(Re)-Building Trust Online: A Call to Action | IGF 2023 Launch / Award Event #144

Audience

The analysis explored various topics related to the global information ecosystem and its challenges. One key concern highlighted was the negative impact of disinformation, which extends beyond a Western-centric approach. The speakers emphasized the need to consider the effects of disinformation in different languages, as it can affect people’s offline lives. It was recognized that addressing disinformation globally is crucial, rather than focusing on specific regions.

The work of Wikimedia and Global Voices in creating a trustworthy global information ecosystem was appreciated. These organizations were praised for their contributions, involving individuals from different parts of the world. Collaboration and a multi-stakeholder approach were deemed essential in building a reliable information ecosystem.

A speaker, Nick Beniquista, argued for major system-level interventions to address the challenges faced by the information ecosystem. Initiatives such as Pluralis in Europe, trust initiatives for quality online information, and policy interventions like bargaining codes were mentioned. This indicates the need for a comprehensive approach and the involvement of various stakeholders to tackle the complex issues within the information ecosystem.

However, some concerns were raised about the proposed principles discussed during the analysis. These principles were deemed somewhat understated in dealing with the complexity of the challenges. Although they may be widely accepted, there are doubts about their sufficiency in addressing the depth and breadth of the issues. Therefore, comprehensive strategies and solutions are needed.

Furthermore, questions were raised about the effectiveness of a participatory, citizen-driven approach in addressing the systemic challenges of the information ecosystem. One speaker described this approach as “quaint,” suggesting doubts about its effectiveness given the scale of the challenges. This highlights the need to consider alternative strategies alongside participatory approaches.

Regulation and the differentiation between large and small online platforms were emphasized as crucial factors in addressing the challenges of the information ecosystem. It was argued that large platforms bear a special responsibility for content management and accessibility. Efforts by the Danish government and the European Union (EU) were highlighted, including partnerships with organizations like Access Now and the development of regulations that consider different local contexts outside the EU. This underscores the importance of globally applicable regulatory frameworks that also respect regional variations.

The analysis also mentioned concerns about the operationalization of the discussed principles and the potential consequences of the proposed internet safety bill in Sri Lanka. The bill, which has passed its first reading in parliament, raised concerns about censorship and the potential fragmentation of the internet. An audience member expressed opposition to the bill and sought help in collective action, emphasizing the need for collaboration and partnerships in addressing internet governance and legislation.

In summary, the analysis delved into various aspects of the global information ecosystem and its challenges. It highlighted the negative impacts of disinformation, the significance of a trustworthy information ecosystem, the need for major system-level interventions, as well as concerns about certain approaches and proposed bills. Collaborative efforts and collective action are crucial in establishing a reliable and inclusive global information ecosystem.

Moderator

The session focused on the work of a task force dedicated to promoting trustworthy information online, as well as the launch of a set of principles by this task force. The task force is a newly established multi-stakeholder entity within the Freedom Online Coalition. Its main goal is to offer policy recommendations to government institutions and lawmakers to ensure a healthy and reliable online information ecosystem.

The United States is actively promoting trustworthy information online and is committed to addressing the global issue of disinformation. They are implementing initiatives such as fact-checking and media literacy programs to combat the spread of false information. Efforts are also being made to protect and promote open and resilient information ecosystems and support the long-term sustainability of independent media outlets.

While promoting trustworthy information online, the US government emphasizes the importance of not undermining fundamental democratic freedoms. They caution against using regulatory measures to suppress peaceful dissent and silence independent media, civil society activists, human rights defenders, and marginalized groups.

The session also highlighted the importance of platforms like the Freedom Online Coalition and the International Governance Forum (IGF) in countering disinformation and addressing global threats. These platforms are crucial spaces for bringing together stakeholders to tackle the challenges posed by the spread of misinformation and to ensure a secure and open internet.

One significant issue discussed during the session was the consolidation of power over online speech, which negatively impacts platforms advocating for freedom of expression. The session also addressed the exclusion of participation, which can lead to the spread of misinformation. It was noted that depriving half the world’s population of involvement in knowledge spaces contributes to the spread of false information, particularly in the age of generative artificial intelligence.

The session stressed the importance of diversity in media and information, acknowledging that news framing bias is a pervasive problem, and that news organizations alone are insufficient for meeting the need for diverse and reliable information. It was also emphasized that building reliable information structures requires the involvement of civil society and the private sector through partnerships.

Governments were encouraged to play an active role in regulating the online space to promote engagement, free debates, and protect human rights. Striking a balance between regulation and trustworthiness is crucial in ensuring the effectiveness and fairness of online platforms.

The session also addressed the need for educating policy-makers and governments about platforms like Wikipedia and how they operate. This knowledge is important for understanding the value and significance of protecting and promoting such platforms.

The launch of the task force and its principles were seen as an opportunity to pave a strategic path forward and to coordinate with other international initiatives. Participants expressed the need for dialogue and engagement with stakeholders, as well as with counterparts in the ecosystem, to ensure well-informed policies and effective regulations.

The session ended with participants being encouraged to learn more about the task force and get involved. The importance of their role in contributing to the development and implementation of strategies to address the challenges related to trustworthy information online was highlighted.

In conclusion, the session covered various aspects related to the task force’s work on promoting trustworthy information online. It underlined the importance of balancing regulation and trustworthiness, the need for diversity in media and information, and the significance of multi-stakeholder engagement to address global threats and challenges. The session also highlighted the ongoing efforts by the United States and other countries to counter disinformation and promote reliable information online. Overall, the discussion emphasized the key role of collaboration between different stakeholders in building a more trustworthy and inclusive online information ecosystem.

Klara Therese Christensen

This analysis provides a detailed exploration of key points surrounding the role of the internet in relation to marginalized voices, information distortion, and the need for reliable information structures. One argument put forth is that while the internet presents opportunities for marginalized voices to be heard, it also brings about the potential for distortion and muddled reliability of information. This highlights the challenge of navigating and discerning credible information in the digital age.

