Day 0 Event #256 Truth Under Siege: Tools to Counter Digital Censorship

Summary

This panel discussion, titled “Truth Under Siege: Tools to Counter Digital Censorship,” examined the evolving landscape of disinformation and the challenges facing truthful reporting in the digital age. The conversation was moderated by Pavel Zoneff from the Tor Project and featured three panelists: Monica Ehrmard (tech and media reporter), Ruslan Mijacev (investigative reporter from Turkmen News), and Laura Zommer (CEO of Fact Chequeado).

The panelists identified several structural obstacles undermining truthful reporting, with Laura Zommer describing the current situation as a “perfect storm” where big tech companies control content distribution and have abandoned theoretical neutrality. She highlighted how platform policies particularly impact minority voices and Spanish-language content in the U.S. Ruslan Mijacev provided a stark example from Turkmenistan, one of the world’s most repressive countries, where his independent news outlet faces constant censorship and blocking, forcing them to rely on creative distribution methods including VPNs, email campaigns, and even corruption within the censorship apparatus itself.

The discussion revealed how algorithms prioritize engagement over truthfulness, creating an environment where misinformation can flourish. Monica Ehrmard noted the dramatic shift from the internet being considered the most democratic medium twenty years ago to becoming a divisive force that threatens democracy today. The panelists explored various solutions, including the need for diverse publishing platforms, innovative funding models for journalism, and improved media literacy programs that meet audiences where they consume content.

A significant portion of the conversation focused on the limitations of legislative approaches to curbing misinformation, with Zommer cautioning that regulations designed in countries with strong rule of law may be misused in authoritarian contexts to suppress activists and minorities. The panel emphasized the importance of collaborative approaches, community-centered media literacy initiatives, and the need for journalists to adapt to new platforms and formats while maintaining high ethical standards. The discussion concluded with recognition that while there are no easy answers to these complex challenges, continued dialogue and experimentation with new approaches remain essential for preserving truthful journalism in the digital age.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital censorship and platform control**: The discussion examined how a handful of big tech companies now control information flow through their algorithms and platform policies, deciding what content gets amplified or silenced, and how this affects public opinion formation.

– **Structural obstacles to truthful reporting**: Panelists identified key challenges including big tech alignment with government interests, abandonment of content distribution neutrality, shutdown of third-party fact-checking, and reduced protections for minority voices in media.

– **Working under authoritarian censorship**: Using Turkmenistan as a case study, the discussion explored how independent journalists operate in heavily censored environments, including the use of VPNs, Tor networks, email distribution, and the ironic role of corruption in providing alternative access routes.

– **Media literacy as intervention**: The conversation addressed the need for community-centered, innovative approaches to media literacy that meet audiences where they consume content, rather than traditional classroom-based methods, with emphasis on collaborative design and real-world application.

– **Audience engagement and journalism’s future**: Panelists debated whether there’s still an audience for quality investigative journalism, discussing the challenges of adapting to short-form content platforms while maintaining journalistic standards and the need for new business models and distribution methods.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine the current threats to truthful information dissemination in the digital age and explore practical tools, strategies, and interventions to counter digital censorship and misinformation. The panel sought to move beyond identifying problems to discussing actionable solutions for journalists, technologists, and policymakers.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, concerned tone throughout, reflecting the gravity of the challenges being discussed. While panelists acknowledged the severity of current threats to information freedom, they maintained a constructive, solution-oriented approach. The tone was collaborative and educational, with speakers sharing practical experiences and expertise. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the need for action, but also resilience and determination to find workable solutions despite the complexity of the challenges.

Speakers

– **Pavel Zoneff** – Tor Project, moderator of the panel “Truth Under Siege, Tools to Counter Digital Censorship”

– **Monika Ermert** – Reporter covering tech, media, and digital policy

– **Ruslan Myatiev** – Investigative reporter and editor of Turkmen News, works in exile

– **Laura Zommer** – Award-winning journalist, fact-checking pioneer, CEO and co-founder of Fact Chequeado (collaborative initiative tackling misinformation affecting Latino and Hispanic communities)

– **Raya Sharbain** – Tor Project, leads training and outreach program, facilitates online participation

– **Vittorio Bertola** – OpenExchange

– **Yuriy Bokovoy** – Finnish Young Greens

**Additional speakers:**

– **Ashwini** – Online participant who submitted a question

– **Andrew** – Online participant who submitted a question

– **Theodore** – Online participant who submitted a question

# Truth Under Siege: Tools to Counter Digital Censorship – Panel Discussion Report

## Introduction and Panel Setup

The panel discussion “Truth Under Siege: Tools to Counter Digital Censorship” examined the challenges facing truthful reporting in the digital age. Moderated by Pavel Zoneff from the Tor Project, the session featured three primary panelists: Monika Ehrmard, a reporter covering technology, media, and digital policy; Ruslan Mijacev, an investigative reporter and editor of Turkmen News working in exile; and Laura Zommer, an award-winning journalist and CEO of Chequeado (and founder of FactChequeado), initiatives tackling misinformation affecting Latino and Hispanic communities. Raya Sharbain from the Tor Project facilitated online questions from audience members.

## The Current Information Crisis

### Platform Control and the Abandonment of Neutrality

Laura Zommer characterized the current situation as a “perfect storm” – a convergence of factors fundamentally altering the information landscape. She identified the core structural problem: “The biggest threats or problem that we have today is that the owners of the big techs that are the ones having the control of the distribution of the content everywhere decide… they decide just to left the theoretical neutrality for the distribution of the content.”

This abandonment of neutrality represents a fundamental shift from the internet’s original promise. Monika Ehrmard observed the transformation from “an internet 20 years ago at IGF1 that was said was the most democratic medium ever… to a network that has become so divisive, that has made society so divided.”

Pavel Zoneff explained how big technology companies now control information flow through algorithms and platform policies that determine what content gets amplified or silenced. Laura’s “perfect storm” encompasses the concentration of content distribution power, the alignment of big tech companies with government interests, the shutdown of third-party fact-checking initiatives, and the systematic reduction of protections for minority voices in media.

### Personal Experiences with Censorship

Monika shared a concrete example of censorship she experienced: “I was thrown off IGF sessions in Riyadh when I was asking about Saudi activists.” This illustrated how censorship operates even in international forums supposedly dedicated to internet governance.

## Censorship in Practice: The Turkmenistan Case

### Operating Under Total Information Control

Ruslan Mijacev provided detailed insights into journalism under extreme censorship. Working as an investigative reporter covering Turkmenistan, he described an environment where “most of the world’s internet is blocked” and “all social media platforms are banned, with websites blocked without legal basis.”

He opened with a specific example of the repression they document: activist Murat Dushemov, who was given new charges just before his scheduled release from prison. This case exemplified the systematic persecution that Turkmen News reports on from exile.

### Creative Distribution Methods

Facing constant blocking, Turkmen News developed innovative distribution strategies. Ruslan described their original approach: “We started with what we called spam project… we were sending our articles to email addresses that we were collecting, and we were using blind carbon copy so people will not see each other’s email addresses.”

They also discovered an unexpected ally in systemic corruption. As Ruslan explained: “Actually corruption is a good thing. When a country is corrupt, it means that if there is some limitation to something, there will always be someone who will give you alternative way if you pay him… these folks are corrupt. They, with their right hand, they block websites and block Internet, and with their left hand, they give out VPNs.”

