Digital democracy and future realities | IGF 2023 WS #476

Report

The analysis explores various arguments concerning the current state of the internet and its ability to fulfil public service outcomes. One viewpoint asserts that the existing internet standards are inadequate, primarily due to their domination by commercial interests. It is argued that this has hindered the delivery of public service outcomes.

Efforts for intervention and regulation are advocated to address this issue effectively.

Another argument suggests that Internet governance needs to be inclusive and representative of a wider variety of communities. Traditionally excluded groups should have a voice in shaping the internet to create a fair digital public sphere.

Inclusion and active participation from these communities are considered crucial for better internet governance.

The analysis further highlights the need to reevaluate and reimagine the internet to enhance democracy and protect individuals from surveillance. The current internet structure is questioned as potentially unsuitable for these purposes.

A network that safeguards individuals’ privacy from surveillance is deemed necessary.

The limitations of existing protocols are seen as a hindrance to innovation in the design of modern social networks. The emergence of similar platforms that lack innovation and the perceived restrictions of current protocols provide evidence to support this argument.

However, the introduction of alternative protocols such as ActivityPub offers the potential for innovation in online social spaces and presents a different lens for constructing such spaces.

Responsibility for delivering various aspects of the public interest internet is viewed as falling on all stakeholders.

It is emphasised that these stakeholders should contribute to the public service internet in accordance with its overall interests. This collective approach is crucial to ensure the internet effectively serves the public interest.

Funding of public infrastructure, including the internet, is another debated topic.

The argument is made that society should bear the cost of public infrastructure rather than relying on private entities or philanthropy. State funding is considered an acceptable option if it avoids exerting control over content. However, concerns are raised regarding the risk of state-controlled media associated with government funding.

The analysis also calls for a different approach to the internet model.

The current model, based on decisions made by a select group of individuals predominantly from North America and Europe, is criticised for its failure to address current challenges effectively. The importance of co-creation and community engagement is emphasised as a means to reshape the internet model and build a more sustainable digital ecosystem.

In conclusion, the analysis presents a range of arguments that highlight the inadequacies of the current internet model in delivering public service outcomes.

The influence of commercial interests, limitations of existing protocols, and the need for inclusivity, democracy, and community engagement are all key factors that require attention. Ultimately, a collective effort is necessary to create an internet that effectively serves the public interest.

Report

The analysis reveals various important aspects concerning internet governance and cultural diversity. One of the key points highlighted is the pressing need for diverse cultural content on the internet, with a specific focus on meeting the needs of indigenous communities.

It is pointed out that a significant portion of the current internet content does not relate to indigenous communities. This is particularly relevant in Mexico, which is the 11th country with the most multicultural communities. Efforts should be made to ensure that indigenous cultures and perspectives are represented and celebrated through diverse online content, particularly as it relates to sustainable cities and communities.

Additionally, the analysis underscores the importance of establishing a governance system that fosters balanced and inclusive participation of all stakeholders.

This includes promoting transparency, accountability, and stakeholder inclusion in decision-making processes related to internet governance. To this end, UNESCO has been running a consultation since September 2022 to develop guidelines for regulating digital platforms. These guidelines aim to ensure that governance systems are transparent, accountable, and promote diverse cultural content.

This is important for achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the need for active youth participation in internet governance discussions. It is noted that children aged 13 to 18 expressed their desire to participate in governance discussions during the consultations.

Recognizing that the youth are the most important users of the internet, their active involvement is required to reduce inequalities and promote peace, justice, and strong institutions.

In terms of implementation and evaluation processes of internet regulation, the analysis emphasizes the importance of involving internet stakeholders.

It is observed that civil society participates in advocacy but does not often participate in implementation and evaluation processes. Evaluation is crucial for judging the effectiveness of the governance system. Promoting stakeholder involvement is vital for achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Moreover, the analysis highlights the positive role that community networks in Mexico, Central America, and Latin America play in promoting indigenous expression and cultural content online.