Partnerships with civil society and the private sector are emphasised as vital in building reliable information structures. By collaborating with these sectors, it is believed that information can be better managed and disseminated. These partnerships can contribute to the development of robust platforms and frameworks that promote the availability and accessibility of accurate information.

Governments are seen as having a responsibility to create human rights-based ecosystems of information. This implies that governments should prioritize the protection of individuals’ rights to access and share reliable information. By ensuring the existence of a conducive environment for the free flow of information, governments can help to counteract the negative effects of misinformation and disinformation.

The analysis also discusses the need for sound regulation in managing online spaces. While it is recognized that regulation is necessary to curb harmful content and maintain order, it is crucial to strike a balance with the preservation of freedom of debate and active engagement. Finding this equilibrium ensures that online spaces remain open and democratic while effectively managing potentially harmful content.

Furthermore, community engagement is considered pivotal in determining and implementing appropriate regulatory measures. By involving and empowering communities, there is a higher likelihood of generating regulations that reflect the needs and perspectives of those affected by them. This participatory approach can foster more effective and inclusive governance of the internet.

The responsibility of large online platforms in content regulation is also highlighted. These platforms are seen as having a unique role in determining what content is published and how it is accessed. Given their influence and reach, the analysis suggests that these platforms should bear a responsibility to uphold ethical standards and prioritize reliable and reputable content.

The analysis touches upon the importance of government funding for the Global South and majority voices. Recognising the existing inequalities, it is argued that governments should allocate resources to support marginalised regions and communities, enabling them to actively participate and have their voices heard.

Noteworthy observations include the excitement surrounding the European Union’s efforts to regulate big tech. The EU is viewed as a potential model for global implementation due to the progress it has made in developing regulations that could serve as a reference for other jurisdictions.

The analysis also emphasises the necessity of collaboration with various organisations to engage in meaningful dialogue and foster improvement. By partnering with diverse stakeholders, there is a greater opportunity to address the challenges associated with information access and dissemination effectively.

In conclusion, this extended analysis highlights the multifaceted issues surrounding the internet’s impact on information reliability and the inclusion of marginalised voices. It underscores the importance of partnerships, government responsibility, sound regulation, community engagement, and the role of large online platforms. Moreover, it reflects the growing recognition that a collaborative and multi-stakeholder approach is essential for building reliable information structures and ensuring the availability and accessibility of trustworthy information online.

Alisson Peters

The United States actively promotes trustworthy information online and combats disinformation on a global scale. They support initiatives to address disinformation and emphasize the importance of digital media and information literacy in enabling individuals to freely express themselves and evaluate information. Additionally, the United States focuses on media resilience by bolstering the resilience of media outlets against legal and regulatory challenges. They support fact-checking and independent media initiatives, aiming to ensure citizens have access to accurate and reliable information.

However, there is concern about the misuse of power by governments to ban certain forms of expression. Governments around the globe claim broad powers to restrict freedom of expression, silencing peaceful dissent. Stakeholder platforms like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) play a critical role in addressing threats to freedom of expression. These platforms are essential for finding solutions to challenges in the digital world.

The Freedom Online Coalition is a global platform working towards promoting trustworthy online information. It is important to strike a balance between promoting reliable information and upholding democratic principles. The task force’s efforts must not compromise democratic values.

In conclusion, the United States actively promotes trustworthy information online, supports initiatives to combat disinformation, and emphasizes the importance of digital media and information literacy. They also focus on media resilience and support fact-checking and independent media. However, there is concern about the misuse of power by governments to censor expression. Stakeholder platforms like the IGF are critical in addressing threats to freedom of expression. The Freedom Online Coalition promotes trustworthy information while upholding democratic principles.

Ivan Sigal

In the analysis of the given text, several key points are highlighted. Firstly, it is emphasised that online spaces should be open and interoperable, and that user agency is crucial. This means that individuals should have the freedom to access and engage with online platforms and content and have control over their online experiences. The argument is made that the healthy promotion of a wide range of participation is critical in the internet space.

Promoting voice and expression is identified as another important aspect of online spaces. It is suggested that critical thinking about how institutions and media are built is necessary to achieve this goal. Historical facts and friction in the internet context indicate that creating spaces where people can participate more or less equally requires a proactive effort and careful consideration of the diversity of media sources, their funding, and sustenance.

Ivan Sigal, along with organizations like Wikipedia, Global Voices, and Witness, values citizen-generated participatory internet as the core of trustworthy online information. These organizations are seen as starting from an open knowledge perspective and working with communities for whom being online is not easy. However, the break in trust around large social media platforms is identified as a significant challenge.

The potential impact of internet regulations on small and medium-sized non-profit initiatives is a concern. It is argued that regulations being implemented in many global north countries could make it either impossible or expensive for civic-oriented initiatives to create new platforms.

The need for trustworthiness and authenticity in information sharing is emphasized. Global Voices and Wikipedia are highlighted as examples of initiatives that aim to create and share trustworthy information. It is stated that these initiatives are seen as a civic act by many.

Furthermore, the analysis acknowledges the pervasive and complicated bias in news framing. It suggests that news organisations alone are not sufficient to provide all the different kinds of information required in the world. Therefore, alternatives that allow easy entry into an information space and enable the addition of a diversity of voices are needed.

The importance of including a participatory side in regulatory processes is emphasized. It is argued that previous principles have not adequately emphasized this aspect. The analysis suggests that reestablishing the participatory side is crucial to make effective regulations.

The issue of disinformation is also discussed, highlighting its intentional misleading of people and groups. It is noted that disinformation affects many communities in multiple languages. Additionally, the distinction between misinformation and disinformation is highlighted, with the former being seen as ignorance in another language and the latter as deliberate lying.

The analysis also touches upon the need for better information in other languages, particularly for marginalized groups. Initiatives such as Rising Voices, which work with indigenous and marginalized groups to identify languages and support the creation of their own trustworthy information sources, are valued.

The importance of including community voices in conversations is stressed, particularly those from communities that traditionally have less power and resources. The analysis suggests that these communities should not be ignored, and their voices should be included in discussions.

