The State of Global Internet Freedom, Thirteen Years On | IGF 2023 Launch / Award Event #46

Report

Internet freedom has been experiencing a steady decline for the past 13 years, marking 2023 as another year of regression. According to the assessment conducted by Freedom House, attacks on free expression have become increasingly common, with individuals being arrested for expressing their views in 55 of the 70 countries under review.

Furthermore, governments in 41 countries are actively blocking websites that host political, social, and religious speech. These developments have contributed to a negative sentiment surrounding the state of internet freedom.

The crisis has been further exacerbated by advancements in artificial intelligence (AI).

The rise of AI has led to intrusive surveillance, censorship, and the proliferation of disinformation campaigns. Generative AI technology has been misused in 16 countries to distort information, while 22 countries have instituted requirements for companies to deploy automated systems that censor speech protected under international human rights standards.

These factors have contributed to a growing negative sentiment towards the impact of AI on internet freedom.

To address the urgent need to protect internet freedom, there is a call for the regulation of AI. The key argument is that regulation should not solely rely on companies, but rather center around human rights standards.

It is important to increase transparency and understanding of the design, use, and impact of AI systems. The positive sentiment towards this argument reflects the belief that appropriate regulation is necessary to safeguard internet freedom.

In addition to regulation, there is a push for the inclusion of civil society in the AI regulation process.

Currently, civil society is being left out in the race to regulate AI, leading to concerns about a lack of diverse perspectives and potential biases in decision-making. Emphasizing the need for involvement from global majority civil societies, this argument holds a positive sentiment.

Despite the challenges posed by AI, there is recognition that it can also contribute to bolstering internet freedom if designed and deployed safely.

AI has the potential to help individuals evade government censorship and facilitate the detection of disinformation campaigns and human rights abuses. This positive sentiment signifies the belief that AI can be harnessed as a tool to protect and enhance internet freedom.

However, it is essential to avoid overshadowing long-standing threats to internet freedom by solely focusing on the regulation of AI.

The neutral sentiment surrounding this argument highlights the need to maintain momentum in addressing broader issues related to internet freedom.

The European Union (EU) has emerged as a global leader in internet regulation. Bridging the gap between the Chinese model and the US laissez-faire approach, the EU has enacted significant legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which serves as a model for global data protection laws.

The Digital Services Act and the EU AI Act are further examples of the EU’s commitment to internet regulation, earning positive sentiment and demonstrating their efforts to protect internet freedom.

The impact of internet regulations on human rights varies depending on the rule of law standards in each country.

The sentiment surrounding this statement is neutral, emphasizing the need to consider the context in which internet regulations are implemented and their potential effects on human rights.

Governments have a crucial role in protecting internet freedom and ensuring meaningful multistakeholderism.

For instance, the Netherlands is exploring strategies that merge cyber diplomacy, digital development work, and human rights aspects to safeguard internet freedom. Programs like Safety for Voices support human rights defenders and civil society organizations through digital security measures. This positive sentiment highlights the importance of government involvement in protecting internet freedom.

Lastly, multilateral bodies such as the Freedom Online Coalition can play a vital role in reversing the decline of internet freedom.

Comprised of democratic governments committed to protecting internet freedom, the coalition serves as a platform for collaboration and advocacy. The sentiment towards this argument is neutral, acknowledging the potential impact of multilateral efforts.

In conclusion, internet freedom has been on a decline for the past 13 years, with attacks on free expression and website blocking becoming more prevalent.

AI advancements have intensified the crisis by enabling surveillance, censorship, and disinformation campaigns. To protect internet freedom, there is a need to regulate AI, involve civil society in the decision-making process, and ensure good governance centered on human rights standards.

However, AI also has the potential to enhance internet freedom if used responsibly. The EU has been at the forefront of internet regulation, but the impact of regulations on human rights varies across countries. Governments play a crucial role in protecting internet freedom, and multilateral bodies can assist in reversing the decline.

Overall, it is essential to navigate the complexities of internet freedom and strike a balance between regulation and broader challenges.

Report

During the discussion, one of the main points highlighted was the confusion surrounding the support mechanisms for online activists who are under threat. The speaker mentioned their ability to provide support for these activists, but there seems to be a lack of clarity on the specific services offered in different jurisdictions.

To address this, an audience member sought clarification on the support services available in various legal contexts.

Allie Funk, who leads a team of seven people, stressed the importance of collective work and making tough decisions. This indicates that her team understands the challenges and complexities involved in supporting online activists who face threats.