### Technical Circumvention Tools

Pavel discussed how tools like Tor bridges help circumvent censorship, though he acknowledged ongoing challenges from both censors and bad actors who exploit these systems. The relationship between censors and circumvention tools represents a constant arms race requiring continuous innovation and adaptation.

## Solutions and Interventions

### Community-Centered Media Literacy

Laura emphasized that traditional approaches to media literacy are insufficient. She argued that “media literacy initiatives must be community-centred and co-created with target audiences rather than imposed from above.”

She provided specific examples of successful initiatives: “We did a project on Instagram with young people… we created like a course on WhatsApp that we called Fact Challenge.” These approaches meet audiences in the spaces and formats they already use, rather than expecting them to adapt to traditional educational models.

Monika identified the need to improve dialogue between news producers and consumers, emphasizing that while “critical thinking skills are universal,” the gap between how journalists create content and how audiences consume it represents a significant barrier.

### Maintaining Journalistic Standards While Adapting

The discussion addressed whether there remains an audience for quality journalism. Audience member Vittorio Bertola asked: “Is there an audience for proper journalism still? And if there is, how can we nurture it? How can we preserve it and make it grow?”

Yuriy Bokovoy highlighted the challenge, noting that “most people under 30 get news from TikTok/Instagram rather than traditional media.” This shift raises questions about how serious journalism can adapt to new formats while maintaining quality standards.

Ruslan argued that “maintaining highest journalistic standards and ethics will preserve trust even as technology rapidly changes,” while Laura offered a more optimistic perspective: “there is still an audience for quality journalism, but journalists need to meet people where they are with appropriate formats and channels.”

### Policy and Regulatory Challenges

Laura raised concerns about the global applicability of regulatory solutions, noting that “legislation against misinformation often gets misused against activists and minorities in countries without strong rule of law.” She explained that regulatory conversations are often “lead by people from the central countries or the north countries, where the rule of law and the judiciary systems have at least some standards.”

The panelists expressed different views on regulation versus market-based solutions. While Laura advocated for stronger regulatory approaches to make platforms more accountable, Monika expressed skepticism: “I’m hesitant to put my belief into we will be able to regulate the platforms… what we need really, we cannot go perhaps without it, but it will never help us to the end.”

An unexpected disagreement emerged around government funding of journalism. Pavel expressed surprise at opposition to government funding, while Monika explicitly opposed direct government funding: “I don’t think they should fund journalism. I think that’s difficult. There is a problem there if a government funds journalism.”

### Innovative Approaches and Collaboration

Monika suggested exploring “media budgets that allow consumers to choose from various sources rather than sticking to single publications,” representing a federated approach to news consumption.

The discussion identified collaboration between traditional investigative journalists and content creators skilled in social media formats as crucial. Rather than expecting traditional journalists to master platforms like TikTok, partnerships between journalists with investigative skills and creators who understand new media formats could provide a path forward.

## Audience Discussion and Key Questions

Several online participants raised important questions. Ashwini asked about telecommunications technologies for circumventing censorship, while Andrew inquired about institutional maturity requirements for implementing solutions. Theodore asked about Tor distribution methods in heavily censored regions.

These questions highlighted the technical complexity of circumvention tools and the need for context-sensitive approaches that account for different levels of institutional development and rule of law.

## Key Themes and Takeaways

The discussion revealed several important themes:

**Structural Power Shifts**: All panelists agreed that big tech platforms have gained problematic control over information distribution and moved away from neutral content policies.

**Context-Sensitive Solutions**: The conversation emphasized that solutions must be tailored to local contexts, with regulatory approaches that work in stable democracies potentially becoming tools of oppression elsewhere.

**Community Engagement**: Effective interventions require meaningful dialogue between content creators and audiences, with approaches designed around how communities actually consume information.

**Ongoing Innovation**: Both technical circumvention tools and journalism business models require continuous innovation to address evolving challenges.

**Collaborative Approaches**: Solutions likely require combining strengths of different actors rather than relying on any single approach.

## Conclusion

The panel discussion illuminated the complex, interconnected challenges facing truthful journalism in the digital age. While identifying significant structural problems – from platform control over information distribution to the misuse of anti-misinformation legislation – the panelists also highlighted potential paths forward through community-centered media literacy, innovative distribution methods, technical circumvention tools, and collaborative approaches.

The conversation demonstrated that while there are no simple solutions to these challenges, continued dialogue and experimentation with new approaches remain essential. The emphasis on meeting audiences where they are while maintaining journalistic standards suggests a path forward that balances adaptation with principle, though significant work remains in developing sustainable models that can support quality journalism across different platforms and contexts.

Pavel Zoneff: and turn the receivers on because this is a silent conference. So I’m going… Channel 2. On channel 2. Oh yeah, and switch to channel 2, yes. So I’m going to give everybody a quick second to get settled in. Okay, I hope everybody can hear me now. So again, welcome. I’m excited to join you to our panel, Truth Under Siege, Tools to Counter Digital Censorship. And really we’ve taken a broad approach and expanded the terminology. What we’re focusing on is really the issue of disinformation at large, since it has really evolved from viral hoaxes to, in fact, Internet infrastructure. Right now it’s not just what we read or what we watch online, it’s how the Internet routes us there, what it decides to amplify and who gets silenced along the way. And it’s really the issue of a handful of big tech companies that now mediate the flow of nearly all information and their algorithms. Their algorithms and platforms really rule and decide what is visible at scales. It’s their platform policies who can make the decision between what gets buried and what gets seen and how public opinion is shaped. And so that’s the reality that we want to unpack today. My name is Pavel Zonev. I’m with the Tor Project, the organization that stewards Tor Browser and the Tor Network that helps people bypass censorship by maintaining their anonymity and privacy. And I’m joined by three incredible panelists that I will introduce in just a second. But just to continue setting the scene, we have a two-parter in our title. And so we’ve already talked about the threat. But really every speaker who is here today is to talk about how we’re going to combat the threat. Because across borders and platforms, journalists and technologists are really developing new strategy and finding ways to keep information flowing. And so we’ll hear from some of the folks today about how they safely do their work, advocate for change, and discuss ideas to help advance the policy landscape around shaping a different version of the Internet. So for the next 40 minutes and change, we’ll first set the scene. We’ll look at the threat landscape. Then we’ll explore how we can respond, what tools and interventions have worked. And when we’re talking about tools, we’re not just talking about technology, but also strategy and tactics. And then we really want to open it to you, everybody in the room, and also the virtual audience to join us in a discussion, ask questions, and maybe also share some of your experiences. Online, I have my colleague Raya, also from the Tor Project, who leads our training and outreach program, who will facilitate the participation for the online participants and collect questions. And then in the room, we will alternate between questions that have been submitted online and in person. But now I’m really going to pass it on to my speakers. So to my right, on the far right, we have Monica Ehrmard, who is a reporter covering tech, media, and digital policy. We have Ruslan Mijacev, investigative reporter and editor of Turkmen News. And online, we have Laura Zommer, who is an award-winning journalist, fact-checking pioneer, and CEO and co-founder of Fact Checkado, a collaborative initiative that tackles misinformation that affects Latino and Hispanic communities. So I want the audience to get a chance to get to know you a little better. And so I’m actually going to ask the first question of Laura, who is joining us virtually. And Laura, in your opinion, what are the primary structural obstacles that most undermine truthful reporting?