Overall, the analysis advocates for open and interoperable online spaces that prioritize user agency and promote voice and expression. It underscores the importance of proactive efforts to build equitable spaces, address the challenges related to trust on social media platforms, and consider the impact of regulations on non-profit initiatives. It highlights the need for trustworthy information, alternative news sources, and multilingual support. The analysis also underscores the significance of including a participatory side in regulatory processes, distinguishing between misinformation and disinformation, and valuing community voices.

Jan Gerlach

The discussion revolves around the topic of internet regulation and its impact on online spaces. Several key arguments are presented, highlighting the potential negative consequences of centralizing power over online speech and content trustworthiness in the hands of platforms. The Wikimedia Foundation argues that regulation is pushing the decision-making authority on online content to platforms, which raises concerns about the consolidation of power and the potential for biases.

Another argument raised is that excluding people from participating in online knowledge spaces can promote misinformation. It is suggested that when individuals are prevented from engaging in these spaces, the void left behind is often filled with inaccurate and misleading information. The discussion emphasizes the importance of a participatory approach in knowledge spaces as it is seen as essential for promoting peace, security, and combating misinformation.

In contrast to the centralized approach, the conversation encourages regulations that empower communities to make decisions about online content. Jan Gerlach argues for a decentralized approach to internet governance, advocating for regulations that distribute decision-making power among various stakeholders rather than concentrating it solely in the hands of platforms. This approach seeks to ensure a more inclusive and diverse representation in shaping the online environment.

Other noteworthy points include the concerns about laws that make knowledge more expensive, which are viewed as potentially limiting access to information. Furthermore, the discussion highlights the negative impact of regulations that primarily benefit big media houses at the expense of independent journalism and individuals in conflict zones.

The significance of collaboration and sharing best practices is emphasized to safeguard people’s ability to contribute to online spaces and tell their stories. The engagement of governments in conversations about online spaces and freedom of expression is also welcomed, showcasing the importance of multi-stakeholder involvement in shaping internet policies.

The role of Wikipedia is highlighted as an “honest broker” in supporting journalism and promoting information integrity. Moreover, the organization serves to educate policymakers about the mechanisms and functioning of Wikipedia and the potential effects of different regulations on global online spaces. This education aims to increase awareness and ensure more informed decision-making processes.

The establishment of a task force and the associated principles is considered essential for coordinating responses to challenges related to information integrity. This initiative brings together governments, civil society, and proactive private actors to strategize and coordinate processes that promote information integrity in online spaces.

Finally, the conversation encourages individuals to actively engage and join communities like Wikimedia, contributing to their development and understanding how systems like Wikipedia and citizen journalism work. It emphasizes that organizations like Wikimedia exist to support these communities, underscoring the collective responsibility in creating and maintaining diverse and accessible online spaces.

In conclusion, the discussion on internet regulation and online spaces highlights the potential negative consequences of centralization and exclusion. It calls for a participatory approach in knowledge spaces and regulations that empower communities. The conversation also raises concerns about laws that make knowledge more expensive and regulations that benefit big media houses. Collaboration, government engagement, and the role of organizations like Wikimedia are seen as critical components in safeguarding people’s ability to contribute to online spaces, promoting information integrity, and supporting diverse and accessible online environments.

Moderator:
You Because as you can see we are a very small group being the first session of the day I believe. Thanks so much to everybody for for joining today. The session is Safeguarding a Trustworthy Global Information Ecosystem and in this session we are going to focus on the work of the task force on trustworthy information online and the launching of a set of principles by that task force. We hope it’s gonna be an interactive session. I think we’re such a small group and a number of us are very deeply involved in this work that I think it could actually be a strategy session for for the task force for the work going ahead and for the principles. So maybe to start with I could just give some context to to the task force and then we’ll move into opening remarks and and dig into discussion. So the task force on trustworthy information online is a multi-stakeholder task force that has recently been launched in the Freedom Online Coalition. The task force is continuing the work of the Action Coalition on Trustworthy Information Online that was established by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wikimedia, Witness, Global Voices and Salesforce under the Tech for Democracy initiative by the the Danish government. While in the FOC the task force is going to be chaired by the government of Denmark and the Wikimedia Foundation and the Action Coalition’s intention was to identify solutions to support trustworthy information online and the objective of this task force will be to carry forward that work and propose policy recommendations for governmental institutions and lawmakers with the goal of safeguarding a healthy online information ecosystem. So that’s very broadly the task force and then later in the session we’re going to get into the principles that have been proposed and the work of the task force but to start with first we’ll have opening remarks from Allison Peters the acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy and Labor in the US State Department. Allison.

Alisson Peters:
Well good morning to a bunch of very familiar faces and friends and a sincere thank you in particular to our colleagues in the Danish government for their leadership in establishing the Freedom Online Coalition’s newest task force on trustworthy information online and also to our fellow FOC advisory network members the Wikimedia Foundation for taking on the role of co-chair alongside the Danish government. As the chair of the FOC we in the United States are proud of our partnership with both the government of Denmark and all FOC members as well as the advisory network to advance human rights online and an open internet that is interoperable secure and reliable for all. Digital media and information literacy empowers people to freely express themselves and arms individuals with the knowledge and skills to communicate and critically evaluate information. The United States is promoting trustworthy information online by bolstering our support for initiatives to address disinformation globally from fact-checking initiatives to media literacy while at the same time we seek to also bolster an independent media globally. We’re promoting and protecting open and resilient information ecosystems by addressing critical needs for at-risk journalists, fostering the long-term sustainability of independent media outlets, enhancing the impact of investigated journalism and bolstering outlets resilience to legal and regulatory challenges including through our journalism protection platform. And I’ll note here we’re very proud members as is the government of Netherlands as our chair and the government of Denmark of the Freedom Online Coalition and we are going to continue to work through that global platform with our partners and allies to advance these efforts. I will note for this conversation and I think for the broader community here at IGF that we really have to continue to be mindful that our approaches to promoting trustworthy information online including our efforts to counter disinformation do not inadvertently undermine the bedrock principles that undergird democracies particularly fundamental freedoms, freedom of expression both online and offline. We’ve seen how governments around the globe continue to claim for themselves very broad powers to ban certain forms of expression all too often misusing that power to repress peaceful dissent and silence the voices of independent media, civil society activists, human rights defenders, dissidents, members of religious, ethnic, racial and other minority groups around the globe. That’s why platforms like IGF are so critical for us to continue to bring stakeholders together to address these threats and challenges and strengthen our resolve to tackle them. So again I just really want to thank you all for being here bright and early for what is a really critical conversation. This is just the start of the conversation not the end in our work in the Freedom Online Coalition and we look forward to an exciting year and years ahead for this task force. Thank you guys so much.

