Day 0 Event #263 Public Service Media and Meaningful Digital Access

Summary

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum focused on the role of public service media in providing meaningful digital access, particularly in contexts where internet censorship and digital authoritarianism are growing concerns. The session was organized by the BBC and Deutsche Welle, with panelists including Patrick Leusch from Deutsche Welle, Abdallah Al Salmi from the BBC, Paula Gori from the European Digital Media Observatory, and Poncelet Ileleji from Joko Labs in Gambia.

The conversation began by distinguishing between basic internet connectivity and meaningful digital access, which encompasses reliable and affordable connectivity, appropriate devices, digital literacy, relevant local content, and safe digital environments. Leusch presented how international broadcasters face increasing censorship challenges, particularly in countries like Iran, Russia, and China, requiring sophisticated circumvention technologies to reach audiences seeking independent information during crises. Deutsche Welle and BBC invest heavily in tools like VPNs, proxy servers, and mirror sites to bypass censorship, with legal justification based on Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights regarding access to information.

Gori emphasized the connection between meaningful connectivity and disinformation, noting that public service media serve as crucial solutions to combat false information while maintaining transparency in ownership and funding. She highlighted how crisis situations demonstrate the vital role of trusted public media sources. Ileleji brought a grassroots perspective from Africa, advocating for strengthening community radio stations and local media partnerships to serve rural populations who lack broadband access but rely on radio for essential information about health, education, and agriculture.

The discussion revealed that current regulatory frameworks, including the EU’s Digital Services Act, face implementation challenges, particularly regarding data access for researchers studying platform algorithms. Participants agreed that a strengthened multi-stakeholder approach, updated international human rights frameworks, and better support for local media infrastructure are essential for achieving meaningful digital access globally.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Meaningful Digital Access vs. Basic Connectivity**: The distinction between simply having internet access and having meaningful digital access, which includes reliable/affordable connectivity, appropriate devices, digital literacy, relevant local content, and safe digital environments. This concept goes beyond just being connected to focus on the quality and utility of the internet experience.

– **Internet Censorship and Circumvention Technologies**: How authoritarian governments are increasingly blocking access to independent media content, and the technical and ethical challenges faced by public service broadcasters like BBC and Deutsche Welle in developing circumvention tools (VPNs, proxies, mirror servers) to reach audiences in countries like Iran, Russia, and China.

– **Community-Level Media Infrastructure**: The critical role of community radio stations, particularly in rural Africa, as intermediaries for delivering reliable information to populations with limited broadband access. The need to strengthen these local media outlets through partnerships with international broadcasters and digital literacy training.

– **Platform Transparency and Algorithmic Accountability**: The challenges researchers and media organizations face in understanding how social media algorithms work, the lack of data access despite regulations like the EU’s Digital Services Act, and how algorithmic preferences for emotional/sensational content can amplify disinformation.

– **Regulatory and Policy Framework Gaps**: The need to update international frameworks like Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, strengthen multi-stakeholder governance models, and implement existing policies like the Global Digital Compact to better protect internet freedom and access to information.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how public service media can enhance meaningful digital access globally, examining both the technical challenges of reaching audiences under authoritarian censorship and the broader policy frameworks needed to ensure equitable, safe, and useful internet access for all populations.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, with participants sharing expertise and building on each other’s points constructively. While addressing serious challenges like censorship and disinformation, the speakers remained solution-oriented and emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation. The tone was urgent but not alarmist, reflecting both the gravity of digital rights issues and optimism about potential solutions through coordinated action.

Speakers

– **Mr. Patrick Leusch** – Head of European Affairs at Deutsche Welle (Germany’s international broadcaster), Session Moderator

– **MODERATOR** – Online moderator (Oliver Ings, Distribution Manager at BBC)

– **Audience** – Various audience members and participants

– **Mr. Poncelet Ileleji** – CEO of Joko Labs in Banjul, Gambia; ICT expert with extensive experience in ICT development

– **Giacomo Mazzone** – Representative from Eurovision

– **Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi** – Policy Advisor at the BBC, Session Co-organizer

– **Ms. Paula Gori** – Secretary General and Coordinator of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Thora** – PhD researcher from Iceland studying how very large platforms (VLOPS and VLOCE) are undermining democracy in the EEA

# Public Service Media and Meaningful Digital Access: IGF Session Report

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum session, organized by the BBC and Deutsche Welle, examined how public service media can provide meaningful digital access in an era of increasing internet censorship. Moderated by Patrick Leusch from Deutsche Welle, the discussion featured Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi from the BBC (participating remotely from London due to flight cancellations), Mr. Poncelet Ileleji from Joko Labs in Gambia, Ms. Paula Gori from the European Digital Media Observatory, Giacomo Mazzone from Eurovision, and Thora, a PhD researcher studying platform impacts on democracy.

The session explored the distinction between basic connectivity and meaningful digital access, examining technical circumvention strategies, community media infrastructure, and platform governance challenges. Participants revealed significant disagreements on content regulation approaches while finding common ground on the importance of multi-stakeholder governance and public service media’s crisis response role.

## Defining Meaningful Digital Access

Mr. Alsalmi opened by distinguishing meaningful digital access from simple connectivity: “We need to go beyond just simple connectivity and beyond just having a device that is connected to the internet because it’s all about the experience, it’s all about what the internet users can make of the internet.”

He clarified that while the UN’s Universal Meaningful Connectivity (UMC) provides specific development metrics, meaningful digital access focuses on the qualitative user experience and practical utility of internet services. This encompasses reliable connectivity, appropriate devices, digital literacy, relevant local content, and secure digital environments.

## Circumvention Technologies and Legal Framework

### Deutsche Welle’s Technical Approach

Patrick Leusch detailed Deutsche Welle’s substantial investment in circumvention technologies to reach audiences in countries like Iran, Russia, and China. The broadcaster employs VPN services, proxy servers, mirror websites, and tools like Psiphon and Tor. He highlighted their collaboration with Italian organization UNI to develop the News Media Scan tool.

Leusch provided specific examples of usage spikes during crises, including the Prigozhin coup attempt and Navalny’s death, demonstrating increased demand for alternative information sources during political upheavals. The technical work requires permanent adaptation as censorship methods vary significantly between countries and evolve continuously.

### Legal Justification and Challenges

Deutsche Welle’s legal team, consulting with the German Bundestag Legal Service, established justification for circumvention tools under Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. However, Alsalmi argued for updating this framework: “Article 19 is really, I would say, is really outdated and we need to have another look at it, update it, and renew commitments to it… Any government can shut down the internet at any time without due recourse to legal background or text.”

## Community-Level Infrastructure Perspective

### African Connectivity Challenges

Mr. Ileleji provided grassroots perspective from sub-Saharan Africa, where approximately 37% of the population has broadband connectivity according to ITU statistics. He emphasized community radio’s continued importance: “I like to look at it from a grassroots level. What information do community radios are able to provide to their citizens?”

He described how community radio stations serve as intermediaries for rural populations, providing information about health, education, and agriculture while combating fake news spreading through WhatsApp. Ileleji noted that major tech companies like Meta and Google have launched connectivity projects in Africa using balloons and drones, but these often provide access to only limited websites.

### Partnership Approach

Rather than waiting for comprehensive broadband deployment, Ileleji advocated strengthening partnerships between international broadcasters and community radio stations, emphasizing digital literacy tools and training. This approach recognizes existing technological and economic constraints while building on established community media infrastructure.

