content. By confronting the convertibility of economic power into political power and exploring alternative governance structures, we can work towards mitigating the harmful effects of disinformation and safeguarding democratic institutions.

Report

In the realm of disinformation, politicians are also actively involved in creating and spreading false information, not just news media and social media. This amplifies the scope of actors responsible for misleading the public. The negative sentiment towards politicians indicates a lack of trust in their intentions.

Timing is a crucial aspect in the dissemination of disinformation.

The example of Brexit voting behavior is used to demonstrate this. Voters may be influenced by inaccurate information without realizing it until it is too late. This implies that the impact of disinformation can have lasting effects, shaping important decisions.

However, an opposing viewpoint is presented, disagreeing with Jeanette’s argument about the significance of timing when discussing disinformation.

It is argued that Jeanette’s failure to consider timing weakens their argument. The negative sentiment expressed towards this disagreement suggests a potential blind spot in understanding the issue.

Overall, this analysis illustrates the multifaceted nature of disinformation and its wide-ranging consequences.

Politicians, news media, and social media platforms are all complicit in perpetuating false information. The timing of disinformation is highlighted as a crucial factor, as it can significantly influence its impact on individuals and societies. The disagreement regarding the importance of timing further emphasizes the complexity of this subject.

Report

Disinformation is a complex issue that involves the dissemination of false or misleading information. It can have various impacts and is spread through different platforms, including legacy media and social platforms. Understanding the nuances of disinformation is crucial, as there is no one-size-fits-all solution to address it.

David Kaye, an advocate for human rights, highlights the importance of clear definitions and understanding in addressing disinformation through legal regulation and governance.

However, he expresses concern about the lack of shared definitions, which may impede the process of regulation. Kaye also raises concerns about emerging regulations in Europe and the UK that rely on platforms to define disinformation, as this may affect transparency and risk assessment.

While global regulation of disinformation may seem desirable, Kaye argues that it is not achievable.

Instead, he suggests the development of a common set of guiding principles based on human rights. These principles should be the foundation for addressing disinformation, providing a framework that ensures legality, necessity, proportionality, and legitimacy of objectives.

In shaping policies and strategies to combat disinformation, Kaye believes that civil society should play an active role.

They should be included in the drafting and adoption process to ensure a more inclusive approach. Additionally, Kaye argues that governments should be held responsible for their behavior and should support public service media, as excluding them would undermine the effectiveness of addressing disinformation.

Over-reliance on platforms for handling disinformation is a matter of concern.

Relying solely on platforms may create challenges in terms of transparency, accountability, and bias. Therefore, it is necessary to explore alternative approaches and strategies to combat disinformation effectively.

The leadership of New Zealand in promoting multi-stakeholder approaches and prioritising human rights in times of trauma, such as after the Christchurch attack, is commended by Kaye.

He recognises the importance of keeping human rights at the core of global governance. In this regard, Kaye highlights the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a platform where human rights and access to information should be given priority.

However, Kaye also warns against adopting ideas that disregard human rights in response to traumatic events, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict.

While people may have natural responses to such events, it is crucial to ensure that any responses or measures taken are rooted in human rights principles.

In conclusion, addressing disinformation requires nuanced understanding and a combination of approaches.

Clear definitions, shared principles based on human rights, civil society participation, government responsibility, and cautious reliance on platforms are all essential factors in effectively combating disinformation. New Zealand’s leadership and the IGF’s emphasis on human rights in global governance are notable examples of positive progress.

However, it is crucial to avoid compromising human rights in times of trauma or conflict.

Report

Greta strongly believes that disinformation is significantly weakening democratic systems. This issue is related to the topics of disinformation and democracy and is associated with a negative sentiment. However, no specific supporting facts or arguments were provided to support the claim that disinformation undermines democracy.

Disinformation, the deliberate spread of false or misleading information, poses a serious threat to the democratic process.

It can manipulate public opinion, deceive voters, and erode trust in democratic institutions. Greta’s agreement with this viewpoint suggests that she recognizes the detrimental effects that disinformation can have on the functioning of democracies.

Although no specific supporting facts or arguments were presented, it is worth considering the widespread impact of disinformation in recent years.

The rise of social media platforms has enabled the rapid spread of false information, often disguised as legitimate news or opinions. This has the potential to sway public opinion and distort democratic discourse.

Furthermore, disinformation campaigns have been known to target elections by spreading false information about candidates or manipulating public sentiment.

Such tactics can undermine the integrity of electoral processes and compromise the ability of citizens to make informed choices.

The conclusion drawn from Greta’s strong agreement is that urgent actions are needed to address the problem of disinformation.

Safeguarding the democratic process involves countering disinformation through fact-checking, promoting media literacy, and strengthening regulations on social media platforms. It is essential to restore trust and ensure that accurate and reliable information prevails in democratic societies.

In summary, Greta strongly believes that disinformation is undermining democracy.

While specific arguments and supporting facts were not provided, the existence of disinformation poses a clear threat to democratic systems. Addressing this issue requires collective efforts to counter disinformation, promote media literacy, and protect the integrity of democratic processes.

Report

This discussion explores the impact of disinformation on people’s minds and voting behaviour. One participant criticises the limited knowledge surrounding this issue due to the lack of empirical evidence. They argue that it is essential to conduct research to better understand how disinformation affects individuals and their decision-making processes.

Another participant highlights the strategic intent of disinformation, stating that it is often used as a tool to manipulate people’s behaviour and influence their worldviews.

Disinformation is seen as a deliberate tactic that focuses on achieving specific objectives.