Laura Zommer: Hi, hi, everyone. Thank you for having me. It’s like the question of the moment, probably. I used to repeat since some months ago that we are just in the middle of a perfect storm. And you present, Pablo, a bit about what’s happening with distribution of content. And this is not just affecting journalists producing fact-based or evidence-based information, but also academics or researchers or people communicating science or anyone trying to probably focus on the public interest and not just on what can be engaging or give them money. And then the biggest threats or problem that we have today is that the owners of the big techs that are the ones having the control of the distribution of the content everywhere decide, and I’m approaching this from the perspective of a Latino founder of media that produces Spanish in the U.S. And what happened, at least in the U.S. now, is that the big techs are aligned with the government, and then they decide just to left the theoretical neutrality for the distribution of the content. And they say we are not necessarily going to be neutral any longer. We’re going to just decide what is best for our business and for the government, in a way. And then, as we know, they just shut down not just the third-party fact-checking with fact-checkers in the U.S., but also some of the policies that allow the minorities to have their voices heard. And other type of hate speech is much more fluid now with the new decision.

Pavel Zoneff: And we’ll dive deeper into this as part of our discussion, but now for Ruslan. So you work in exile. Maybe you can walk us a little bit through what a normal workday looks like for you and how you’re dealing with platforms being either switched on or off.

Ruslan Myatiev: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. Well, this day started very early in the morning. It started with my phone almost exploding by messages from Turkmenistan from a woman who went to another region of Turkmenistan to visit her son in prison. He’s an activist. His name is Murat Dushemov. On the 10th of June, he was supposed to be released after having served four years in prison for his activism. But four days prior to his release, he was given a new charge. Supposedly, he fought with other prison inmates, and they wrote a complaint about that. And he now faces a new trial and a new prison term. So she went to that region to see him. She was refused a visitation. She was refused to even transfer, give him a parcel, food parcel. And basically, she was calling me and asking what to do. I come from Turkmenistan. It’s one of the most closed and repressive countries in the world. If you look at any rights or freedom indexes, you will see that Turkmenistan is always at the bottom. There is no media freedom. There is no civil or political rights of citizens. And as an alternative source of information, we run an independent media called Turkmen News. Alternative to this, this is an official Turkmen newspaper. For the past three years, our country was run by this gentleman. And 15 years before that, by this gentleman, his father. In 2022, the father decided to give way to the young. And three months after, his son took over. As I said, it’s one of the most closed countries. And with no media freedom and no internet freedom as well. With Tor Project, we have been working together successfully to provide access to activists, local activists, access to the internet, to safe internet. Most of the world’s internet, the one you use in your daily life, is not available in Turkmenistan. All social media platforms are blocked. When we launched our website in… 2012 it was blocked, guess when? The next morning. With no court order, with no legal basis whatsoever, we just learned that it was blocked. Even though there was nothing against the law, the constitution of Turkmenistan provides freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, but this is all on paper, in practice it doesn’t work. We publish daily news, what’s happening in the economy, in the society, in the healthcare system, in education etc. Since 2022 we are part of organized crime and corruption reporting project OCCRP and with them we produce investigations on nepotism and grand corruption. The two gentlemen that I showed you in the newspaper, you know there is always a reason why the country is so much closed, you know, when the setting is closed you can do a lot of nasty things and hoping that you will get away with that, but with investigative reporting we uncover these things and we show the world how they use, how they see the state budget as their own pocket spending millions, tens of millions of dollars for their own benefit. This is in a nutshell.

Pavel Zoneff: Yeah, no thank you and we’ll also be diving deeper a little bit more into what the reality of that looks like. And so, Monika, you’ve studied falsehoods and have an academic background, but what surprised you most in the last year specifically about the mechanics

Monika Ermert: of virality? Hello, good morning also from me. Normally I sit on the other side, so it’s really a novum for me. I want to take a step back. What really amazed me the most is how, and we see this in this IGF, how we came from an internet 20 years ago at IGF1 that was said was the most democratic medium ever. This was said by the Greece minister in his opening speech at IGF1 in Athens to a network that has become so divisive, that has made society so divided. And I used to, and you see it in the program of this IGF, how disinformation, danger to democracy is on top of many of the sessions. And I find that pretty amazing. And I thought about, I used to think that we focus too much on fake news and misinformation. And instead we should, we as journalists especially, should do the good thing and should bring you the good, the real news. But I give you two examples where I really saw how intense it has become, the perfect storm, as Laura said. During the last campaigning for the federal election, for the federal parliament in Germany, the discussions became so rude and divisive that you saw a real campaign against the Green Party, who was, before this election, was in power together with two other parties. And it became so divisive and so full of misinformation even from traditional media, I should say, and amplified by the platforms that attacks on the Green Party have nearly doubled. They saw 1,200 attacks last year against persons of the Green Party. So you see, this kind of misinformation has a real-life effect. So I think I should reconsider my earlier stance on fake news. I still believe what we can do and what we have to do is to report and to stand up. And here is my second example from last year’s IGF, which, as you might know, was set in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. And many organizations and some people like me decided not to travel, but I participated online for all of the IGFs in the 20 years. And I was thrown off of several sessions. As soon as I asked a question in the chat on Saudi activists, or there was a session on encryption, and it was about, yeah, is encryption not a problem because you can hide behind encryption? And I asked the question in the meeting chat, what do you think would Saudi activists think about weakening their encryption for their work in their country? And I was thrown off and I was unable to reconnect. And there was no discussion about that at the IGF in Riyadh at all. So even at this space, we have to be very watchful and very careful. And my proposal to that, there’s always this reviewing, and I never made a proposal. And this time I made a proposal and said, you should consider where you travel and there should be some minimum things, like really freedom of expression in the countries where you travel. Okay, thanks. Well, thank you. And I mean, as we’re

Pavel Zoneff: hearing, right, so the digital lives really intersect with our private, with our physical lives. And so safety is definitely at stake, especially when we’re thinking about dealing with not just platform interference, but also the worlds that misinformation creates. And so I want to address the next question to Laura. You’ve actually studied the existing legislative landscape around some proposals that try to curb misinformation. And maybe you can give us a quick overview and also maybe focus on what the limitations are. They may be inadvertent, and what should policymakers look out for to not harm the cause more than they want to benefit the cause of curbing misinformation? Yeah, and perhaps some of my background can be useful for this

Laura Zommer: reply. I’ve been running an organization based in Argentina that is called Chequeado, that started in 2010. I was the leader of that organization for 12 years, and then realizing about the disinformation in Spanish had no borders. And during some days, we were just repeating the same example of bank that someone did in Colombia that then arrived in the US, or someone did in Mexico, or Peru, or Argentina, or even Spain. And we identified that some of the old folks came from an account in the US. Or on the other way around, we fact-checked something that at the beginning started in Spain, and then we saw it in some accounts or groups in WhatsApp in the Latino community that speak Spanish in the US. We launched this initiative, FactChequeado, in 2022 as a pilot project. And now since 2024, we are a not-for-profit in the US. And I give you all this background because during the last decade, I’ve been participating in different discussions related to how can we solve this problem with the legislation, or with not just policies or recommendations, but make it mandatory for big techs, for example, to be more responsible with all this. And this probably sounds familiar, related to all AI, new big companies, and the discussions that we have nowadays. And during all that discussions, my point always is the conversations related to legislations are, in general, or lead by people from the central countries or the north countries, where the rule of law and the judiciary systems have at least some standards and also legitimacy that make that legislation to have a reasonable implementation. And then I’m not saying at all that we don’t need a regulation, but the experience The difference that we have from countries that are not necessarily the central ones is that some of the legislations that Congress passed has been just used against activists and people that are against the powerful part of the society, not necessarily being useful for guaranteeing the freedom of expression of everyone, especially the minority groups. And then what we’re asking for is for sure to have more policies and legislations that make all the platforms more accountable, make them be much more transparent about the decisions they are making and the best they are making or not, with pretty much differences depending not just of the country but also of the language. And I think all these principles are also really necessary for the discussions that we started three or two years ago related to how are we going to deal with AI without making technology just increase inequalities around the world.

