The State of Global Internet Freedom, Thirteen Years On | IGF 2023 Launch / Award Event #46

Emilie Pradichit

Southeast Asia is currently facing significant challenges due to the presence of authoritarian regimes that employ cyber laws to target individuals who express dissenting views or defend human rights. These regimes often exploit the concept of national security as a pretext for suppressing freedom of speech and violating human rights. For instance, in several ASEAN countries, such as Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Myanmar, there are concerns about the lack of freedom, as highlighted by the Freedom of the Net report. In Thailand, the situation is particularly severe, with a human rights lawyer, Arnon, facing the possibility of 210 years in jail for advocating for reforms within the monarchy.

Another concerning development in Southeast Asia is the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) for surveillance and content moderation by governments in the region. These practices have resulted in privacy violations and infringements on individual freedoms. Governments are increasingly regulating tech companies to ensure the enforcement of their laws. Notably, the Thai government has passed a decree obligating tech companies to remove content deemed a threat to national security within 24 hours. Additionally, AI has been misused for facial recognition surveillance, raising concerns about privacy and potential abuse of power.

Emilie Pradichit advocates for rights-respecting regulatory frameworks and holds tech giants accountable for the misuse of their platforms. She calls for the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines for multinational tech companies. Pradichit suggests that tech giants should be held criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by their platforms. She points to the Rohingya crisis and the use of platforms like Facebook to propagate hate speech against the Rohingya people to illustrate the urgency of her arguments.

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), which is primarily known among digital rights and online freedom groups based in Washington DC, lacks visibility and accessibility, especially among people from non-Western countries. To amplify its impact, FOC must work towards increasing awareness and engagement beyond its traditional base. This would involve conducting stakeholder engagements not only in Washington DC but also in other regions. Unfortunately, visa restrictions often hinder engagement with the global majority, making it difficult for individuals from these regions to travel to Europe or the United States.

Furthermore, FOC’s role becomes particularly crucial in light of the many elections scheduled worldwide for 2024. Civil society groups anticipate FOC to release statements targeting authoritarian governments and the private sector to safeguard democratic processes and protect human rights.

To effectively combat authoritarian governments online, FOC should invest in civil society and provide financial support to organizations fighting against digital dictatorship. Financial constraints often limit the abilities of these groups to engage in advocacy and carry out essential work.

Aside from these specific challenges, there are concerns about the local Data Protection Act in Thailand. While the government claims to have developed the Act by taking inspiration from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, there are issues regarding effective oversight and remedy. The Act includes government-led exemptions that allow violations of data under the guise of national security.

Another aspect that deserves attention is the lack of dialogue and understanding of the local context in global exchanges. It is crucial for international diplomats and institutions to have a comprehensive understanding of the practices followed in each country to foster more effective collaborations and mutual understanding.

The overarching theme throughout these discussions is the importance of respecting and implementing international human rights law. Emilie Pradichit insists that civil society does not oppose international human rights law but rather desires governments to adhere to these principles. Concerns are raised about the ease with which governments deceive international institutions by creating an appearance of compliance with international standards.

In conclusion, Southeast Asia faces numerous challenges related to authoritarianism, cyber laws, and the misuse of AI. To address these issues, there is a need for greater awareness and engagement with organizations like the Freedom Online Coalition. Additionally, it is crucial to hold tech giants accountable, invest in civil society, strengthen data protection laws, foster meaningful dialogue, and promote the implementation of international human rights standards. These efforts are essential for safeguarding human rights, protecting privacy, and upholding democratic processes in the region.

Audience

During the discussion, one of the main points highlighted was the confusion surrounding the support mechanisms for online activists who are under threat. The speaker mentioned their ability to provide support for these activists, but there seems to be a lack of clarity on the specific services offered in different jurisdictions. To address this, an audience member sought clarification on the support services available in various legal contexts.

Allie Funk, who leads a team of seven people, stressed the importance of collective work and making tough decisions. This indicates that her team understands the challenges and complexities involved in supporting online activists who face threats. It shows their dedication to their work and the need for collaboration in achieving their goals. The audience showed gratitude towards Allie Funk for her closing remarks, indicating that her insights and perspective were valued.

One noteworthy observation from the discussion is the mention of SDG 16, which focuses on peace, justice, and strong institutions. This indicates the connection between the support for online activists and the broader goals of promoting justice and ensuring the protection of human rights. The speaker’s ability to provide support aligns with the goals of SDG 16.

Overall, the discussion shed light on the confusion surrounding support mechanisms for threatened online activists. It emphasized the importance of collaborative efforts, tough decision-making, and acknowledging the hard work of those involved in supporting these activists. The audience’s gratitude towards Allie Funk indicates the impact of her closing remarks and the appreciation for her insights. Moving forward, it is crucial to address the confusion surrounding support services and ensure a clear understanding of the resources available for online activists in different jurisdictions.

Guuz van Zwoll

The European Union (EU) has implemented regulatory laws, including the Digital Services Act (DSA), Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, and Digital Markets Act (DMA), through extensive multi-stakeholder engagement. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has also been rolled out by some companies across all countries. These regulatory laws, such as the DSA, AI Act, and DMA, have received positive sentiment for maintaining a balance between strong regulation and protection of human rights. They include transparency clauses and an appeal process for comments removed.

The Netherlands is committed to promoting the principles of the DSA, AI Act, and DMA. They have released an English translation of the Dutch International Cyber Strategy, urging other countries to adopt these EU regulations and implement associated human rights and democratic clauses. The Netherlands focuses on inclusive internet governance, integrating cyber diplomacy, digital development, and human rights work.

In addition, the Netherlands incorporates the multi-stakeholder model into internet governance, emphasizing digital security, governance principles, and digitalization in all their initiatives. They prioritize civil society engagement, running programs like the ‘Safety for Voices’ program to include diverse perspectives in governance decisions.

