The International Observatory on Information and Democracy | IGF 2023 Town Hall #128

Report

Ansgar Koene, EY’s Global AI Ethics and Regulatory Leader, focuses on the ethical use of online data and the impact of recommender systems. He emphasises the need to understand online data from the user’s perspective and acknowledges the influential role of recommender systems in shaping the online space.

He advocates for responsible and ethical use of these technologies.

Koene holds positions as a trustee at the Five Rights Foundation and as a Data and AI Ethics Advisor at Afro Leadership. He works on examining different sources of online data to guide policymakers and companies in differentiating anecdotes from well-supported evidence.

This guidance will enable informed decision-making processes. Koene proposes the establishment of an observatory to collect and analyse global data on online interactions, providing valuable insights for policymaking and corporate governance.

In addition, Koene stresses the importance of amplifying the voices of young people and those outside the core economies of the US and Europe to create a fairer information ecosystem.

He collaborates with the Five Rights Foundation on the “Internet in Their Own Voice” project, aiming to understand the views and needs of young people in shaping the online space. Koene believes that these groups are often overlooked, leading to decisions being made without their input.

By amplifying their voices, a more equitable and inclusive information ecosystem can be achieved.

Koene highlights the significance of evidence-based policymaking and the need for clear methodologies to track progress. The observatory’s meta-studies will establish a baseline understanding of different methodologies, facilitating evidence-based policy making.

The analysis also addresses challenges posed by emerging technologies and disinformation campaigns.

Generative AI presents new challenges, while social media platforms continue to be a concern. Disinformation campaigns driven by particular interest groups remain an ongoing issue. Proactive measures are necessary to mitigate these negative impacts and promote a safe and trustworthy online environment.

In summary, Ansgar Koene’s work encompasses the ethical use of online data, the impact of recommender systems, amplifying marginalized voices, evidence-based policymaking, and addressing challenges from emerging technologies and disinformation campaigns.

Koene’s insights serve as a call to action for regulators, policymakers, and industry leaders to actively shape a responsible and inclusive digital landscape.

Report

The analysis explores the need for a comprehensive understanding of global evidence, discussing various aspects related to this topic. Firstly, it highlights the presence of information in sources such as NGO reports, books, and international organizations’ reports. However, it points out that the majority of published research comes from the Global North, potentially resulting in a lack of representation from under-represented regions and causing disparities in regional, cultural, and language understanding.

Furthermore, the analysis acknowledges the influence of funding bodies on research, shaping and limiting its scope.

It emphasizes the importance of globally inclusive research, advocating for more attention to be given to under-represented regions and taking into account different languages, cultures, and political environments.

Regarding research methodology, the analysis notes a tendency to prioritize big data.

While acknowledging its usefulness, it cautions against potential blind spots that may arise as a result. It argues for an approach that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding.

In addition, the analysis emphasizes the need for structural considerations when examining information and media ecosystems.

It suggests that historical and structural conditions and biases are often replicated, necessitating further studies on the political economy and infrastructural aspects of information flow.

A significant concern raised in the analysis is the dominance of big tech monopolies in discussions and policies.

The majority of studies focus on entities such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, and WhatsApp. These monopolistic entities not only have economic dominance but also impact policies. The influence of big tech firms in shaping the research agenda through funding, access to data, and lobbying is scrutinized, raising questions about research objectivity and independence.

The analysis also advocates for the inclusion of private sector data and research findings, as they contribute to a wider scope of evidence.

Private firms hold many domestic reports on data and AI, making their insights valuable in achieving a more comprehensive understanding.

Another important point emphasized is the significance of studying information flow in its entirety, including media ecosystems. While there is a predominant focus on social media in current studies, neglecting broader media ecosystems can lead to an incomplete picture.

The analysis highlights the need to examine mainstream and alternative media alongside social media to gain a comprehensive understanding. It also underscores the importance of studying state-dominated or captured systems and the role of conservative talk radio in shaping information flow.

In the context of AI, large language models, and data, the analysis acknowledges the complexity of the issue, which is constantly evolving.

It suggests that studying or affecting one aspect will have implications elsewhere. Additionally, access to data affects our understanding, which subsequently impacts other aspects.

To sum up, the analysis provides valuable insights into the need for a comprehensive understanding of global evidence.

It emphasizes globally inclusive research, the incorporation of qualitative and quantitative methods, and structural considerations in examining information and media ecosystems. It raises concerns about big tech monopolies and advocates for the inclusion of private sector data and research findings.

The analysis also highlights the significance of studying information flow holistically and addresses the complexity surrounding AI, large language models, and data.

Report

In a recent discussion on research funding, one of the speakers presented a compelling argument challenging traditional funding models. They highlighted the undeniable inflexibility of these models, asserting that they often restrict researchers from diverting their research path mid-project. The speaker emphasised the need for a flexibility clause to be included in research funding, which would enable researchers to better adapt to new discoveries and overcome challenges that may arise during their projects.

This argument shed light on the limitations of traditional funding models and ignited a broader conversation about the necessity for research funding to evolve and become more adaptable.

In another aspect of the discussion, a different speaker focused on the importance of redefining expertise in the digital age.