## Platform Governance and Data Access

### Research Challenges

Ms. Gori highlighted obstacles in understanding platform operations despite regulations like the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). She expressed particular concern about AI systems: “We even don’t know the answers that Gen AI is giving to people. So whenever you ask an AI chatbot about something, it is giving you an answer and no one knows it. It is like between you and the chatbot, which is creating an additional element, probably even more scary.”

The DSA’s data access provisions remain hindered by the unpublished Delegated Act, preventing researchers from accessing platform data necessary for studying algorithmic behavior and disinformation patterns. Gori worried about creating a “two-speed system” where only well-funded institutions can analyze platform data.

### Regulatory Approaches

Gori used a highway metaphor to explain connectivity and content regulation, advocating for risk-based regulation targeting platform operations rather than content itself. She noted increased reliance on trusted sources during COVID-19, highlighting public service media’s stabilizing role during information uncertainty.

## Content Regulation Debate

A significant disagreement emerged on content regulation approaches. Mr. Ileleji took a firm stance: “We shouldn’t have regulation on content. It goes against freedom of speech. So immediately you start trying to regulate content, then you are infringing on the rights of people.”

In contrast, Giacomo Mazzone suggested that fact-checking alone proves insufficient, questioning the effectiveness of industry pledges by organizations like the European Broadcasting Union and newspaper associations to platforms. This disagreement reflected broader tensions between combating disinformation and preserving freedom of expression.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance

### Strengthening International Cooperation

Participants agreed on strengthening multi-stakeholder governance models. Alsalmi advocated for re-energizing local Internet Governance Forum (IGF) forums and coalition building to prevent internet fragmentation. Ileleji proposed combining Global Digital Compact implementation with World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) review to strengthen the IGF framework.

Gori emphasized involving municipalities as key players closer to citizens in digital rights advocacy. Alsalmi stressed the importance of civil society working at local levels and engaging judicial systems when governments don’t support digital rights initiatives.

### Research and Democracy Focus

Thora, referencing Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year 2006” recognition of internet users, focused her research on how Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Content Engines (VLOCEs) undermine democracy in the European Economic Area. Her work examines the intersection of platform governance and democratic processes.

## Key Outcomes and Ongoing Challenges

The session revealed both consensus and significant disagreements among participants. While there was agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder governance, opposition to internet shutdowns, and public service media’s crisis response role, fundamental disagreements emerged on content regulation approaches.

Implementation challenges persist, including delayed DSA data access provisions, capacity gaps between large and small organizations, and the ongoing technical arms race between censorship and circumvention technologies. The discussion highlighted how different regional contexts require adapted strategies rather than universal solutions.

## Conclusion

This IGF session demonstrated the complexity of achieving meaningful digital access amid increasing digital authoritarianism. The combination of high-tech circumvention strategies from international broadcasters, community-level media strengthening in developing countries, and evolving regulatory frameworks in Europe suggests that meaningful digital access requires diverse, coordinated approaches.

The path forward involves both immediate practical actions—such as implementing existing data access provisions and strengthening community media partnerships—and longer-term framework development to update international human rights law for the digital age. Success will depend on navigating tensions between competing values while maintaining collaborative approaches to digital governance challenges.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: A very warm welcome everyone here in the room, in the workshop room two in Lilleström in Oslo at the IGF and remote wherever you sit around the globe. My name is Patrick Leusch, I’m head European affairs at Deutsche Welle, which is the Germany’s international broadcaster and I’m very happy to motivate this session here that has been organized, co-organized by the BBC and Deutsche Welle. So public service media and meaningful digital access, this workshop will deal with the lessons learned so far from policies followed by public service media to each audience via the internet and the challenges they face particularly in reaching global audiences. You might understand that for at least for Europe for public broadcasting internet censorship is a growing issue but not so important issue so far but potentially it is when you look at some some countries that start really limiting the access to information to put it that way but on a global scale there is a growing digital authoritarianism and this poses a challenge for information providers, for media makers, for human rights communities, we’re talking about safe space communication but we’re talking about journalism also brought to audiences to a less and less free extent. So what is the link to the concept of meaningful connectivity that will be explored in a minute and then we will step through different aspects of this challenge we are facing. We will explain a little bit practically how international broadcasters are running this problem and on the other hand at the second part let’s say what’s important is to understand what is the policy implications and is the regulatory implications and where this meaningful digital access needs to be strengthened from a policy and a regulatory and a legal framework and there is room to improve by far obviously and that is what we will discuss with the following protagonists and you because we consider you as an expert community, be you online or be you in the room so you will have space to discuss among yourselves and with us obviously. So the panelists so far are first of all I mentioned Abdallah Al Salmi, he’s policy advisor at the BBC and he was supposed to sit next to me because he’s the real organizer of that session but his flight was first delayed and then cancelled so no chance to come over from London. Hello Abdallah in London, very warm welcome. So I’m turning to the second speaker on screen, Paula Gori, who is the secretary general and the coordinator of the European Digital Media Observatory ADMO. Hello Paola, thank you very much for joining. Thank you. And last but not least with me is Poncelet Ileleji, he is the CEO of Joko Labs in Banjul, Gambia and he’s an outstanding ICT expert. When you look at his LinkedIn track down, he has been a member of a lot of boards and experts groups that deal particularly with ICT in development. Thank you very much for making the way, Poncelet. And last but not least, we have Oliver Ings, he is distribution manager at the BBC and he is the online moderator. I hope he’s there and we will get the questions from the audiences via Oliver. Now let’s simply start. Abdallah, give us an overview, what are we talking about when we talk about meaningful connectivity or meaningful digital access? Are you going to share your screen with your presentation by yourself or you want me to do that? So I’m sharing my screen now and I wanted