These networks were created in partnership with UNESCO and serve as an example of promoting indigenous expression and cultural diversity. This is related to industry, innovation, infrastructure and peace, justice, and strong institutions.

The analysis also addresses the issue of funding public interest technology.

It emphasizes that responsibility for funding public interest technology lies with all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, and users. This collaborative effort is necessary for achieving partnerships for the goals.

Another important aspect brought up in the analysis is the need for a balance of responsibilities and contributions from all involved parties to achieve sustainability.

This involves governments, the private sector, and users working together to achieve common goals. This is essential for achieving partnerships for the goals.

The analysis also emphasizes the importance of the consultation process for guidelines and regulations. It notes that building, maintaining, and resisting during this process is crucial.

This indicates the significance of active engagement and continuous involvement in shaping internet governance policies. This is closely tied to achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions, as well as partnerships for the goals.

Additionally, the analysis underscores the importance of identifying the roles of different stakeholders in the regulatory process.

It is highlighted that this aspect received the least response during the consultation. Involvement is necessary even after regulation happens. This is tied to achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions, as well as partnerships for the goals.

Furthermore, the analysis notes that while good laws and standards are essential, they can be misused in authoritarian regimes.

This raises concerns about the potential misuse of laws in authoritarian regimes. This is especially relevant for achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions.

In conclusion, the analysis provides valuable insights into the need for diverse cultural content on the internet, the establishment of inclusive governance systems, the importance of youth participation, stakeholder involvement in implementation and evaluation processes, the role of community networks in promoting cultural diversity, the responsibility for funding public interest technology, the balance of responsibilities for sustainability, the significance of the consultation process, and the role of civil society in fighting against misuse of laws.

These findings shed light on the complex nature of internet governance and the importance of fostering cultural diversity in the online world. These aspects are tied to achieving quality education, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, peace, justice, and strong institutions, industry, innovation, and infrastructure, and partnerships for the goals.

Report

The analysis explores various aspects of public interest internet and its societal impact. It highlights the need to understand the funding mechanisms for public interest internet, particularly in relation to the Wikimedia Foundation. Ziske, who represents the Wikimedia Foundation, has requested information on funding in this area, indicating a growing interest in understanding the financial aspects of public interest internet.

Another perspective is sought from Bill, who has a background in research and development (R&D).

This aims to gain insights into public interest internet from someone with expertise in innovation and infrastructure. Including Bill’s viewpoint enhances the analysis and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

The analysis also discusses the role of Facebook in providing internet access, especially in many global majority countries.

It is noted that Facebook often offers free internet services, positioning itself as the primary gateway to the internet in these regions. However, concerns are raised about the monopoly Facebook has over internet access, which may result in limited choices and potential inequalities in accessing the internet.

Furthermore, the analysis examines the global impact of the internet, highlighting its positive and negative aspects.

While the internet has facilitated globalization and connected people worldwide, it has also centralized control and decision-making processes. This centralization undermines the democratic nature of the internet.

A significant issue identified in the analysis is the digital divide, particularly affecting young men and women in grassroots communities.

Limited access to necessary infrastructure and content creates a substantial barrier to internet usage for these individuals. Additionally, language and content act as obstacles in bridging this divide.

The analysis also delves into how internet usage challenges social norms, particularly for young women.

In many societies, using the internet is stigmatized as it is seen as a threat to established norms. This negative perception hinders women’s empowerment and their participation in the digital space.

Acknowledging the importance of digital literacy, the analysis emphasizes the need to increase digital skills among young people and women.

It includes not only basic technological skills but also the ability to generate content and engage in internet activism. Promoting digital literacy can contribute to reducing inequalities and fostering greater gender equality.

Lastly, the argument is made for democratizing access to the internet.

The presence of the digital divide within societies and the centralization of control over the internet necessitate equal opportunities for participation and engagement. Democratizing access ensures a more inclusive and equitable digital society.

In conclusion, this analysis sheds light on various issues surrounding public interest internet.

