Safeguarding the free flow of information amidst conflict | IGF 2023 WS #386

Report

An analysis conducted by Access Now reveals that prevailing trends in content governance are endangering freedom of expression and other fundamental rights. Several issues have been identified in relation to parties involved in conflicts, highlighting the dangers faced by these rights.

During times of crisis, content governance has been exploited in various ways, breaching international humanitarian law.

One concerning practice is the intentional spread of disinformation as a warfare tactic. Additionally, platforms have been used for population movement, and sharing content depicting prisoners of war illegally has been observed. These actions not only violate international laws but also contribute to the erosion of freedoms.

While internet restrictions exist in conflict zones, it is interesting to note that Russia maintains significant accessibility to various platforms.

Many Ukrainian media and telegram channels continue to be effectively available in Russia. Furthermore, despite restrictions, information can still flow through various social media and messaging platforms. This highlights the complexity of internet restrictions and the need for further examination.

The analysis also underlines the need for international laws addressing informational warfare.

Both Russia and Ukraine face internet warfare, yet there is a lack of legal frameworks specifically designed to address this issue. The absence of such laws creates a significant gap in addressing and countering the threats posed by disinformation campaigns and cybersecurity breaches.

Russia particularly faces numerous cybersecurity threats and disinformation campaigns, primarily originating from Ukraine.

Instances of Russian citizens’ personal data being leaked and published online have been identified, along with the identification of over 3,000 disinformation narratives against Russia. These threats pose challenges to the integrity and security of information in the country.

Social media platforms’ over-enforcement is flagged as a major problem for media and journalists, with many legitimate news sources having their accounts suspended or restricted.

This issue is particularly prevalent in cases involving conflict settings, such as Palestine and Afghanistan, where the presence of dangerous organizations contributes to heightened enforcement measures.

The complexity of platform rules is highlighted as a concern in conflict settings.

In such situations, rules can be confusing and easily violated, with typical infractions including the posting of images depicting dead bodies. This observation sheds light on the challenges faced by content creators and users as they navigate restrictive guidelines during conflicts.

Addressing misinformation requires the implementation of upstream solutions, as highlighted by Maria Risa.

This approach focuses on addressing misinformation at its root causes, rather than solely addressing its dissemination. By focusing on upstream solutions, it is possible to create more effective strategies to combat misinformation and its harmful effects.

The analysis raises questions about the design of platforms and the role of algorithms and business models in managing information.

It suggests the need to reconsider and possibly redesign these aspects to ensure fairness, accuracy, and accountability in content dissemination. This observation emphasizes the ongoing need for innovation and improvement within the digital landscape.

BSR, a leading global organization, provides a toolkit for companies on how to conduct enhanced human rights due diligence in conflict settings.

This initiative aims to promote the respect and protection of human rights, even in challenging circumstances. The toolkit, developed in collaboration with Just Peace Labs, offers detailed guidance, making it an invaluable resource for responsible business practices.

Furthermore, the analysis advocates for human-centered approaches in digital transformation, particularly in conflict zones.

Stakeholder consultation can be challenging in war zones, highlighting the importance of ensuring that the interests and needs of all individuals are considered and that no one is left behind in the process.

There is a noted lack of focus on countries like Afghanistan and Sudan in discussions surrounding these issues.

This observation emphasizes the need to broaden the scope of discourse and pay equal attention to conflicts and human rights violations occurring in these regions.

Global media platforms play a substantial role in shaping public opinion, primarily through their recommendation algorithms.

However, concerns arise regarding the impartiality and bias of these algorithms. The analysis reveals that global media platforms often alter their recommendation algorithms to favor one side in informational wars, despite presenting themselves as neutral. This highlights the potential influence and manipulation of public opinion through these platforms.

Given the significance of global media platforms, the analysis argues that global society should exert more pressure on these entities.

Increased accountability and transparency are necessary to ensure that these platforms operate in an unbiased and fair manner, considering the critical role they play in shaping public discourse.