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi: to ask if you could see it. Should come. So far we see you. So the IGF is telling me that they can’t see it. So I cannot see it on screen. Now we see it. Okay, perfect. All right, I’ll get started and thank you, Patrick, for the introduction and again I’m very happy to be here. So I’m going to start with the thank you, Patrick, for the introduction and again apologies for not being able to be physically in workshop room two. I’m going to arrive later tonight so hopefully we will meet some of you over the week. So to begin to talk about meaningful digital access, it’s really a good start to think of how technology and communications evangelists tended to lump some old internet users in one group. So for example, someone who can send only text messages on WhatsApp over a 2G connection is put or placed in the same group with someone who has a super fast broadband and can use Apple’s latest VR headset to play games. So over the last few years, some civil society groups such as the Alliance for Affordable Internet came up with this concept of meaningful digital access and the idea behind it was that we need to go beyond just simple connectivity and beyond just having a device that is connected to the internet because it’s all about the experience, it’s all about what the internet users can make of the internet. And the meaningful digital access has a number of elements. The definition is not really set in stone so it’s a bit flexible at the moment but the first one is about reliability and affordability of the connectivity. Again, here we’re talking about the costs of data that vary largely between one country and another. Probably it’s getting cheaper but still in some geographic contexts it’s a prohibitive aspect of using the internet. The second element is the appropriate devices and the idea here is about how many devices does a person have and do they have a keyboard in their device or not when they are using the internet. So the more devices they have, the better specifications of the devices, their internet experience is going to improve. And number three which touches on the issue of the digital divide and issues of development which is very important is digital literacy and skills and again the UN and a large number of other organizations have been working on this and it’s a huge subject. It also touches upon one of the points that some of our panelists will speak about today which is disinformation. To what extent is the user able to enjoy their internet experience without being subjected to organized disinformation campaign either by governments, by companies or even by individuals. Fourth is the relevant content in local languages and again here I think we have made huge strides in this but again more work needs to be done in making online content available in languages where people find it easy to speak and to use the internet. And last but not least number five is the safe and inclusive digital environments and this is here we get into the area of cyber security, we get into the area of access and continuity of internet access. Is there an internet shutdown? Is there censorship and blocking? And all of these elements come under as one of the requirements for a meaningful digital access. Now the UN has their own standard which is called universal meaningful connectivity and largely it’s very similar to meaningful digital access but there are differences. So a universal meaningful connectivity or in short UMC is more of a development goal that some UN organizations such as the ITU, the International Telecommunications Union works on in cooperation with governments, in cooperation with civil society and the idea is to upgrade the experience of online access based on specific metrics that have to do with how many people are connected to the internet and to what extent they are able to use data on a day-to-day basis, and what purposes they use the internet for, is it for business, is it for social networking or for looking for a job. The aim of the universal meaningful connectivity is the same as the meaningful digital access in the sense that If people don’t have access to a good connection, they can’t look for a job, they can’t keep in touch with their family, they can’t express their opinions freely on the Internet. However, the only difference here is that the MDI is an outcome. It really relates to the experience and the quality of it, of using the Internet, while UMC is a goal in itself and policy. And so the UMC as a metric, there’s a lot of data that’s available already. If you go to the ITU data hub online, you will find really a good dashboard that shows you the scores of all the countries in the world which are members of the ITU and where you can really see where more work needs to be done. For example, some of these scores, if it’s up to 100, if it’s 40 to 50, the UMC metric is limited. If it goes all the way up to 95 and 200, then it means that the target has been achieved. And yeah, so the last slide is about really this session, and we’re trying to look here at how public service media work to enhance and respond to these various challenges in attaining the status of meaningful digital access. So I’m going to stop here and get back to you, Patrick.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much, Abdallah, for that first introduction to camp a little bit this scene. I think it’s very important to distinguish between an outcome and an objective. And I think we will come back to both of it, because we would like to look at it from a comprehensive point of view. You have mentioned different use cases which play with meaningful digital access, let’s say in the exchange between people looking for a job, for instance, inform themselves. From another perspective, it’s also from the sender side. You can say that there is one issue which is really a bigger issue, is the access to information on a global scale, which is limiting more and more. And I would like to jump in and show you now a little bit what does that mean to public service media like the BBC, us and others, and if Laura could launch my presentation, that would be great. So thank you very much. So as I said, we are an international broadcast. I think you know roughly what we do. The map of press freedom that you see here is the guiding line for what we do. We provide unbiased information for free minds, and in a similar logic BBC and the former USAGM, at least with some of their grantees, have been underway to provide independent information, reliable information, where there is limitations to that, particularly from local media or state media or whatever. So as BBC and others, we provide this information in these local languages and made by teams from these countries. So we are not reporting about Germany to Gambia or Senegal. We are informing people in Russia about what’s happening in Russia and in Ukraine, right? And obviously, there is interest on the global scale. We reach 320 million users a week. And when you look at the geographical dispatching, then you see also that most of them are reached on continents where there is a, let’s say, limited space of information, be it by technical means, be it by market means, or be it by digital order. We will have a closer look at Eastern Europe and Central Asia, because there is where the game plays at the moment when you look at censorship. Independent content that would otherwise be denied through censorship, disinformation and one-sided reporting, that’s what our final impact should be. Now, on one hand, we are all journalists. We are used to create great journalistic content. But what are we telling taxpayers when they pay for this great content, when we cannot get it through to the audiences? So since many years, we and others invest also in censorship, understanding and teaching people circumventing censorship, because otherwise they cannot access these contents. And by the way, this research on circumvention, for instance, is nothing we do exclusively for our own company. We share with the BBC and others, for instance, and that relates also to a lot of exile media or media that are outside of the country where they report for. You can mention Medusa, for Russia and others, for instance. So that’s not only a matter for public service media like us, it’s a matter for a lot of free and independent media. The Deutsche Welle is blocked in China, in Iran, in Egypt, in Belarus, in Russia, in Turkey to some extent. And since 2012, we started looking into circumvention technologies. And as for Iran, we are very successful together with partners, obviously. And you understand that since a couple of days, there’s a complete shutdown in Iran and there are expert groups working on this issue. And Iran is a good example where over a long period of time, you really can build a skilled community that is able to access these contents via a range of tools, while the censorship is very efficient. Iranian censorship is quite efficient, let’s say. Maybe not so efficient with the Chinese one, but that’s a matter of how the Internet has been constructed. The Chinese Internet has been built as an inner Internet from the beginning, and the Iranian Internet was an open one, let’s say, but in a developing phase with limited connections to the outside global Internet at a certain point of time, where it was easier to cut it or control it. When you look at the Russian Internet, for instance, that is a different story because this was a fully-fledged, connected, globally interconnected Internet, which is now censored step by step on a testing basis also, because the Russians cannot know exactly what else works still when they cut something on another hand and they want to avoid. So it’s a kind of testing, but they are moving forward step by step, and even speed up the process to deconnect everything. So in Iran, we touch millions of people on a weekly basis, and it’s not only digital natives that can use these technologies needed to access these contents. So Internet censorship, that’s something you have to understand, is a complex issue. It’s technically and politically a complex issue. It relates on a variety of technologies, policies, means and methods, and it’s a permanent cat and mouse to understand what precisely is the technology used to censor content, filter content, block content, or throttle content, or whatever, and then the mitigation measure is also adapted to this variety of methods. These methods vary from country to country, and they vary from, let’s say, censorship policy to censorship policy. You cannot remove digital censorship from the outside of the technical center, so to say, and you cannot dig holes in the censorship wall. You can try to get around the wall. That’s something that’s very important to understand. So we are not counter-hacking or counter-attacking, but we try to provide tunnels, funnels, or whatever to make people access to Internet they are kept away from. The second condition is people in this country want access to that content. It’s their decision at the end of the day. We provide the content. We provide an explanation how to access it, but it’s their decision at the end of the day. I can tell you that that poses ethical questions on those doing this kind of stuff on one hand, and it’s also legal questions. Why a public service media like Deutsche Welle or BBC is able in front of a financial court also, and according to the law that identifies the mandate of a public broadcaster like with us, what is the legal basis on which… which we can provide explainers to audiences that explains how to access VPNs or apps that has been co-developed with IT specialists from our specialists that gives them access to that content. What is the legal basis on that? We did a research on that and we asked the German Bundestag Legal Service, Scientific Service to give an answer and the answer was it is Article 19, the access of information, Article 19 UN Carta on Human Rights. That is the legal basis and all the countries we are talking about that are censoring contents from us and others have signed this Carta and international law is breaking national law. So from a legal perspective, this is safe play. Simply on this article. So let’s start a discussion. What else? Just to speed up a little bit, we provide internet freedom via our app, Psyphone Tour. The session before here was from our friends with Tour. We work with them obviously. They host also our contents on their tour servers. When you access tour, you see our content for instance which is very important. We work with proxies, mirror servers and a lot of other means to get people access to our content. So we are quite skilled in reading what needs to be done to get people access to these contents because we do that work since 12 or 13 years. Nevertheless, it is always a kind of challenge because it is costly. You need server space for mirror server, for mirroring content for instance and you pay to Amazon or whoever for the server space. That’s really costly. But that circumvention works. Can you see from the access? This is a chart from the protests in Iran two years ago and you see clearly where the peaks are. That’s clearly every time when there was shut down, when there was protests, when there was limitations on the internet, people start seeking for information. You can see also this chart from Russia. You see that there is a peak around a weekend in June. What happened at that weekend in June? It was the coup by Prigozhin. Then there is crisis in the countries. It was the same when you look at the day that Navalny died. You see the same peak. When there is crisis, people in these countries start seeking for let’s say alternative information and that’s why public service media and exalt media are so important for these audiences. Okay, thank you very much. By the way, this is a small tool we co-developed with an Italian organisation, UNI. It’s called News Media Scan and if you install it, it shows you which websites in a given country are currently blocked, effectively blocked and which ones are free accessible. Nice monitoring tool that gives you a glimpse on what’s going on in your country. So this is to give you an overview over what we do and how that relates to the very practically to the concept of meaningful digital access. Great. I would like to hand over to Paula now to give us a glimpse on policy aspects. Hi, Paula. Yes,