Pavel Zoneff: And thank you, and I think obviously the point of policies, more policies and specific policies for platforms is a great step, and I’m always wondering about the enforcement, and this is actually where I want to go with you, Monika, because right now algorithms reward engagement over truthfulness. And so how can we actually deal with the existence of false facts in this environment? So is there maybe like a different design incentive that could hardwire into social platforms or other distribution platforms, how we verify information and basically inform ultimately the policies that we’re trying to push or enforce the policies that we’re trying to push through?

Monika Ermert: It’s a really difficult question. That’s why we’re here. I’m hesitant to put my belief into we will be able to regulate the platforms. I think what we need really, we cannot go perhaps without it, but it will never help us to the end. I think what we have to do is as journalists perhaps we have to create the diversity. The publishers need to help us to find the money to be able to publish. I wrote for many papers that have died a silent death in the last 20 years that are not there anymore, and they also need to consider the change of media use, and they need, for example, there have been great ideas in the past that have never been followed through, like people don’t read papers or don’t see one broadcaster anymore. They don’t stick to this. They go to the whole of the internet. They go to the platforms. There they have this plentifulness. So what might be a good idea for the publishers is why not have platforms that give you a media budget and then you can choose from various papers, for example. So they need to be creative, innovative, and then you have this, you can choose. You don’t have to stick to one paper. Might help with the echo chambers, I don’t know. Might give people the ability to see the differences in stories, to see different variants of stories, and this is something that I learned when I was young. When I went to university, the comparison allows you to see the relativity of a story. It makes you question a story, and this is something that everybody, we all, we the people should do. This is what perhaps media literacy, where media literacy comes in, and if we don’t have this plentiful spaces from the publishers anymore, then perhaps we the journalists must be more creative and must turn to self-publishing, must turn to, and then we need the technologists to help us to make money. There are some little starts, like myself know Newt Thaler. They try to allow you to kind of earn little money for stories that people can easily pay and anonymously pay, but that is only starting, but things like that should be. And from the politicians, from the politicians I also would hope that they don’t just give into we have to be on the platforms. We talked about that when we chatted beforehand. They don’t have to kind of feed the frenzy on X and then be astonished that it pushes back against them or it falls down on their feet. Perhaps they need to be more creative in what they use and find more federalist-created platforms and so, and perhaps they should, I don’t think they should fund journalism. I think that’s difficult. There is a problem there if a government funds journalism, but what they could do is they could support it. They could kind of give, allow them some tax incentives, I don’t know, stuff like that that incentivizes making news.

Pavel Zoneff: It’s very rare that I hear a German talk about how governments shouldn’t fund journalism, but we’ll offline about that. But I hear a lot of experimentation and I do really believe that therein lies a great potential because we, it’s a complicated discussion, we don’t really have the answers, but I mean we should start somewhere. And I know, Ruslan, you have obviously started somewhere and you’ve already talked a little bit about the challenges that you were up against, but how have you recently been successful in getting your news and your reporting out? And specifically, I hear that you also have a use case where big tech actually, or the big tech platforms helped you in some way. Maybe you can use Turkmen News a little bit as a case study to describe how such an alternative model could look like.

Ruslan Myatiev: Well, before all conventional social media made it to Turkmenistan, we started as a spam project. We copied and pasted articles about Turkmenistan into a Word file and using a blind carbon copy we would send it to people inside the country. Over time, our audience grew and then finally social media came to Turkmenistan and of course quickly were blocked. Now we’re thinking of actually going back to email spamming because that has proved to be a living mechanism to reach the audiences. What we do today is, despite the fact that all social media platforms, messengers and things like TikTok, YouTube are blocked in a permanent block in Turkmenistan, we nevertheless distribute our news on all those platforms and people use VPNs to bypass government filters. All of the conventional VPN applications that you know, be that NordVPN, Malvat, you name it, they don’t work in Turkmenistan because the Turkmen regime, instead of blocking one particular service, they block entire subnets of IP addresses making, you know, even peaceful websites not available in Turkmenistan. It gets sometimes and funny and at the same time so outrageous when you simply cannot check the weather for tomorrow because, you know, the servers, the IP address where that weather site is based is simply blocked in the country. But you know, the more you squeeze, somewhere it will pop out eventually and I don’t know how but people do find ways to get online. You know, actually corruption is a good thing. When a country is corrupt, it means that if there is some limitation to something, there will always be someone who will give you alternative way if you pay him and that’s what happens in Turkmenistan. We have an agency that is responsible for internet money. Monitoring and Internet Censorship. It’s called Cyber Security Agency. Well, you can consider it a national security agency, basically, because they’re a branch of Turkmenistan’s Ministry of National Security. And these folks are corrupt. They, with their right hand, they block websites and block Internet, and with their left hand, they give out VPNs or include your IP address into the so-called white list. And you can use, surf the Internet, you can visit, I don’t know, the website of Taliban, if it exists. You can go on Pornhub, you can do whatever you want, you know. So the idea behind national security is then with corruption is gone. But yeah, I mean, as long as it stays like that, I think we’ll have our audience in Turkmenistan. But of course, in 2025, things shouldn’t be like

Pavel Zoneff: that. And so, yeah, the issue of at least, you know, having access to information that, you know, obviously is the main cornerstone of what we’re discussing. And on that note, I want to actually first ask Laura and then also you, Monika, about media literacy. It has been mentioned. And so obviously, with access to information and ideally like a variety of information, how can we use media literacy effectively as an intervention? How can we make it scalable across languages and cultures? Do we need a region-specific approach?

Laura Zommer: I think the quick answer is yes, and we need much more, and we need investment, and we need innovation, and we need collaborative initiatives, and we need not necessarily to invent the rule each time, but to be more efficient in the way that we replicate and we innovate based on examples or experience that have been working in some countries or a small experience. And given our specific initiative, when I was leading TEQUIADO, we created the education program in 2016, and that was at that time the first like media literacy initiative, at least in the far-checking movement around the world. And we experimented with different ways of creating content, but what gave us more successful or impact was the initiatives that had been co-created in a way. And then one of that was an experiment that we did in schools with young people creating their own Instagram account as a kind of media or new media for them, for younger generations. Another initiative that I think resonates is one that we launched last year that is called Fact Challenge. That is an entirely media literacy course that people can have in their WhatsApp number, in their WhatsApp account, and it’s an invitation for them to test themselves, how their critical thinking abilities are working or not, not in a classroom, not necessarily in the like perfect scenario to make us be critical, but in the real space where people are dealing with this information. And then if I have a tip to recommend any of the journalists or content creators that are in the room or listen to us is always think in a way that don’t necessarily present yourself at the one, knowing what people need, but much more based on if you don’t have the money or the funds to make the user experience testing, ask the audience that you are trying to serve or the community that you are trying to serve to better identify what can be a good media literacy way to help them to learn. Don’t necessarily repeat the same guides or the same activities that a lot of people have been running without necessarily a lot of impact in the real world. And I’m making this differentiation because I know if you are giving students in a class, some activities and some weeks or months after you test in the same space, their ability to identify, for example, a factual or an opinion content, they will be okay doing that. But what we need to do is to making just turn on their ability when they are dealing, scrolling in a real space that algorithms are creating, just to give us like content that is along with our biases or prejudice or previous opinions. Then my recommendation is, yes, media literacy is essential, crucial. We need funds to do more of that. But we also need to be more community centered on the way that we design that content and innovative. And yeah, I think we have a list of good experience that I can share with you based on these small switches that are not necessarily small, but can make the difference between people taking or not that experience. Another one that is really good is one that our colleagues from Africa, in fact, made with radios that were kind of so popular explaining people about media literacy in the middle of that, like being creative and being the channels and places where your community is consuming the high quality, but also the bad quality content is essential to have the skills that we expect.

