Digital democracy and future realities | IGF 2023 WS #476

Audience

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

Another perspective is sought from Bill, who has a background in research and development (R&D). This aims to gain insights into public interest internet from someone with expertise in innovation and infrastructure. Including Bill’s viewpoint enhances the analysis and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

The analysis also discusses the role of Facebook in providing internet access, especially in many global majority countries. It is noted that Facebook often offers free internet services, positioning itself as the primary gateway to the internet in these regions. However, concerns are raised about the monopoly Facebook has over internet access, which may result in limited choices and potential inequalities in accessing the internet.

Furthermore, the analysis examines the global impact of the internet, highlighting its positive and negative aspects. While the internet has facilitated globalization and connected people worldwide, it has also centralized control and decision-making processes. This centralization undermines the democratic nature of the internet.

A significant issue identified in the analysis is the digital divide, particularly affecting young men and women in grassroots communities. Limited access to necessary infrastructure and content creates a substantial barrier to internet usage for these individuals. Additionally, language and content act as obstacles in bridging this divide.

The analysis also delves into how internet usage challenges social norms, particularly for young women. In many societies, using the internet is stigmatized as it is seen as a threat to established norms. This negative perception hinders women’s empowerment and their participation in the digital space.

Acknowledging the importance of digital literacy, the analysis emphasizes the need to increase digital skills among young people and women. It includes not only basic technological skills but also the ability to generate content and engage in internet activism. Promoting digital literacy can contribute to reducing inequalities and fostering greater gender equality.

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

In conclusion, this analysis sheds light on various issues surrounding public interest internet. It emphasizes the importance of understanding funding mechanisms, gaining diverse perspectives, and addressing inequalities such as the digital divide. Furthermore, it underscores the significance of digital literacy and the need to democratize access to ensure equal opportunities for all.

Rachel Judistari

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

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

The analysis suggests that regulations implemented in the digital space often focus on big tech companies and overlook the diversity of internet services. It argues that policymakers should ensure that regulations uphold protections for human rights and safeguard user privacy, while also fostering meaningful community participation in internet governance. The supporting facts provided highlight that Wikipedia opposes overly broad restrictions with highly punitive consequences and actively encourages meaningful community participation in internet governance.

Furthermore, the analysis points out that Wikipedia is actively involved in training large language models essential for generative AI, thereby contributing to reducing knowledge inequalities. It further showcases Wikipedia’s commitment to knowledge equity by highlighting their launch of knowledge equity funds to create more content and uphold diversity.

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

Addressing the digital divide is seen as a major priority. The analysis points out that in the global south, where many individuals lack access to the internet, public interest platforms like Wikipedia should actively contribute to discussions aiming to bridge this divide.

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

Furthermore, the analysis acknowledges that internet regulations can be new and complex in certain regions. It points out that some regions in Asia consider internet regulation a new concept, and emphasizes the presence of diverse ways of content modifications.

Advocacy for using superior platforms for better content moderation is presented. The analysis mentions the social media platform Mastodon as an example of a better alternative. It also highlights the importance of exceptions being made for public interest platforms, citing Rachel as an advocate for such exceptions.

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

Successful engagement with young people, the analysis suggests, can be achieved through collaboration with other organizations. It points out that Wikimedia has collaborated with the Minister of IT in Indonesia and expresses a desire to have more collaborations with youth-led organizations.

The analysis advocates for the promotion of the internet of commons to serve public interest and suggests that exceptions should be made for public interest platforms. However, no specific evidence or supporting facts are provided in this regard.

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

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

Overall, the analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the role and impact of public interest platforms like Wikipedia in the digital world. It highlights the need to address wealth and knowledge gaps, privacy concerns, and misinformation, while also recognizing the positive contributions of public interest platforms in addressing those issues. It argues for regulations that protect human rights, encourage user participation, and support diversity. The analysis also raises concerns about unintended consequences and identifies priorities such as bridging the digital divide and engaging young people in digital literacy. The insights gained from the analysis shed light on the complex challenges and opportunities in creating a more equitable and inclusive digital ecosystem.

Mallory Knodel

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

However, there is a concern that corporations monopolise user experiences on the internet and engage in anti-competitive practices. While community-driven innovation still thrives alongside corporate platforms, it can be challenging to compete with large corporations that prioritise their own interests. Communities continue to build their own tools and generate content, but they face difficulties in gaining a strong foothold against corporate dominance.

Furthermore, efforts to create a public good internet are often not inclusive. The individuals involved in the hacking culture, which contributes to developing a public good internet, tend to be those with free time or jobs that align with this pursuit. This exclusion of people who lack the time or access to technology creates a barrier to participation and limits the diversity of voices and perspectives in shaping the internet.

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

On a positive note, communities that build public good internet technology tend to be self-perpetuating. By fostering strong community involvement, these initiatives can continue to expand and grow, gaining support and participation from individuals who understand and appreciate the importance of a public good internet.

However, the existence of public good internet is not guaranteed without strong nearby communities. Building a public good internet requires the dedication and collaboration of individuals in a specific locality. Without this local support, it is difficult to establish and sustain a public good internet that truly benefits the communities in the area.

Public interest work on the internet does not necessarily have to be for-profit to be sustainable. There are alternative ways of generating revenue, such as contextual advertising, that can be profitable and less invasive. The focus should be on creating sustainable models that prioritise the public interest.

In contrast, big tech companies are often criticised for prioritising monetisation over innovation. These corporations, with their established platforms and significant influence, can create barriers for competing services and limit the choices available to users. Targeted advertising, a common strategy used by big tech, is seen as invasive and contrary to the public interest. It violates user privacy, and there are concerns about the ethical implications of such practices.

The regulations designed for big tech platforms may inadvertently hinder public interest platforms. While efforts should be made to improve big corporate platforms, it is important to devote attention to public interest platforms, such as Wikipedia, that serve the public good. Current regulations may not fully consider the practices and needs of these platforms, which can impede their ability to operate effectively.

To promote competition and user preference, it is important to have more choices in platforms. The ability to migrate to different platforms encourages healthy competition and provides users with options that align with their values and preferences. Currently, big multinational corporate tech platforms dominate many regions, leaving limited alternatives.

Public platforms, like Wikipedia, should be considered in discussions on content moderation. These platforms have established practices and guidelines for content moderation that can serve as examples for other platforms. It is crucial to learn from these successful models and incorporate their insights into broader content moderation discussions.

In conclusion, building and sustaining a public good internet requires effort, investment, and support. While corporations dominate the landscape, efforts to create a public good internet are still underway. However, inclusivity remains a challenge, and investment is crucial for the success and expansion of public good initiatives. It is important to ensure that public interest work is sustainable and prioritise the public interest over monetisation. While big tech companies have their shortcomings, the existence of more platform choices and proper regulations can foster healthy competition and better serve the needs and preferences of users.

Bill Thompson

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

Another argument suggests that Internet governance needs to be inclusive and representative of a wider variety of communities. Traditionally excluded groups should have a voice in shaping the internet to create a fair digital public sphere. Inclusion and active participation from these communities are considered crucial for better internet governance.

The analysis further highlights the need to reevaluate and reimagine the internet to enhance democracy and protect individuals from surveillance. The current internet structure is questioned as potentially unsuitable for these purposes. A network that safeguards individuals’ privacy from surveillance is deemed necessary.

The limitations of existing protocols are seen as a hindrance to innovation in the design of modern social networks. The emergence of similar platforms that lack innovation and the perceived restrictions of current protocols provide evidence to support this argument. However, the introduction of alternative protocols such as ActivityPub offers the potential for innovation in online social spaces and presents a different lens for constructing such spaces.

Responsibility for delivering various aspects of the public interest internet is viewed as falling on all stakeholders. It is emphasised that these stakeholders should contribute to the public service internet in accordance with its overall interests. This collective approach is crucial to ensure the internet effectively serves the public interest.

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

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

In conclusion, the analysis presents a range of arguments that highlight the inadequacies of the current internet model in delivering public service outcomes. The influence of commercial interests, limitations of existing protocols, and the need for inclusivity, democracy, and community engagement are all key factors that require attention. Ultimately, a collective effort is necessary to create an internet that effectively serves the public interest.

Anna Christina

The analysis reveals various important aspects concerning internet governance and cultural diversity. One of the key points highlighted is the pressing need for diverse cultural content on the internet, with a specific focus on meeting the needs of indigenous communities. It is pointed out that a significant portion of the current internet content does not relate to indigenous communities. This is particularly relevant in Mexico, which is the 11th country with the most multicultural communities. Efforts should be made to ensure that indigenous cultures and perspectives are represented and celebrated through diverse online content, particularly as it relates to sustainable cities and communities.