Ms. Paula Gori: we can hear you. Go ahead, please. Thank you very much for having me and thank you for your great presentation. I noticed some keywords which I will try to take also in my presentation. So for those who do not know, ETMO stands for European Digital Media Observatory and we deal with disinformation and we are one of the pillars of the EU actually to tackle disinformation. But really in a nutshell, you can see us as a multi-stakeholder and multidisciplinary platform that tries to understand disinformation. Now Paula is frozen. Can you hear me? Can you see me? Yes, you are back. Okay, very good. Just very quickly, I wanted to reflect a little on the link between UMC and disinformation because first a step back, I mean Abdalla presented it very well and I was thinking of a metaphor and it’s like when you build connectivity, it’s like when you build the infrastructure which means think of for example the highway. Now we are all happy that we have a highway but if without rules it wouldn’t be so useful because actually there would be a risk of having accident or I don’t know, people walking on the highway and then having actually death accidents and so on. So there are a few rules. We are all free on the highway but there are still a few rules and this is somehow the same that happens with connectivity and content in the sense there is an infrastructure but we need not so many but at least a few rules and at least principles which are globally shared otherwise it’s hard to manage. And so this is somehow if you want my starting point. Now when it comes to disinformation and we discussed that in a prior session, I mean the whole issue is quite complex and also the solution is complex and it’s a multi-solution if you want with a full respect of fundamental rights and freedom of expression but now linking it to public service media which is if you want the core here in this session, I think there are a few reflections to be made. The first is that public service media is often seen as one of the solutions to tackle disinformation and I think this is rightly so and indeed at least in the EU there is the policy of the EU is to invest a lot and to support quality independent quality journalism and to support infrastructure for this journalism to actually be accessible. We also have to be honest, on some occasions unfortunately public service media are also sharing disinformation. We should be blind on that. There were a few occasions in some countries in which this is happening or happened and is happening but I think that once we are honest on that I think we can clearly invest also on the solution side where public service media play a key role and as you rightly said I think that crisis situations are in those moments in which we really have the evidence that they are playing a key role. I think when we saw it all during the COVID crisis we were accessing public service media more than before because we were all looking for information, we were all lost. We were also accessing quite a lot of disinformation and online content but public service media were in the end the media that everybody was relying on actually to get safe information. Now for public service media to work I think that or to be reliable I think what is very important is transparency. You may be familiar with what we have in the EU which is the European Media Freedom Act among others and according to the European Media Freedom Act there should be transparency on the ownership, on the structure, on the funding of the PSM. Why am I saying that? Because as you rightly said the choice is on the users, is on the citizens and so while public service media are not imposing them, they are just being there as an alternative or as one of the alternatives. It is important for the citizens to be sure about who is behind, how they are funded, how they are working because I think this is an element that gives reliability and that helps the users trust. Then of course as we were saying citizens can access any information they want and any source they want and this stays. I just wanted to maybe also close because I know that we are a little late in this session but I wanted to say something which is I think very important. I think there was an unfortunate, how can I say, coincidence between if you want an issue in the business model of traditional media including the PSM and in parallel as we all know a shift from advertisers from offline to online but also if you want in the way that public service media produced and shared the news. I talked to many journalists of PSM and there is a sort of mea culpa in the sense that it is important to have a more innovative but also positive approach to to sell news because otherwise there is a risk that the users and the citizens actually are not interested in quality news which is honestly a pity. So this is something where I see for example BBC and Deutsche Welle are actually quite good examples of very positive examples because they invest a lot on if you want new ways of producing content and of sharing content and also try to be less sensational. We have a lot of people who are journalists in their content and in their headlines and so on. But somehow it is important that PSM play a role also in not only being trustworthy because of the structure but also in being attractive because of their content. And I will close it here. And I just wanted to thank you really for the work that you are doing because it needs some courage to do what you are doing. And this is really in the interest of citizens.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much, Paula. Very interesting points. I think we will come back to one or two, particularly the building blocks you mentioned on this trustworthiness, which is extremely important when you look at content shared via the variety of distribution forms you don’t own. I’m saying the platforms, for instance, and particularly the user habits, which play an incredible role in all that. Let’s come back to that later. But first of all, I made you wait here on the screen. Poncelet, go ahead. What do you think?

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: I think personally, good morning, everybody. When we look at public service media and meaningful digital access, I like to look at it from a grassroots level. What information do community radios are able to provide to their citizens? In most of the cases, you look at sub-Saharan Africa, for example, my beloved continent, where only about 37% of the population have broadband connectivity. In most cases, if I take the Gambia, my home, whereby you have people who live in rural areas, they have Internet connection, but they don’t have meaningful connectivity. Because sometimes most of the big telcos, what do they do? They put their towers in most of the big cities, municipal cities. So people in the villages and in rural areas in most parts of Africa, they get their information from all these community radio stations. Some of these community radio stations, they also link up with the BBC or Dutch Orwella to produce information. So the most important thing is that with public media access, we have to strengthen our community radio stations. We have to give them more digital literacy tools and link them up to community network centers, whereby they can be able to download information relevant from big media houses to disseminate to their population. I’m looking at it from a grassroots perspective. We have to know that what does the average common man want in a rural area? He wants to get information on education, health, agriculture. Those are the basic information he needs to live his life and contribute to the well-being. Now, in terms of what Paolo talked about and when you look at disinformation, yes, if you don’t equip community-based public media with the right tools to be able to provide good news and updated news that is not disinformed, what have a lot of people now doing? They get their information, fake news spreads through mainly messaging apps like WhatsApp. So someone just sends a message and it goes viral and it’s fake. But who debunks all this information? Is the community radio saying, oh, that is not true, that X and Y activist has been arrested, blah, blah, blah. It’s not true. This happened and everything. So the strength for meaningful connectivity on information is strengthening our community-based radio stations, and that can be made possible through what I would call big public media like BBC, like Deutsche Welle, who work around different parts of the world. So they have to have partnerships so that with local community radio stations, give them digital literacy tools for this to be achieved. I’ll lastly say that if you look at the global digital compact implementation, one of the key things there is the digital divide. We still have 2.6 billion people in the world that are not connected. And if you want people to be connected, once you equip them with the right information through public media, indirectly they’ll be connected.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you. Thank you very much, Poncelet. That is a very important point. Just to put a question to understand correctly, what you’re referring to is the, let’s say, the technical infrastructure first, getting more people, more speedy, technically access to information via a policy to provide, let’s say, high-speed Internet. In rural areas, particularly in Africa, do I understand correctly that you are pledging for a speed-up infrastructural approach also to provide this right?