It emphasizes the importance of understanding funding mechanisms, gaining diverse perspectives, and addressing inequalities such as the digital divide. Furthermore, it underscores the significance of digital literacy and the need to democratize access to ensure equal opportunities for all.

Report

The internet is widely seen as a public good that offers numerous benefits. It empowers communities and provides valuable tools for communication, information sharing, and access to resources. Examples of public goods on the internet include Indymedia, a platform for citizen journalism and protest news, and Wikipedia.

These platforms serve as valuable sources of information and rely on the contributions of individuals to create and share knowledge.

However, there is a concern that corporations monopolise user experiences on the internet and engage in anti-competitive practices.

While community-driven innovation still thrives alongside corporate platforms, it can be challenging to compete with large corporations that prioritise their own interests. Communities continue to build their own tools and generate content, but they face difficulties in gaining a strong foothold against corporate dominance.

Furthermore, efforts to create a public good internet are often not inclusive.

The individuals involved in the hacking culture, which contributes to developing a public good internet, tend to be those with free time or jobs that align with this pursuit. This exclusion of people who lack the time or access to technology creates a barrier to participation and limits the diversity of voices and perspectives in shaping the internet.

To sustain a public good internet, substantial investment is necessary.

Public good internet initiatives, being not-for-profit, struggle to maintain themselves without financial support. These initiatives often rely on “bootstrapping” and grow gradually once established. Without sufficient investment, the potential of the public good internet to thrive in many areas is limited.

On a positive note, communities that build public good internet technology tend to be self-perpetuating.

By fostering strong community involvement, these initiatives can continue to expand and grow, gaining support and participation from individuals who understand and appreciate the importance of a public good internet.

However, the existence of public good internet is not guaranteed without strong nearby communities.

Building a public good internet requires the dedication and collaboration of individuals in a specific locality. Without this local support, it is difficult to establish and sustain a public good internet that truly benefits the communities in the area.

Public interest work on the internet does not necessarily have to be for-profit to be sustainable.

There are alternative ways of generating revenue, such as contextual advertising, that can be profitable and less invasive. The focus should be on creating sustainable models that prioritise the public interest.

In contrast, big tech companies are often criticised for prioritising monetisation over innovation.

These corporations, with their established platforms and significant influence, can create barriers for competing services and limit the choices available to users. Targeted advertising, a common strategy used by big tech, is seen as invasive and contrary to the public interest.

It violates user privacy, and there are concerns about the ethical implications of such practices.

The regulations designed for big tech platforms may inadvertently hinder public interest platforms. While efforts should be made to improve big corporate platforms, it is important to devote attention to public interest platforms, such as Wikipedia, that serve the public good.

Current regulations may not fully consider the practices and needs of these platforms, which can impede their ability to operate effectively.

To promote competition and user preference, it is important to have more choices in platforms. The ability to migrate to different platforms encourages healthy competition and provides users with options that align with their values and preferences.

Currently, big multinational corporate tech platforms dominate many regions, leaving limited alternatives.

Public platforms, like Wikipedia, should be considered in discussions on content moderation. These platforms have established practices and guidelines for content moderation that can serve as examples for other platforms.

It is crucial to learn from these successful models and incorporate their insights into broader content moderation discussions.

In conclusion, building and sustaining a public good internet requires effort, investment, and support. While corporations dominate the landscape, efforts to create a public good internet are still underway.

However, inclusivity remains a challenge, and investment is crucial for the success and expansion of public good initiatives. It is important to ensure that public interest work is sustainable and prioritise the public interest over monetisation. While big tech companies have their shortcomings, the existence of more platform choices and proper regulations can foster healthy competition and better serve the needs and preferences of users.

Report

Nima Iyer, the founder of Policy, a feminist civic tech organisation based in Kampala, Uganda, expressed concern over the commercialisation and politicisation of online spaces. She noticed a shift in how internet spaces evolved over time, from being free and accessible to becoming controlled by commercial interests and divisive politics.