The conversation also emphasises the need to expand research on disinformation beyond platforms and consider the wider media landscape. It is noted that context plays a crucial role, and solely examining platforms and algorithms is insufficient.

The impact of disinformation should be studied within the broader media environment to gain a comprehensive understanding of its effects.

Furthermore, it is observed that individuals sharing disinformation may not necessarily believe the information themselves. Instead, they may be using it as a means to signal their belonging or loyalty to a certain group or ideology.

This highlights the complex motivations behind the sharing of disinformation and the need to consider social and psychological factors in analysing its influence.

The conversation also touches upon the rising disregard for truth and the detrimental impact it has on public discourse and democracy.

This trend of increasing tribal attitudes and a lack of concern for distinguishing truth from falsity has severe consequences for the functioning of society and democratic processes.

Regarding the governance of the internet, there is a recognition that infrastructure standards need global agreement to ensure a cohesive global network.

However, content regulation should not be undertaken at a global level, as it may impinge upon freedom of speech and local autonomy.

The Digital Service Act, proposed by the European Commission, is viewed as an interesting development. It extends the scope of human rights to not only govern the relationship between people and governments but also guide platform behaviours.

This recognition that the private sector’s influence on the exercise of human rights should be guided by human rights principles is seen as positive.

The Act’s provision for data access related to systemic risks caused by platforms is supported.

This data access allows for a better, evidence-based understanding of the impact of disinformation. However, the concept of needing to mobilise systemic risk to gain access to data is criticised, highlighting the need for more efficient mechanisms.

The discussion concludes with the suggestion that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) could serve as a platform to discuss and implement best practices derived from Article 40 of the Digital Service Act.

This highlights the potential for international collaboration and knowledge-sharing in addressing disinformation and its consequences.

Overall, this discussion emphasises the urgent need for comprehensive research, consideration of wider media environments, and the recognition of the complex motivations behind the sharing of disinformation.

It also addresses the importance of upholding human rights principles and the challenges of content regulation in a global and interconnected digital landscape.

Report

A recent discussion highlighted the detrimental effect of disinformation on democracy in the Philippines. The concern was voiced by the current president, Marcos, who is the son of the former dictator. One of the key arguments made was that disinformation played a significant role in influencing the outcomes of the recent elections.

Disinformation in the political landscape is seen as a serious threat to the country’s democratic processes.

It is suggested that the spread of false information and manipulation of facts can lead to citizens making ill-informed decisions, thus undermining the democratic values of transparency and accountability.

Supporting this viewpoint, John Mahob, a representative from the Foundation for Media Alternatives in the Philippines, also expressed concern over the impact of disinformation on the country’s democracy.

He stressed the need to address and counter disinformation, as it has the potential to distort public opinion and undermine the credibility of democratic institutions.

The speakers argued that the negative consequences of disinformation are far-reaching. By spreading false narratives and distorting facts, disinformation can erode trust in institutions and create divisions among citizens.

It is seen as a tool that can be used by those in power to manipulate public sentiment and secure their own interests.

The evidence presented by both speakers raises important questions about the state of democracy in the Philippines.

The influence of disinformation on the recent elections serves as a warning sign that steps need to be taken to protect the integrity of democratic processes. Efforts to combat disinformation and promote media literacy are crucial in order to safeguard the principles of democracy, uphold freedom of expression, and ensure that citizens are adequately informed to make informed decisions.

In conclusion, the discussion reveals a shared concern about the negative impact of disinformation on democracy in the Philippines.

The speakers, including the current president and John Mahob, emphasize the urgent need to address this issue and prevent disinformation from undermining democratic values. It is hoped that by raising awareness and taking appropriate measures, the Philippines can work towards creating a more informed and resilient democratic society.

Report

Disinformation, which can impact democratic processes, is a topic of concern. However, solid evidence is needed to support this claim. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the complex and contextual definitions of misinformation and disinformation. Disinformation has the potential to harm marginalized groups, and a UN report highlights its negative effects on gender equality.

Global governance instruments exist, but their application needs improvement as regulations and laws often suppress freedom of expression. State actors and companies have a shared obligation to provide accurate information and prevent the spread of misinformation. Synergy between existing systems is crucial, and the performance of oversight boards and governance mechanisms must be reviewed.

Concerns are raised about governments misusing guidelines and the lack of accountability. Regulatory mechanisms are needed to hold state actors accountable. User rights should not be forgotten in regions with restrictions. The local context is vital, and more global oversight boards are necessary to hold companies accountable.

Transparency reports play a key role in holding platforms accountable.

Report

Misinformation poses a significant threat to the stability of state institutions, as it undermines citizens’ confidence in these establishments. This erosion of trust has detrimental effects on democracy and should not be underestimated. Remy Milan also shares this view, considering misinformation to be a high-level danger to state institutions.

The spread of false or misleading information can have far-reaching consequences in a democracy. It confuses and disenchants citizens, weakening the democratic fabric by eroding trust between the governing and the governed. This issue is especially relevant to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which aims to ensure inclusive governance and access to justice for all.

Misinformation disrupts this goal by sowing doubt and creating divisions within society, hindering efforts to achieve peace and justice. It is worth noting that advances in technology, particularly social media platforms, have facilitated the spread of false information, making it easier for malicious actors to manipulate public opinion.

Addressing this issue requires a multi-faceted approach, including education, media literacy, regulation, and responsible platform governance. Overall, the danger of misinformation to state institutions is significant, impacting citizens’ confidence and threatening democracy itself. Remy Milan emphasizes the importance of addressing this issue for achieving SDG 16 and ensuring peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Efforts must be made to promote media literacy, regulate false information, and foster trust and critical thinking to uphold the integrity of state institutions and democratic values.