In conclusion, the prevailing trends in content governance pose a threat to freedom of expression and fundamental rights.

Exploitation of content governance during times of crisis, the need for international laws addressing informational warfare, and the over-enforcement by social media platforms are among the challenges highlighted in the analysis. The complexity of internet restrictions and the design of platforms also warrant further consideration.

Additionally, the importance of upstream solutions, human-centered approaches, and the inclusion of marginalized regions in discussions emerge as key insights. Efforts towards increasing platform accountability and transparency are crucial to safeguarding a fair and unbiased digital landscape.

Report

The analysis delves into the challenges surrounding the free flow of information during conflicts. It starts by highlighting the digital threats that journalists and human rights defenders face in such situations. These threats include mass surveillance, content blocking, internet shutdowns, and other forms of coercion aimed at hindering the dissemination of information.

The sentiment towards these challenges is negative, as they pose a significant threat to the values of freedom of expression and access to information.

Another significant aspect explored in the analysis is the role of tech companies in conflicts.

Digital companies have become increasingly important actors in these situations, and the analysis argues that they have a responsibility to develop strategies to avoid involvement in human rights violations. This neutral stance reflects the need to address the complex ethical dilemmas faced by tech companies, balancing their business interests while safeguarding human rights.

The analysis also discusses the reliance of civilians on information communication technologies (ICT) during conflicts.

Civilians often use ICT to ensure their safety, gain information on conflict conditions, locate areas of fighting, and communicate with their loved ones. This neutral sentiment highlights the significance of ICT in providing vital communication channels and access to information for affected civilians.

The analysis further sheds light on the attempts made by the army and political parties to control the narrative and shape the discourse during conflicts.

Conflict parties often aim to manipulate information and control the narrative for various reasons. This negative sentiment highlights the detrimental impact of information control on the public’s understanding of conflicts and the potential for shaping biased opinions.

A key observation from the analysis is the necessity of a multi-stakeholder approach in conflict contexts.

It stresses the importance of different actors, such as ICT companies, content moderators, and organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), working collaboratively to tackle the diverse threats to information flow. This positive sentiment reflects the recognition that no single entity can address the complexities of information challenges during conflicts alone.

Moreover, the analysis calls for identifying gaps in understanding and addressing the issues related to information flow during conflicts.

This neutral sentiment highlights the need for more clarity and targeted efforts to bridge these gaps. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of comprehensively addressing the challenges and harnessing the potential of information communication technologies to ensure the free flow of information during conflicts.

In conclusion, the analysis explores the various challenges and dynamics surrounding the free flow of information during conflicts.

It highlights digital threats, the role of tech companies, civilian reliance on ICT, information control by conflict parties, the necessity of a multi-stakeholder approach, and the need for identifying gaps for clarity. With this comprehensive understanding, stakeholders can work towards developing strategies and policies that uphold the values of information access and freedom of expression in conflict situations.

Report

Sudan is currently embroiled in a civil war between two allied forces that began in 2013. However, the conflict has been riddled with challenges and disagreements, particularly regarding security agreements and the unification of the armies in Sudan. These disagreements resulted in the conflict’s end on April 15th.

Unfortunately, the sentiment surrounding this war is negative.

Information control has played a significant role in the conflict, with internet disruptions and the spread of misinformation being notable events. Internet shutdowns during exams and civil unrest have been used by authorities to manipulate public opinion.

The sentiment towards these events is negative.

Another issue in the conflict is the misuse of social media platforms, which have been exploited by both sides to spread their own narratives and manipulate public opinion. This misuse has prompted concerns about information imbalance and led platforms like META to take down accounts associated with the Rapid Support Forces.

The sentiment towards this misuse is negative.

The RSF (Sudanese Armed Forces) and the Arab Support Forces have been criticized for their harmful practices towards civilians and the nation’s infrastructure. Privacy violation cases, including the use of spyware, have been reported.

The RSF imported the predator spyware of Intellexa, while the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) imported the remote control system of the Italian company hacking team in 2012. The sentiment towards these privacy violations is negative.