The Netherlands also supports human rights defenders and digital defenders at risk through initiatives like the Digital Defenders Partnership. They provide support in legal aid, physical protection, digital security, and psychological well-being. Transparency is a key component of the Netherlands’ global governance approach, advocating for the inclusion of global majority countries and multi-stakeholder involvement to protect human rights.

In summary, the EU’s regulatory laws, such as the DSA, AI Act, and DMA, strike a balance between strong regulation and protection of human rights. The Netherlands actively promotes these laws, advocating for their adoption and implementation of associated human rights and democratic clauses. They prioritize inclusive internet governance, incorporating cybersecurity, digital development, and human rights work. The Netherlands also supports civil society engagement, human rights defenders, and emphasizes transparency in global governance to protect human rights.

Olga Kyryliuk

Over the past decade, the field of internet freedom has witnessed significant changes and developments. Previously, topics like cybersecurity were widely perceived as unimportant and lacked understanding. However, there has been a notable shift in recent years, with cybersecurity garnering more attention and recognition. This growing awareness can be attributed to increased public understanding and recognition of the importance of internet freedom and digital rights.

The advancement of technology, particularly in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain, has brought about both new opportunities and challenges. While these advancements have pushed the boundaries of safety and security, they have also raised concerns about potential threats. The risks and challenges associated with AI and blockchain technologies are a cause for concern, reinforcing the need for robust regulation and safety measures.

In addition, a troubling trend of digital authoritarianism has emerged, characterized by internet shutdowns, content censorship, and the unregulated use of surveillance technology. Instances of internet shutdowns have increased globally, leading to a limitation of free expression and access to information. Moreover, the lack of effective regulation of private tech companies and tech giants has further exacerbated these issues. The use of mass biometric surveillance systems without proper legal safeguards is also on the rise, posing a threat to privacy and civil liberties.

To address these challenges, it is crucial to foster continued collaboration and dialogue. Concrete initiatives and partnerships, rather than just talk, are needed to tackle the growing threats to internet freedom. By engaging stakeholders from various sectors, progress can be made in tackling the complex issues surrounding internet freedom and digital rights.

Furthermore, the engagement of civil society in initiatives such as the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) is of utmost importance. The involvement of civil society can provide valuable insights and perspectives in shaping policies and decision-making processes. Olga Kyryliuk, who leads an influential internet freedom project, stresses the need for better civil society engagement within the FOC. This can be achieved through periodic consultations on specific thematic issues, allowing for an open exchange of ideas and feedback.

The importance of regional and national communities cannot be overlooked in promoting internet freedom. The FOC should prioritize working with these communities and foster connections and partnerships between them. By bridging the gap between governmental representatives and regional communities, the FOC can play a pragmatic role in facilitating dialogue and collaboration.

However, the current state of the global digital compact and the Freedom Online Coalition calls for improvement. Civil society feels frustrated due to a lack of clarity and engagement opportunities. This restricts the meaningful participation of implementing partners in shaping policies and decision-making processes. It is crucial to establish clear venues and mechanisms that allow for effective engagement and collaboration.

Finally, it is important to exercise caution when adopting regulations from other regions, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). While these regulations may be seen as ideal, they should not be adopted without proper understanding and adaptation. Countries that directly implement GDPR as their national law have faced challenges during the enforcement phase. Therefore, dialogue and conversation with national legislators, as well as capacity building, are essential for the successful adoption and implementation of such regulations.

In conclusion, the past decade has witnessed significant changes in the field of internet freedom. While there has been progress in raising awareness and understanding, challenges remain in ensuring the safety and security of the digital space. Collaboration, engagement of civil society, and the development of concrete initiatives are crucial in addressing these challenges and protecting internet freedom and digital rights.

Oliver

Oliver expresses concern over the lack of transparency displayed by the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) in their dealings with UNESCO guidelines. He argues that the FOC needs to be more open and transparent about their actions, implying that they may not be acting in the best interests of promoting freedom of expression and human rights in the digital space.

Furthermore, Oliver raises an additional concern about UNESCO’s guidelines, specifically focusing on the potential promotion of authoritarianism in the digital sphere. This highlights his worry that these guidelines may inadvertently facilitate the rise of oppressive regimes online. Both Oliver and the speaker share a negative sentiment towards these issues.

However, the summary lacks supporting evidence or specific examples to substantiate these concerns. Without further supporting facts or arguments, it is difficult to fully understand the basis for these apprehensions. Including additional evidence or examples would strengthen the arguments made by both Oliver and the speaker.

In conclusion, Oliver calls for increased transparency from the FOC regarding their dealings with UNESCO guidelines. He suggests that the FOC’s actions should be more transparent and urges them to openly share information. Additionally, Oliver expresses worry about UNESCO’s guidelines potentially promoting authoritarianism in the digital space. These concerns highlight the need for careful consideration and vigilance in protecting freedom of expression and human rights online.

Allie Funk

Internet freedom has been experiencing a steady decline for the past 13 years, marking 2023 as another year of regression. According to the assessment conducted by Freedom House, attacks on free expression have become increasingly common, with individuals being arrested for expressing their views in 55 of the 70 countries under review. Furthermore, governments in 41 countries are actively blocking websites that host political, social, and religious speech. These developments have contributed to a negative sentiment surrounding the state of internet freedom.

The crisis has been further exacerbated by advancements in artificial intelligence (AI). The rise of AI has led to intrusive surveillance, censorship, and the proliferation of disinformation campaigns. Generative AI technology has been misused in 16 countries to distort information, while 22 countries have instituted requirements for companies to deploy automated systems that censor speech protected under international human rights standards. These factors have contributed to a growing negative sentiment towards the impact of AI on internet freedom.

To address the urgent need to protect internet freedom, there is a call for the regulation of AI. The key argument is that regulation should not solely rely on companies, but rather center around human rights standards. It is important to increase transparency and understanding of the design, use, and impact of AI systems. The positive sentiment towards this argument reflects the belief that appropriate regulation is necessary to safeguard internet freedom.