Nima believes that this trend has eroded the idea of a free, open, and publicly-owned internet. She argues that the internet should be a space that is not restricted or controlled by commercial or political interests.

Nima advocates for the creation and governance of public internet spaces that are inclusive and free for everyone to use.

She is concerned about the diminishing open internet, which was initially intended to be a space that everyone could use freely. Despite the challenges, Nima believes that there is still an opportunity to create public, inclusive, and free digital spaces.

In addition to her concerns about the commercialisation of online spaces, Nima also observes a divide in conversations between for-profit and non-profit tech communities.

She maintains separate Twitter accounts for both communities and notes that they discuss vastly different topics, with the for-profit community heavily focused on revenue generation and customer retention. Nima also explores the influence of profit-driven motivation in the innovation space, using the example of Couchsurfing and Airbnb.

She believes that profit-driven corporations can have a negative impact on innovation.

Furthermore, Nima questions how to maintain public interest when innovation is dominated by profit-oriented motivations. She notes that the concept of public interest appears to be overshadowed by the quest for profits in the innovation space.

Nima also highlights the importance of differentiating the rules for big tech companies and small start-up companies when creating data protection laws. She points out that it is unfair for small companies in their early stages to have to follow the same dense regulatory protocols as larger, technologically advanced companies.

Bill Thompson, another prominent voice in the analysis, suggests that commercial engagement should be allowed in the public service internet, but on public service terms.

He believes that the public service internet should support democracy online and a digital public sphere without traditional commercial capture or monetisation. Thompson criticises the current model of a global timeline used by platforms like Facebook and Twitter, arguing that it is not reflective of real life and is not good for civil society.

He suggests the need for a different way of thinking and building internet systems, abandoning certain core assumptions of existing models.

In terms of universal internet access, Nima expresses some sadness about the idea of previously disconnected indigenous communities being connected to the global internet.

She questions whether constant access to global information is always beneficial. Nima also calls for deliberate design of public spaces, goods, and platforms, highlighting the need to encourage people to use them rather than defaulting to existing ones due to convenience.

She advocates for conversation between government officials and civil society for effective legislation.

Throughout the analysis, there are several other noteworthy observations and insights. The importance of encouraging volunteerism and contribution to open-source software and knowledge bases is discussed.

The challenge of public infrastructure funding is reflected upon, with a comparison to essential services like sanitation and water. Finally, there is a call for action on the discussed matters and a focus on the next steps to address the issues raised.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the concerns and arguments put forward by Nima Iyer and Bill Thompson regarding the commercialisation, politicisation, and profit-driven nature of online spaces and innovation.

They advocate for the creation of public, inclusive, and free digital spaces and the differentiation of rules for big tech and small start-up companies. They also emphasise the importance of deliberate design, conversation between government officials and civil society, and addressing the challenges of universal internet access and public infrastructure funding.

Overall, their insights contribute to the ongoing discussions and efforts aimed at creating a more accessible, inclusive, and socially responsible digital world.

Report

The analysis sheds light on the crucial role that public interest platforms, such as Wikipedia, play in the digital world. It argues that the current digital landscape is primarily dominated by private and for-profit platforms, which in turn exacerbate existing wealth and knowledge gaps, compromise privacy, and facilitate the spread of misinformation.

However, the analysis also highlights the positive aspects of platforms like Wikipedia. It underscores that Wikipedia is a not-for-profit public interest platform that undertakes consistent technological innovation and actively addresses knowledge gaps. It emphasizes that Wikipedia is a community-led platform, with decentralized community-based content moderation, making it a unique and valuable resource.

The analysis suggests that regulations implemented in the digital space often focus on big tech companies and overlook the diversity of internet services.

It argues that policymakers should ensure that regulations uphold protections for human rights and safeguard user privacy, while also fostering meaningful community participation in internet governance. The supporting facts provided highlight that Wikipedia opposes overly broad restrictions with highly punitive consequences and actively encourages meaningful community participation in internet governance.