The conflict has also had a significant impact on the ICT (Information and Communication Technology) sector in Sudan.

Power outages have impaired network stability and e-banking services, forcing ICT companies to rely on uninterruptible power supply systems and generators. The sentiment towards this situation is negative.

On a positive note, telecom workers have been recognized as crucial for maintaining access to information infrastructure during conflicts.

It is argued that they should be given extraordinary protection, similar to doctors and journalists, due to their vital role in ensuring the continuous flow of information. The sentiment towards this proposal is positive.

In conclusion, Sudan’s civil war has had far-reaching consequences, impacting security agreements, information control, privacy rights, the ICT sector, and the protection of key players in the information infrastructure.

Efforts to address these challenges and protect these key players are essential for promoting peaceful resolutions and mitigating the impact of future conflicts.

Report

Digital threats and misinformation have a significant negative impact on civilians residing in conflict zones. The dissemination of harmful information can exacerbate pre-existing social tensions and grievances, leading to an increase in violence and violations of humanitarian law. Furthermore, the spread of misinformation can cause distress and a psychological burden among individuals living in conflict-affected areas.

This hampers their ability to access potentially life-saving information during emergencies. The distortion of facts and the influence of beliefs and behaviours as a consequence of the dissemination of harmful information also contribute to raising tensions in conflict zones.

One concerning aspect is the blurred line between civilian and military targets in the context of digital conflicts.

Civilians and civilian infrastructure are increasingly becoming targets of digital attacks. With the growing emphasis on shared digital infrastructure, there is an increased risk of civilian infrastructure being targeted. This blurring of lines undermines the principle of distinction between civilians and military objectives, which is a critical pillar of international humanitarian law.

Moreover, digital threats pose a threat to public trust in humanitarian organizations.

Cyber operations, data breaches, and information campaigns not only damage public trust but also hinder the ability of humanitarian aid organizations to provide life-saving services. This erosion of trust compromises their efforts to assist and support individuals in need.

To address these challenges, it is crucial for affected communities to build resilience against harmful information and increase awareness of the potential risks and consequences in the cyber domain.

Building resilience requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including civil society and companies. Information and communication technology (ICT) companies, in particular, should be mindful of the legal consequences surrounding their role and actions in the cyber domain. It is important that self-imposed restrictions or sanctions do not impede the flow of essential services to the civilian population.

In addition to community resilience and awareness-building efforts, policy enforcement within business models is crucial.

Upstream thinking in the business model can help reinforce policies aimed at countering digital threats and misinformation. However, the discussion around policy enforcement in business models is challenging. It requires expertise and a feedback loop with tech companies to find effective and efficient solutions.

In conclusion, digital threats and misinformation have dire consequences for civilians in conflict zones.

The dissemination of harmful information exacerbates social tensions and violence, while digital attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure blur the line between military and civilian targets. These threats also undermine public trust in humanitarian organizations and hinder the provision of life-saving services.

To tackle these challenges, it is essential to build community resilience, increase awareness, and enforce policies within business models. Collaboration between stakeholders and tech companies is key to addressing these complex issues and safeguarding the well-being of individuals in conflict zones.

Report

In conflict zones, technology companies face a myriad of risks and must carefully balance the interests of multiple stakeholders. These companies play a critical role in providing essential information and functions but can also unintentionally facilitate violence and spread false information.

One major challenge is responding to government demands, such as granting access to user information, conducting surveillance, or shutting down networks. These demands can come from both sides of the conflict and may lack clarity or have excessively broad scope.

Dealing with government demands during peace is limited in conflict situations due to associated risks.

Companies can request clarity on demand legality, respond minimally or partially, challenge the demands, or disclose them publicly. However, in conflict settings, these actions may pose significant risks.

To navigate these challenges, technology companies can implement various measures.

These include establishing risk management frameworks, clear escalation procedures, and consistent decision reviews. By doing so, companies can better manage risks of operating in conflict zones. Collaboration with other organizations in coordinating responses in conflict regions and consulting with experts to understand potential implications of decisions can also help.