Moderator:
Thanks so much Allison and it’s great to hear the number of approaches the US government is taking to foster trustworthy information ecosystems and I think that really underscores the importance of taking a multi-pronged approach to this. And so maybe to just start the session first I wanted to introduce our other panelists. We have Jan Gerlach the director of public policy from Wikimedia, Ivan Siegel the executive director of Global Voices and Clara Christensen the head of section Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They all fill different seats, company, private sector, civil society and government which I think is great because it’s important that we bring different perspectives to this conversation. And maybe to start with it would be wonderful to hear from each of our panelists about what do you see as the key challenges to fostering a trustworthy information space and how can the work of the task force help address these challenges. And maybe we can just go down the line starting with Jan.

Jan Gerlach:
Yeah, hi, everybody I guess Key challenges is what you asked for. Yeah, so my name is Jan. I’m at the Wikimedia Foundation. We are the nonprofit that hosts and operates Wikipedia and supports a global set of communities that built Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects. And from our perspective key challenges right now are I think a trend towards consolidation of power over speech online that is actually driven by lots of governments that seek to promote freedom of expression. And we’re seeing regulation that unfortunately pushes the powers to make decisions about what content should be online and what is and isn’t trustworthy on two platforms. Whereas this knowledge is really held by communities around the world and if we prevent people from participating we’re really not doing ourselves a favor. I wrote down a few notes this morning and I was really thinking you know when you when you prevent half the world from participating in knowledge spaces this is actually just also a matter of peace and security to make it really a drastic statement here. When half the world is prevented from joining conversations and deciding what is and isn’t trustworthy then that void will be filled with misinformation. And I think that’s a humongous challenge for all of us especially in the age of generative AI that is powered by knowledge that is out there on the internet. And when half of that knowledge is not true, is not verifiable, is not trustworthy then we all have a big problem. And I think that’s sort of the challenge that we’re looking at right now.

Moderator:
Yeah thanks for that and I think that echoes a lot of what Allison was saying as well in terms of governments asserting power and control over access to the information, access to different types of information. I think you also see this from a commercial perspective as well in terms of what how companies are curating the information that we we have access to. Ivan it would be wonderful to hear from you. You do citizen related journalism. From your perspective what do you see as the challenges?

Ivan Sigal:
Good morning everyone, I’m Ivan Sigal. I’m the executive director of Global Voices. Global Voices is a large community of writers, translators, and digital activists mostly based in focusing on global majority communities around the world. And we are coming up on our 20th anniversary this year. So we’ve been practicing the art of identifying and finding accurate and trustworthy information in online spaces but with a particular attention to equity and diversity of voices and languages. Asking whose knowledge, asking whose perspectives matter, and who do we hear, and how are individuals represented, how do they represent themselves in online spaces for a very long time now. And interestingly the basics haven’t changed that much. The core question still is I think for a trustworthy information online space is you have to have a open interoperable network that has something like a common carrier system and you have to have user agency. That’s the first step. And then the second is the healthy and across society a healthy promotion of a wide range of participation because a dominant mode of expression or a dominant way of thinking about the internet is that it’s frictionless, it’s easy, and that openness equates to somehow the availability for everybody to do anything in online spaces. But when you actually think about the internet in context of history you realize that historical facts and friction and participation and access has always been inequitable and it’s always been the effort to kind of find to build spaces where people can participate more or less equally is actually a lot of work. It takes a lot of effort, a lot of time to create spaces where people can come together and talk in an equitable way and that’s a lot of what we do. And I think that that kind of promotion of voice and promotion of expression requires thinking carefully and critically about how institutions are built, institutions of knowledge are built, about how not just about freedom of expression, freedom of media, but also about whose media. So thinking about carefully about the diversity of those sources, about how they’re funded, how they’re sustained, and so on and so forth. So I think a lot of the comments we’ve heard thus far I agree with everything said from Jan and from Allison so I’ll stop there for the moment and just continue.

Moderator:
Yeah thanks, Ivan and I think that’s a really important point that the internet creates a number of opportunities to create equal spaces but we have to have the intention when we actually build those spaces and use them to to have them be equal. Clara maybe from your perspective as a government what are the challenges to a trustworthy and safe information environment?

Klara Therese Christensen:
Now yes you can hear me great. Hi good morning everyone thank you so much for showing up. My name is Clara Christensen and I’m part of the tech ambassadors team at the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I’m pretty new to the whole tech agenda. I just started this August so I’m really excited to be here and be part of this discussion. And first and foremost I want to thank our friends and colleagues in the Freedom Online Coalition and especially the the chairship of the US and how you sort of carried this task force forward. I think this is really exciting for us to see from from the Danish perspective and I’m really excited to be here today because I think that online information is shaping our world and our realities and that’s why we need to build healthy online information systems. And while as we’ve heard you know this is sort of an opportunity to give voice to marginalized groups to to people who normally wouldn’t have a chance to participate then definitely the sort of online forum also can distort information and sort of make it harder to navigate what kind of information is trustworthy what is not and this is why we need to build reliable information structures in partnership with civil society with private sector and I think this is sort of one of the Danish key values that we need to build these things in partnership. Yeah so I’m really happy to to be part of this task force together with Witness, Global Voices, Wikimedia, Salesforce and Freedom Online Coalition. I think this is like it’s gonna be a great discussion and happy to see this sort of growing out of the Tech for Democracy initiative that we launched two years back. Happy to see it grow this is exciting and I think sort of as a government we do have a responsibility to try to build human rights based ecosystems of information and that also means regulation and I think definitely there is a tension between sort of as we talked about you know some governments may be wanting to take a lot of control over these online spaces in a way that might not be very conducive to sort of a free debate and active engagement and on the other hand sort of also the government taking a role into sort of yeah trying to to provide like some sound regulation and we have to do that in partnership with the private sector, with civil society, with our community to try to make sort of regulation that that works that actually matter and that can provide sort of trustworthy information. So I think this is going to be exciting sort of talking a little bit about how do we do that and how do we actually engage with you know the communities to sort of make sure that we do this in the right way. Yeah and I think sort of I’m so happy to see these principles being launched today I think this is really a good foundation and I’m happy to talk about how we put them into action and how we actually sort of build on these principles to to try to have more trustworthy information online. I think that’s that’s it for me.