It shows their dedication to their work and the need for collaboration in achieving their goals. The audience showed gratitude towards Allie Funk for her closing remarks, indicating that her insights and perspective were valued.

One noteworthy observation from the discussion is the mention of SDG 16, which focuses on peace, justice, and strong institutions.

This indicates the connection between the support for online activists and the broader goals of promoting justice and ensuring the protection of human rights. The speaker’s ability to provide support aligns with the goals of SDG 16.

Overall, the discussion shed light on the confusion surrounding support mechanisms for threatened online activists.

It emphasized the importance of collaborative efforts, tough decision-making, and acknowledging the hard work of those involved in supporting these activists. The audience’s gratitude towards Allie Funk indicates the impact of her closing remarks and the appreciation for her insights.

Moving forward, it is crucial to address the confusion surrounding support services and ensure a clear understanding of the resources available for online activists in different jurisdictions.

Report

Southeast Asia is currently facing significant challenges due to the presence of authoritarian regimes that employ cyber laws to target individuals who express dissenting views or defend human rights. These regimes often exploit the concept of national security as a pretext for suppressing freedom of speech and violating human rights.

For instance, in several ASEAN countries, such as Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Myanmar, there are concerns about the lack of freedom, as highlighted by the Freedom of the Net report. In Thailand, the situation is particularly severe, with a human rights lawyer, Arnon, facing the possibility of 210 years in jail for advocating for reforms within the monarchy.

Another concerning development in Southeast Asia is the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) for surveillance and content moderation by governments in the region.

These practices have resulted in privacy violations and infringements on individual freedoms. Governments are increasingly regulating tech companies to ensure the enforcement of their laws. Notably, the Thai government has passed a decree obligating tech companies to remove content deemed a threat to national security within 24 hours.

Additionally, AI has been misused for facial recognition surveillance, raising concerns about privacy and potential abuse of power.

Emilie Pradichit advocates for rights-respecting regulatory frameworks and holds tech giants accountable for the misuse of their platforms. She calls for the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines for multinational tech companies.

Pradichit suggests that tech giants should be held criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by their platforms. She points to the Rohingya crisis and the use of platforms like Facebook to propagate hate speech against the Rohingya people to illustrate the urgency of her arguments.

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), which is primarily known among digital rights and online freedom groups based in Washington DC, lacks visibility and accessibility, especially among people from non-Western countries.

To amplify its impact, FOC must work towards increasing awareness and engagement beyond its traditional base. This would involve conducting stakeholder engagements not only in Washington DC but also in other regions. Unfortunately, visa restrictions often hinder engagement with the global majority, making it difficult for individuals from these regions to travel to Europe or the United States.

Furthermore, FOC’s role becomes particularly crucial in light of the many elections scheduled worldwide for 2024.

Civil society groups anticipate FOC to release statements targeting authoritarian governments and the private sector to safeguard democratic processes and protect human rights.

To effectively combat authoritarian governments online, FOC should invest in civil society and provide financial support to organizations fighting against digital dictatorship.

Financial constraints often limit the abilities of these groups to engage in advocacy and carry out essential work.

Aside from these specific challenges, there are concerns about the local Data Protection Act in Thailand. While the government claims to have developed the Act by taking inspiration from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, there are issues regarding effective oversight and remedy.

The Act includes government-led exemptions that allow violations of data under the guise of national security.

Another aspect that deserves attention is the lack of dialogue and understanding of the local context in global exchanges. It is crucial for international diplomats and institutions to have a comprehensive understanding of the practices followed in each country to foster more effective collaborations and mutual understanding.

The overarching theme throughout these discussions is the importance of respecting and implementing international human rights law.

Emilie Pradichit insists that civil society does not oppose international human rights law but rather desires governments to adhere to these principles. Concerns are raised about the ease with which governments deceive international institutions by creating an appearance of compliance with international standards.

In conclusion, Southeast Asia faces numerous challenges related to authoritarianism, cyber laws, and the misuse of AI.

To address these issues, there is a need for greater awareness and engagement with organizations like the Freedom Online Coalition. Additionally, it is crucial to hold tech giants accountable, invest in civil society, strengthen data protection laws, foster meaningful dialogue, and promote the implementation of international human rights standards.

These efforts are essential for safeguarding human rights, protecting privacy, and upholding democratic processes in the region.

Report

The European Union (EU) has implemented regulatory laws, including the Digital Services Act (DSA), Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, and Digital Markets Act (DMA), through extensive multi-stakeholder engagement. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has also been rolled out by some companies across all countries.