Additionally, the analysis underscores the importance of establishing a governance system that fosters balanced and inclusive participation of all stakeholders. This includes promoting transparency, accountability, and stakeholder inclusion in decision-making processes related to internet governance. To this end, UNESCO has been running a consultation since September 2022 to develop guidelines for regulating digital platforms. These guidelines aim to ensure that governance systems are transparent, accountable, and promote diverse cultural content. This is important for achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the need for active youth participation in internet governance discussions. It is noted that children aged 13 to 18 expressed their desire to participate in governance discussions during the consultations. Recognizing that the youth are the most important users of the internet, their active involvement is required to reduce inequalities and promote peace, justice, and strong institutions.

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

Moreover, the analysis highlights the positive role that community networks in Mexico, Central America, and Latin America play in promoting indigenous expression and cultural content online. These networks were created in partnership with UNESCO and serve as an example of promoting indigenous expression and cultural diversity. This is related to industry, innovation, infrastructure and peace, justice, and strong institutions.

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

Another important aspect brought up in the analysis is the need for a balance of responsibilities and contributions from all involved parties to achieve sustainability. This involves governments, the private sector, and users working together to achieve common goals. This is essential for achieving partnerships for the goals.

The analysis also emphasizes the importance of the consultation process for guidelines and regulations. It notes that building, maintaining, and resisting during this process is crucial. This indicates the significance of active engagement and continuous involvement in shaping internet governance policies. This is closely tied to achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions, as well as partnerships for the goals.

Additionally, the analysis underscores the importance of identifying the roles of different stakeholders in the regulatory process. It is highlighted that this aspect received the least response during the consultation. Involvement is necessary even after regulation happens. This is tied to achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions, as well as partnerships for the goals.

Furthermore, the analysis notes that while good laws and standards are essential, they can be misused in authoritarian regimes. This raises concerns about the potential misuse of laws in authoritarian regimes. This is especially relevant for achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions.

In conclusion, the analysis provides valuable insights into the need for diverse cultural content on the internet, the establishment of inclusive governance systems, the importance of youth participation, stakeholder involvement in implementation and evaluation processes, the role of community networks in promoting cultural diversity, the responsibility for funding public interest technology, the balance of responsibilities for sustainability, the significance of the consultation process, and the role of civil society in fighting against misuse of laws. These findings shed light on the complex nature of internet governance and the importance of fostering cultural diversity in the online world. These aspects are tied to achieving quality education, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, peace, justice, and strong institutions, industry, innovation, and infrastructure, and partnerships for the goals.

Widia Listiawulan

Traveloka, a publicly traded private sector company, prioritizes innovation and technology to enhance tourism while emphasizing sustainable and inclusive growth. They collaborate with communities, governments, and stakeholders, operating in six ASEAN countries with over 45 million active users monthly. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, Traveloka’s contribution to Indonesia’s GDP in the tourism sector reached 2.7%. They actively partake in policy-making processes and ensure compliance with local regulations, promoting customer safety. Traveloka’s commitment to sustainability involves working with women and environmental groups, supporting local communities. Their focus on youth involvement and digital literacy empowers young people to contribute to community-building and develop new tourism destinations. Traveloka promotes tourism through local perspectives, valuing the preferences and aspirations of local communities. They also engage in collaboration, partnering with institutions nationally and internationally to provide digital literacy training and foster inclusivity. Moreover, Traveloka advocates for collaboration and public-private partnerships to address technology regulation concerns effectively. They emphasize responsible technology use, focusing on customer needs and societal benefits. Traveloka’s multifaceted approach showcases their understanding of the relationship between technology, community engagement, and responsible business practices in driving positive change in the tourism sector.

Nima Iyer

Nima Iyer, the founder of Policy, a feminist civic tech organisation based in Kampala, Uganda, expressed concern over the commercialisation and politicisation of online spaces. She noticed a shift in how internet spaces evolved over time, from being free and accessible to becoming controlled by commercial interests and divisive politics. Nima believes that this trend has eroded the idea of a free, open, and publicly-owned internet. She argues that the internet should be a space that is not restricted or controlled by commercial or political interests.

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

In addition to her concerns about the commercialisation of online spaces, Nima also observes a divide in conversations between for-profit and non-profit tech communities. She maintains separate Twitter accounts for both communities and notes that they discuss vastly different topics, with the for-profit community heavily focused on revenue generation and customer retention. Nima also explores the influence of profit-driven motivation in the innovation space, using the example of Couchsurfing and Airbnb. She believes that profit-driven corporations can have a negative impact on innovation.

Furthermore, Nima questions how to maintain public interest when innovation is dominated by profit-oriented motivations. She notes that the concept of public interest appears to be overshadowed by the quest for profits in the innovation space. Nima also highlights the importance of differentiating the rules for big tech companies and small start-up companies when creating data protection laws. She points out that it is unfair for small companies in their early stages to have to follow the same dense regulatory protocols as larger, technologically advanced companies.

Bill Thompson, another prominent voice in the analysis, suggests that commercial engagement should be allowed in the public service internet, but on public service terms. He believes that the public service internet should support democracy online and a digital public sphere without traditional commercial capture or monetisation. Thompson criticises the current model of a global timeline used by platforms like Facebook and Twitter, arguing that it is not reflective of real life and is not good for civil society. He suggests the need for a different way of thinking and building internet systems, abandoning certain core assumptions of existing models.

In terms of universal internet access, Nima expresses some sadness about the idea of previously disconnected indigenous communities being connected to the global internet. She questions whether constant access to global information is always beneficial. Nima also calls for deliberate design of public spaces, goods, and platforms, highlighting the need to encourage people to use them rather than defaulting to existing ones due to convenience. She advocates for conversation between government officials and civil society for effective legislation.

Throughout the analysis, there are several other noteworthy observations and insights. The importance of encouraging volunteerism and contribution to open-source software and knowledge bases is discussed. The challenge of public infrastructure funding is reflected upon, with a comparison to essential services like sanitation and water. Finally, there is a call for action on the discussed matters and a focus on the next steps to address the issues raised.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the concerns and arguments put forward by Nima Iyer and Bill Thompson regarding the commercialisation, politicisation, and profit-driven nature of online spaces and innovation. They advocate for the creation of public, inclusive, and free digital spaces and the differentiation of rules for big tech and small start-up companies. They also emphasise the importance of deliberate design, conversation between government officials and civil society, and addressing the challenges of universal internet access and public infrastructure funding. Overall, their insights contribute to the ongoing discussions and efforts aimed at creating a more accessible, inclusive, and socially responsible digital world.

Nima Iyer:
and future realities. Thank you so much for coming early this morning and for joining us for what I believe will be a very interesting and exciting conversation. So I’ll just briefly talk about why we’re having this conversation and how it came about. First, let me just quickly introduce myself. My name is Nima Iyer and I am the founder of Policy. And Policy is a feminist civic tech organization based in Kampala, Uganda. And when I first founded Policy about six years ago, there was a lot of buzz around civic tech. And I feel even like using the word civic tech feels a bit dated. Like it feels very, you know, 2016, 2017, but it’s the same topics with just different names and the similar ideas. And why this is really interesting to me because I vividly remember the first time I used the internet back in the early 90s and just how much joy it had and how it felt like you could create anything and it felt, you know, it felt free and accessible. And then slowly over time, things changed and platforms became very gated and then you had to be in these closed spaces and sort of the dreams that we had for, you know, this open internet that we could all use was slowly diminishing in some ways. So now we have a lot of platforms that are fueled by commercial interests and, you know, fueled by advertisement or they’re fueled by divisive politics online. And so the question that we are asking here today is what happened to the spaces that would have been publicly owned and publicly governed? What happened to those spaces? Do we still have an opportunity to create those kinds of spaces? Who should be having these conversations about making these spaces? And yeah, that’s kind of why we’re all gathered here and also to get different perspectives of who can be in the room, who’s not in the room, who should be in the room. And yeah, also generally to talk about how this term of public good has changed over time but how it’s still very much the same concept and still very important and very relevant. So I hope you will have a great conversation with us and the format we’ll have is that we’ll talk together for about 40 minutes on the panel, 40, 50 minutes, and then we would love to have time to open it up to hear your perspectives and also to get your questions. So I know there’s often, you know, this is not a question but if you do have interesting comments to add that would definitely be welcome. So I would love to start the panel and I will first start off with Mallory and I’ll give a quick introduction to Mallory Nodal. Mallory is CDT’s, that is Center for Democracy and Technology’s Chief Technology Officer. She’s a member of the Internet Architecture Board and the co-chair of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group. She takes a human rights people-centered approach to technology implementation with a focus on encryption, censorship, and cybersecurity. Mallory, thank you so much for joining us this morning. The first question I wanted to ask you is generally about what do you think about the general concept of public internet infrastructure or public goods? How would you explain it to the people in the room, first of all, and what good is it providing to us or even what’s the potential of what it could provide to us?