Pavel Zoneff: Okay. Yeah. And to the other end of the world.

Monika Ermert: I don’t think I can add a lot. Do you need a region specific approach for critical thinking? I don’t think so. But perhaps let me just briefly stress one thing. And that is what Laura said, dialogue between those who produce the news and the stories and those who read them. That has been also a not well developed space, I think. There is this gap between those who write and or produce news and those who… And this could quite definitely help to engage more. And there need to be spaces and platforms for that. There are these media literacy programs in Germany. They started to go to schools like the Bayerische Rundfunk, where I come from, Bavarian Broadcasting. They go to the schools and they make examples of fake news. They allow them to experience. I think that’s good. That should go on. But that’s not enough.

Pavel Zoneff: And, yeah, Ruslan, I would be very curious to hear about your approach to meeting audiences where they are, because you really don’t always have the luxury to meet them where you are. So what are maybe some of the technical solutions and other solutions that you stumble upon to get to the news to where it needs to be?

Ruslan Myatiev: Yeah, well, given the circumstances, we do try to catch the audience where we can. As I said already, we are on all platforms. You can think of if people cannot read our website, then they can listen to, you know, the audio versions of our articles, which we disseminate on TikTok. TikTok is amazingly popular in Turkmenistan, even though it is also blocked. We are also on YouTube. And this is how we basically reach our audiences. And, of course, it’s always risky. You don’t know the capabilities and capacities of the authorities that regulate access. The White Lists and VPNs provided by different vendors You don’t know what they can read, if they can trace you But we don’t have a choice

Pavel Zoneff: And so that obviously also complicates the idea of having audiences connect in a way with the ones who create the news We are getting close to time, and we want to open up the discussion a little bit for the audience I have seen that the chat was very active, so if there are any questions in the chat, maybe we can read it Or we can get organized I’m just going to give it a second, otherwise we have a person here in the audience who is very eager to participate So maybe we’ll start here, and then we’ll give the online

Vittorio Bertola: Don’t worry, go ahead with the chat if you want No, I’m currently not seeing anything, so let’s get started in the room I just had a consideration, Vittorio Bertola from OpenExchange I just had a consideration from the reader of the interview, from a European reader So it’s very hard to actually find investigative journalism today on media And there’s little of it Even what used to be the serious newspapers, in Italy it’s the Corriere Nowadays 80% is just viral stuff on TV shows and whatever We adapt But even when there is some good story written in the old school way Balanced reporting on maybe something new If you look at the comments, the comments on social media don’t look interested in having a good story So mostly there are people from a different side Or maybe if the story is criticizing one side, people from that side will show up and say it’s fake, it’s not true In some cases, if you look on very heated issues like Gaza or whatever There are two opposite sides, both claiming that the story is biased Even under the BBC, there’s just one side claiming that it’s biased in favor of the other side And the other side claiming it’s biased in favor of the other side So there’s no real interest in appreciating whether the story is biased It’s not biased So the question is, is there an audience for proper journalism still? And if there is, how can we nurture it? How can we preserve it and make it grow? Is there a role for education maybe? Because if there is no demand, it’s useless just to get money from the government If there is no demand, there will never be space for good journalism

Monika Ermert: Sorry, I’m getting agitated If you lose good journalism, if you lose a path to the truth, whatever that might be But to a well-balanced description of what happened or what is happening And what is menacing you in some way or another I mean, you are lost And that is something that’s in fact happening when you have these divisions in societies And nowhere can they come to a compromise of senses So we need it urgently If we don’t have it, we are lost Because do you believe that the platforms will give you that? No, you will have more division and more echo chambers So I don’t know how you preserve it That’s a million-dollar question But I still hope we have an audience for that

Pavel Zoneff: Laura, did you want to add something?

Laura Zommer: Yeah, I agree Given some hope, it’s not that people don’t need or don’t like the facts It’s that we need to… And again, I’m repeating the finance aspect of high-quality journalists We need more investment Because what happened when I started being a journalist more than 20 years ago It is high-quality journalists at that time had good reporting, well-written Now we are just starting And part of the problem is that some of the most relevant investigative journalists Continue investing on that And not necessarily partnering with the ones that can help them to reach the people People need, and I can promise you They need in some places more information than ever And they’re going to consume it if we are present in the channels and with the formats That they prefer to consume that content But the problem is that we used to have that gap We are not necessarily there But the backed actors have been investing on research And how they can be engaging for the last decade

Pavel Zoneff: Okay, well, thank you so much We do have an online question And I think my colleague Raya is going to read it out if she’s online

Raya Sharbain: Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you Okay, thank you very much everyone I’ll read out the first question Which is from Ashwini The question goes as follows Could I create new innovative ideas based knowledge building And knowledge enabling books and resources on the subject areas And the conceptual framework of the digital technologies And the telecommunications 5G technologies And the telecommunications 6G transformation initiatives I believe the intent of the question is trying to ask if Possibly if this Ashwini is trying to ask if they can develop new and innovative ideas Based on books and resources that focus on building and enabling knowledge about digital technologies Specifically around specific telecommunications technologies

Pavel Zoneff: I mean, I’m always curious to see Like how is that a question for policy makers I mean, because that would also inevitably Require that people have access to the innovative technology Across the board Both in terms of being able to develop and produce this technology But then also to consume it But you were talking about federated systems And federated platforms more so So maybe we can also dive a little bit deeper into that So how does that change the relationship between consumption and production of news I get the difficult questions all the time I mean, this is really a question I think for everybody in the room And also Help me out here Yeah, I think we can also have that discussion

Monika Ermert: I mean, the federation for the Laura said we have a problem that sometimes we have good content But it doesn’t show Because people still stick to The papers, the broadcasters, the platforms they know And the people who come up and try to do something new They need the attention first So there might be an infrastructure question in there So could in a kind of a federated platform for news That I said There has been an attempt to do that in Slovenia I think Many years ago But it didn’t fly somehow Could that include Like free stuff from freelancers, stuff from new portals And thereby kind of allow people for small money to experience And then to dive deeper into that

Pavel Zoneff: And we have a question in the room and I’m going to give it The one thing that I always want to say about the aspect is When you’re innovating Also think about the business models that we’ve discussed that don’t work Think about incentive designs We’re seeing that the free model or the free as in services Are zero dollars to use But then capitalize on people’s behavioral data That one isn’t working So with any tech innovation Also keep in mind the social contract that we want this technology to enable That would be the thing that I would contribute to the discussion But yes, sir

Yuriy Bokovoy: Yeah, Jyri Bokovoy from Finnish Young Greens We noticed quite a large change in the media landscape in the recent years Where majority of people under 30 don’t really use Like traditional media outside of seeing some article heads And then mostly get their news from TikTok or Instagram reels or whatever 30 to 50 year olds mostly just read the article Like the headline names Yeah, headlines online And the elderly are either disconnected Because in Finland most of the like network related stuff ISPs, they’re all tied to your bank account Which isn’t owned by many elderly people And they suffer from the digitalization of newspapers Because they don’t get the paper one day And it hasn’t really seemed like proper investigative journalism or like important journalism, let’s say, has really transitioned to the short-form content or social media sphere, as well as the tabloids and the often not very transparently funded online creators which might push a lot of this disinformation. The only real globally investigative journalism paper I guess that I’ve seen actually transitioned to this space well was the Washington Post. Have you noticed any actual move by investigative journalism to acquire that new tool set and pander to that new audience, or are they still focused mostly on just traditional media?