Respecting international humanitarian law is a key principle of corporate responsibility in conflict situations.

Companies are expected to respect human rights and require guidance on respecting international humanitarian laws when conducting business in conflict-affected areas. Enhanced due diligence, considering heightened risks and negative human rights impacts, is recommended by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Further articulation is needed on what international humanitarian law means for technology companies, indicating further guidance is needed in this area.

To address design issues in platforms, companies should consider building the capacity to apply a conflict lens during product development, better identifying and resolving issues in conflict zones.

Addressing information topics requires considering both upstream and downstream solutions.

This comprehensive approach takes into account the flow of information from sources (upstream) to distribution and consumption (downstream).

Overall, technology companies operating in conflict zones face unique challenges and must navigate complex risks. Implementing effective risk management frameworks, respecting international humanitarian law, and incorporating a conflict lens into product development can better address the multifaceted issues they encounter.

Further guidance is needed in certain areas to ensure operations in conflict zones align with established principles and standards.

Report

During the armed conflicts in Ukraine, there have been severe restrictions on free speech and the free flow of information. Since the war began in 2014, the country has witnessed a decline in the protection of free speech and access to information.

This has resulted in mass surveillance, content blocking, Internet shutdowns, and sophisticated manipulation of information.

Digital security concerns have also arisen during these conflicts. Attacks on media outlets and journalists largely originate from Russia, with DDoS attacks on websites disrupting connectivity.

Coordinated disinformation campaigns on social media and messaging platforms further exacerbate the situation, influencing public opinion and spreading false narratives.

One key issue highlighted is the control over narratives and the free flow of information during armed conflicts.

The ability to shape public opinion becomes a powerful tool in these circumstances, with the potential to influence the course of the conflict and its outcomes. It is crucial to address this issue by formulating an exit strategy that lifts restrictions from the outset of the armed conflict.

This strategy should consider the vulnerability of post-war societies to malicious narratives and work towards reestablishing human rights that were restricted during the conflict.

Another significant concern is the gap in international law regarding the handling of information manipulation during peace and conflict.

Current legal frameworks do not adequately address the issue, leaving room for exploitation and the spread of disinformation that incites aggression and hatred.

There have also been attempts to shift the focus away from the harm inflicted upon civilians and the suppression of opposition during these conflicts.

These attempts to change the narrative divert attention from the atrocities committed and the need to protect the rights and safety of civilians.

The extensive support for the invasion among the Russian community is a cause for concern.

According to data from Meduza, a significant portion of Russian citizens, ranging from 70% to 80%, support the invasion. This highlights the challenge of countering misinformation and disinformation within Russia and addressing the narratives that drive aggression and illegal activities.

The role of ICT companies in moderating harmful content in conflict settings is crucial.

These companies need assistance, both globally and locally, to effectively combat harmful information. This includes distinguishing between harmful information and illegal content, as well as understanding the localized contexts in which they operate. Local partners can provide valuable insights into regional issues, such as identifying and addressing local slur words and cultural sensitivities.

However, it is important to approach the role of tech giants with caution, avoiding a strategy of blaming and shaming.

Over-censorship and driving people to unmoderated spaces can be unintended consequences of such an approach. Instead, a collaborative approach that involves ICT companies, multi-stakeholder engagement, and responsible corporate practices is necessary to foster a safer online environment.

In conclusion, the armed conflicts in Ukraine have led to significant restrictions on free speech and the free flow of information.

Digital security concerns, information manipulation, and the spread of disinformation within Russia pose additional challenges. It is crucial to adopt an exit strategy that lifts restrictions and safeguards vulnerable post-war societies from malicious narratives. Efforts should also be made to address gaps in international law regarding the handling of information manipulation.

The support for the invasion among the Russian community and attempts to divert attention from civilian harm and opposition suppression further complicate the situation. ICT companies play a crucial role in moderating harmful content, and a collaborative approach is necessary to strike a balance between curbing misinformation and ensuring freedom of expression.