Furthermore, the analysis points out that Wikipedia is actively involved in training large language models essential for generative AI, thereby contributing to reducing knowledge inequalities.

It further showcases Wikipedia’s commitment to knowledge equity by highlighting their launch of knowledge equity funds to create more content and uphold diversity.

The analysis expresses concerns regarding the unintended consequences of public interest technologies. It highlights the potential risks of endangering indigenous languages and criminalizing dissenting voices, urging stakeholders to carefully consider and mitigate such risks.

Addressing the digital divide is seen as a major priority.

The analysis points out that in the global south, where many individuals lack access to the internet, public interest platforms like Wikipedia should actively contribute to discussions aiming to bridge this divide.

Content moderation also features as a significant concern.

The analysis notes that while Wikipedia puts effort into content moderation, regulations primarily designed for large corporations can complicate this process. The work being done by UNESCO to assist with content moderation is highlighted.

Furthermore, the analysis acknowledges that internet regulations can be new and complex in certain regions.

It points out that some regions in Asia consider internet regulation a new concept, and emphasizes the presence of diverse ways of content modifications.

Advocacy for using superior platforms for better content moderation is presented. The analysis mentions the social media platform Mastodon as an example of a better alternative.

It also highlights the importance of exceptions being made for public interest platforms, citing Rachel as an advocate for such exceptions.

Engaging young people in digital literacy is identified as a priority. It highlights that Wikimedia is actively working with communities of editors to provide training and focuses on initiatives, like in Cambodia, that involve indigenous young people in creating content and videos to preserve their culture.

Successful engagement with young people, the analysis suggests, can be achieved through collaboration with other organizations.

It points out that Wikimedia has collaborated with the Minister of IT in Indonesia and expresses a desire to have more collaborations with youth-led organizations.

The analysis advocates for the promotion of the internet of commons to serve public interest and suggests that exceptions should be made for public interest platforms.

However, no specific evidence or supporting facts are provided in this regard.

Diversity within public interest platforms’ community contributions is another important aspect emphasized in the analysis, without any further details or evidence being given.

Finally, the analysis advises policymakers to be mindful of the diversity of the internet ecosystem.

It suggests that policymakers should take into account the various perspectives and interests within the ecosystem while formulating regulations. It concludes by highlighting the importance of promoting the internet of commons for public interest and creating an inclusive environment for all stakeholders.

Overall, the analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the role and impact of public interest platforms like Wikipedia in the digital world.

It highlights the need to address wealth and knowledge gaps, privacy concerns, and misinformation, while also recognizing the positive contributions of public interest platforms in addressing those issues. It argues for regulations that protect human rights, encourage user participation, and support diversity.

The analysis also raises concerns about unintended consequences and identifies priorities such as bridging the digital divide and engaging young people in digital literacy. The insights gained from the analysis shed light on the complex challenges and opportunities in creating a more equitable and inclusive digital ecosystem.

Report

Traveloka, a publicly traded private sector company, prioritizes innovation and technology to enhance tourism while emphasizing sustainable and inclusive growth. They collaborate with communities, governments, and stakeholders, operating in six ASEAN countries with over 45 million active users monthly. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, Traveloka’s contribution to Indonesia’s GDP in the tourism sector reached 2.7%.

They actively partake in policy-making processes and ensure compliance with local regulations, promoting customer safety. Traveloka’s commitment to sustainability involves working with women and environmental groups, supporting local communities. Their focus on youth involvement and digital literacy empowers young people to contribute to community-building and develop new tourism destinations.

Traveloka promotes tourism through local perspectives, valuing the preferences and aspirations of local communities. They also engage in collaboration, partnering with institutions nationally and internationally to provide digital literacy training and foster inclusivity. Moreover, Traveloka advocates for collaboration and public-private partnerships to address technology regulation concerns effectively.

They emphasize responsible technology use, focusing on customer needs and societal benefits. Traveloka’s multifaceted approach showcases their understanding of the relationship between technology, community engagement, and responsible business practices in driving positive change in the tourism sector.