In addition to regulation, there is a push for the inclusion of civil society in the AI regulation process. Currently, civil society is being left out in the race to regulate AI, leading to concerns about a lack of diverse perspectives and potential biases in decision-making. Emphasizing the need for involvement from global majority civil societies, this argument holds a positive sentiment.

Despite the challenges posed by AI, there is recognition that it can also contribute to bolstering internet freedom if designed and deployed safely. AI has the potential to help individuals evade government censorship and facilitate the detection of disinformation campaigns and human rights abuses. This positive sentiment signifies the belief that AI can be harnessed as a tool to protect and enhance internet freedom.

However, it is essential to avoid overshadowing long-standing threats to internet freedom by solely focusing on the regulation of AI. The neutral sentiment surrounding this argument highlights the need to maintain momentum in addressing broader issues related to internet freedom.

The European Union (EU) has emerged as a global leader in internet regulation. Bridging the gap between the Chinese model and the US laissez-faire approach, the EU has enacted significant legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which serves as a model for global data protection laws. The Digital Services Act and the EU AI Act are further examples of the EU’s commitment to internet regulation, earning positive sentiment and demonstrating their efforts to protect internet freedom.

The impact of internet regulations on human rights varies depending on the rule of law standards in each country. The sentiment surrounding this statement is neutral, emphasizing the need to consider the context in which internet regulations are implemented and their potential effects on human rights.

Governments have a crucial role in protecting internet freedom and ensuring meaningful multistakeholderism. For instance, the Netherlands is exploring strategies that merge cyber diplomacy, digital development work, and human rights aspects to safeguard internet freedom. Programs like Safety for Voices support human rights defenders and civil society organizations through digital security measures. This positive sentiment highlights the importance of government involvement in protecting internet freedom.

Lastly, multilateral bodies such as the Freedom Online Coalition can play a vital role in reversing the decline of internet freedom. Comprised of democratic governments committed to protecting internet freedom, the coalition serves as a platform for collaboration and advocacy. The sentiment towards this argument is neutral, acknowledging the potential impact of multilateral efforts.

In conclusion, internet freedom has been on a decline for the past 13 years, with attacks on free expression and website blocking becoming more prevalent. AI advancements have intensified the crisis by enabling surveillance, censorship, and disinformation campaigns. To protect internet freedom, there is a need to regulate AI, involve civil society in the decision-making process, and ensure good governance centered on human rights standards. However, AI also has the potential to enhance internet freedom if used responsibly. The EU has been at the forefront of internet regulation, but the impact of regulations on human rights varies across countries. Governments play a crucial role in protecting internet freedom, and multilateral bodies can assist in reversing the decline. Overall, it is essential to navigate the complexities of internet freedom and strike a balance between regulation and broader challenges.

Lisa

During stakeholder consultations conducted by Lisa, a representative of USAID, in various countries, a common concern emerged: dissatisfaction with existing international models of digital regulation. This sentiment has triggered a demand for a different approach, a third-way framework for digital rights that goes beyond the risk-based European model, the laissez-faire American model, and the state-based model adopted in China.

Stakeholders, particularly in countries that make up the global majority, expressed a desire for a digital regulation framework tailored to their specific needs and circumstances. They see the necessity of finding a middle ground to address the challenges faced by their nations.

The implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and similar regulations, specifically in countries with different income levels and limited oversight capacity, has been perceived as onerous. This concern stems from the difficulties these countries face in fully implementing and complying with such regulations. Additionally, there is a noticeable lack of political will and politicization of some oversight bodies, further complicating the effective execution of digital regulations.

In light of these observations, there is a need for a broader conversation on what human rights protections and safeguards should look like in different contexts. Instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all approach, there should be an exploration of context-specific digital human rights protection and safeguards. This approach acknowledges the diversity of countries and their varying levels of development, eliminating the potential burden of regulations that may not align with their specific needs and capacities.

Overall, Lisa’s consultations highlight the dissatisfaction with current international models of digital regulation and the need for a third-way approach that considers the unique circumstances of each country. The difficulties faced in implementing GDPR and similar regulations also call for a more nuanced and flexible approach to digital rights. Engaging in a broader conversation on context-specific human rights protections and safeguards allows stakeholders to work towards a digital regulation framework that respects the rights of individuals while accommodating the realities of different countries.

Jit

Jit attended a United Nations conference with the intention of obtaining a deeper understanding of the global digital compact and seeking various perspectives on its merits. Jit approached the topic with a neutral stance, indicating an open mind and a desire to gain further insights. Specifically, Jit was interested in exploring the potential advantages and disadvantages of the compact.

During the conference, Jit actively participated in the discussion and initiated the topic of the global digital compact. This demonstrated Jit’s eagerness to engage with others and foster a robust conversation. The conference setting provided an ideal platform for an informed and constructive dialogue on the subject.

The focus of the conversation revolved around the impacts that the global digital compact could have on industry, innovation, and infrastructure, as outlined in the 9th Sustainable Development Goal. This goal aims to promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth by fostering technological advancements and improving infrastructure.

Jit’s neutral stance allowed for an unbiased examination of the global digital compact. By requesting insights on both the positive and negative aspects, Jit sought to gain a well-rounded understanding of its potential impact. This approach reflected Jit’s commitment to considering all perspectives before forming an opinion.

While the exact details of the arguments and evidence presented during the discussion are not disclosed, it can be inferred that the conference attendees shared their specific viewpoints and provided relevant information to support their claims. By facilitating an exchange of ideas and opinions, the conference allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the global digital compact.

In conclusion, Jit’s attendance at the UN conference on the global digital compact offered valuable insights into the topic. By adopting a neutral stance and actively soliciting perspectives, Jit exhibited a genuine curiosity and a commitment to exploring both the benefits and drawbacks of the compact. The conference setting enabled an informed and productive discussion centered around the impact of the compact on industry, innovation, and infrastructure, in line with SDG 9.