These regulatory laws, such as the DSA, AI Act, and DMA, have received positive sentiment for maintaining a balance between strong regulation and protection of human rights. They include transparency clauses and an appeal process for comments removed.

The Netherlands is committed to promoting the principles of the DSA, AI Act, and DMA.

They have released an English translation of the Dutch International Cyber Strategy, urging other countries to adopt these EU regulations and implement associated human rights and democratic clauses. The Netherlands focuses on inclusive internet governance, integrating cyber diplomacy, digital development, and human rights work.

In addition, the Netherlands incorporates the multi-stakeholder model into internet governance, emphasizing digital security, governance principles, and digitalization in all their initiatives.

They prioritize civil society engagement, running programs like the ‘Safety for Voices’ program to include diverse perspectives in governance decisions.

The Netherlands also supports human rights defenders and digital defenders at risk through initiatives like the Digital Defenders Partnership.

They provide support in legal aid, physical protection, digital security, and psychological well-being. Transparency is a key component of the Netherlands’ global governance approach, advocating for the inclusion of global majority countries and multi-stakeholder involvement to protect human rights.

In summary, the EU’s regulatory laws, such as the DSA, AI Act, and DMA, strike a balance between strong regulation and protection of human rights.

The Netherlands actively promotes these laws, advocating for their adoption and implementation of associated human rights and democratic clauses. They prioritize inclusive internet governance, incorporating cybersecurity, digital development, and human rights work. The Netherlands also supports civil society engagement, human rights defenders, and emphasizes transparency in global governance to protect human rights.

Report

Jit attended a United Nations conference with the intention of obtaining a deeper understanding of the global digital compact and seeking various perspectives on its merits. Jit approached the topic with a neutral stance, indicating an open mind and a desire to gain further insights.

Specifically, Jit was interested in exploring the potential advantages and disadvantages of the compact.

During the conference, Jit actively participated in the discussion and initiated the topic of the global digital compact. This demonstrated Jit’s eagerness to engage with others and foster a robust conversation.

The conference setting provided an ideal platform for an informed and constructive dialogue on the subject.

The focus of the conversation revolved around the impacts that the global digital compact could have on industry, innovation, and infrastructure, as outlined in the 9th Sustainable Development Goal.

This goal aims to promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth by fostering technological advancements and improving infrastructure.

Jit’s neutral stance allowed for an unbiased examination of the global digital compact. By requesting insights on both the positive and negative aspects, Jit sought to gain a well-rounded understanding of its potential impact.

This approach reflected Jit’s commitment to considering all perspectives before forming an opinion.

While the exact details of the arguments and evidence presented during the discussion are not disclosed, it can be inferred that the conference attendees shared their specific viewpoints and provided relevant information to support their claims.

By facilitating an exchange of ideas and opinions, the conference allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the global digital compact.

In conclusion, Jit’s attendance at the UN conference on the global digital compact offered valuable insights into the topic.

By adopting a neutral stance and actively soliciting perspectives, Jit exhibited a genuine curiosity and a commitment to exploring both the benefits and drawbacks of the compact. The conference setting enabled an informed and productive discussion centered around the impact of the compact on industry, innovation, and infrastructure, in line with SDG 9.

Report

During stakeholder consultations conducted by Lisa, a representative of USAID, in various countries, a common concern emerged: dissatisfaction with existing international models of digital regulation. This sentiment has triggered a demand for a different approach, a third-way framework for digital rights that goes beyond the risk-based European model, the laissez-faire American model, and the state-based model adopted in China.

Stakeholders, particularly in countries that make up the global majority, expressed a desire for a digital regulation framework tailored to their specific needs and circumstances.

They see the necessity of finding a middle ground to address the challenges faced by their nations.

The implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and similar regulations, specifically in countries with different income levels and limited oversight capacity, has been perceived as onerous.

This concern stems from the difficulties these countries face in fully implementing and complying with such regulations. Additionally, there is a noticeable lack of political will and politicization of some oversight bodies, further complicating the effective execution of digital regulations.

In light of these observations, there is a need for a broader conversation on what human rights protections and safeguards should look like in different contexts.

Instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all approach, there should be an exploration of context-specific digital human rights protection and safeguards. This approach acknowledges the diversity of countries and their varying levels of development, eliminating the potential burden of regulations that may not align with their specific needs and capacities.

Overall, Lisa’s consultations highlight the dissatisfaction with current international models of digital regulation and the need for a third-way approach that considers the unique circumstances of each country.