Moderator:
Thanks Clara. So as you said the first part of the work of the task force is really the launch of these principles. It’s a core set of principles to guide the work that it will be doing. There are three principles I think everyone’s got the paper in front of them. Meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement, protect and promote international human rights standards, and a diverse trustworthy and equitable internet. And since we have a very small group, many who are already familiar with this work, maybe we can spend some time just really digging into these principles. But first I don’t know Jan or Ivan if you want to talk a little bit about the background, what went into developing them, some of the thinking behind these principles, since you were connected to the coalition as well.

Ivan Sigal:
Yeah sure I’ll happily do that. So something that really attracted me to this particular group is that on the nonprofit side we had Wikipedia, Global Voices, and Witness. Three organizations that I think have an unusual perspective on what it takes to actually build trustworthy online spaces and trustworthy online information because they have started from an open knowledge perspective and from working with communities that are not necessarily, for whom being online is not necessarily an easy thing, especially in the context of say Witness’s work and some of Global Voices’ work. But that kind of idea of a citizen-generated participatory internet is the core of a somewhat now almost naive and older idea that has since been commercialized and this now sits broadly across all societies as opposed to of building communities with intention. And these three groups are all our communities built with intention. So working with them is, to me, is a really great place to assert or reassert a set of values as to what it actually takes to try to build trustworthy information spaces and open knowledge. And so I’m super happy that we’re doing it in this way.

Jan Gerlach:
Yeah, and I think to add to that, Ivan actually alluded to it, it’s not a given that people can contribute to these spaces, right, and can tell the stories from the world around them, from their communities. I want to emphasize that also adding knowledge to Wikipedia is not a trivial task in many places in the world. And not just because connectivity is a problem, but actually it might be dangerous to just document the places that you inhibit in places where freedom of expression is not upheld or where governments are actively trying to suppress certain information about how their countries run, right? And that is why, again, it is very, very important that these groups come together, organizations like ours to share also best practices, to share, I think, strategic thinking and why these spaces here are really important for us to come together, and why I think also the engagement of governments is just so welcome, right, who need to understand how their actions in, say, North America, in Europe, in the global north, how their regulation actually affects people elsewhere too and enables them or empowers them to participate, or, in the worst case, actually prevents them from doing so. And that’s why I think we’ve happily joined this task force because this is a great forum to raise these issues.

Moderator:
Thank you for that. And so, I mean, there’s three principles. The meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement, which is focusing on, I think, a lot of what you were saying, Ivan, about the importance of having different stakeholders come to the table to inform the design, development, deployment, evaluation of technologies. I think it’s interesting that this has standards and protocols relevant to the information ecosystem, which gives an important nod to the technical community. And working together to protect human rights and democracy in the front lines. Then protect and promote international human rights standards, so ensuring that regulation is in line with international human rights standards, strengthening privacy and data protection regimes across the world, and a diverse, trustworthy, and equitable internet, prioritizing free, open, transparent, interoperable, reliable, safe, and secure internet. And so, I guess my first question is, are there any reactions to these principles as they sit right now? My understanding is that the task force will actually be fleshing them out quite a bit more. So, first question to everybody in the room is, are there reactions to these principles? They seem on target. Um. I don’t know.

Ivan Sigal:
I’ll just say really quickly, it’s a really interesting moment to try to do this because, as you said, and several speakers have said already, many governments are thinking about how to regulate the internet much more actively now, and not just regulation from a repression standpoint, though that is certainly happening, but we also see lots and lots of attempts from global north countries trying to think about how to regulate, especially the platforms and the big tech companies in ways that are potentially really complicated and difficult for small, medium-sized, citizen-driven initiatives, or non-profit initiatives, or potentially rebound in ways that make it impossible or extremely expensive to create new kinds of platforms that are civic in intent rather than commercial in intent. And so, and at the same time, we have seen something like a break in trust around the large social media platforms. That’s been true for years, but the last two or three years have been really intense in that regard, which is both a big challenge and also a huge opportunity for us to reset, potentially, or rethink ways around instantiating and supporting these kind of basic, these communities that have a core set of civic values in their approach to online participation in the creation of community, the creation of knowledge, the creation of information. So when we think about these statements, I think that’s where we’ve been coming from as a group. And so if you see, not that many of the previous set of principles that we’ve seen launched over the years have really emphasized this participatory side. And I think that’s really important for us to kind of reestablish that side of it as well as the other part. So thanks.

Moderator:
Yeah, and I agree. I think we are seeing a rise in platform regulation that can have either intentional or unintentional impacts on platforms if it doesn’t really speak to the business model or the way that the platform functions or the services that are offered and can have unintentional consequences for the rights of users. And so I guess there’s two approaches. We were thinking that we would have a larger group. We were thinking maybe we would go, each person would take a principle and talk about it, talk about why it’s important, what it might mean in practice and how it could guide the work of fostering trustworthy information ecosystems online. So we could do that or we could talk about maybe a little bit more tangibly how the task force can apply these principles to the work that it’s doing, what might be the priorities of the task force going forward. It would be great to have input of what others think the priorities of the task force should be as it starts to work within the FOC. So I don’t know if there’s a preference between those two approaches. Yes, we are. This is fully interactive. So please, questions, comments.