Mallory Knodel:
Yeah, thanks so much for inviting me and for having me here to talk about this topic. What I really like about your framing of this panel is it answers the question, internet for what? Because I feel that we often just assume that the internet is inherently a good thing and that’s actually not a bad assumption. I think we all arrive at the same conclusion but I don’t think we introspect or remind ourselves enough what for and what does it provide. I think that where governments and corporations have made the case for why we need to move online and digitize, often those are austerity measures. Often those are ways of replacing infrastructure with digital infrastructure. And I think what we’re talking about in this panel is the opposite. Why do we have the internet? Why do we believe in it so much? Why is it so important? And I can tell you from a while back, I’ve been in this space for a terribly long time, it turns out. And I remember when we didn’t have social media or we couldn’t take for granted that one could simply go on the internet and build oneself a platform or share information. It started for me when I was an activist with Indymedia where we were going around mostly just filming protests or sharing information about protests. And then that wound up online because the Indymedia websites were ostensibly somewhat open. They were kind of the proto web 2.0. You could upload an event or share event details with people, you could then post a blog or we just called it news. We could post news from a protest on the Indymedia website. And then those got published. And so that sort of citizen media became a real precursor to what we see now pervasively in social media where a lot of that content now is on corporate owned private space platforms. Indymedia still exists. Those things are still around. Other things that are in that spirit are like Wikipedia, things where we’re co-generating with one another in aggregate content. And I think the other thing that back in that time when I’m really stretching my mind backwards where we were really insistent upon owning the technology and not just owning it, in terms of having a bare metal server somewhere in a co-location center that you could visit it and check in on it, see how it’s doing, install the software you want on it, make sure you have the encryption keys and no one else, et cetera, et cetera, we were also really invested in figuring out how to do it too. So it wasn’t just about the having, it was also about the doing and the making. And I feel like that in and of itself was quite an empowering sort of action because we were actually building cool tools. Like I mentioned, Indymedia sort of invented social media. We were, and we were hacking on it, we were figuring out. And so I think there’s some spirit of that that still happens. I see it everywhere. It’s sort of a yes and, right? It hasn’t been that corporates have sort of replaced this, it’s just that we now have to compete with the corporates that of course act in anti-competitive ways, they are interested in capturing users, they have all kinds of other incentives. And so while some of those traditions are still around, they’re just not as present, they’re not as well used, they’re not as well remembered. And so I think, yes, the internet is itself a public good, but I think all of the things that sort of come out of it when the exercise is itself the end goal, really I think is what communities end up coming up with as what are public goods for them. So I think I’ll stop there and let you introduce the rest of the panel.

Nima Iyer:
Yeah, I just wanted to add on to that in terms of what you said. For example, what groups do you think benefit from these public goods and who is excluded as well? Just as you said, the corporations tend to own them now, so if you could just expand on that.

Mallory Knodel:
Yeah, I think your question about exclusion is a good one and I’m sorry, I didn’t mention it before. I do think that while we like to valorize this sort of hacking and the making and the doing, it is not that inclusive, it does require a lot of time. And so much of the people in this space still today are folks who have free time or that have jobs that align with this sort of work. And so it does, by virtue of that, simply exclude people who maybe don’t have a lot of time to just try to figure out the technology or they don’t have access to those things. So I think we shouldn’t be too overly enamored with this idea that we can just build it and make it. It actually does take a lot of time, it does take a lot of investment. And so I think without a concerted effort to build up the public good internet without real investment in money, again, because we’re not doing this for profit, there is no business model, that it won’t thrive and in a lot of places won’t even exist at all. And because these communities are very much bootstrapping communities, meaning that once they exist, they start to grow.

Nima Iyer:
There’s a request for you to speak a little bit slower.

Mallory Knodel:
Oh, certainly, yeah. Absolutely, yes. So I was just finishing up, but what I was saying is that a lot of the communities that make public good internet technology tend to be self-perpetuating. So that needs to be grounded in existence. And the opposite then is also true. If there is not a strong community of building a public good internet nearby, it’s really difficult to expect one to just happen or expect the local communities there to benefit from a global public good internet when it’s not in their local language, it’s not necessarily serving their needs. So again, I’ll just reiterate the main point here is that it takes effort and investment, support, money, et cetera, to make it happen.

Nima Iyer:
Thanks, Mallory. I think I still have more questions on that topic, but let me get on to some of the other speakers as well, because I definitely am curious in terms of, when you say the investment and the money for a public good that will not make money as well. And yeah, I’m curious, we’ll discuss it later, like where might this money come from and how would it be sustained? But we’ll come back to that. I would like to bring on our next speaker, who is Bill Thompson from the BBC. Yeah, I think he’ll-

Bill Thompson:
Hello.

Nima Iyer:
Hi.

Bill Thompson:
Can I be seen or even heard?

Nima Iyer:
We’re just waiting for your image to come up on the screen, just one. I’ll introduce you in the meantime.

Bill Thompson:
It’s not worth waiting for.

Nima Iyer:
Okay. Oh, whoa. I’ll introduce you in the meantime as that happens. So Bill will be joining us remotely. Bill leads the public value research in BBC research and development. He’s also well known as a technology journalist and advisor to arts and cultural organizations on matters related to digital technology. From January, 2001 to April, 2023, he was also a regular studio expert on the BBC World Service Technology Program, Digital Planet, which is also known as Go Digital and Click. And he still appears regularly as an independent commentator. He’s an adjunct professor at Southampton University and member of the board of the Web Science Trust. So Bill, we’re still waiting for your image to appear. Should we just go ahead?

Bill Thompson:
I would carry on. I’m better on the radio anyway. I know that.

Nima Iyer:
Oh, there you are. All right. So we can see you on the screen now. Welcome. Welcome and thanks for joining us very late your time. We really do appreciate it. So the question that I have for you today, Bill, is how can we build internet technologies that are architected, designed and deployed to meet the specific requirements of public service organizations? So in simpler words, how do we make these public goods and how do we make sure that they work within the current standards of the internet? So what’s the best way we can go around to create these digital public goods?

Bill Thompson:
Oh, the easy questions first then. I think that it’s interesting that you say that we do them in line with current internet standards because that sort of assumes that what we’ve got now is a sufficient base for public service outcomes. And I’d argue just in line with what Mallory has been eloquently saying that the history of the network over the past now 50 years is that we have a set of technology standards that have failed to deliver public service outcomes that have been subverted, that have been taken over by commercial interests intentionally in the governments have sort of given that space to commercial interests, but also the standards, the technical standards, the protocols themselves have proved unable to resist commercial pressure and have not effectively delivered good outcomes. And we see that again and again in the way that the open web has been closed in the way that sort of things we would like to happen in terms of open communications protocols haven’t happened. So part of what we’re looking at at the BBC is in fact to ask whether we need a significant intervention in the underlying technology stack as well as work on regulation and governance. So let’s not just accept the internet as it is, but let’s think about how we might build it or improve it and design it to deliver those outcomes. So bring in the sorts of communities that have been traditionally excluded from internet governance activities, bring the sorts of communities that were definitely not part of the conversation in the 1980s and 1990s when today’s network was emerging and try to have a more structured conversation. As a public service broadcaster, you see that the BBC has spent a hundred years making television and radio work. And it feels to me that as part of our mission, we should be trying to work with others to make the internet work. And that means trying to go back to basics, to ask ourselves what a network would look like that could allow us to effectively assert say identity that could protect people from surveillance, that could deliver those public goods. And then on top of that, we could start to build a digital public sphere in which people could feel more fulfilled, could feel happier, could feel protected from some of the bad aspects of the commercial internet if they chose it. And so I’d say the two parts of your question go together quite effectively in that we want to consider what good public service outcomes are. We sort of know what they are in the real world. We sort of know what they are in the broadcasting space that the BBC knows very well. I think we’re quite unclear about what they would be online, particularly when we have many different constituencies of interest. And so we need to have the widest possible coalition of interest, people talking about this, designing the network, but we shouldn’t assume that what we’ve got today is actually the right starting point. Perhaps the radical thing to do is to accept that if we’re to serve democracy and serve digital democracy, we should be willing to ask some very hard questions about the way today’s network runs, the technical protocols, the design standards for our applications, and the governance, and whether that’s the right way to deliver the sort of public service internet that we’re looking for.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you. Thank you so much for that, Bill. I think it’s interesting in terms of the design because a few, I want to say a few weeks ago, there was suddenly a ton of platforms that came about to replace Twitter slash X. And it just felt like over the course of two weeks, there was like 10 new online platforms, but they all looked exactly the same. There was no innovation. It was just copy paste of the same platform. And it just felt so boring. Like, isn’t there another way to design a space where we can share our very brief thoughts? But I think it’s really interesting. And like, yeah, how do we get to get together and design something that looks different from what we currently have? And yeah, it just, it felt so restrictive.