Laura Zommer: I can go. Sure. Yeah, go ahead, Laura. I think all of them are trying to do it in different ways. It’s not just the Washington Post. There are a lot of examples in Latin America of stories that are really viral, and they are indeed investigative journalists about strong and important topics, but presented with humor, with cartoons, with different ways to do that. But that implies time and resources and people that know how to do that. If you make a journalist that had been writing for decades to be funny on a TikTok video or a YouTube video, we’re going to fail. And collaboration is, again, the only way that we have with also the money and the business model failing, at least the one that we knew from the past. I’m sorry, Rasha, that I interrupted.

Pavel Zoneff: No, I’ll go. Did you want to add something?

Ruslan Myatiev: Sure. I think Turkmenistan is a quote-unquote positive example on this. We still have a forced subscription where citizens are forced to subscribe to newspapers like that and read it. Don’t laugh. We have a teacher’s newspaper, so all teachers must subscribe to it and pay from their wages. We have a newspaper called Soldier. Guess who the audience is? Of course, the law enforcement, the military, etc. But, yeah, of course, I mean, you cannot chase technology. It’s simply developing too quickly, too rapidly. And bigger organizations, I can even maybe speak on behalf of OCCRP, it’s a more traditional medium. And, yes, maybe the audience will be decreasing because nowadays anybody can pull up a phone and become a newsmaker or a news retransmitter. And you will question whether it was fake news, whether it was a truthful news. But I think sticking to the highest standards of journalism, being ethical, being honest with yourself, first of all, will always play the good role. You will be trusted if you stick to the highest standards.

Monika Ermert: Just very briefly, I should tell perhaps that I have worked for newspapers that print, but most of the stuff that I’ve written from the beginning was published on the Internet. And the Heise Publishing Company, which is one of my main buyers of my stories, they started an online ticker in, I think it was in the 90s, some end of the 90s. And it was free for people. It’s very focused on IT news stuff. And it was highly successful. They did experiment with shortening stories to adapt to the new media use, new consumer wishes. And then they expanded them again because they thought it’s not what we want to get out. So they have shifted back and forth in between. But that was always online news. And it’s subsidized by their print publication and by ads.

Pavel Zoneff: We have two more online questions. So I’m going to pass the mic to Raya before we get back to the in-person.

Raya Sharbain: Yes. Can you hear me all right? Yes. Great. So we have one question from Andrew. Laura makes an excellent point about the difference in the maturity of judicial and other institutions in different countries, civil protections, et cetera, and legitimacy of leadership. Perhaps we could differentiate any recommendations accordingly. I’ll read out the second question if you’d like to. Sure. Yeah. Okay. So the next question is from Theodore. And this is specific about Tor. So how does Tor, Snowflake, or Orbot software and knowledge get distributed to communities in places with heavy Internet censorship? Additionally, one thing is censorship and another is total Internet blackouts. Are there any outreach work about creating distributed out-of-bounds network for local communities in areas with heavy censorship? I’ll defer this question possibly to Ruslan because I know that we worked closely on issues similar to distribute bridges.

Pavel Zoneff: And we are hitting a little bit the end of our session. So, Laura, maybe you can tackle the first question briefly and then Ruslan the second.

Laura Zommer: Yeah. I think on the first question is yes, like that is the way. But I think that’s just possible directly. But I can see how in reality we can do that. Like have global standards perhaps that can be differentiated by country. But I don’t have any like hope to have countries where they have authoritarian regimes to be open to implement these laws. I think we are on that on a road without a clear way to go. I don’t have the answer, a good answer to that. Like I agree that in paper that can be the solution. But if I were someone that need to implement it, I don’t know how we can start.

Pavel Zoneff: I mean, it’s only the first day of the conference. And so I think just having these conversations might bring us closer to the answers. And maybe Ruslan, you can talk a little bit about the circumventing Internet blackouts with Tor.

Ruslan Myatiev: Technically, you should help me out with that. But indeed, we worked with Tor to distribute Tor bridges to users in Turkmenistan. But it was also a bit tricky because there were apparently people that were hunting for these bridges. Not only for the reason to be able to surf the Internet freely, but also to A, resell it to somebody and access to the web. And B, to actually get it blocked somehow.

Pavel Zoneff: I mean, basically, that also talks a little bit about the outreach that we’re doing. Specifically, we’re always trying to increase the relays that we have and the relays that we spin up all over the world. And with bridges, as you mentioned, those are some that are unlisted. Of course, it’s still not always foolproof, and you’ve seen it. Sometimes sensors even discover them. And then usually what we do on the technical side is we just try to change the configuration. Then we have to either reach out to you or other newsrooms that are using it or specifically deploy it manually. A lot of the people and a lot of the mechanisms within Tor browser do this automated. Before I get into trouble with the conference organizers, I unfortunately have to cut the conversation here. But the privilege of being in the room with us is that we’re still here, and I think we’ll stay here for another couple of minutes. So please approach us and for everybody online. In fact, Raya is a great person to speak to. Or if you want to reach out to the Tor Project with specific questions, you can always reach out to frontdesk at torproject.org, and it will go to the community team that can include myself or Raya. And, yes, I do want to thank all of the panelists today and their willingness to be on the receiving end of the difficult questions for once. So thanks very much. I don’t know how applause works at a silent conference, but let’s just give them a round of applause. Yes. Thank you.

Agreement points

Big tech platforms control information distribution and shape public opinion through algorithms and policies

Speakers

– Pavel Zoneff
– Laura Zommer

Arguments

Big tech companies control information flow through algorithms and platform policies that decide what gets amplified or silenced

Big tech platforms have abandoned theoretical neutrality and now align with government interests, shutting down fact-checking and minority voice protections

Summary

Both speakers agree that major technology platforms have significant control over information flow and have moved away from neutral content distribution, instead making decisions that serve their business and political interests while potentially silencing certain voices.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Quality journalism still has an audience but faces distribution and funding challenges

Speakers

– Laura Zommer
– Monika Ermert

Arguments

There is still an audience for quality journalism, but journalists need to meet people where they are with appropriate formats and channels

Regulation alone cannot solve platform problems; publishers and journalists need to create diversity and find innovative funding models

Summary

Both speakers believe there is demand for quality journalism but acknowledge that traditional funding models are failing and journalists need to innovate in both distribution methods and business models to reach audiences effectively.