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: Yes, in a way, yes. But we have to live with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that we are still a long way for achieving meaningful connectivity on broadband in most parts of Africa. That is the reality. But how do you do it is by developing the capacities of community radio stations so that they have that capacity. They have, I mean, linking it up with a community network center. They have Internet connectivity to get good information to disseminate to that community. So when you do that, the information that the average person in a rural setting might not be able to get because he doesn’t have meaningful connectivity through his local radio station, he will be able to get this information because they are equipped. So that’s why I’m linking up that the meaningful access I’m talking about, I’m linking it up with public media. And that public media I’m referencing is what is at the community level. And that’s the community-based radio stations who, again, for world news, for other things, can link up to BBC, Deutsche Welle. You have all these learning platforms. They can link up to these learning platforms to provide other services in education, health, agriculture that people need to have.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Exactly. That’s absolutely right. And that’s what’s happening, by the way, because we, for instance, we work with partners. We can pick content and distribute that content on our own platforms. We co-develop content. And, by the way, like BBC with the media action, we provide trainings. And that training relates also on shifting, making shifting local media into online reporting and everything that comes with it. So let me turn to you guys here in the room. And let me also ask our online moderator, Oliver Inks, if there is a question that has been put forward so far from those who are connected online.

MODERATOR: Good day to everybody. Thank you. I can’t see any questions in the Zoom chat at the moment, but I do see that Paula has her hand up. So perhaps we should give the floor to her.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Go ahead, Paula. Only at the condition that there are no more questions, of course, from the audience. I just wanted to kind of go back to what Ponce was saying, because I think it’s very important. And I think there is another two elements. One is we don’t know. I mean, we are not fact checking or we don’t know what is going through private messaging app, which is absolutely correct. I will add another layer, which is we even don’t know the answers that Gen AI is giving to people. So whenever you ask an AI chatbot about something, it is giving you an answer and no one knows it. It is like between you and the chatbot, which is creating an additional element, probably even more scary. And the second element is, and I wanted, I mean, but you, Ponce, are more familiar with the African continent. But I remember some years ago, Meta and Google were sending balloons and drones to provide connectivity in some African regions. And among the condition was the fact that you could only access a limited number of websites, including, of course, Facebook. Then if this is the case, and then if there is lots of disinformation, but also hate speech and so on, on those platforms, then somehow the users, they are locked in, the citizens, because they have the connectivity, but it is by no means meaningful nor safe because you are accessing content, which is disinformation or even worse, illegal speech. So I think this is quite important. And just very quickly, again, on the messaging, I think it is very linked to the urban and rural areas and also to the fact that as human beings, we trust our families, we trust our friends. So it is somehow replicating the word of mouth situation that we also had in the past, but as you rightly say, in a way more scary way because there is still this convincing element that if it comes from the online, it is trustworthy. Thank you very much. We have a question in the room here. Sir, go ahead.

Giacomo Mazzone: Yeah, it’s working. Giacomo Mazzone from Eurovision. I have a question in general to all the speakers that is about the… It seems to us that… The fact-checking is not enough. We need to go towards a more comprehensive approach, more holistic approach. That means having regulation that will help in the negotiation with the platforms in order to be more effective in the work that you do. I know that recently there has been a pledge launched by EBU and the association of other newspapers to the platforms. Can you tell more about that, if you are aware?

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: If I were to comment, I would first want to talk about when you mentioned regulation. We shouldn’t have regulation on content. It goes against freedom of speech. So immediately you start trying to regulate content, then you are infringing on the rights of people. Yes, there is a moral issue on what kind of content you produce, and we have to be able to fact-check information, and that is why a lot of countries, a lot of organizations are just fact-checking information. And the last thing I will say, it’s also the moral duty for people, like where you see most messages, whether it’s on TikTok or on a WhatsApp messaging app, and you get an information, you just post it to send it to other people without even fact-checking it, and you are supposed to be the educated one. In most cases, most of the people that carry all this hate speech or disinformation are the educated folks, and so we have to do a lot of stuff whereby so-called educated folks are now using all these platforms to misguide the majority of the populace, and we have to work hard in changing that. But to bring about regulation of content is a no-go for me. Thank you.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Okay, very strong commitment. Thank you very much. Paula, I have this question from Giacomo in mind that relates to the role of the platforms. I can say from my experience, for public broadcasters, and I think you know that very well, Giacomo, because that’s true for public broadcasters as well, or for most of the media, but a little bit different for commercial media than for the public media, I guess, is to play the platforms. I mean, you can’t read the platforms. We don’t know what the platforms are doing with our content. You don’t know what is in the black box. We have expert teams sitting that check what goes from our newsrooms in the black box, and they can check what comes out of the black boxes in terms of audience, and then they guess what the algorithm is doing why with your content, and then they advise on the newsrooms to adapt the content according to their guessing without knowing really what the platform is doing with your content. And obviously, many journalists and content producers are tilting between, we have to get rid of the platforms and how we can play them best, and that is very difficult to play. But from your perspective, because Edmo is really at the heart of assessing also what that means, what is your assessment on that from a regulatory point of view? And I know that we are tilting back a little bit to the European context that will widen up again for the global context in a minute. Paula. Yes, you got a little

Ms. Paula Gori: frozen, but I hope I got the question. So first I wanted just to reinforce what was said. We all get always freezing when we talk about the platforms, you know, that’s normal. No, I just wanted to say that I first wanted to reinforce what was said. Regulations should not be on the content, and this is very important, and this is also, for example, the approach of the Digital Services Act. It’s not on the content, it is on the risks that the way the platform work actually can pose. So this is very important. Now, on what you were saying on content that is on platforms, I think this is the overall point that we are making since years, that there is no transparency in the algorithmic decisions. So we are really not fully aware why we are seeing a given piece of news rather than the other. And let me also say that I’m probably even the platform still don’t know, because as far as I know, it’s an algorithm that works on an algorithm that works on another algorithm. So they somehow tweak it so much that, honestly, I fear that in some occasions they even lost control on these whole tweaks on the algorithms. But clearly what we know is that emotions fuel negative content, and especially negative emotions. So whenever a content is emotionally strong, it is based on fear, on division, on threat, and so on, it becomes more viral. And this is a way to tweak the algorithm. And this, in my opinion, is why unfortunately some media then move to sensationalism content, because it actually moves the algorithm more than a plain information that is without emotions and is not emotionally emotional. But going back to the regulation that we are seeing, I think that we are going, and I was saying that in the previous session, with the global principles that we are seeing, with the Global Digital Compact, with the UNESCO guidelines, and so on, I think we are agreeing on basic principles. And in the EU especially, as I was saying earlier, what we are doing is we are looking at if the way the platform works can actually be mis-abused. Let’s put it in a very simple way. So it’s not about the content. It’s just the way you are working can be mis-abused by malign actors. And this creates risks to public security, public health, civic discourse, and so on. And that’s where the regulation is, because as it was said, we could not get into the content. Thank you very much, Paula, so far.