Audience:
I’m going to give it another minute or so. I know some other sessions are letting out. And then we’ll just get started. Thanks for joining us. We got you. We’ll take what we can get. All right. We’ve got like a whole workshop plan, so we’re going to Brussels and The Hague, where we’re doing events in both of those. Yeah, we’ll go home for a couple days. And then I’m taking a few days off there. So we’re going to have like a week. That’ll be nice. I’ve never flown with him. He’s big, right? Yeah. He’s like 45 pounds. I think I would be way too stressed out to have him down there. You know? So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Let’s get going. Okay. Are we ready? How many people have a free call tomorrow? Oh, we’re good. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. In If you needed $34 per month , you could pay $14 per month

Allie Funk:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . get started. Thanks everyone for joining us. My name is Ali Funk. I’m Freedom House’s Research Director for Technology and Democracy. We’re really excited to host this conversation amongst three really brilliant folks that have taught me a lot about this field. What we’re gonna do today is I will give a very quick quick overview of Freedom on the Net and explain what that report even is. Then we’ll dive into an interesting conversation with these folks up here about Internet freedom, how it’s changed over the past decade, where we’re going. And then I’ll open it up to y’all. We’re a small group so I hope we can get nitty-gritty in the issue area. So first let me just have you all introduce yourself. Olga, why don’t we start with you?

Olga Kyryliuk:
Hi everyone my name is Olga Kyryliuk I work as a Technical Advisor on Internet Governance and Digital Rights at

Emilie Pradichit:
Internews. Hi everyone, my name is Emily Palamy-Praditit. I’m the founder and Executive Director of the Manu Shaya Foundation. We are a feminist human rights organization based in Thailand, working mainly in Laos and Thailand. And we work at the intersection of digital rights, corporate accountability, and access to justice for local communities.

Guuz van Zwoll:
Good afternoon everyone, my name is Guuz van Zwoll. I work with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs on digital

Allie Funk:
human rights. Thanks gang. So what is Freedom on the Net? It is Freedom House’s annual assessment of Internet freedom in 70 countries around the world. We look at how easily can folks access the Internet, what does the Internet look like in their countries, and are their rights protected or violated by the state, by non-state actors, by companies. Just last week we launched the 2023 edition of the report, the 13th version of it, and I’m just gonna give you some of the top findings. If you want to read the full report, which I would urge you to do, we have some fun graphics, we have country reports written by these folks up here at freedomhouse.org, but some just quick key findings that I think will ground our conversation today about where we are in the internet freedom space. 2023, 13th consecutive year of decline for internet freedom. Hopefully next year I’ll have the first year of improvement in internet freedom. Doesn’t seem like it, but you know, girl can hope. Attacks on free expression grew more common around the world. Like I said, we’ve been doing this for 13 years, and each year we have another record high of governments assaulting the fundamental right to free expression. So in at least 55 of our 70 countries we covered, people were arrested for simply expressing themselves. We had a record high of 41 governments in which their regulators blocked websites hosting political, social, and religious speech. And this year what we really zoomed in on is how advances in artificial intelligence are deepening the crisis for internet freedom. So you know, we looked at three different ways that’s happening. It’s AI is driving intrusive surveillance, empowering censorship, and also contributing to disinformation campaigns. So the two specific deep dives we did is first about how the affordability and accessibility of generative AI technology is lowering the barrier of entry for disinformation for the disinformation market. So we found that generative AI tech was used in 16 different countries to distort information on political or social issues, often during times of crisis like elections, protests, and other, you know, conflict areas. And then second we looked at how automated systems are enabling governments to conduct more precise and subtle censorship. So we found in at least 22 countries governments are requiring companies to deploy automated systems to censor speech protected under international human rights standards. So we kind of, some of the call to action that will drive our conversation today is because of the ways that AI is augmenting digital repression, we call for the urgent need to regulate it. And we think the lessons learned over the past decade or 15 years debates really provide a roadmap on how to regulate AI. So first, we need to not overly rely on companies. I think we, you know, at the beginning of the Internet Freedom Project had a big hope of, you know, the Internet’s gonna be this liberating technology, gonna protect democracy, we don’t need to regulate it. Boy, were we proven wrong, so we should be careful and not leave it all up to the private sector. Second, we’ve learned a lot about what good governance actually looks like from the government. So centering human rights standard, increasing transparency over the design, use, and impact of these systems. And then finally, the lesson learned that I don’t think has been learned enough, of civil society around the world really needed to be involved in this process. And right now, in the race to regulate AI, civil society is really being left out, particularly those from the global majority. So we close our report, you know, we think that if AI is designed and deployed safely and fairly, it can actually be used to bolster internet freedom. And there’s a lot of different efforts around the world, AI helping people evade government censorship, being used to detect disinformation and document human rights abuses. But we also note that, you know, as we pay attention more to AI, we have to be really careful not to lose momentum on internet freedom issues more broadly. So reversing internet freedom decline really requires regulating AI, but not forgetting about long-standing threats to free expression, access to information, and privacy. So top-line key findings. I will stop talking for a minute. Again, you can go to freedomhouse.org and read the rest. Olga, I want to start with a question for you. You’ve been working on these issues for quite a long time and wearing a couple different hats. What have you learned about internet freedom over the past decade? What has shifted in this space, and where do you think we are today, and where you think we might be going? Lots of questions.