Audience:
Thank you. I was formerly at Global Voices. So I’m very happy to be here. Keiko, it is great to see the work of Wikimedia and Global Voices on the Coalition working towards the trustworthy global information ecosystem. And I see the panel seem to sort of reify this approach to global ecosystem in terms of its diversity and inclusion where many of us are present. And I was wondering, because a lot of the disinformation and its harms are happening in the other areas outside of the Western-centric approach. And I was wondering how you guys are going to sort of scaffold their way of, not many of them are shifting from oral culture to digital cultures. And the impact of disinformation is not so much that is limited in the cyberspace, but there are coming to the lives of people that are in different languages. And that is why I think it’s very important in places like Global Voices and Wikimedia that has all these people that are contributing their time and efforts in other parts of the world. Thank you.

Moderator:
Yeah, are there other questions or comments, input into perhaps challenges that you see in the information ecosystem that the task force could concentrate on? Go ahead.

Audience:
Hi, good morning. I’m Nick Beniquista. I’m from the Center for International Media Assistance at the National Endowment for Democracy. Look, the principles look fine. I’d say, if anything, they look a little innocuous. No one’s gonna disagree with these. And we work on media development as a kind of an approach to information integrity, and have argued that over the years, we need systems level really pretty major interventions if we’re gonna fix the problems that we have in the information ecosystem. So things that affect how eyeballs and money are being moved through the digital ecosystem. So this includes things like Pluralis in Europe, trying to really bring massive amounts of private capital to bear, trust initiatives that are trying to really change the economic incentives for quality information online, and many, many others. And of course, policy interventions like bargaining codes that could really transform. It’s imperfect, I know, but we’re looking to all these options. In that context, the sort of participatory, citizen-driven approach seems a little quaint. And just to be provocative. Hasn’t, I mean, Wikipedia and Global Voices is incredible. You’ve done incredible work over the years, but faced with these sort of systemic level challenges, how does your vision for a kind of a participatory approach still matter?

Jan Gerlach:
Sure. I think it matters more than ever, probably. And I guess I need to say that, but I do believe in it as well. You’re talking about sort of changing incentives, economic incentives around eyeballs. And you’re probably alluding to supporting journalism and I think Wikimedia can be sort of an honest broker in there, as in, if stories go away, if stories, if local journalism isn’t funded, isn’t sustainable, regional journalism, those stories cannot be on Wikipedia, right? Wikipedia is not a place for original research, but every edit, every article refers to sources out there that are verified by the people who work on Wikipedia. And that’s why we have a very strong interest in the media landscape being healthy and being diverse, right, for these stories to not just be sort of driven by engagement, as you mentioned, but really documenting the world and being trustworthy. And now every story that goes away, however, also goes behind a paywall, is not accessible for many people around the world. We understand that journalism needs to be funded, media work needs to be sustainable, but we really have concerns about laws that basically just put a larger price tag on this knowledge, right, per se. And so I think there’s a role for governments to play there, there’s a role for independent initiatives, but I think the answer cannot be, let’s move money away from all platforms and make it harder for non-profit platforms even to share and carry this knowledge and move it to, say, big media conglomerates, right? And that’s, I think, what we’ve been seeing around the world how this has been happening, right? It’s not independent journalism that ultimately benefits, it’s not your person somewhere in, I think, a conflict zone who ultimately benefits, but it’s usually the big media houses that we see sort of pushing this kind of regulation as well. We’re really worried about that, but we see ourselves sort of as an honest broker in the middle, right? We know this must be accessible, but it must also be sustainable to actually work as in media, right? And that’s why this is, I think, a super important space for us to engage in and we welcome the question.

Ivan Sigal:
Let me just add that both of these organizations are part of a process of field building, so it’s not just about Global Voices and Wikipedia, it’s about a whole universe of people who see it as their, see it as a civic act to create and share information that’s trustworthy. And that is not only about media creation, that’s, it’s also about knowledge building outside of the news. And, you know, that’s what SEMA does, you focus very much on the news and the professionalization of it. It’s really important to say that one of the reasons projects like ours got started is because of pervasive and complicated bias in news framing. That’s a history of the news media from the last 50 years. I mean, it’s not the case that news organizations are adequate or sufficient for all the kinds of information we need in the world. We do need a diversity of voices, a diversity of perspectives. And in many countries around the world, as you know, if you work in the media development field, it’s been very, very hard to get that kind of diversity, even when there is a financial sustainability. That’s what, and so creating alternatives that allow people to have easy entry into an information space, to be able to build their own systems, their own communications platforms, their own communities, whatever initiative they might create that helps to add a diversity of perspectives and voices and more information coming from more places is a good thing. It is not a zero-sum system. And like, yes, Global Voices is small, but we’ve had about 8,000 people participate with us and we’ve had hundreds of media partners over the years. And we work on our typical basis with about 50. So it’s, you know, at any given time. So it’s not by itself maybe as significant as you’d like it to be, but it is part of a larger way of thinking about how information works. And I think that kind of story is really important to maintain and sustain and grow. And there’s no reason why it can’t keep growing as long as there’s a fundamental framework to allow it to be true. And so that’s why sometimes saying these, as you acknowledged, sometimes very basic ideas, these very basic principles need to be restated because the alternative, which is that we build a regulatory process that’s all about big technology versus large media outlets, which are basically competing for access to information, to advertising dollars, takes the civics out of the equation. And so we’re here to try to make sure that the civics stays part of the equation.

Moderator:
I don’t know if there was additional thoughts onto the comment that you made, which I understood kind of about the voices and multi-stakeholder voices and maybe power of voice as well.