Topics

Economic | Sociocultural | Human rights

Media literacy requires community-centered and innovative approaches

Speakers

– Laura Zommer
– Monika Ermert

Arguments

Media literacy initiatives must be community-centered and co-created with target audiences rather than imposed from above

Critical thinking skills are universal, but dialogue between news producers and consumers needs improvement

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that effective media literacy cannot be a top-down approach but must involve meaningful dialogue and collaboration between content creators and their audiences, with approaches tailored to how communities actually consume information.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers understand the technical realities of internet censorship and the ongoing cat-and-mouse game between censors and those trying to circumvent restrictions, acknowledging both the potential and limitations of technical solutions.

Speakers

– Pavel Zoneff
– Ruslan Myatiev

Arguments

Technical solutions like Tor bridges help circumvent censorship, though they face challenges from both censors and bad actors

Most of the world’s internet is blocked in Turkmenistan, with all social media platforms banned and websites blocked without legal basis

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Human rights

Both speakers, working in challenging political environments, emphasize the importance of maintaining journalistic integrity and recognize how legal frameworks can be weaponized against independent media and activists.

Speakers

– Laura Zommer
– Ruslan Myatiev

Arguments

Legislation against misinformation often gets misused against activists and minorities in countries without strong rule of law

Maintaining highest journalistic standards and ethics will preserve trust even as technology rapidly changes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers express concern about the degradation of information quality online and the shift away from serious journalism toward entertainment and divisive content, representing a departure from the internet’s democratic promise.

Speakers

– Monika Ermert
– Vittorio Bertola

Arguments

The internet has transformed from being seen as the most democratic medium to becoming divisive and threatening to democracy

There’s little investigative journalism in mainstream media today, with most content being viral entertainment rather than serious reporting

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Corruption as an inadvertent tool for information access

Speakers

– Ruslan Myatiev

Arguments

Corruption in authoritarian systems can paradoxically help access information, as officials sell VPN access while officially blocking internet

Explanation

While not directly agreed upon by other speakers, Ruslan’s observation about corruption creating information access opportunities represents an unexpected perspective that other panelists didn’t challenge, suggesting tacit acceptance of this paradoxical reality in authoritarian contexts.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

International forums can suppress critical voices

Speakers

– Monika Ermert

Arguments

Even international forums like IGF can suppress critical voices, as experienced when asking about Saudi activists during sessions

Explanation

Monika’s revelation about censorship at IGF itself was not disputed by other panelists, suggesting unexpected consensus that even supposedly open international forums can become venues for suppressing critical discourse.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on several key issues: the problematic control of information by big tech platforms, the continued need for quality journalism despite distribution challenges, and the importance of community-centered approaches to media literacy. They also shared concerns about the degradation of online information quality and the weaponization of legal frameworks against independent media.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on structural problems and challenges, with speakers from different geographical and professional backgrounds reaching similar conclusions about platform control, funding challenges, and the need for innovative approaches. This consensus suggests these are fundamental, widely-recognized issues in the field rather than regional or sector-specific problems. The implications are significant as it indicates a shared understanding of the core challenges facing information integrity and press freedom globally.

Different viewpoints

Role of government funding in journalism

Speakers

– Pavel Zoneff
– Monika Ermert

Arguments

Pavel expressed surprise at hearing a German talk about how governments shouldn’t fund journalism

Monika stated ‘I don’t think they should fund journalism. I think that’s difficult. There is a problem there if a government funds journalism’

Summary

Pavel seemed to expect that Germans would support government funding of journalism, while Monika explicitly opposed direct government funding, suggesting instead tax incentives and indirect support mechanisms

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Effectiveness of regulation versus market solutions

Speakers

– Laura Zommer
– Monika Ermert

Arguments

Laura argues for more policies and legislation that make platforms more accountable and transparent

Monika states ‘I’m hesitant to put my belief into we will be able to regulate the platforms. I think what we need really, we cannot go perhaps without it, but it will never help us to the end’

Summary

Laura advocates for stronger regulatory approaches to make platforms accountable, while Monika is skeptical about regulation’s effectiveness and emphasizes market-based solutions and innovation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Government funding of journalism in democratic contexts

Speakers

– Pavel Zoneff
– Monika Ermert

Arguments

Pavel expressed surprise at hearing a German talk about how governments shouldn’t fund journalism

Monika stated she doesn’t think governments should fund journalism due to inherent problems

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it revealed different perspectives on press independence even within democratic contexts. Pavel’s surprise suggests he expected Germans to support public media funding, while Monika’s opposition reflects concerns about editorial independence regardless of democratic institutions

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers showed remarkable consensus on identifying problems (platform control, censorship, misinformation) but diverged on solutions. Main disagreements centered on regulatory approaches versus market solutions, and the role of government in supporting journalism

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. While speakers had different tactical approaches, they shared fundamental concerns about information freedom and quality journalism. The disagreements were constructive and focused on implementation rather than core values, suggesting potential for collaborative solutions that combine regulatory, market-based, and community-centered approaches

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers understand the technical realities of internet censorship and the ongoing cat-and-mouse game between censors and those trying to circumvent restrictions, acknowledging both the potential and limitations of technical solutions.

Speakers

– Pavel Zoneff
– Ruslan Myatiev

Arguments

Technical solutions like Tor bridges help circumvent censorship, though they face challenges from both censors and bad actors

Most of the world’s internet is blocked in Turkmenistan, with all social media platforms banned and websites blocked without legal basis

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Human rights

Both speakers, working in challenging political environments, emphasize the importance of maintaining journalistic integrity and recognize how legal frameworks can be weaponized against independent media and activists.

Speakers

– Laura Zommer
– Ruslan Myatiev

Arguments

Legislation against misinformation often gets misused against activists and minorities in countries without strong rule of law

Maintaining highest journalistic standards and ethics will preserve trust even as technology rapidly changes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers express concern about the degradation of information quality online and the shift away from serious journalism toward entertainment and divisive content, representing a departure from the internet’s democratic promise.

Speakers

– Monika Ermert
– Vittorio Bertola

Arguments

The internet has transformed from being seen as the most democratic medium to becoming divisive and threatening to democracy

There’s little investigative journalism in mainstream media today, with most content being viral entertainment rather than serious reporting

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Big tech platforms have abandoned neutrality and now control information flow through algorithms that prioritize engagement over truthfulness, aligning with government interests rather than serving public good

Traditional investigative journalism is struggling to adapt to new media consumption patterns, particularly among younger audiences who primarily consume news through short-form social media content

Media literacy initiatives must be community-centered and co-created with target audiences, using innovative approaches like WhatsApp-based courses and meeting people in the spaces where they consume content

Legislation against misinformation can be counterproductive in countries without strong rule of law, often being weaponized against activists and minorities rather than protecting free expression

Technical solutions like Tor bridges and VPNs provide crucial circumvention tools, though they face ongoing challenges from both censors and bad actors who exploit these systems

Quality journalism still has an audience, but requires significant investment in new formats, collaborative approaches, and innovative business models to reach people effectively

The internet has transformed from being viewed as the most democratic medium to becoming a divisive force that threatens democratic discourse and social cohesion

Resolutions and action items

Journalists and content creators should ask their target communities directly about their needs rather than assuming what media literacy approaches will work

Publishers should explore innovative funding models like media budgets that allow consumers to choose from various sources rather than sticking to single publications

Policymakers should consider tax incentives and other indirect support for journalism rather than direct government funding

Technical communities should continue developing and distributing circumvention tools while addressing challenges of bridge discovery and misuse

Investigative journalism organizations need to collaborate with content creators who understand new media formats rather than expecting traditional journalists to adapt to platforms like TikTok