Bill Thompson:
Indeed. And of course, part of that is if you like, the network primitives, the underlying protocols that you have to work with if you want to build a modern social network are themselves quite limited. So, you know, the emergence of ActivityPub was brilliant because it was a different way of thinking about how you might construct an online social space. And it allows you to have different design criteria to work in a different way, to build security into it in a different way. And I think it’s that novelty that is going to be absolutely important to the next generation of the internet, that what we’ve got now doesn’t feel to me like it’s a good starting point. So let’s have the sort of radical conversations that we could have in this room and see where they take us.

Nima Iyer:
Lovely. Thank you so much. All right. I would love to move to our next speaker, Anna Christina Aruelas from UNESCO. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Anna is a Senior Program Specialist at UNESCO Communications and Information Sectors, Section for Freedom of Expression and Protection of Journalists. She has dedicated her work to the promotion and defense of human rights, freedom of expression and the right to information. Previously, Anna Christina was the Director of Article 19’s Regional Office for Mexico and Central America. Once again, thank you for joining us. The question that I have for you builds upon what Mallory started, talking about who’s included and who’s excluded and the kind of resources that are needed. So I’d love to ask you, how do we ensure that various stakeholders are heard and have the appropriate input so that we can develop these online governance structures that serve everyone?

Anna Christina:
Great, thank you very much. It’s a great conversation. I just wanted to think of what Bill was just saying of how we are thinking the internet and how we are including different voices within the internet. But, and that remind me of one of the things that my first job of UNESCO was related to, which was trying to make indigenous communities content within the internet to be available and how the possibility of creating indigenous communities content, acknowledging that most of the content right now is content that do not relate to most of these indigenous communities. I’m Mexican and Mexico is the 11th country with most multicultural communities. So I was thinking on how can we actually make sure that diverse cultural content, that cultural expressions are well set in internet. And that when we navigate into internet, we relate to those communities that live in our countries more than to other community. And as long as, at the same time, as we relate to other communities from other countries. Because as I say, in my country, sometimes we don’t know, we don’t even know about indigenous communities, even though they live in the side of our door. So I just was thinking about that because this relates a little bit of what UNESCO is doing right now and what we’re intending to promote in this process of defining how the governance of digital platforms. look like when we’re facing different processes, regulatory arrangements in different parts of the world. So UNESCO has started since September 2022 a process of consultation on guidelines for the regulation of digital platforms. In the beginning we started thinking about how the different discussions around regulation should take shape and try to create an understanding, a common understanding, that a human rights-based approach should come into place. And we realized that there were three elements that we wanted to enforce. One is that, as some of you know, UNESCO endorsed in a declaration, unanimously, that is called the Windowhead Declaration, that said that information is a public good, and that there’s three steps to actually make sure that information becomes, as a share, good for everyone. The first one is transparency for internet platforms, the second one is empowerment through media and information literacy mechanisms, and the third one is media viability. So through that, taking that in mind, we started this discussion recognizing that the thing was happening in silos, that we wanted to maintain the freedom that we all have in the internet. We wanted indigenous community to be able to engage, to have cultural content within the internet as we have it, but at the same time we were looking that regulation that was happening around the world was targeting the users and not seeing what the companies could do to be more transparent, to be accountable, to identify what was that phenomenon that wasn’t to be targeted, such as disinformation, hate speech, et cetera. So through a different process, it was three stages of open consultation where we received more than 10,000 comments from many of you, we realized that what we wanted is, one, to safeguard freedom of expression, access to information, and I will say one thing that will come in the next version is diverse cultural content, because one of the things that we aim in this process is to balance and make sure that whatever the governance system is, thinking that there’s always complementarity between self-regulation, core regulation, and statutory regulation, whatever that kind of shape of arrangement, of regulatory arrangement is, the governance system, which is a group of people, a group of people that should be identified, and this relates to your question, we need to identify those stakeholders that are interested to participate in the governance system, and the governance system had to be able to create balance in the participation of these stakeholders. We need to bear in mind that when we’re talking about a governance system, we need to include those voices that are mostly affected by the different phenomenons that we are seeing in the internet, and that are the issues that we want to address in order to also preserve freedom of expression, access to information, and diverse cultural content. So this is one of the things that UNESCO guidelines are trying to put forward, how we can ensure that governance systems are transparent, how we can ensure that governance systems are accountable, that they promote diverse cultural content, that actually they are and have in place check and balances, because sometimes even when we’re talking about self-regulatory measures or self-regulatory arrangements, there’s not within a specific check and balances or mechanisms to be accountable, and we want them to be able to be open and inclusive and accessible for everyone, not only for the ones, the technical community or the people that knows about the internet, but the people that wants to engage with the internet and have in the possibility of create their own content. So I will say that for us, there’s one, two, three, four, five, six elements that we said about the multi-stakeholder approach within this governance system. The first is acknowledging and identifying the stakeholders, including the companies that should be responsible for the compliance of the five principles set in the guidelines, then afterwards I can talk about them, and when identifying these companies, the regulators should bear in mind, yes, on one hand, the size, two, the market share, and three, the functionality of the platforms. And in this last section, I want to stop a little bit because it has to do with public interest, internet technologies. In this last section, the guidelines are clear, that when a governance system identifies which are the companies that should be on the scope, there should be a clear understanding of what is the kind of functionality, business model, service that the companies place, etc, etc. So I could read the thing, but it’s complicated. And then the second thing is encouraging inclusive participation, and when we say encouraging inclusive participation, it’s not about only the usual suspects, but actually one of the things that we receive from the various submissions from the consultation, for instance, for children from 13 to 18 years old, we’re like, we want to participate in these discussions, we are not in these discussions, you know, like, and you’re always trying to protect us, but how are we enabling the possibility for us to participate and engage more in the internet and in the decision-making process of the governance system? How are you giving us the tools to actually engage in these processes? And I think this is an important question because I don’t see that we have been able, for instance, in this forum, to bring together people that are actually the most important user in the internet right now. And the third thing is creating balance, that means acknowledging that the different actors within the stakeholder or the governance system have different levels of power, so we need to create balance and understand how balance should be worked. Ensuring transparency and accountability, as I already said, collaborative decision-making, so it tends to put forward a set of guidance of how decision-making is going to be, and then coordinating implementation efforts and evaluation. So that means that when we talk about multi stakeholderness, it’s not about just the moment of releasing any type of regulation or any type of code of conduct or any type of whatever, we need to participate in the implementation process and in the evaluation process. What we’ve heard from the regulatory groups is like, city society participates a lot in the process of, you know, advocates a lot for or against regulation, but then once the regulation pass, they leave us alone, they are not with us, and we need to participate together because we are the technical person that are going to implement regulations that are facing the different questions, and we don’t have the participation of the different stakeholders in our decision-making process. So I think that’s another important thing, and the evaluation process, which allow us to identify if the governance systems is working or not. Thank you very much.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much, Anna-Christina. Thank you for breaking that down, I think that was really helpful. All right, we’re going to move on to our next speaker, and our next speaker is Rachel Judistari from Wikimedia Foundation, and Rachel is Wikimedia Foundation’s lead public policy specialist for Asia. She has extensive working experience engaging key stakeholders through lobbying and advocacy to promote knowledge sharing, innovation and village governance, human rights, and youth empowerment. All right, so what I was thinking about while this discussion was going on is that I have two separate Twitter accounts, and on one it’s the people in this room, it’s about like open source or non-profit driven public interest tech, and then on my other Twitter it’s purely for-profit, and the conversations these two groups are having do not intersect at any point. The for-profit one is about how do you launch a SaaS, how do you get the most money from your users per month, how do you raise your prices so that you can have the most money and recurring revenue, and it’s just all about like how to suck out the most money from possible from customers, identifying their pain points, how do you keep them locked into the platform. A big thing in that is like how do you reduce churn, which is people dropping from your platform, and yeah, two very, very, very, very different conversations. So I wanted to ask you, when we think about public interest, what does it mean to place this public interest, these public goods at the heart of innovation or regulation? So I feel like the innovation space is really being taken over by, I don’t want to say corporations, but people who want to make profits. I also thought about this example a few weeks ago about couch surfers. So when I was in college, couch surfers was really popular. In case you don’t know, it was basically a platform where you could go to different countries and stay for free in someone’s house, and you would stay on their couch most likely. And after Airbnb came about, I feel that it killed couch surfing, because I actually logged into my account after like 10 years, and it’s become like a cesspool. The vibe is gone, you know. And then on the other side, it’s all about Airbnb, and like how much money they can make, and how they’ve taken all the apartments. So it’s a long-winded way to say like, yeah, how do we keep public interest when innovation nowadays is really focused on profit? Over to you, Rachel.