Ivan Sigal:
I mean, I can address that really briefly as well, which is just, yes, you’re absolutely right, Kiko, about how disinformation does affect many communities in many languages. And I think it’s very important to make a clear distinction between misinformation and disinformation as well, by the way. Misinformation, which is generally ignorance in another language and disinformation, which is lying, which is intentional misleading of peoples and groups. We certainly see a lot of that and thinking about how to buttress or support better information in other languages in a whole range of languages is a big part of what we do. I know Wikipedia also does that. We have an initiative called Rising Voices, which works with indigenous and marginalized groups to help to identify and languages to helps to build their own information sources and trustworthy information sources. And lots of others do have that kind of activity as well. And I think it’s super important to keep putting an emphasis on that type of project to stand in opposition to free-floating disinformation. Thanks.

Klara Therese Christensen:
So yeah, no, I think just like commenting on some of your thoughts on sort of like regulation, what’s the role of a regulation? And I think we need to sort of distinguish between the very large online platforms and sort of how we regulate them versus sort of the more like not-for-profit or smaller platforms and how to sort of like give access to like multiple voices and then also recognizing that very large online platforms do have like a special responsibility for like what kind of content comes online and how do you access it? And I think that has to be coupled with like, for example, funding from governments to support Global South, the global majority voice. to make sure that we try to create a more open space. And I think that’s some of the things that, for example, the Danish government is also trying to do through partners, through Access Now, to international media support, some of these organizations that we’re partnering up with to try to sort of make this a more open space where more voices can be heard. Because I definitely agree with you that this is something that we see as a big challenge. And it’s sometimes sitting in a government position up somewhere in Europe, it can be really hard and challenging to see where we have the blind spots that we have and where we are sort of restricting information and restricting the debate. So I think that’s, for us, super important to sort of partner up with organizations like yours to sort of to engage in that conversation and to get better. Then, of course, we have the whole sort of EU regulation, like a lot of regulation coming out of the EU right now, which I think is, for me, like super exciting and interesting to see how the EU, because, I mean, Denmark, as like a small country, we don’t do a lot of regulation ourselves on sort of very large online platforms, for example, and seeing how the EU is trying to build some regulation, but without having a lot of big tech companies and big online platforms, and how I think the EU is sort of trying to, yeah, to build, to make some regulation that could be used worldwide, but still sort of grappling a bit with how to do that in a way that, where we still sort of take into consideration the different local contexts in the global majority and sort of outside the EU, and I think that could be really interesting to also hear some perspectives on how you see that, how we’re doing that, if it could be better, how we, as a small country like Denmark, could sort of engage in that discussion also in the EU and what we should sort of bring to the table. I think that would be really interesting to hear from everyone here, and yeah, also on the panel. Yeah, that would be great.

Audience:
Hi, my name’s Michael Karanikolas. I’m the Executive Director of the UCLA Institute for Technology Law and Policy. These look really good. It strikes me that all three of these principles pose a challenge to traditional concentrations of power. Interoperability poses a challenge to large online platforms. Human rights standards restrict what governments might wanna do, and multi-stakeholder engagement. I’m academic slash civil society. Multi-stakeholder engagement is great for civil society because it gives them a seat at the table, but where it’s meaningful, obviously it restricts authority among governments to just take the actions that they wanna take and companies to take the action that they wanna take. So I guess my question is, have there been early responses from governments and industry? Is there a strategy for developing buy-in among the players whose power would be eroded by the adoption of these standards? Is that what we’re doing now, is developing that strategy? How do you make these actionable by generating will to move towards these by the people who it’s not necessarily in their immediate interests to do so? Hi, my name is Guus van Zwol from the Dutch government, Dutch MFA. Thank you for a great presentation. I mean, this is an issue that we’re very happy as an FOC country that this topic is being taken up. We think it’s a very important topic. That’s reason also why last summer we presented together with Canada, the Global Declaration on Information Integrity, which I think mimics a lot of these same principles, but maybe are a little bit more detailed. I’m just wondering, I mean, I mean, my question is the following. Being part now part of the, now we’re doing this work within the Freedom Online Coalition. I mean, this is a topic that’s also high on the UN agenda with the UN Code of Conduct, for example, which is part of our common agenda. And UNESCO has promoted their Internet for Trust initiative. And my question would be, how are we going to operationalize or promote these principles in those fora? Because that will be, I think, one of the key challenges that we see, which would also be, well, which would also provide a certain rationale or pretext for other countries to start regulating more these fora that we’re discussing. Not these international fora, but the social media companies, et cetera, et cetera. So my question would be, is how we’re going to operationalize these principles and how we’re going to organize ourselves in order to also address those international fora since we are, I mean, the FOC is, by definition, a diplomatic coalition.

Moderator:
Yeah, thanks. Maybe just to summarize, because I think there’s a couple of different threads that have emerged. One is a question of kind of what’s next with these principles? Is there going to be buy-in? How are they going to be used? My response to that right now is that the principles are meant to lay the foundation for the work of the task force, which has just been launched within the Freedom Online Coalition. And so the strategy around how these principles are going to be used is being built and developed. And this is the starting point to share that this is the foundation that the task force is going to be working off of. Another question, Joost, to what you were pointing to, was how are we going to coordinate with other initiatives that exist around information integrity, trustworthy online ecosystems, et cetera? How are we going to promote the work of the task force and the principles in key international forums, debates, processes that are happening at the international level? Also, I heard a number of, I guess, suggestions of what is needed to create a safe and trustworthy information ecosystem from taking a systems-level approach to ensuring that it is participatory and citizen-driven to ensuring that the regulation is human rights-respecting and is tailored to the platform. And also a number of challenges that individuals are facing at the local level with respect to the impact of disinformation. So maybe those are the different threads, and I don’t know if there’s any responses from the panel to those, or thoughts from other members in the audience that would like to build on some of those threads.