Olga Kyryliuk:
Yeah, couldn’t be an easier question. But I think literally probably everything has changed during this last 10 years. And when I was thinking and looking back, 10 years ago is exactly when I was starting to write my PhD thesis, and when I came to my law department and the topic which I was suggesting was cyber security, and that was something everyone was looking at me like, this is something not important, we don’t know what it is, just choose something which is common sense for everyone. And then I had to drop that and to look more into like what is this multi-stakeholderism, how this has been developing, and whether at all there is any intersection with the international law. And I think also what has changed is that we had a lot of fascination back 10 years ago, which changed to quite a lot of frustration by now. We were hoping that this multi-stakeholder model and having everyone around the same table would solve a lot of issues for us, and that it would be pretty easy for us to reach a consensus and to find a way how to regulate technology. And we were hoping that at some point probably the legal regulation would be also catching up with the pace how technology is being developed, but still it’s 10 years have passed and we don’t really see that this catch-up has happened. But also there have been many things evolving in a good perspective. I think what we have definitely observed is that the public awareness of internet freedom has raised, and this is also a fair argument to make for every stakeholder, for governments, for private sector, for end-users, for civil society. I think everyone now understands the importance of internet freedom and digital rights, because probably 10 years ago this concept did not make much sense for many people. I believe still sometimes now it is still difficult to explain what is essentially internet freedom as a concept, what it covers, and how we should stand for this. But at the same time this awareness is growing, and this is important because somehow we reach the point when we understand that this is the values which we should be protecting. At the same time, same as positively the technology is developing, there is a lot of innovation, AI is developing, blockchain is developing, they are bringing new opportunities, but they are also bringing a lot of risks and challenges, for example, to security and safety, and there is always this very slippery borderline, where do you find this, how do you divide essentially the freedom and the safety. So, I think it’s very important to see that there is a lot of development of digital authoritarianism in the world. We see a lot of development in the security because in many cases, the governments, they tend to go too much into the security and they tend to limit Internet freedom. So, that’s why on the negative side, we also see that there is a lot of development of digital authoritarianism, and it’s not only by authoritarian authoritarianism, but it’s also a lot of regulation, and we still didn’t see that large-scale shutdowns and that much happening across the world. We didn’t see that much of content moderation and censorship as it is now. We probably could not imagine that we will have so many problems with regulating private companies and tech giants, and that it would be so difficult to find common ground and to agree on the regulation. So, we have to be very, very careful about that, and we have to be very, very careful about how we will solve the issue. We also have, we have also seen that these systems for mass biometric surveillance and facial recognition have developed a lot, and, again, there are countries which are providing these tools and this technology, and there are countries which are simply using it without regulation, and, again, we have to be very, very careful about that, and we have to be very, very careful about how we will regulate human rights or without putting proper legal safeguards, and then this leads to situations when you just don’t have the guarantees in law that you can properly protect your rights. Also, from the positive side, I think it’s still good that we still continue collaborating, we still continue talking to each other. We somehow see that probably maybe some models are not working, and, again, we have to be very, very careful about how we will do that. I think it’s a bit too slow to accept these adjustments to this multi-stakeholder convenience, because, again, we see that many people are not happy, many people want actions, not simply the discussions, some concrete partnerships, some concrete initiatives coming up from these conversations, which is not happening, and I don’t think this is a fair point to make, because, again, we are still in the process of developing, legal landscape is evolving, so we can’t just say that we want to keep discussing this thing if we really can make a difference and can make a change. So many things have changed, and we probably could go into a long conversation about this, but essentially, I think the world is becoming even more complicated than it used to be ten years ago. So, I think that’s what we expected, but that’s where we are.

Allie Funk:
We’re going to pull on the multi-stakeholder thread in a little bit and what meaningful stakeholder engagement looks like. I actually didn’t know that was your dissertation focus. That’s really interesting. But first I want to touch on the regulatory points. you made I think you’re exactly right it’s it’s been I think that is actually something in the field I’m probably most intrigued by because I think the trade-offs around regulation are really complex and who’s I want to pull you in here because you are European folks didn’t know based on the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs title and the EU specifically has served as a global leader on regulating the Internet sort of providing what we’ve think about as kind of this third way for Internet regulation in between the Chinese model and the US laissez-faire traditional approach and we saw with the GDPR the General Data Protection Regulation how it served as a global model for data protection laws after it was enacted in 2018 and we now have the Digital Services Act for folks who don’t know a really ambitious piece of legislation governing online content and a whole host of other things and we’re also in the negotiation process of the EU AI Act so I’m curious you know this has been sort of talked about as the Brussels effect of how what’s happening in the EU is impacting the regulatory state globally how do you think about the Brussels effect and making sure particularly that the good parts of the regulation get implemented elsewhere with the sort of challenge that you know the same law in a country with really strong rule of law standards being implemented in a country with poor rule of law standards has vastly different human rights impact so how do you think about that and what are you all working

Guuz van Zwoll:
on well thank you Ali well we want to keep the good things right but I mean no we I mean it’s difficult I mean it’s a difficult it’s like a tightrope a tightrope that we have to walk I mean also listening here at last day here at the IGF it’s it’s either two things we have to fight censorship and we have to fight disinformation and it’s difficult to do both at the same time right you have to find a balance between the two and and I mean as the Netherlands we are very proud to have this EU laws we would not be able to regulate big tech on ourselves and we were happy to to do it together with with other European countries and we also proud that it’s that that it comes out of a long multi-stakeholder engagement process where we have There have been rounds of input from civil society, from companies, there have been hearings, there have been draft text, yada, yada, yada. And that has, I think, come up with a pretty solid text that we are really happy about and we’re really looking forward to full implementation early next year. I mean, it has started, but we’re building up towards it. So, I mean, there are two ways in how you can see the Brussels effect, right? So, first of all, when the GDPR was implemented in the European Union, some companies said, well, we’re going to implement it for everyone. I mean, it would be just easier to just roll it out over all countries. And the other way is that countries copied the text basically to align themselves into our system and then it would be easier for them to protect privacy in their systems. And this is something that we’re really focusing on as the Netherlands. Last month, we have released the English translation of the Dutch International Cyber Strategy. You can find it on our website, government.nl. And in it, we really state that we are going to propagate the principles of the DSA and the AI Act and the DMA to strengthen this Brussels effect because we do think that these regulatory frameworks provide the right balance between providing a strong regulatory framework while at the same time providing room for transparency and protecting human rights. And that is, I think, that’s the basis. I mean, we’ve argued long and hard and negotiated to get it also into the DSA and it is there. References to the global, the principles on business and human rights are there. There are strong transparency clauses. There’s a way on when your comments on Facebook or any other platform are being removed or downgraded, you’re able to go into appeal. I mean, there will be a whole process for that. And I think those. And that’s all in the text. So when that text will be copied, hopefully those parts will also already are already ingrained into the system. And then that way we try to promote that way of thinking on these issues to other countries. But also, I mean, when we’re going to have bilateral discussions either as the Netherlands with other countries or as the EU with other countries, we also will urge third countries to not only fully or partly adapt to these EU regulations, but also really implement these human rights and democratic clauses that we find so important on this. And this is something that our government is very committed to, and we’ll be focusing on for the next few years. And I would also like to thank you and congratulate you with a great report.