Rachel Judistari:
Thank you, Nima, for giving me the longest questions. One million questions. But yeah, good morning everyone. So I think I just want to summarize what has been shared by previous speakers, that the digital world today are mostly private and for profit platforms, as Nima also said. And in some cases, the privations of internet amplify wealth gap, prevent equitable access, and also exacerbated knowledge gap, especially for women, indigenous people, people of color, and other socially depressed groups. It’s also compromised our privacy and intensified polarizations and disinformation that is very detrimental to the protections of human rights and democratic values. So at this juncture, I also want to give you good news that Wikipedia still exists. We are the only not-for-profit platforms which are maintained by a community of users that are consistently ranked among the top 10 most visited websites. In this year alone, about 4.5 billion unique global visitors visit Wikipedia monthly. No one owns Wikipedia, and it’s available for free without advertising, without selling personal data, while maintaining strong user privacy protections. However, when you mentioned about innovations, this is also something that we are consistently doing. We realized that as the world’s largest online free encyclopedia, we play an essential role in training most large language models, which is essential in generative AI. I think we’ve heard the buzzword since day one of IGF, I don’t want to bore you, but what we are trying to do is to address knowledge gap within our communities. We also understand that while we are not-for-profit public interest platforms, we are far from ideal. Majority of the editors, we have around 300,000 editors right now, are still from Global North, and we want to diversify our community of editors, and also providing tools and accesses for most repressed groups. For example, two years ago, we launched knowledge equity funds, and in this year, we provided funds to Aman Alliance Masyarakat Adat Indonesia, one of the largest indigenous people alliances with more than 2 million members, to create more content in wiki media projects, to preserve their indigenous cultures and languages. We also have some projects to ensure the participations of women, people of color, and queer people through art and feminism. So by providing more profile of women in Wikipedia, we hope that it can shift the conversations around us. And the second part of your question is also about regulations, and what are the key principles that we need to preserve to ensure the protections of public interest platforms? Well, this is a dicey topic right now, because I feel like in the past few years, we saw a surge of very restrictive regulations on content moderations and platforms. However, the creations of these regulations are often focused on the big tech, and forget to consider the diversity of internet services. So some of these policies prescribe overly broad restrictions with highly punitive consequences, which also affecting our decentralized community-based content moderations. So hopefully, when new regulations are created or the current regulations are revising, the policymakers can also bear in mind the diversity of internet, especially for public interest platforms like Wikipedia, where we are using our community-led models to maintaining the website, but also becoming the antidote of this information. Because daily, our editors are doing fact-checking for more than 50 million articles that are available in Wikipedia. And we also want to encourage the regulations that caters internet to not solely mandating automations of content detections, but also help create opportunities for people’s participations to avoid creating a digital divide. Another principles that need to be protected within the internet regulations is definitely meaningful community participations in internet governance. I think Anna-Christina has mentioned earlier on the importance of that, and I would like to resonate with that, because decentralized content moderations model is one of the ways to preserving democratic values in the internet. And we also see the importance of having open and free internet for a diverse and equitable digital environment. We saw internet shutdowns, service interruptions, website blocking as means to hinder Wikipedia volunteers collaborations. And hopefully this also can be addressed technically, but also regulations-wise. Lastly, the regulations should definitely safeguard user privacy and ban intrusive surveillance system, while also upholding our protections to human rights. And lastly, because our next speaker will be coming from private sector, I also want to encourage further collaborations and communications with commercial platforms that also have pivotal roles in sharing information globally. So thank you, Dima. I hope that I answered your questions.

Nima Iyer:
Yes, yes, yes, definitely. Thank you so much for that. Thank you. But what you said also got me thinking about, generally interesting talking about how regulations are often aimed at big tech. And I was doing a couple of surveys, interviews a few months ago, looking at Kenya’s data protection. And you know, on the surface it looks great that there’s these data protection laws, there’s a data protection office, you need to comply with all these different laws. But then I think about small companies that are just starting out, because I used to be a small company that was just starting out. And I couldn’t imagine adding that other layer of work that you’d have to do when you’re a two-person company. And you’d have to follow all the same rules for a company that has a hundred thousand employees, and there’s no way around that. And it feels extremely unfair that it’s the same rules that applied despite such different context. So that’s a really good point, thank you for that. All right, I would love to bring on our last speaker, who we’re very excited about, Widya Listiawulan, who is a VP of Public Policy of Traveloka. And Widya will be joining us virtually as well. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Widya has 20 years of experience on public policy. Currently she leads the leading, sorry, she leads policy work of Traveloka, the largest travel and lifestyle app in Southeast Asia. And previously she managed public policy at Amazon Web Services, and also worked in the UN. So Widya, we’re just waiting for your image to appear on the screen. If you’ll just give us… Hi, welcome. There you are. Hi, it’s so lovely to have you. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. So yeah, as Rachel already prefaced, we’re very interested to hear from you about how the private sector, or you know, e-commerce, business… businesses can be a part of this discussion about public interest tech, how can companies ensure that some of the principles of public interest tech continue to live on? So if you can just add generally to the conversation that we’ve been having, we would really love the private sector perspective. Please go ahead.

Widia Listiawulan:
Thank you, Neema. Thank you, Neema. Hi, everyone. Good morning from Jakarta, Indonesia. Thank you for having us in here. My name is Vidya from Trafaloka, but first of all, perhaps some of you not really familiar with Trafaloka, so just for a second, I’d like to share what we are doing in Asia, right, and how far we’ve been working in terms of innovating travel and providing convenient services for customers globally. So Trafaloka has been here since 11 years ago. We started from, you know, meta search and trying to help people to travel conveniently. And after 11 years of, you know, working with all of the ecosystem, now we are operating in six countries in ASEAN. We have more than 45 active users monthly. We have more than 2 million partners, and by partners mean restaurants, hotels, flights, transportation, as well as all the ecosystem of tourism sector. And you know, we don’t stop here. We hope to expand and work more and provide more and better service for customers globally. Now to add on the discussion that we have this morning, we as a company believe that innovation is the key factor, technology and innovation are the key factor to boost tourism in the world. And perhaps we remember back in COVID time, we understand that tourism is, you know, one of the biggest industry that hit the most by COVID because, you know, people don’t travel, didn’t travel, people didn’t, you know, want to go outside and so on and so forth. However, Nima and everyone here, we actually very, very proud because this year we published our impact study showing our impact to community, to society, mostly during the COVID era. So during that time, we actually contributed 2.7% GDP to tourism sector in Indonesia, and that’s quite large. And we didn’t work alone, obviously, we work with the government. We work with community in Nima, we did a lot of digital literacy throughout the years, and we aim to have 100,000 participants from tourism sector in our digital literacy program. We work with community across Indonesia mostly, we work with women community, we work with fishermen and, you know, environment community to make sure that we have sustainable component in tourism because according to our data, there are four points as a trend in terms of tourism after COVID recovery. Number one is actually flexibility that we provide through our innovation and technology. Number two is people tend to travel in nearby areas. Number three is people prefer to travel outdoor. And the last one is people actually prefer to travel in area that offers sustainability practices. And we actually focus to make sure that sustainable is in our core of business. Now we’re talking about policy. I heard Rachel say that, you know, there should be a collaboration with the government. Bill mentioned the openness of government, and we all we agree with that. And therefore, Traveloka is actually very active in association, both locally and regionally. For example, in Indonesia, we have an association for e-commerce called IDEA, and we become one of the active participants, active members, and actually we hold the position there. And also we actually the coordinator of industry task force. This is a task force assigned by the Ministry of ICT during G20 MIMA. So in this two organization or association or community, if you may say so, we provide input, we provide practices, we provide lesson learned that we capture on the ground that we heard from our customers. And then we provide input to the government, to the regulators, with the hope that innovation, regulation, and customers can actually talk together, can actually produce a solution that fits for everybody needs, that provides safety for our customer, but still, you know, comply to the regulation in the local. So I think that’s, you know, that’s opening MIMA. I hope I answered your question and I’m happy to further discuss. Thanks. Thank you so much for that, Widya. Thank you. All right. I want to go back to Mallory with the question that I started in the beginning, and I’m actually going to ask you two questions in one because I feel like they’re related. So of course we’ve heard from Widya, but I’d love to also get your idea in terms of can public interest work in a for-profit model, and yes or no, maybe, but if not, like how would you otherwise fund the infrastructure and maintenance required for public interest infrastructure?