Audience: So there’s a lady standing since minutes on the microphone. I didn’t want to interrupt. Good answers. Very kind of you. Thank you. The floor is yours. My name is Thora. I’m a PhD researcher coming out of Iceland. I’m studying how VLOPS and VLOCE, very large platforms, are undermining democracy in the EEA. And my problem is, of course, scarcity of data and the black box. Now, I have a 20-year experience working in IT and building large systems. So in my mind, I see it. I see the black box. But as an academic, now the DSA is supposed to give me access, but it is not. The platforms are dragging their feet. And I, again, am asking here and sort of lobbying on behalf of academia, are you guys doing any academic work and demanding data through the DSA? If not, what is hindering it? And what can we do to fix this problem so we don’t always are theorizing with the law? Then comes the black box and we are studying the outcome, because that’s, of course,

Mr. Patrick Leusch: a futile thing. Thank you. Thora, thank you very much. That’s really the right question at that moment, because I was just about to try to link the different aspects that we have had now, right? So the access to this data is one regulatory thing, and the DSA is at the heart of it. And we understand that the EU is slow in, you know, pushing that forward. Maybe there is an overarching political item in it, tax or something like that, I don’t know exactly. But the question is the following, and this question goes to Poncelet and goes also to Paula, but also to you guys here in the room and online. So we have touched based on the censorship issue at the beginning, which is it’s a part of meaningful access to digital access, right? Then Poncelet has spoken about the challenges that you see in Africa, for instance, which lay partly on another level. I’m not saying there’s no censorship, there is, but meaningful access means much more and leads to skills of media, but also to technical development. The access to data on the large platforms and the regulatory questions that come with it is another aspect. So I have at least three different elements which are not easy to link together when we asked what needs to be done policy-wise or on a regulatory basis to push these challenges forward. So what do you think where to attack? You mentioned, Paula, the AMFA, for instance, and the DSA has been mentioned. So what I’m saying, there are things in place, why aren’t they working and what needs to be done to make them better work, right? UNESCO initiative, the Global Compact, all this has been mentioned. So tell us where to work on to make them better perform all these elements that are in place.

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi: I would like to look at the issue of the international human rights aspect of access. Article 19 is really, I would say, is really outdated and we need to have another look at it, update it, and renew commitments to it. The other issue is that the multi-stakeholder model, since we are at the IGF, it’s good to mention it. We have been, for a number of years, we have been hearing a lot about support for the multi-stakeholder model of governing the internet. Oftentimes it comes as a response by some civil society groups and some governments to the efforts by particular governments to try and reshape the internet as we know it. We really need to energize efforts working towards a real multi-stakeholder model. My idea is that we can start with the local branch of your IGF by trying to build coalition, talk to your government, and try to push for an internet that is really open and in a way regulated to protect its current openness and the fact that it has no borders. We really cannot continue to work on this legal loophole. I’m going to make this comparison now. If you look at shortwave radio and satellite TV, they are protected by rules of the International Communications Union, so governments cannot jam them. Governments cannot disrupt these broadcasting technologies. But the internet now, it’s not protected. Any government can shut down the internet at any time without due recourse to legal background or text. Any government can block websites, again, at will, with no questions and no justification provided. So, my call to action is about re-energizing the local IGF forums and to start from that point.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much. If I may just follow up on data access. A tepid statement, particularly saying Article 19 is outdated. So, over to Paola.

Ms. Paula Gori: On data access, quickly, or I would love to have more time. So, first of all, you are completely right. The current policy framework establishes actually the obligation that the platforms give access to researchers, to independent researchers, both access to public and to private data. What is still missing is the Delegated Act. So, the Commission should publish the Delegated Act, which makes this operational, and then there should be no excuses. So, we really hope that this will be active. What Aetmo did already years ago, we did a legal analysis on whether having access to private data would infringe GDPR. And you can find on our website a good report saying that actually it is fine to get access to those data. We are also covered on that side, and we actually even worked on an independent intermediary body that could work in between digital services coordinators, so kind of with the digital services coordinators in between researchers and platforms. So, this is, I fully agree with you. Just one thing I wanted to say is that once we will get access to those data, there will be two main issues. The first is, will all organizations be equipped financially and infrastructurally to deal with all this data? Because there is a risk of two-speed academic institutions and civil society organizations. The big and rich ones, they will make it. The smaller ones not, which is an issue also if you look at some specific countries, not only in Europe, but now the DSA is for Europe, so think of, for example, the Eastern countries and so on. But also countries like Italy, I’m not sure if many universities would be able to do that. The second, policymakers shall be ready, because if we really access those data, we will understand so many things about this information, and also about the impact, that probably we will have to change the whole policy framework once we will have the knowledge of what is happening really online, because it’s only through those data that we will have those knowledge. So, just those two points to quickly close. Thank you very much, Paula.

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: Oh, yeah. If I look at it, I totally agree with what Paula said and Abdullah. I will say the multistakeholder process is the key to all we are discussing here, especially you look at data governance, like the PhD researcher talked, data governance has now become a key component in all the work we do. But this multistakeholder process involves us being able to dialogue with our governments, with civil society, with academia, with legal people, with technical people, so we have to sit with equity and hear each other out and agree to disagree. If we don’t do that, starting at a grassroots level, we will continue to be dividing ourselves, and trying to, instead of building an Internet that is not fragmented, we will continue to have fragmentations at various levels, and that is why disinformation now is now a big thing. If you go back to 2006, Time Person of the Year in 2006 was you. That you, when Times Magazine made the you, us, as Person of the Year, still applies today, and we have to know how to, the information we give out, we have to know that it is correct and it is impactful to our society, and that is the key of this session we have had today. And it also links up with meaningful connectivity. We should never forget that the majority of the people that want to impact lives, they don’t have connectivity. Look at it, 2.6 billion people, according to the statistics from the ITU. So let us go back to the basics and try to use our public media, especially those at the grassroots level, equip them well to build the world we want, that we get better information for socio-economic development. Thank you.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much for that strong pledge, Ponceled. Last question from my side, two minutes left, very short one. What is the biggest block we have to move away to go that path, to strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach, to look deeper into the challenges that are in the digital divide area, and to come up with a better version of, I put it very simple, with a better version of Article 19. What is the biggest block you have to move away to go that path?

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: If I start, I have one simple equation. The global digital compact implementation plus WSIS recrafted, we are coming to 20 years of the WSIS, the World Summit on Information Society, is the WSIS that led to the IGF. If we have this global GDC implementation plus the WSIS recrafted, in my mind in July, it equates to a stronger and strengthened IGF that will improve lives.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much. Very precise. Abdallah?

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi: I mean, I agree with Poncelet here about the importance of the huge pledges made within the global digital compact, as well as the upcoming review of WSIS. My main concern here is that we rely too much on governments, and as we can see in democracies, you might end up with a government that doesn’t like what you’re doing, and as such they either oppose what you’re doing, or they don’t help you. I look at the example of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in India, which made a landmark verdict regarding the access to digital life as part of the individual’s own right to life. I think the civil society could start really by working at the local level, and if, with the governments, if the government doesn’t lend an ear to them, then they can always work towards the judiciary sector, and find some supporters in other aspects of their societies.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much, Abdallah. Nine seconds for you, Paula.

Ms. Paula Gori: Okay, so I fully endorse what was said. I would just say, change the narrative, change the way we put this whole conversation, let it make attractive also for those who don’t believe in democracy, and on the other side, involve municipalities. I think they could play a key role here. They are way more close to citizens, and they could be very active in this field.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you. Thank you very much. I would like to thank my panellists, Poncelet here on stage, Paula and Abdallah remotely. Thank you very much for your insights, for that great discussion. Thank you all, the audience here, for your questions and comments, and for participating online to this session on meaningful digital access and what role for PSM public service media in it. And thanks to Flora and her team for this great framing here, organising the technical means for this session. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance model is essential for internet governance and addressing digital challenges

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance model needs energizing through local IGF forums and coalition building to prevent internet fragmentation

Global Digital Compact implementation combined with WSIS review could strengthen IGF and improve lives globally

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocate for strengthening multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance, with Alsalmi emphasizing local IGF forums and coalition building, while Ileleji proposes combining Global Digital Compact implementation with WSIS review to strengthen the IGF framework.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Infrastructure

Content regulation should be avoided in favor of other approaches to address disinformation

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Regulation should target risks posed by platform operations rather than content itself, as demonstrated by the EU’s Digital Services Act approach

Content regulation should be avoided as it infringes on freedom of speech; focus should be on fact-checking and moral responsibility of users

Summary

Both speakers reject direct content regulation as a solution, with Gori advocating for risk-based regulation of platform operations and Ileleji emphasizing that content regulation violates freedom of speech principles.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Public service media plays a crucial role during crisis situations

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Patrick Leusch

Arguments

Public service media serves as a solution to tackle disinformation, particularly during crisis situations like COVID-19 when people seek reliable information sources

Crisis situations drive increased demand for alternative information sources, as evidenced by usage spikes during protests and political upheavals

Summary

Both speakers recognize that public service media becomes particularly important during crises, with Gori noting increased reliance during COVID-19 and Leusch providing evidence of usage spikes during political upheavals and protests.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reference Article 19 of international human rights law as fundamental to internet access rights, though Alsalmi argues it needs updating while Leusch uses it as current legal justification for circumvention work.