They expressed frustration over the fact that policymakers lacking digital expertise often shape policies in the digital realm. The speaker highlighted that younger individuals, who have grown up in the digital age, may possess more digital expertise than policymakers who may be less familiar with rapidly evolving technological advancements.

This observation underscored the crucial need for policymaking to be informed by individuals with relevant digital expertise, in order to ensure that policies are effective and well-suited to the digital landscape. The argument put forth by this speaker sparked a thoughtful reflection on the role of expertise and the significance of incorporating it into policymaking processes.

Lastly, a speaker raised a critique of the traditional research paradigm, specifically noting the excessive focus on past studies and minor variations in research outcomes.

Drawing from their personal experience, the speaker expressed dissatisfaction with an educational system that predominantly emphasises historical research and fails to encourage a forward-thinking and design-oriented approach. This critique invited a larger conversation about the need to move away from a historical focus in research and explore new avenues that prioritize innovation and problem-solving.

Overall, this discussion highlighted several noteworthy points in relation to research funding, expertise in the digital age, and the direction of research.

It shed light on the limitations of traditional funding models, compelling the consideration of a more flexible approach. Furthermore, it underscored the importance of digital expertise in shaping effective policies and the necessity of shifting away from a historical research focus towards a more forward-thinking and design-driven approach.

These insights provide valuable perspectives for further exploration and potential improvements in the field of research.

Report

The discussion highlights the need for further research on the impact of disinformation on individuals, particularly in the context of government intervention and regulation. Currently, the focus primarily revolves around the production and circulation of disinformation, with little known about its actual influence on people.

Therefore, there is a call for more extensive studies to better understand how disinformation affects individuals.

High-quality journalism is considered an important defence against misinformation. It is noted that countries with a healthy media environment tend to have less disinformation.

However, traditional business models for journalism are struggling, partly due to changing attitudes towards news consumption. Nevertheless, there is a strong correlation between the prevalence of disinformation and the state of the media landscape in a region.

Furthermore, high-quality journalism plays a crucial role in democracy.

It is regarded as a pillar of democracy and not just a means to combat disinformation, but also to maintain democratic societies. This underscores the significance of supporting and strengthening journalism for the overall health of a democracy.

In addition to examining the production and circulation of disinformation, there is a need to focus on understanding its impact on people’s minds and voting behaviors.

The current focus largely neglects this aspect, highlighting the importance of conducting research in this area. Insights into how disinformation affects individuals can provide guidance for designing effective strategies to mitigate harm and protect democratic processes.

An observatory’s work is regarded as valuable in providing context and understanding manipulation and propaganda on social networks and platforms.

This work can help fill existing knowledge gaps and shed light on the dynamics of disinformation in online spaces.

The discussion also emphasizes the importance of acknowledging prior research on topics such as manipulation and propaganda, building upon existing knowledge.

By doing so, a more comprehensive understanding of these issues can be achieved, incorporating insights gained from research conducted as early as the 1970s.

Additionally, there is a call for comparative digital research, encouraging studies that compare different regions and contexts.

This approach can provide valuable insights into the similarities and differences in the impact and spread of disinformation across various regions. However, a concern is raised regarding the lack of data from countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, indicating a gap in our understanding of the global dynamics of disinformation.

In conclusion, the discussion emphasizes the need for expanded research on the impact of disinformation, the importance of high-quality journalism as a defense against misinformation, the significance of understanding the impact of disinformation on individuals, the role of observatories in examining manipulation and propaganda in online spaces, and the need for comparative digital research.

By addressing these areas, a more comprehensive and informed understanding of disinformation can be achieved, facilitating improved strategies to address its consequences and safeguard democratic principles.

Report

In this analysis, the speakers delve into the intricacies of technology policy and internet regulation, highlighting the need for different approaches tailored to the cultural and governance contexts of different regions. They express concern that much of the technological policy thinking and academic research originates from the West and does not directly translate to the context of the global majority, including countries like India.

One of the main arguments put forward is the necessity of exploring new and innovative approaches to social media platforms.

The speakers identify a false dichotomy that exists, whereby social media platforms are either accepted as they currently exist or completely rejected. They advocate for a more nuanced consideration, emphasizing the potential for alternative strategies that better align with societal needs and values.

The importance of collaborative reports from diverse bodies is emphasized in the context of re-evaluating the current approach to internet regulation.

The speakers mention that India is in the process of drafting new legislation to replace a 22-year-old piece of internet regulation. They argue that a collaborative report representing global expertise, including governments, civil society, and academic organizations, is crucial for a comprehensive and well-informed approach.

The analysis also addresses the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on societies and political campaigns.

Specifically, the advent of generative AI, deep fakes, and cheap fakes is a cause for concern, as these technologies have the potential to heighten disinformation and misinformation. The speakers highlight the implications of AI for societal discourse, particularly in the context of political campaigns, where these technologies can be used to manipulate information and deceive the public.

Another critical issue raised in the analysis is the collection of personal and anonymized data by platforms.

The concept of surveillance capitalism, where platforms amass extensive amounts of data and utilise it for various purposes, is deemed detrimental. The speakers express concerns about the ability of data to be used to manipulate societies and impact democratic processes.