Mallory Knodel:
Fair question. I set myself up for this. I just want to correct, I think, a slight nuance that I hear a lot, which I don’t think what we see in the massive corporate big tech space is innovation. It’s monetization. They’re taking things that people want that have already existed that are there, right, and then they’re figuring out ways to make a lot of money off of it, right? So, you know, we’ve come up with loads of examples already on this panel. I don’t have to restate them. How do you make that profitable? I don’t know that that’s the question, right? What we’re asking is not profit, but sustain. How do you make it sustainable? So I think that there are a few different ways to look at this. This is not at all going to be coherent because this is not my area of expertise, but one, for example, is like barrier to entry. Right now, it’s really difficult to compete because the barrier to entry is enormously high. We’ve monetized just about everything at this point, right? We’re now picking up the scraps off the floor. Even the big corporates, right, are suffering. They pretend that it depends on the day, right? Are they doing awesome, making loads of money for shareholders? Are they really losing a lot of money and they need your pity? It’s hard to follow. The other issue then, too, is I think a lot of what we’ve been talking about so far is assumed that we’re talking about platforms or social media, but there’s actually tons of different services out there, right? There’s, you know, email and web hosting. People do pay for those things. Businesses pay for those things. There’s financial services, certainly something that people pay for. Lots of things that are possible to be made in the public interest without profit-seeking but that typically just aren’t because we’re really just hyper-focused a lot of times on, like, what’s social media doing? How do you make social media profitable? And the last thing I’ll just say is that I think a lot of our—I would say often we are critiquing this issue of surveillance and privacy violations in service of the, quote, innovative, you know, targeted ads-based monetization, right? That is really narrow, and I think it’s starting to break down already. Maybe I’m too eager to see it collapse, but I don’t think necessarily the issue is with advertising itself. There’s a lot of ways to do advertising that’s not targeting, right? Contextual advertising is great. If I’m already reading an article about something, it’d kind of be great to see ads related to it. There’s no need to necessarily, you know, again, like, try to sell me wool socks in Washington, D.C. in the wintertime. Like, I’m going to buy warm socks when it’s cold in a place that I live. I don’t need an ad from Facebook to tell me to do that. So we’re kind of wasting a lot of potential on this idea of targeted ads, and so I’d really like to see that go. And I don’t think that, for example, that is a monetization strategy that’s at all compatible with the public interest, but we don’t need to just look at the figures to make that determination. It’s inherently a paradox to survey and to serve in the public interest. So I think maybe when we’re coming up with monetization schemes or sustainability schemes, right, that there’s alignment with values, and then that really points the way towards what’s possible. And so I don’t think that there’s any issue with that. It’s just, yeah, it has to be done with principles in mind.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much for that. And I think you’ve made such a great point that a lot of it, yeah, it’s definitely not innovation. It’s just monetization. I saw these angry messages from people because there was a website where you could learn, where you could get sheet music for guitar that had existed for, like, 20 years and was free, and then somebody bought it up and made it a SaaS, and now you have to pay a monthly subscription. And yeah, but that was praised as a very good business. So on the other side, interesting. Okay, I’d love to bring Bill back. Hi, Bill.

Bill Thompson:
Hello there. I’m still here.

Nima Iyer:
I wanted to ask, how do you determine responsibility and accountability for delivering various aspects of public interest internet? So yeah, please go ahead.

Bill Thompson:
I think that, I mean, it’s a very broad question and a useful one. To some extent, it’s the responsibility of everyone who wants a public service internet to figure out what they can do to contribute to it. And then we can look at existing institutions and organizations and ask whether they are aligned with the overall interest of the public service internet. So when Vidya was talking about commercial engagement, there should be no barrier to commercial engagement with a public service network, as long as it’s done on the public service terms and not on commercial terms. And there should be no barrier to anyone’s or any organization’s engagement, as long as they accept the terms of trade, that what we’re looking for in supporting democracy online and supporting the idea of a digital public sphere where society can come together is something which is sustaining, something which has positive attributes and is not subject to commercial capture or monetization, as Mallory was saying. In that sense, it’s up to everyone to decide how they can contribute and how they can support it. The issue, as ever, is going to be coming up with some underlying principles that we can all agree on about how such a space, how such a network should be constructed and run, and then also feeling comfortable with the fact there will be divergence in how it’s delivered into different cultures, to different interest groups, to different societies, to different countries. Because one of the problems that’s emerged in the last few years has been the idea of the global timeline, that Facebook, Twitter as was, want everyone to see everything and we all exist in the same space. And that’s not how real life works, it’s not effective for us as human beings, it’s not effective for civil society. And so we need to abandon some of those core assumptions on which the existing systems have been built and look to a different way. I do not have an answer. I have an organization, the BBC, which has been quite good in the past at figuring out how to do these things in the world of broadcasting. I believe there are enough of us, some of us who are in this room right now, who care enough about the model of an internet that is sustaining and nourishing to want to build it and to have those difficult conversations about what it might look like. And everyone brings their own concerns to the party. We try to be much more representative than we have been and certainly than we have been in the past 30 or 40 years building today’s network. If we do that, my optimistic view from this side is that we can achieve something really good and valuable, that we can begin, we can outline the design principles for a network that will actually serve the public interest and will sustain civic society. As I say, I don’t know what it is yet. I do think there’s a process for getting there beginning to emerge and this conversation is part of that process.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much, Bill. Thank you. I have a last question and then I will open it up to the floor for a discussion. And my last question is to Rachel. So this whole time we’ve been having a conversation, we’ve been using words like public interest, public good, right? So we’re inherently assuming that it’s good. And like as Mallory said at the start, is the internet always good? Because I was having this conversation with somebody about how they brought the internet to these like really previously disconnected indigenous communities and I almost felt sad. I mean, I don’t like access, like, you know, access is great and everything, but also it’s sometimes it’s like, yeah, what if we just lived in a world where we didn’t have to know what was happening in American politics all the time? You know, what if? So let me ask, let me close my questions with asking what unintended consequences could public interest technologies have? Yeah, so what could go wrong? How might we anticipate and or mitigate them?

Rachel Judistari:
Well, it’s kind of very interesting questions, but there are some risks that can be affecting public interest platforms, especially in the process of knowledge creations itself. As you know, like two thirds of global majority countries are consuming information from the internet. However, only less than 15% of representations of the global south are actively create knowledge online. And mostly the contents are in English. So one of the possible risks that we might be facing is endangering indigenous and less resources languages. And as I shared with you, this has been picked up as one of the key priority of the foundation’s knowledge equity is one of our main goal in achieving our 2030 visions. And in doing so, we are working with community of editors, partners like the UN and government to do digital literacy so that more people can contribute in the creations of knowledge. Second of all, internet is only a reflection of what’s happening in the society. So it’s unfair if you want to have a free and accessible internet, while in reality, civic space are shrinking. And sometimes information in internet, especially the creator of that, can be utilized to punish the information that they put in the internet. And we see some of these cases happening in public interest platforms. So definitely regulations that criminalize dissenting voices need to be addressed, while we are also strengthening community resources to ensure the holistic security of contributors of the internet. And ultimately, while we are thinking that internet is everything, and if I don’t have internet access in five minutes, I’ll definitely get anxiety attack. But it’s literally not everything. There’s a lot of people who do not have access of internet. And the digital divide is still become one of the main issues in the global south. So although this is not specifically the risk that arises from the public interest platforms, but I feel that the public interest platforms should also contribute into discussions on how to addressing this access inequity. So yeah, I think I’ll stop there. And hopefully, other people can also have more questions on this. Thank you.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much, Rachel. I just had one funny example to share on what I consider a public interest tech. And so my mom is from Tanzania. And a few years ago, they started digitizing their government services. And so before, it’s quite a centralized country. Before, you’d have to go to the capital where the office is, give the papers, a person’s gone to lunch, the person’s not around, the person has been sick for two months. And then they digitized the service. But what that basically meant was that most people couldn’t fill the forms online. And so people would go to the office. But now there was a little kiosk outside where there was a man with a computer who would then fill it in for you. And I was like, yeah, it’s a cost-cutting measure. And it’s all these other things. But it’s also like, have we thought about whether people have the access and know how to fill online forms, et cetera, et cetera. So yeah, it’s interesting in how you bring people in the design of these things and thinking about those issues. But yeah, I’ve really enjoyed this conversation. And I’ve hogged most of the questions. So I would love to open it to the floor if there are any questions for five of our amazing panelists. Or if you have stories to share.