Allie Funk:
Thank you. That was really helpful. Emily, I’m gonna come to you because I think, is this on? Oh yeah, it’s still on. Okay, cool. You, your organization Manusha, you all help run the hashtag stop digital dictatorship, dictator, dictatorship coalition, which is working to, I mean, stop digital dictatorship across Southeast Asia. It’s in the name. And I think that, you know, one of the goals of the coalition is to make rights respecting regulatory frameworks. And I think particularly from the region is very exemplary of how really problematic laws can undermine human rights. So what are you thinking about of what type of regulatory provisions are the most helpful or harmful? How does it relate to AI? If I’m gonna put the buzzword in the zeitgeist, tell me what’s on your mind on this.

Emilie Pradichit:
Thank you, Alina. Thank you for organizing this important session. So I’m coming from a region where according to freedom of the world, we are among 10 ASEAN countries. Six of us, six of our countries are under authoritarian regimes and four of them are. authoritarian regimes. And most of the time when I tell people I’m coming from Southeast Asia, especially Thailand, people are like, wow, because everybody has this impression that Thailand is such an amazing holiday destination. So I really want to emphasize that and I urge people to please read the Freedom of the Net report because if you read the report you will realize that among the countries from Southeast Asia that are being assessed in the report, many of us are not free. Thailand is not free. Cambodia is not free. Vietnam is not free. Myanmar is not free. Indonesia and the Philippines are partially free. Why? It’s because our governments, authoritarian governments, are weaponizing laws. And so there is a proliferation of cyber laws that are targeting dissenting voices and human rights defenders under the name of national security. So in terms of harmful regulation that we have seen growing in Southeast Asia, all the regulations that are meant to protect national security and anyone who is attacking the government or criticizing the government is a threat to national security. And so we have a lot of cases of pro-democracy activists in Thailand, in Laos, throughout Southeast Asia that are being jailed for just voicing and for just telling the truth on Facebook, through Facebook posts. We have a human rights lawyer, Arnon, who was just sent in jail a few weeks ago and who is facing 14 charges under the Complete Terms of Crime Act and the Les Majestés Law and who will face up to 210 years in jail just because he’s calling for monarchy reforms and they are calling for true democracy. So I think there’s a real need for us to look at what are those harmful regulations in Southeast Asia but also how governments in Southeast Asia are also regulating tech companies. So just for example in December 2022 in Thailand, the Thai government passed a decree forcing and obliging tech companies to remove content within 24 hours, any content that is against national security. But again there’s no clear definition of what is national security. So everything can become a threat to national security. So for us what we really want when it comes to good regulation or irrigation that we want to see are regulations that obviously are protecting our online freedom, that are in line with international human rights law, that are protecting our privacy, whereas surveillance is not used against us because you know in Thailand and Indonesia we’re also facing the Pegasus software that is being misused against activists, against journalists, against politicians. So it’s really important for us that we have regulations that are human-centered. And to your question regarding AI, so generative AI can be powerful, right? It can improve our lives but as we heard this morning it also has a lot of risks. And in Southeast Asia we have faced the misuse of AI, especially when it comes to facial recognition, when it comes to surveillance, and also when it comes to bias, especially in terms of language. So if you are in from a Southeast Asian country, our structure, our language structure in some of our countries is Sanskrit or Pali. So if you are using Facebook and Facebook is using AI in terms of content moderation to remove content or to block content that is inviolating the community standards. How can an AI machine can distinguish a word that has in one sound or in one word five different meanings, right? So that’s why for us it’s really important that when we are talking about regulation we are talking about the need to also regulate tech companies. It’s really important for us that we move the discussion from voluntary guidelines and this morning we heard about the Hiroshima AI process. So if you’re an activist on the ground, like I’m a human rights lawyer and I’m working with a lot of activists on the ground, if I’m going back to them saying you know I went to IGF and I heard about the Hiroshima AI process, they’re going to tell me, oh new guidelines, new voluntary measures, where is it going to take us? I think we move to a point where we need real regulations and we need mandatory due diligence. It’s not enough nowadays for Meta, for Microsoft, and for other tech companies to tell us that they are conducting human rights impact assessment that are voluntary and what they are barely doing is just identifying the most salient human rights issues. Then they are engaging us in the stakeholders engagement and they’re presenting to us the most salient human rights issues as if we already didn’t know them. You know we already know the human rights issues, right? So we go through these stakeholders engagement processes where just in that identification of the human rights issues are presented but there is no prevention, there’s no mitigation, there is no addressing those salient human rights issues. But if companies are serious about implementing the UNGPs but also the OECD guidelines for multinationals, they should be able to identify but also address, prevent and address the impact but also provide remedy. So a tech company telling us that the appeal mechanism or reaching out to the human rights team is the best The first remedy offered as of today, it’s not enough. There’s a real need to legislate the UNCPs into real law. There’s a real need for mandatory human rights due diligence, and a due diligence that is actually meaningful, so meaningful stakeholders engagement, not just a tick-the-box exercise, because I think a lot of us in Southeast Asia are tired of being called into stakeholders engagement call, and we give our input, and there’s nothing in terms of follow-up. So meaningful stakeholders engagement, not only with civil society, but also with groups that are directly impacted by the misuse of the platform, by governments, by trolls, you know, in Southeast Asia. We are also facing the proliferation of cyber armies from Myanmar, from Laos, from Thailand. Governments are investing in cyber armies, and we are so small compared to them. When we are one or two people, you know, working in a human rights organization on digital rights, it’s not enough to fight against a cyber army. So how do we do? And when we turn into tech companies for support, there’s nothing they can really do, because they are not being regulated. So it’s time for tech companies to be effectively regulated through meaningful mandatory human rights due diligence, and we need those mandatory human rights due diligence to come from countries where those tech companies are operating, because then there would be an extraterritorial obligation for those companies to make sure that throughout the supply chain, also the country offices, the UN Guiding Principles, and due diligence would be respected. But we also want responsibility and remedy. So we want civil and criminal liability for those companies as well. For example, what happened in Myanmar, and the way that the platform, Facebook platform, has been misused by the government and by other groups to promote hate speech against Rohingya. The fact that nobody’s being held into account is not normal. The fact that nobody’s being held into account in terms of responsibility and criminal and civil liability is just not normal. So we really need an effective mandatory human rights due diligence that would also include impact human rights assessment for AI, and that would include meaningful stakeholders engagement and criminal and civil liability of the company.