Unresolved issues

How to effectively enforce platform accountability policies across different countries with varying rule of law standards

Whether there is sufficient audience demand for quality journalism to sustain proper investigative reporting

How to scale media literacy initiatives across different languages and cultures while maintaining effectiveness

How to address total internet blackouts and create distributed networks for heavily censored communities

How to differentiate policy recommendations based on the maturity of judicial and civil institutions in different countries

How to preserve investigative journalism when most people consume news through short-form social media content

How to create sustainable business models for independent journalism that don’t rely on engagement-driven algorithms

Suggested compromises

Federated news platforms that combine content from various sources while allowing consumers to pay small amounts for diverse coverage rather than subscribing to single publications

Hybrid approaches that maintain high journalistic standards while adapting content formats for new media consumption patterns

Collaborative initiatives between traditional investigative journalists and content creators skilled in social media formats

Indirect government support for journalism through tax incentives rather than direct funding to avoid editorial independence concerns

Global standards for platform accountability that can be differentiated by country based on institutional maturity and rule of law

I used to repeat since some months ago that we are just in the middle of a perfect storm… the biggest threats or problem that we have today is that the owners of the big techs that are the ones having the control of the distribution of the content everywhere decide… they decide just to left the theoretical neutrality for the distribution of the content.

Speaker

Laura Zommer

Reason

This comment reframes the disinformation problem not as isolated incidents of fake news, but as a systemic structural issue where tech platforms have abandoned neutrality and aligned with government interests. It introduces the concept of a ‘perfect storm’ that encompasses multiple converging factors rather than single-point failures.

Impact

This comment set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing that the problem is structural rather than tactical. It shifted the conversation away from individual bad actors toward examining the fundamental power dynamics of information distribution, influencing subsequent speakers to address systemic solutions rather than just content moderation.

What really amazed me the most is how… we came from an internet 20 years ago at IGF1 that was said was the most democratic medium ever… to a network that has become so divisive, that has made society so divided.

Speaker

Monika Ermert

Reason

This observation provides crucial historical context by contrasting the internet’s original democratic promise with its current divisive reality. It highlights the dramatic transformation of the internet’s social impact and challenges the audience to consider how we lost the original vision.

Impact

This comment introduced a temporal dimension to the discussion, prompting reflection on how the internet evolved from a democratizing force to a divisive one. It influenced the conversation to consider not just current solutions but also what went wrong historically, leading to discussions about returning to more federated, decentralized models.

Actually corruption is a good thing. When a country is corrupt, it means that if there is some limitation to something, there will always be someone who will give you alternative way if you pay him… these folks are corrupt. They, with their right hand, they block websites and block Internet, and with their left hand, they give out VPNs.

Speaker

Ruslan Myatiev

Reason

This paradoxical observation reveals how corruption can inadvertently create information access opportunities in authoritarian systems. It’s a counterintuitive insight that challenges conventional thinking about corruption being purely negative, showing how systemic failures can create unintended freedoms.

Impact

This comment added complexity to the discussion about censorship and resistance, showing that the relationship between authoritarian control and information access isn’t straightforward. It influenced the conversation to consider how journalists and activists can work within imperfect systems, and highlighted the importance of understanding local contexts when developing circumvention strategies.

The conversations related to legislations are, in general, or lead by people from the central countries or the north countries, where the rule of law and the judiciary systems have at least some standards… some of the legislations that Congress passed has been just used against activists and people that are against the powerful part of the society.

Speaker

Laura Zommer

Reason

This comment exposes a critical blind spot in global policy discussions about disinformation – that regulatory solutions designed in stable democracies can become tools of oppression when implemented in countries with weaker institutions. It challenges the assumption that regulation is universally beneficial.

Impact

This insight fundamentally shifted the discussion about policy solutions, forcing participants to acknowledge that one-size-fits-all regulatory approaches could be harmful. It influenced subsequent discussions to consider differentiated approaches based on institutional maturity and led to more nuanced thinking about the relationship between regulation and freedom of expression.

Is there an audience for proper journalism still? And if there is, how can we nurture it? How can we preserve it and make it grow?… if there is no demand, there will never be space for good journalism.

Speaker

Vittorio Bertola (audience member)

Reason

This question cuts to the heart of the sustainability crisis in journalism by questioning whether the fundamental problem is supply-side (lack of good journalism) or demand-side (lack of audience interest). It challenges the assumption that better journalism will automatically find an audience.

Impact

This question shifted the discussion from focusing primarily on production and distribution challenges to examining audience engagement and demand. It prompted speakers to address the fundamental question of whether people actually want quality journalism, leading to more realistic discussions about media literacy, audience development, and the need to meet audiences where they are rather than where journalists think they should be.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond surface-level solutions toward examining deeper structural and systemic issues. Laura Zommer’s ‘perfect storm’ framing established the conversation as one about power structures rather than just content problems. Monika Ermert’s historical perspective added temporal depth, while Ruslan’s corruption paradox introduced nuanced thinking about working within imperfect systems. Laura’s critique of Northern-centric policy approaches challenged assumptions about universal solutions, and Vittorio’s audience question forced a reckoning with demand-side realities. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from tactical responses to strategic thinking about the fundamental challenges facing information ecosystems, creating a more sophisticated and realistic framework for understanding both problems and potential solutions.

How can we effectively enforce platform policies and regulations, especially regarding algorithm transparency and accountability?

Speaker

Pavel Zoneff

Explanation

This addresses the gap between creating policies to regulate big tech platforms and actually implementing them effectively, which is crucial for combating misinformation

What alternative design incentives could be hardwired into social platforms to reward truthfulness over engagement?

Speaker

Pavel Zoneff

Explanation

This explores potential technical solutions to address the fundamental problem that current algorithms prioritize viral content over accurate information

How can media literacy programs be made more scalable across different languages and cultures?

Speaker

Pavel Zoneff

Explanation

This addresses the need to adapt media literacy interventions to work effectively in diverse global contexts

What innovative business models could sustain quality journalism without relying on engagement-driven algorithms?

Speaker

Monika Ermert

Explanation

This explores alternatives to current funding models that could support investigative journalism while maintaining independence

How can federated platforms for news distribution be successfully implemented to diversify media consumption?

Speaker

Monika Ermert

Explanation

This investigates technical infrastructure solutions that could help break echo chambers and support diverse journalism

Is there still an audience for proper investigative journalism, and how can it be nurtured and preserved?

Speaker

Vittorio Bertola

Explanation

This addresses concerns about declining public interest in balanced, investigative reporting versus viral content

How can investigative journalism successfully transition to short-form content and social media platforms while maintaining quality standards?

Speaker

Yuriy Bokovoy

Explanation

This explores the challenge of adapting serious journalism to new media consumption patterns, especially among younger audiences

How can global standards for platform regulation be differentiated by country while accounting for varying levels of institutional maturity and rule of law?

Speaker

Andrew (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses the complexity of implementing universal standards in countries with different political and judicial systems

What methods exist for creating distributed out-of-bounds networks for local communities in areas with heavy censorship or total internet blackouts?

Speaker

Theodore (online participant)

Explanation

This explores technical solutions for maintaining information access during complete internet shutdowns

How can collaborative initiatives between journalists and content creators be better structured to reach audiences effectively while maintaining quality?

Speaker

Laura Zommer

Explanation

This addresses the need for more effective partnerships between traditional journalism and new media formats