Audience:
Hi, I’m Ziske from the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you so much for a really wonderful and engaging discussion. I would love to hear other people’s answers to one of the questions that you asked, Nima, which is I think it was about funding. I forget exactly what the phrasing was, so maybe you’ll meet the honor of re-asking it. But I’d really like to know from Bill’s perspective, particularly because you’re also in R&D, how you see funding working. Thank you so much. I’ll just reframe the question for you, Bill. The question was, how do you fund the infrastructure and maintenance required for a public interest internet?

Nima Iyer:
Please go ahead.

Bill Thompson:
It’s a good question. Obviously, I speak from the BBC in the UK, so my obvious answer is you make everybody pay for it by forcing them by law to give you money to cover the public infrastructure that you acquire through the television license that we have in the UK. It’s a sort of a frivolous answer, but it also actually has some serious intent behind it, which is that you don’t get good public infrastructure for free. The danger of having state funding media is, of course, that you then have state-controlled media, and that’s a very dangerous thing to have, and so you want to avoid it. But it feels to me that a society that wants an internet that can deliver public value should be able to invest in it and not require it to be self-sustaining on a commercial model. So I would much rather that we looked for a design and a set of functions that we wanted, that we believed could be, and we were using the term good fairly loosely earlier, so I’ll carry on using it loosely, that was good for society, and then find a way for paying for it that does not require compromise. And from my mind, if what you’re covering is the sort of core internet infrastructure, it’s just moving the bits around, and you can get some guarantees from governments not to interfere too much, then a degree of state funding is acceptable because what you’re paying for is the underlying network in the way that you’re paying for the roads, or you’re paying for water services and things like that. You’re paying for the infrastructure of a society in order to allow civic society to flourish on top of it. So I’d much rather that sort of model than rely on, say, philanthropy, or rely on private companies being able to do something commercial on there but to stay good, because I think that sort of thing goes wrong. So I’m reasonably sort of firm in my own mind that paying for public infrastructure is a reasonable thing to ask a society to do. The problem is we don’t yet know what we’d want to be paid for or, indeed, how much it would cost. I hope that’s helped.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much for that, Bill. We have… Please go ahead, either or.

Audience:
Hi, I’m Ivan Sigal from Global Voices. I have a question about mobile technology. In much of the global majority, internet access is through telecoms. And as we’re talking about the internet, we should also not neglect that question. I’m curious, given that in many countries in the global majority, Facebook is de facto the internet, given its access point and often its free offerings, how we reconcile the desire for a public interest internet in many global majority countries with the fact that most of the energy effort and resources is coming through telecoms, which is a different technology architecture. Thank you.

Nima Iyer:
Do you have someone you would like that question to go to in particular?

Audience:
Not really, though. Maybe UNESCO, that would be an interesting one.

Nima Iyer:
Okay, let’s go with that. Anna-Christina.

Anna Christina:
Well, it’s a difficult question, but I actually was looking to a person that just step up because it’s a very good sample of what you’re mentioning. They started creating in Mexico, in Central America and Latin America, community networks with the community. They start building those networks. They actually work with UNESCO in a process of creating public policy, and that’s the one that I was referring to, to promote indigenous expression and cultural content from all of the process of creating community networks, but then engaging communities, indigenous communities in broadcasting, but also in generating internet content and having the possibility to create media and information literacy processes. But what I think is that, and what I’ve learned, it’s that we need to learn also, and Bill just mentioned, from other expression, of other experiences that have faced the same, kind of the same struggle, acknowledging that we have differentiated approaches when it comes to the internet, the scale, the way it functions, et cetera. I don’t have a specific answer of how sustainability would come into place, but I think if we are talking about multi-stakeholder, it’s a word that comes all the time, all the way through. We also need to take into consideration that funding public interest technology comes to the responsibility of all of the actors that participate and engage in this process. So it’s, yes, a responsibility from the governments, and I totally agree with Bill. We cannot rely on governments because then it can become co-opted, but there’s part of responsibility of governments, there’s parts of responsibility of private sectors, there’s part of responsibility of the users, and the people that engage in this, and so we need to define and create balances where these come from. I urge you to talk to Redes because I really think that they have come up with a good idea of how to deal with this, acknowledging that the scale might not be enormous, but the change would be very, very, very, very good. Yeah, so that would be my take.

Mallory Knodel:
Yeah, I’ll add on. I might actually connect it a step back because I think one of the things about the work you’re doing at UNESCO to help with content moderation, and then this ties into sort of Wikipedia’s woes around having to actually meet then those standards that are really designed for big tech. So just connecting those dots, I think for Wikimedia, maybe other public interest platforms, that element of regulation really isn’t helpful. In fact, I think it can be really counterproductive because ultimately all of this, even if it’s multi-stakeholder, all of this effort is going into making big corporate platforms better, and maybe they’re just not good, and maybe we shouldn’t be using them because they’re not awesome, and if we had more platforms, more choice, we would eventually just migrate off of them. But why it’s important to consider these larger platforms is they will end up being the only thing that’s in place in a lot of places that don’t have a robust local economy or the ability to create these alternatives. So we can’t neglect really big multinational corporate tech platforms because they are big, and a lot of people use them. A lot of places don’t have the ability to completely modify the market or the landscape that they’re working in. And so I just wanted to acknowledge that it’s both, right? It’s not either or. Like, we have to do all the things, but I do wanna just lift up the fact that a lot of this regulation, I feel like there should be something called the Wikipedia test or something, right? It’s like, if your regulation is making it hard for Wikipedia, your regulation is not great. So, I mean, if anything, we should be asking a lot of questions of you all. Like, how do you do content moderation of disinformation at scale? We know you’re doing it. Teach us how, right? And everyone else should be learning from it. That’s not currently what’s happening, and I have a lot of sympathy for that because the two are not equal, right? And so that nuance gets lost. And ultimately, yeah, if a platform just is not working and there’s a better one out there, thinking about social media and activity pub-based platforms like Mastodon and other ones, let’s let the bad one die. Let’s use the better one that has better content moderation that fosters community better. But that’s a sort of long-term solution, and it’s going to be unevenly applied around the world, so.

Rachel Judistari:
Thank you so much for advocating for us. I think I need to just copy-paste what you’re saying. Yeah, I think, yeah, on top of that, I think what we are really trying to say to the policymaker is to have exceptions for private and public interest platforms like Wikipedia, but also internally we understand one of the major hindrance is lack of understanding about decentralized community-based content moderations, especially in the global majority country. For example, in Asia, the issues of internet regulation is considerably new in privacy protections. So the default response is using fear-based approach to quote-unquote control it so that it doesn’t create a public chaos or whatever based on the assumption. So I think one of our main responsibility as public interest platform is to educate the lawmakers with our community about the diversity of internet ecosystem and also alternatives content moderations tactics because there are different models. So, yeah, and hopefully we can have more allies to do that and ensuring that communities are actively participating in that effort.

Nima Iyer:
Wonderful, thank you all so much. Does that answer your question? All right, we have a question back there.

Audience:
Thank you very much. I think very great panel. Thanks for sharing all the information. So this is Nazmul Ahsan from Bangladesh. I work with ActionAid Bangladesh and particularly with the young people. I’m very much interested in terms of how young people are being engaged in the internet and also cyber spaces. So the internet, it’s not only globalized the world, but it was also centralized the whole process. This is a big challenging. I think this is the anti-democratic kind of movement and process that we somehow, we all are in this kind of process. So in our context, we see there is a huge digital divide, particularly we see young men and young women, particularly in the grassroots. They don’t have access to the infrastructure at the same times in the content. You already mentioned about these languages and the other aspects of the contents. And we see also stigma. Sometimes internet, using internet is being stigmatized by the patriarchal interventions in the society. So when young girl and women are using internet, probably the society don’t see this look good kind of thing. This is going in a different direction or challenging the social norms and we have had this kind of things. My interest is that since I work with young people, how can actually we make and make more grassroots young people, young women, under this kind of digital literacy network and bring up particularly with this content generation and also make them as a kind of active internet activist and for the social good. So this could be something actually would be really helpful for me. I think it goes directly to the Wikipedia at once, but you can also respond UNESCO. Thank you very much.