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Patrick Leusch

Arguments

Article 19 of international human rights law is outdated and needs renewal, with stronger commitments to protect internet openness unlike current legal loopholes

Circumvention work is legally justified under Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter regarding access to information, which supersedes national censorship laws

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the challenge of misinformation spread through digital platforms and the need for trusted sources to counter it, though they focus on different solutions – Gori on algorithmic transparency and Ileleji on community radio fact-checking.

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Lack of algorithmic transparency prevents understanding of why certain content is promoted, with platforms potentially losing control over their own complex algorithmic systems

Community radio stations play a crucial role in debunking fake news that spreads through messaging apps like WhatsApp in rural areas

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of local-level approaches and working with available resources rather than waiting for top-down solutions, whether through local civil society engagement or community-based infrastructure development.

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Civil society should work at local levels and engage judiciary systems when governments don’t support digital rights initiatives

Infrastructure development must be realistic – focus on equipping community-based media with internet connectivity to disseminate information to those without meaningful broadband access

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Opposition to direct content regulation despite different professional backgrounds

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Regulation should target risks posed by platform operations rather than content itself, as demonstrated by the EU’s Digital Services Act approach

Content regulation should be avoided as it infringes on freedom of speech; focus should be on fact-checking and moral responsibility of users

Explanation

Despite Gori working in European policy frameworks that could support regulation and Ileleji working in African development contexts, both strongly oppose direct content regulation, showing unexpected alignment across different regional and professional perspectives on fundamental free speech principles.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Acknowledgment of public service media limitations and need for improvement

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Patrick Leusch

Arguments

Public service media must adopt more innovative and positive approaches to content production to remain attractive to audiences

International broadcasters invest in censorship circumvention technologies to reach audiences in countries with limited press freedom, sharing research with other independent media

Explanation

Both speakers, while advocating for public service media, acknowledge its current limitations and need for adaptation – Gori noting the need for innovation to remain attractive, and Leusch describing the extensive technical efforts required to reach audiences, showing realistic assessment rather than defensive positioning.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles including the importance of multi-stakeholder governance, opposition to direct content regulation, the crucial role of public service media during crises, and the need for local-level approaches to digital challenges. They also shared realistic assessments of current limitations and the need for innovative solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles with complementary rather than conflicting approaches. The agreement spans technical, policy, and implementation perspectives, suggesting a mature understanding of the complex challenges in meaningful digital access. This consensus provides a strong foundation for collaborative action across different sectors and regions, though implementation details may require further coordination.

Different viewpoints

Content regulation approach

Speakers

– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji
– Giacomo Mazzone

Arguments

Content regulation should be avoided as it infringes on freedom of speech; focus should be on fact-checking and moral responsibility of users

Fact-checking alone is insufficient and requires a more comprehensive, holistic approach including regulation to negotiate effectively with platforms

Summary

Ileleji strongly opposes any content regulation as a violation of freedom of speech, advocating instead for fact-checking and user responsibility. Mazzone argues that fact-checking alone is inadequate and calls for more comprehensive regulatory approaches including platform regulation.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Scope of regulatory intervention needed

Speakers

– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji
– Giacomo Mazzone

Arguments

Content regulation should be avoided as it infringes on freedom of speech; focus should be on fact-checking and moral responsibility of users

Fact-checking alone is insufficient and requires a more comprehensive, holistic approach including regulation to negotiate effectively with platforms

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are concerned about disinformation and platform accountability, yet they have fundamentally different views on the role of regulation. Ileleji, coming from an African development perspective, takes a strong anti-regulation stance emphasizing individual responsibility, while Mazzone, representing European broadcasting interests, advocates for stronger regulatory frameworks. This suggests different regional or institutional perspectives on balancing freedom of expression with platform accountability.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively limited but significant disagreements, primarily centered on regulatory approaches to content and platforms. While speakers largely agreed on fundamental goals like combating disinformation, ensuring meaningful digital access, and strengthening multi-stakeholder governance, they differed on implementation mechanisms and the appropriate level of regulatory intervention.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. The main tension between pro-regulation and anti-regulation approaches reflects broader global debates about internet governance, freedom of expression, and platform accountability. These disagreements could impact policy development, as they represent different philosophical approaches to addressing digital challenges – one emphasizing regulatory frameworks and institutional solutions, the other prioritizing individual responsibility and minimal intervention. The disagreements also reflect different regional perspectives and institutional contexts, which could complicate international cooperation on digital governance issues.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reference Article 19 of international human rights law as fundamental to internet access rights, though Alsalmi argues it needs updating while Leusch uses it as current legal justification for circumvention work.

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Patrick Leusch

Arguments

Article 19 of international human rights law is outdated and needs renewal, with stronger commitments to protect internet openness unlike current legal loopholes

Circumvention work is legally justified under Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter regarding access to information, which supersedes national censorship laws

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the challenge of misinformation spread through digital platforms and the need for trusted sources to counter it, though they focus on different solutions – Gori on algorithmic transparency and Ileleji on community radio fact-checking.

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Lack of algorithmic transparency prevents understanding of why certain content is promoted, with platforms potentially losing control over their own complex algorithmic systems

Community radio stations play a crucial role in debunking fake news that spreads through messaging apps like WhatsApp in rural areas

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of local-level approaches and working with available resources rather than waiting for top-down solutions, whether through local civil society engagement or community-based infrastructure development.

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Civil society should work at local levels and engage judiciary systems when governments don’t support digital rights initiatives

Infrastructure development must be realistic – focus on equipping community-based media with internet connectivity to disseminate information to those without meaningful broadband access

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Meaningful digital access requires going beyond basic connectivity to include reliability, affordability, appropriate devices, digital literacy, relevant local content, and safe digital environments

Public service media plays a crucial role in combating disinformation and providing reliable information, especially during crisis situations

Community radio stations are essential for reaching rural populations in developing countries and need strengthening through partnerships with international broadcasters

Internet censorship is a growing global challenge requiring sophisticated circumvention technologies, with legal justification under Article 19 of UN Human Rights Charter

Platform algorithm transparency is lacking, preventing understanding of content promotion mechanisms and creating risks for democratic discourse

Current regulatory frameworks like Article 19 are outdated and need updating to address modern internet governance challenges

Multi-stakeholder governance models need strengthening through local IGF forums and coalition building to prevent internet fragmentation

Resolutions and action items

Re-energize local IGF forums to build coalitions and push governments for open internet policies

Strengthen community radio stations with digital literacy tools and partnerships with international broadcasters

Implement proper data access provisions under the Digital Services Act for academic researchers

Work toward updating Article 19 of international human rights law to address modern digital access challenges