The difficulties faced in implementing GDPR and similar regulations also call for a more nuanced and flexible approach to digital rights. Engaging in a broader conversation on context-specific human rights protections and safeguards allows stakeholders to work towards a digital regulation framework that respects the rights of individuals while accommodating the realities of different countries.

Report

Over the past decade, the field of internet freedom has witnessed significant changes and developments. Previously, topics like cybersecurity were widely perceived as unimportant and lacked understanding. However, there has been a notable shift in recent years, with cybersecurity garnering more attention and recognition.

This growing awareness can be attributed to increased public understanding and recognition of the importance of internet freedom and digital rights.

The advancement of technology, particularly in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain, has brought about both new opportunities and challenges.

While these advancements have pushed the boundaries of safety and security, they have also raised concerns about potential threats. The risks and challenges associated with AI and blockchain technologies are a cause for concern, reinforcing the need for robust regulation and safety measures.

In addition, a troubling trend of digital authoritarianism has emerged, characterized by internet shutdowns, content censorship, and the unregulated use of surveillance technology.

Instances of internet shutdowns have increased globally, leading to a limitation of free expression and access to information. Moreover, the lack of effective regulation of private tech companies and tech giants has further exacerbated these issues. The use of mass biometric surveillance systems without proper legal safeguards is also on the rise, posing a threat to privacy and civil liberties.

To address these challenges, it is crucial to foster continued collaboration and dialogue.

Concrete initiatives and partnerships, rather than just talk, are needed to tackle the growing threats to internet freedom. By engaging stakeholders from various sectors, progress can be made in tackling the complex issues surrounding internet freedom and digital rights.

Furthermore, the engagement of civil society in initiatives such as the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) is of utmost importance.

The involvement of civil society can provide valuable insights and perspectives in shaping policies and decision-making processes. Olga Kyryliuk, who leads an influential internet freedom project, stresses the need for better civil society engagement within the FOC. This can be achieved through periodic consultations on specific thematic issues, allowing for an open exchange of ideas and feedback.

The importance of regional and national communities cannot be overlooked in promoting internet freedom.

The FOC should prioritize working with these communities and foster connections and partnerships between them. By bridging the gap between governmental representatives and regional communities, the FOC can play a pragmatic role in facilitating dialogue and collaboration.

However, the current state of the global digital compact and the Freedom Online Coalition calls for improvement.

Civil society feels frustrated due to a lack of clarity and engagement opportunities. This restricts the meaningful participation of implementing partners in shaping policies and decision-making processes. It is crucial to establish clear venues and mechanisms that allow for effective engagement and collaboration.

Finally, it is important to exercise caution when adopting regulations from other regions, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

While these regulations may be seen as ideal, they should not be adopted without proper understanding and adaptation. Countries that directly implement GDPR as their national law have faced challenges during the enforcement phase. Therefore, dialogue and conversation with national legislators, as well as capacity building, are essential for the successful adoption and implementation of such regulations.

In conclusion, the past decade has witnessed significant changes in the field of internet freedom.

While there has been progress in raising awareness and understanding, challenges remain in ensuring the safety and security of the digital space. Collaboration, engagement of civil society, and the development of concrete initiatives are crucial in addressing these challenges and protecting internet freedom and digital rights.

Report

Oliver expresses concern over the lack of transparency displayed by the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) in their dealings with UNESCO guidelines. He argues that the FOC needs to be more open and transparent about their actions, implying that they may not be acting in the best interests of promoting freedom of expression and human rights in the digital space.

Furthermore, Oliver raises an additional concern about UNESCO’s guidelines, specifically focusing on the potential promotion of authoritarianism in the digital sphere.

This highlights his worry that these guidelines may inadvertently facilitate the rise of oppressive regimes online. Both Oliver and the speaker share a negative sentiment towards these issues.

However, the summary lacks supporting evidence or specific examples to substantiate these concerns.

Without further supporting facts or arguments, it is difficult to fully understand the basis for these apprehensions. Including additional evidence or examples would strengthen the arguments made by both Oliver and the speaker.

In conclusion, Oliver calls for increased transparency from the FOC regarding their dealings with UNESCO guidelines.

He suggests that the FOC’s actions should be more transparent and urges them to openly share information. Additionally, Oliver expresses worry about UNESCO’s guidelines potentially promoting authoritarianism in the digital space. These concerns highlight the need for careful consideration and vigilance in protecting freedom of expression and human rights online.