Rachel Judistari:
Thank you so much for your questions. I think engagement of young people has become one of our focus these days because as I shared earlier, majority of our editors are from the global north and coming from specific age group that are not young. So what we are currently trying to do is to work with community of editors to provide trainings, not only on how to use Wikimedia projects, but overall digital literacy that are contextual and culturally appropriate according to the needs of different young people because as we all know, young people is also a diverse constituencies. So some of the example is our projects in Cambodia where we provide capacity building and tools for young indigenous people to create content and also video for preserving their culture. In addition to that, we are also working collaboratively with government. For example, in Indonesia, we are collaborating with the Minister of IT to create a cyber kreasi, which is a national digital literacy education for a community of young people in school, but also in the community that have various needs. So it’s definitely a work in progress and we are hoping to have more collaborations with youth-led organizations to make sure that we are still relevant in that case. I hope that answers your question and thank you for your questions.

Nima Iyer:
So Vidya would also like to give a response to this question. Vidya, please go ahead.

Widia Listiawulan:
Thank you, Nima. Thank you for the questions. So for us, Traveloka, as a tech travel company, youth is part of the core of our ecosystem. And then we divide it into two things when we talk about young people and youth. Number one, actually, our talent pool, most of them are young people. We recruit the best talent in Indonesia for Indonesia market and for other areas as well. But on top of that, your point, your question was, how can young people work together and then create such an impact for community, for their own community? Now in Indonesia, if you are familiar with the geography of Indonesia, we have more than 500 villages all over Indonesia. And working with the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy, not only that we provide a digital literacy for young people in those area, but we empower them, we encourage them to help their community to build a new tourism destination. And using our platform, we promote those tourism destination using their language, using their analysis, using their assessment on that tourism area. So in a way, we empower them to be proactive in looking what is the potential of their tourism destination and voices their assessment toward the neighborhood. So that’s how we empower the young people across Indonesia, but not only in Indonesia as well. We work with young people in Vietnam. We work with RMIT, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Vietnam to empower young people to work with them in providing digital literacy for young people, for disability community, as well as for women-led business. So I hope I answered your question. Thank you.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much, Widia. All right, I’m going to start wrapping down the panel. And I feel like this has been a great, obviously, this has been a very great conversation, but I feel like I’m leaving with more questions after this discussion. And some of these questions that I have are, how do you design public spaces or public goods? I feel like we’re a bit locked in with the designs that we have at present. How do we get out of that? How do we think about what platforms could look like? Who do you engage in those discussions? How do you build it and how do you make people come, right? So just building it doesn’t mean people will come. Mallory, I know that you did say we would just move, but I remember when the WhatsApp signal thing happened and then we pretended to move and then we didn’t, a lot of us didn’t really move. We just went back to WhatsApp. I think we get stuck using platforms because you’re like, I’ve already used it for 15 years. Like, I mean, I know it sucks, but I’m not, you know. But I would love to see a new form of design. And my question is, yeah, how do we design that? The other question I have is related to like, how do we have these conversations with lawmakers? Like, as civil society, I can see that we are annoying to governments, you know. If we first approach governments and said, we want data privacy, and then we come back and we’re like, but not like that. You know, not for those people, but for these like, yeah. I can also see from the government’s point of view that it’s difficult to legislate for different people. So how do we have these conversations in a constructive way? How do we encourage people to build public goods in a world where we’re very money and monetization driven? How do we get back to that culture of volunteering and maintaining open source and that kind of stuff? How do we encourage? Yeah, how do we, I mean, yeah, there was conversation about encouraging young people, but just in general, like, how do we get more people to give their knowledge to Wikipedia? You know, why is it that group of people? It’s amazing work that, you know, that they do give that information, but what is it about that group that makes them give the information versus other groups? And then the big question, how do we fund the infrastructure? I really like Bill’s point about how to think about it like a public service, like sanitation or water or any of those issues, like we need media. We need spaces as a public service, physical and digital. And then my biggest question is where do we take the conversation from here? So yes, it’s nice to have this conversation, but what’s next? How do we actually answer these questions? So we only have about five minutes left. And I would just love to hear from each speaker if you could really, really just keep it to one minute of a parting message to us of what’s next. So I’ll just go in the same order that we started and let’s start with Mallory. One minute.

Mallory Knodel:
All right, challenge accepted. The, so about leaving or moving, I just wanna say that I don’t think it’s always about, have we successfully moved off of, or have we killed it? It’s the threat that we can that’s really important. So while like, yeah, maybe we’re all still using WhatsApp, but now we’re maybe using both, or at least it started a conversation. And it proves that users are paying attention. Who knew people were reading the terms and service of WhatsApp so closely that they could basically, they had a red line in their mind. And they’re like, they changed the sentence, and I’m furious about it. That was a really impressive moment to me, because it demonstrated that people care. And that’s just as important as people now don’t use it anymore, they move to something else. So and to that point, I think we have to stop thinking, I’ve said this already once, we’re not replacing anything. We’re actually just moving into this incredibly complicated landscape where we’re downloading apps all the time, we’re trying out new things. I mean, at least a lot of us are, right? There’s more and more and more. Nothing’s really dying anymore, right? So I would think that what’s going to be important moving forward is integration. And this is not exactly interoperability, but it does, I think, implicate things that Bill was saying about standards. If your app or your new thing integrates with all the other ones, that’s actually an asset, and it’s a feature, and users are going to come to expect it. And that’s really, really good for competition, and it’s really good for end users. So I think that if you’re building something new, or if you’re an ossified old social media platform that’s been around for too long, if you don’t start integrating or creating those features, people are not going to like you as much.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much. I’ll stay with the people here. So Anna-Christina, if you could go next. One minute, please.

Anna Christina:
Yeah, I was thinking of the government question because I have heard within the consultation different views from one side. Well, governments are not all the same, and civil society is not all the same, and companies are not all the same. So everyone has their own opinion and their own comment. But my thinking in all this process of consultation on the guidelines is the most important part is to build and to maintain, to resist the process. Because what happens, as I said, is that we’re very used to think as the regulation as the ultimate goal for the good and for the bad. And we don’t see, and it’s difficult even for us to understand what is our role in the process of implementation, reviewing, monitoring, evaluation, et cetera. So I think, and I have to say this, in the question that we made specifically within the consultation, what a multi-stakeholder role looks like in all of the stages of the regulatory process, this was the less responded question. Even though this word is a word that, along with the GNI, is the most used in this forum. So I think it is very important to identify not like when we’re dealing with the governments, what is also our role after regulation happens in dealing with the people that is engaged in the regulatory process, and then afterwards in the evaluation of these regulations. Because if not, then the regulatory cycle has a breach. And it becomes, like we were saying, and this is just to end, you can have the best law, you can have the best standard. But in an authoritarian regime, this can be misused. And the only way to target it, to fight it, is with resilience, with capacity building, with a strong civil society that is advocating for change. So I think this is important.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much. Rachel, one minute.

Rachel Judistari:
I think it’s really important to back to BASIC and really promoting the internet of commons for public interest, and also reminding policymakers about the diversity of internet ecosystem and providing exceptions to protect public interest platform. While at the same time, public interest platforms, including Wikipedia, has to ensure the diversity of communities that contributes in the creations of knowledge so that it will be positive for our sustainability and also the diversity of internet itself. And I’ll stop because time is up. Thank you.

Nima Iyer:
Can we have two more minutes? Oh, it’s like really time is up. OK, two minutes. Bill, please go ahead. One minute.

Bill Thompson:
Very, very briefly, I think we need to accept that the model of an internet based on the technical decisions made by a bunch of overly optimistic, mostly men, in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, based in North America and Europe, has failed us. And we need a different approach. The answer is about co-creation. It’s about bringing communities of interest together to decide what’s important to them and to work on that basis to look at what we actually really need from the internet to build and sustain civic society. And so what I look forward to is actually revisiting some of those core assumptions and working together. Thank you.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much, Bill. And lastly, Vidya, please go ahead. One minute.

Widia Listiawulan:
All right, it will be quick. So again, like what Bill said, the last part, collaboration, public-private partnership, regulation need to open a discussion for private sector to raise concern and for user, for society to raise concern. But on the other hand, company has the responsibility to ensure that we will focus on customer needs, not only providing service, but what is important for society. And digital literacy that is not only focuses on how people actually use technology, but also to ensure that people know their rights when they use technology. So twofold here, the regulation, the corporate sector working together with the ecosystem, and people need to know their rights. People need to be educated on how to use technology in a very responsible way. Thank you, Nima. Thank you.

Nima Iyer:
Thank you so much, Vidya. That’s such a good note to end on. Thank you so much to all our amazing panelists. Thank you to everyone for joining us. This has been a really great conversation. And I wish you a wonderful rest of the IGF. Thank you so much.

Bill Thompson:
Thanks for having us.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.