Combine Global Digital Compact implementation with WSIS review to strengthen IGF

Engage civil society at local levels and work with judiciary systems when governments don’t support digital rights

Involve municipalities as key players in digital rights advocacy due to their proximity to citizens

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance content regulation with freedom of speech concerns

Addressing the financial and infrastructural capacity gaps between large and small organizations when accessing platform data

Determining what policy changes will be needed once full platform data access reveals the true extent of disinformation impacts

Resolving the tension between platform dependence and editorial independence for public service media

Bridging the digital divide for 2.6 billion people still without internet connectivity

Establishing effective mechanisms to prevent government internet shutdowns and website blocking

Creating sustainable funding models for circumvention technologies and mirror servers

Suggested compromises

Focus regulation on platform operational risks rather than content to preserve freedom of speech while addressing harmful effects

Develop independent intermediary bodies to facilitate data access between platforms, regulators, and researchers

Combine infrastructure development with community media strengthening as a realistic approach to meaningful connectivity in underserved areas

Balance transparency requirements for public service media with operational security needs for circumvention activities

Engage multiple stakeholders (government, civil society, academia, technical experts) in dialogue while accepting that parties may ‘agree to disagree’ on some issues

We need to go beyond just simple connectivity and beyond just having a device that is connected to the internet because it’s all about the experience, it’s all about what the internet users can make of the internet.

Speaker

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between mere technical access and meaningful digital experience. It introduces the crucial concept that connectivity without context, skills, and relevant content is insufficient for true digital inclusion.

Impact

This foundational insight set the framework for the entire discussion, leading other speakers to build upon this distinction throughout the session. It shifted the conversation from technical infrastructure to human-centered outcomes and user experience.

I like to look at it from a grassroots level. What information do community radios are able to provide to their citizens? In most of the cases, you look at sub-Saharan Africa, for example, my beloved continent, where only about 37% of the population have broadband connectivity.

Speaker

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Reason

This comment challenges the discussion’s implicit focus on high-tech solutions by grounding it in real-world constraints. It highlights how meaningful access must work within existing infrastructure limitations and emphasizes the continued importance of traditional media as bridges to digital access.

Impact

This perspective fundamentally shifted the discussion from theoretical policy frameworks to practical implementation challenges. It forced other participants to consider how solutions must be adapted to different technological and economic contexts, leading to more nuanced policy recommendations.

We even don’t know the answers that Gen AI is giving to people. So whenever you ask an AI chatbot about something, it is giving you an answer and no one knows it. It is like between you and the chatbot, which is creating an additional element, probably even more scary.

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Reason

This observation introduces an entirely new dimension to the information access problem that hadn’t been previously discussed. It highlights how AI systems create invisible information silos that are even more opaque than social media algorithms.

Impact

This comment expanded the scope of the discussion beyond traditional censorship and platform algorithms to include AI-mediated information access. It added a new layer of complexity to the meaningful access challenge and influenced the conversation toward more comprehensive regulatory approaches.

Article 19 is really, I would say, is really outdated and we need to have another look at it, update it, and renew commitments to it… Any government can shut down the internet at any time without due recourse to legal background or text.

Speaker

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi

Reason

This is a bold critique of fundamental international human rights law, arguing that existing legal frameworks are inadequate for the digital age. It challenges participants to think beyond current legal structures and consider more fundamental reforms.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from operational challenges to fundamental legal and rights-based frameworks. It elevated the conversation to question basic assumptions about how digital rights should be protected internationally, leading to discussions about multi-stakeholder governance and the need for new international agreements.

We shouldn’t have regulation on content. It goes against freedom of speech. So immediately you start trying to regulate content, then you are infringing on the rights of people.

Speaker

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial tension in the discussion by firmly establishing the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable regulatory approaches. It forces the conversation to grapple with the fundamental conflict between combating misinformation and preserving free speech.

Impact

This strong position created a defining moment in the discussion, forcing other participants to clarify their regulatory proposals and distinguish between content regulation and platform behavior regulation. It led to more nuanced discussions about risk-based rather than content-based approaches to platform governance.

If we really access those data, we will understand so many things about disinformation, and also about the impact, that probably we will have to change the whole policy framework once we will have the knowledge of what is happening really online.

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Reason

This comment reveals the profound uncertainty underlying current policy approaches and suggests that access to platform data might fundamentally change our understanding of digital information systems. It acknowledges that current policies may be based on incomplete information.

Impact

This insight added a meta-level perspective to the discussion, suggesting that the policy solutions being discussed might themselves need to be reconsidered once better data becomes available. It introduced humility into the policy discussion and emphasized the importance of evidence-based approaches.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about internet access into a multifaceted exploration of digital rights, governance, and social equity. The progression from Alsalmi’s foundational distinction between connectivity and meaningful access, through Ileleji’s grassroots reality check, to Gori’s insights about AI and data transparency, created a comprehensive framework that addressed technical, social, legal, and ethical dimensions. The comments built upon each other to reveal the complexity of meaningful digital access, moving the discussion from simple solutions to nuanced understanding of interconnected challenges. The tension between Ileleji’s strong stance on content regulation and others’ regulatory proposals created productive friction that led to more sophisticated policy thinking. Overall, these interventions elevated the discussion from operational concerns to fundamental questions about digital rights, democratic governance, and global equity in the digital age.

What is the legal basis for public service media to provide circumvention tools and VPN explainers to audiences in censored countries?

Speaker

Mr. Patrick Leusch

Explanation

This raises important legal and ethical questions about the mandate and authority of public broadcasters to engage in circumvention activities, which was resolved through consultation with German Bundestag Legal Service citing Article 19 of UN Human Rights Charter

How can we update and modernize Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter regarding access to information?

Speaker

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi

Explanation

Article 19 is described as ‘outdated’ and needs renewal to address modern digital access challenges and internet governance issues

When will the European Commission publish the Delegated Act to make platform data access operational for researchers?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori and Thora (PhD researcher)

Explanation

The DSA establishes obligations for platforms to provide data access to researchers, but the operational framework through the Delegated Act is still missing, hindering academic research

How can we establish legal protections for internet access similar to those that exist for shortwave radio and satellite TV?

Speaker

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi

Explanation

Unlike traditional broadcasting technologies protected by International Communications Union rules, the internet lacks legal protection against government shutdowns and blocking

What are the answers that AI chatbots are giving to users about news and information?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Explanation

There’s no oversight or knowledge of what information AI systems provide to users, creating a potentially more concerning information gap than private messaging apps

How can smaller academic institutions and civil society organizations be equipped to handle large datasets from platforms?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Explanation

There’s concern about creating a two-speed system where only well-funded institutions can analyze platform data, particularly affecting Eastern European countries and smaller organizations

How can we strengthen partnerships between international broadcasters and community radio stations in developing countries?

Speaker

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Explanation

Community radio stations need digital literacy tools and connections to larger media organizations to provide reliable information and counter disinformation at the grassroots level

What is the EBU pledge to platforms that was recently launched?

Speaker

Giacomo Mazzone

Explanation

A specific initiative by the European Broadcasting Union and newspaper associations directed at platforms was mentioned but not elaborated upon

How can we change the narrative around digital rights and democracy to make it attractive to those who don’t believe in democracy?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Explanation

There’s a need to reframe conversations about digital access and rights in ways that appeal to broader audiences beyond those already committed to democratic values

What role can municipalities play in strengthening meaningful digital access and combating disinformation?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Explanation

Local governments may be better positioned than national governments to work directly with citizens on digital access and information quality issues