Jan Gerlach:
Well, I see the creation of the task force also the launch of the principles today as sort of an invitation to help figure this out. I mean, I think we gotta be honest here that there’s no clear strategic path forward, right? There’s, I think, and I guess this speaks actually to the challenge of having all these processes that are somewhat loosely related, but where the coordination and connection isn’t always so clear. And having such a task force that actually brings together governments and civil society, and hopefully also really proactive private actors can help as that, I think, coordination group that maps these processes and coordinates how we all speak with one another and maybe with others that we need to bring along. I think from a Wikipedia perspective, our team’s main task is often to educate people about how Wikipedia actually works. Everybody uses it, but nobody really knows what’s under the hood. And once we start educating policy makers and governments about that, they’re like, oh, wow, this, I didn’t know this, right? This is something we should be protecting. And we’re, I mean, we’re seeing this as an opportunity to actually do this in an FOC context to bring along governments who have very lofty diplomatic goals, but we’d love to sort of get them engaged on this and through diplomatic briefings, help them also understand what’s at stake elsewhere, right? It’s one way to say, one thing to say, yes, the EU is regulating the online spaces, and it’s also just learning how to do this a little bit, but then showing the real effects that some of these regulations have in places where Wikipedians sit in the global South and are affected by this, are affected by maybe a mechanism that forces platforms to remove content or are affected by laws to retain data. And just sort of, I think, having this as a focal point where these conversations happen, I think is the strongest sort of proposition that this task force actually has.

Moderator:
Reactions or thoughts? We’ve got four minutes left.

Ivan Sigal:
Just make a final comment. Well, I wanna say thank you. I thought your point was very clear and very helpful. I mean, all of these three points are in some ways a challenge to traditional stakeholder positions, and embedding that challenge within the framework of a intergovernmental group is itself a strategy, right? It is itself to say, here’s a way of talking about those, and bringing these communities that traditionally don’t have a lot of power, are traditionally dispersed, and because they’re dispersed, it’s very, very hard to organize around some kind of considered position, and then to present that in a framework in which it does actually have a, is in dialogue with entities that have the potential, at least, to think about regulation, think about supporting positions. Look, this conversation’s been going on for a very long time. Attempts to build principles, attempts to build coalitions. The Web We Want project was, the Web Foundation was 12 years ago, 14 years ago. Now, there’s older projects as well that have a lot of the same kind of language, and they tend to disintegrate because there isn’t a formal structure for maintaining and supporting them that has an engagement with any kind of regulatory process. I was just sitting here and doodling on the different domains of authority and knowledge where these things, these issues take place, right? Speech, privacy, antitrust, content moderation, four different domains of expertise that often have conflicting goals, conflicting ends towards what they would like to see as an ideal regulatory environment, an ideal solution for some of the problems we see. Even fundamentally, sometimes fundamentally, different understandings of what the problem even is. And I think our basic goal here is to make sure that the voices of the communities that we work with are included in those conversations and not ignored, not skipped over because we have less power, potentially, or fewer resources, or because we don’t have a profit motive that underlines our activities. So I’ll stop there and let you guys continue.

Moderator:
Thank you. I think I should, we’ve got one question.

Audience:
One comment that I need an answer from you because I represent Sri Lanka, Internet Governance Initiative of Sri Lanka. So at the moment, there is a proposed bill regarding internet safety in Sri Lanka, which is almost the first reading had done in the parliament which is mostly discusses about the internet safety but it creates regulations to censorship, to fragmented internet, and also it harmful for the platforms, media, and users as well. So where these kind of issues comes, where you stand, how we reach to you, how we can do an action for us as a people we are in the developing world. Thank you.

Moderator:
Yeah, thank you so much for that. One for highlighting the upcoming bill in Sri Lanka but also flagging kind of the concluding question of the panel, which is next steps, how can people stay connected to the work and get in touch? So maybe I will hand to Clara and then maybe Jan if you could speak to the next steps and how people can stay connected to the work of the task force. But before that, did you have any kind of concluding remarks or reactions to anything that’s been said?

Klara Therese Christensen:
Yeah, thanks. I think I was, sorry. I also just wanted to comment sort of on this issue between sort of giving serenity or authority when you sort of work in this multi-stakeholder approach. And I do think that that is of course a challenge but I also think that this is the only way to build like good reliable regulation that actually gets implemented. If we don’t have buy-in from the private sector, for example, it is super hard to make sort of sound regulation that actually will have an impact. And I think that’s why it’s so important and something that we work for from the Danish side to sort of like try to include more private sector engagement, more civil society engagement to actually make sure that when we do make regulation then it’s well-informed and we have some buy-in to actually make it work out in the real world. So I do think this is like a very good example of like why this is difficult, why it takes time but also why this is sort of the only way we can do because states and governments, they can do so much but if we don’t have sort of buy-in from the rest of the ecosystem, I think it’s gonna be really difficult to like create more trustworthy information online because the internet is not only regulated by government, right, it’s like, it’s so sort of big and also live beyond sort of the serenity of the states. I think that’s something that provides some challenges but also some really great opportunities and forces us to go into deeper dialogue with some of our counterparts. And I do think that that’s sort of some of the important work that we should sort of continue working on in this task force.

Moderator:
Yeah, thanks so much. Maybe on to the last question of what’s next for the task force and how people can stay connected?

Jan Gerlach:
Well, first of all, we’re excited to launch this today officially and as a task force, I think we hope to grow and find many more people who want to contribute so that’s one way to stay connected and be part of this hopefully growing momentum. We just connected on this actually and I think as co-chairs, Wikimedia, we’re interested in people following us. There’s spaces for discussion like mailing lists, public policy mailing lists. I think one way to also be part of this is actually to become a Wikipedian. If I can do a shameless plug here. And just understand this better, right? I think that’s sort of my whole point here. We need people around the world to understand what is going on and how these systems work, how the citizen journalism space works, how Wikipedia works, how all these civic spaces actually function and by joining them, you’re making a huge contribution, right? And obviously, we don’t wanna make this all like individual responsibilities, right? That’s why there are organizations like ours as well. But staying connected through these very communities that we support is one really meaningful way to actually help because at the end of the day, we are just here to serve them, right? And by directly joining them, you’re actually doing very helpful work. So yeah, be part of this and try to stay connected in that way. Yeah, thank you.

Moderator:
So with that, I think we are out of time. Thank you so much for everybody’s participation and your inputs. And if you are interested in learning more about the task force or even participating, please do talk to one of us up here. Thank you.