Allie Funk:
I think this next year with DSA implementation is gonna be really interesting to see how those requirements of impact assessments is gonna play out. And if you all hadn’t seen, there is the recent, I don’t know what day it came out, but there’s now a new database, thanks to the DSA, where a lot of companies are reporting. different content removal or different actions under the terms of service that you can actually go through, which I think will take a very long time because there’s a lot in there. Let’s go to this question on multi-stakeholder engagement a little bit that you brought up, because I think this is something that we think a lot about. We hear a lot about what does multi-stakeholder engagement mean? How do you make that meaningful? Huz, I’m going to come back to you. You mentioned your international cyber strategy. In the document, it talks about incorporating more emerging countries in internet governance and lays out the importance of multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. How does the Netherlands plan to promote these objectives, particularly as it relates to inclusivity with civil society and also in the global majority who are on the front lines of digital repression?

Guuz van Zwoll:
Well, that’s an excellent question and a difficult one. And we try to, no, we do try to answer it also in our strategy. But so basically, we try to do the following thing. We try to connect in our cyber strategy three strands of work. We try to connect the work that we do on traditional cyber diplomacy, cybersecurity, with digital development work, with our human rights work. And as an overarching team is internet governance there. And this is something that we try to do in those three ways. And we do see it as a kind of, we didn’t mention like that, but I always try to see that either as a tree like a stool, like a milking stool or something, that you can have tree legs in order to keep it balanced. You need to have some form of digitalization in order to be digitally connected. Also, as a country, of course, digital security in order to keep that structure safe. But at the same time, you need principles and good governance to also govern that structure. Otherwise, you’re just implementing. and censorship and surveillance apparatus, right? So what we do as the government is really try to implement it in all our work. So we try to, through our development cooperation work, and we work with that, well, also with our colleagues from Freedom Online Coalition, we try to work on principles for digitalization, for donors in digitalization, in order to improve, well, the digital rollout and connect the last third of the world that’s still unconnected. But at the same time, we do try to get these other principles in place as well. We do try also through the EU Global Gateway, for example, we try to make sure that we are then not only looking only at just getting everyone connected, but also make sure that digital security and then also principles and good governance are part of that equation, and make sure that we, and that through those processes, there’s a multi-stakeholder approach that we’ll get voices from civil society to be part of that discussions locally. But this is still something that’s really in its building block, and this is something that we need to work on. But it’s a clear aim that we set out in our strategy, and we’ll have to roll it out for the next few years. But it’s not, of course, the only thing we do. We also work with local civil society, with our human rights program. We have a strong program called Safety for Voices program, where we try to support human rights defenders and civil society organizations on security, both physically, but most as a strong digital component. So all the programs that we run out that are supporting civil society and human rights defenders have always this digital component to it. So we do also try to mainstream it in those settings. And then we do that. I mean, that’s work done from the Hague, but then also the same principles apply to the work that we do to our embassies. Yeah, I think that’s where we’re at.

Allie Funk:
Great. I’m gonna ask one more for Olga and one more for Emily, and then we’re gonna open it up. up. Time has snuck up on me. So, Olga, for you, you teased that dissertation. So I’m going to press on that a little bit. And I should also add that the Netherlands is also taking chair of the Freedom Online Coalition next year. The U.S. government is chair now. And for folks who don’t know, Freedom Online Coalition, multilateral body of 27 governments now? How many? 38. We’re going to get 27. Wow. I am behind. I’m a bad advisory network here. Working to protect internet freedom around the world. So I’m curious. It’s a two prong question. I’m going to ask the same to both of you all to hear your input. How can governments themselves, what does meaningful multistakeholderism look like to you? How can they make sure that they’re listening to the different sectors? But also, what do you think the role of, you know, the FOC, a multilateral body of democratic governments that are really committed to protecting internet freedom? How can they reverse this decline? Do you have any best practices they can adopt? So you can take any of that. That’s like seven questions in one. So I’ll let you take it.