They stress the significance of addressing data governance as a pressing matter in the context of platforms collecting vast amounts of personal information.

In concluding the analysis, the speakers provide valuable insights into the complexities surrounding technology policy and internet regulation.

They highlight the need for approaches that consider cultural and governance contexts, rather than basing strategies solely on Western thinking. The exploration of new approaches to social media platforms, the importance of collaborative reports, and the implications of AI and data collection by platforms are all crucial considerations.

Ultimately, the analysis sheds light on the challenges and opportunities awaiting policymakers as technology continues to shape societies worldwide.

Report

Michael L. Bąk suggests that democratic governments need to better equip themselves to handle the technology-based challenges to their institutions and values. He highlights the shrinking public space for dialogue due to technological disruptions and argues that self-regulation by tech companies has proven inadequate.

Bąk emphasises the necessity for a common understanding of the impact that technology has on institutions and values.

The Forum on Information and Democracy plays a significant role in this regard. It has an observatory that provides policymakers with a systematic understanding of the situation, aiding their decision-making process.

In the upcoming year, the Forum on Information and Democracy will focus on artificial intelligence, media in the digital age, and data governance.

Misinformation and disinformation will be cross-cutting themes. The organization plans to conduct working groups, research, and analysis to address these issues.

Bąk believes that the Forum’s structures, specifically its connection with the government while being led by civil society, can effectively address the challenges posed by technology.

It operates through multi-stakeholder engagements and develops policy recommendations. While directly engaged with the government, the organization maintains its independence as it is led by civil society.

In summary, Michael L. Bąk argues for democratic governments to enhance their capabilities in handling technology-related challenges to institutions and values.

The Forum on Information and Democracy plays a vital role in promoting a common understanding of technology’s impact and addressing key issues. Its unique structures position it effectively to navigate these challenges through multi-stakeholder engagements and policy recommendations.

Report

Upon analysing the provided information, several key points and arguments become apparent. Firstly, it is acknowledged that information consumption is widespread and occurs in various forms across different cultures. This is likened to the consumption of bread, which varies in shape, size, and form across different societies.

The positive sentiment towards this notion suggests that information is fundamental to human existence.

Democracy is the next topic explored, with an emphasis on its diverse nature. The analysis highlights that democracy can take on different characteristics depending on an individual’s circumstances, similar to how cotton can be heavy, cold, or colourful.

The positive sentiment expressed towards this comparison implies that democracy can be customised and adopted in different ways to suit different needs and contexts.

Furthermore, the importance of recognising the cultural nuances and varying approaches to information and democracy is underscored.

It is argued that a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate, and understanding the complexities across continents, countries, and socio-political-economic circumstances is crucial for a comprehensive analysis. This positive stance suggests that nuanced perspectives should be considered to address inequalities and foster peace, justice, and strong institutions.

The analysis also highlights the significance of responding to the needs of governments and promoting dialogue.

It is posited that catering to the requirements of governments is vital for the value and relevance of initiatives. This sentiment emphasises the importance of aligning development policies with the needs of various stakeholders, especially governments, to drive effective change.

Another key point raised is the notion that information about individuals never truly disappears, even after death.

This neutral sentiment reflects the enduring impact that personal information can have and reinforces the need for data privacy and management.

The importance of understanding before regulating is expressed in the analysis. Rushing into regulation without a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter is cautioned against, as it can lead to adverse outcomes.

The negative sentiment towards premature regulation highlights the potential dangers of making decisions based on panic or hype. It is argued that evidence-based decision-making is essential to ensure effective and well-informed regulation.

Additionally, Nnenna Nwakanma’s perspective on regulation is explored further.

She emphasises the significance of regulating based on principles rather than specific products or companies. This positive sentiment suggests the need for a broader regulatory framework that focuses on underlying principles and values. Furthermore, Nnenna Nwakanma advocates for promoting dialogue and fostering collaboration to inform regulatory discussions, as evidenced by her experiences with software regulation and her endorsement of platforms like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

The analysis also highlights Nnenna Nwakanma’s positive view of the shift of power from governments and global northern media to private platforms.

She appreciates the democratization of media through these platforms and gains insights into power dynamics during her visit to the Meta Campus in Menlo Park. This viewpoint implies a belief that a more balanced distribution of power benefits society and reduces inequalities.

Moreover, Nnenna Nwakanma’s philosophy of raising new leaders and prioritising humility in leadership is underscored.

Her commitment to training individuals and enabling them to take the lead is highlighted as a positive sentiment. This aligns with the goal of achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions as outlined by SDG 16.

In conclusion, the extended summary provides a detailed analysis of the main points highlighted in the given data.

The arguments made by various speakers shed light on the universal nature of information consumption, the diverse forms of democracy, the need for nuanced approaches, the importance of responding to government needs, the persistence of personal information, the significance of understanding before regulation, and the perspectives of Nnenna Nwakanma on regulating based on principles, the shift of power in media, and leadership development.

The nuanced analysis offers valuable insights into these topics and serves as a foundation for further exploration and dialogue.