Olga Kyryliuk:
This is actually what I also want to know. Maybe also since we have this opportunity, maybe also Guus can help to clarify that how essentially a civil society can get better engaged in FOC, especially because this is also part of my job portfolio. I need to identify this connection point because my team is running the largest internet freedom project. We are covering five regions across the world and we are working with 120 implementing partners from civil society. So essentially we have this pool of talent of civil society activists and human rights defenders. And we would like to see what is this entry point, how we can better coordinate, how we can help engage them in your space, and where do you see the value from these people, how they can meaningfully contribute to what you are doing? Because you had this Freedom Online Conference which has not been held for the last few years, which I think was one of the opportunities to get together for different stakeholders to discuss different issues which are important and making trends. But this is not happening anymore. I know there is advisory network, but again this is an election-based process which is also happening in some periods. So I would say if there is any opportunity to organize some kind of periodic consultations with the civil society, to choose some thematic issues so that it’s not just about everything and about nothing at the same time, but to make it very specific, whether you want to focus on some regulatory issue, whether it is something related to AI, I think we would be only happy to support with that and essentially we have a huge variety of expertise. I loved how it was done by FOC and US chairmanship and this is something that Lisa was also leading, this consultation with civil society on the principles for human rights in digital age. It was really nice to have everyone in the same room and everyone essentially truly having the opportunity to express their opinion and we also have the result of the discussion. So deciding something which is very tangible has practical result. This is something which is missing and which we could do more. Thank you, Ali. All right, so in terms of the FOC,

Emilie Pradichit:
but there’s also Michael in the room, so I’m also looking at you in terms of the Forum on Information and Democracy. Working with member states and the potential that you have to support us in countries where there’s no democracy and since the Netherlands will be sharing the FOC next year, I really urge you to help us because our online democracies are under attack and is not going to change tomorrow and 2024 is a very important year because there will be a lot of elections throughout the world, so there will be a lot of demand on the FOC. Honestly, the FOC is not accessible and is not known for the majority of the people from the global majority. So I think the FOC is accessible for DC groups, so online freedom and digital rights groups based in Washington DC. For us, based in Southeast Asia or in the African continent, we don’t know about the FOC and we don’t know how you can help us. So I think the best thing that you could do first is to better promote your work so we can better understand how the FOC can actually support us and actually support us in demand of true democracy. We really need statements coming from IFOC members that are targeting our authoritarian governments. We are trying our best. We are a coalition, the ASEAN Coalition to Stop Digital Retardation. But we are also part of the Southeast Asia CPN targeting tech companies. But we are just a handful of people. So we actually need your support. And there’s a real need for the IOC to look at the global majority and to engage with us. So when you are doing stakeholders engagement, please don’t do them only in DC. There is a need for you to come to us because we need your input. We need your recommendations. And we need your statement to target our governments and also the private sector in our countries. So there’s a need to you to come to us. Why? Because for most of the people from the global majority, traveling to Europe or to the US is not easy, right? There’s visa restrictions. So it’s always the same people that you get to meet. It’s always the people who can travel. It’s always the people who have access to you. There’s also a need for the IOC to not only talk to the traditional digital rights organization, but to the broader human rights field. The digital space is becoming more and more important. I mean, we’re all moving into the metaverse. What’s happening offline is now happening online. So there’s a need also for human rights groups to understand and to engage with the FOC. So really, looking at us, inclusivity is key, engaging with the global majority, and bringing the FOC to the global majority countries is really important because not everybody will be able to travel to you, invest in civil society, being able to engage with you. Financially supporting groups that are fighting against authoritarian governments online, it’s also very important because most of the time, not everybody can engage and not everybody can do this work. Also, this need to understand that the work that we do is also putting us at threat. A lot of us sometimes cannot speak publicly or cannot engage. A lot of activists have to speak or have to remain anonymous. I mean, Freedom of the Net report has a lot of anonymous authors as well. So there’s a real need for IOC to look at the global majority and to understand us, to come to us, and to also financially support us because we need this report to be able to fight against digital ratioship.

Olga Kyryliuk:
Because what Emily was saying, I was also thinking that you have this access to governmental people, essentially, which is usually what is missing a lot on, let’s say, not at the global IGF, probably, but at the regional discussions because we also have regional, national IGFs. And it is always a struggle to get these governmental representatives to be present in the room. So I would say you can also focus on working at least with those countries which are members of FOC so that to somehow encourage and maybe also to build connections between them and these local regional communities because they could be part of these conversations. They could get into some specific partnerships and work on some issues together. I think from my region of Southeast Europe, it is maybe only Georgia and Moldova who are members of FOC. But at least at that level, at least those few countries, because I know I’m also part of IGF for Southeastern Europe. And well, I know firsthand experience how challenging it is to get in touch with governmental people. So that would be also very practical help from your side, just at least to help to get connected with these people and to have them in the room.

Allie Funk:
Is there anything you want to say before we go to Q&A about the FOC?

Guuz van Zwoll:
Well, I mean, these are very concrete and thoughtful points. We’re writing our plan of action as we speak. I mean, we just had it out for consultations with the AN network. And I mean, these are great points that we’re happy to digest and bring them further. I think that it’s very interesting to say that the Freedom Online Conference is a missed, that it’s being missed. It’s very nice to hear because we did, there was, I think COVID was the first reason not to organize it. But also because there’s already so many conferences we’ve got right. we’ve got IGF. So I mean, it would be good to discuss maybe later to see how we can make best use of the space and time and core footprints that we have to make sure that we can make use of that. And the other points on, I think, many of them, at least myself, but also many of our colleagues within the FOC are very open always to have discussions with human rights defenders and digital defenders. So I think it would be great to maybe see if we can promote that strand of work and to have direct contact outside of the AI network. We could also have a long talk about representation in the AI network and I think we should also have that. But I mean, these are very valid points and we’ll certainly take them forward. One last thing on the security side. As the FOC, we did create a group called the Digital Defenders Partnership, which is focusing on holistic support for human rights defenders and digital defenders at risk. And that’s specifically aimed at digital defenders and civil society groups that are facing online threats, but also now physical and psychological threats, etc. And they are, I mean, that’s one of the concrete results that we continue to support as the FOC. So we do try to keep an eye on it, but it’s always great to have concrete suggestions on how to improve these things. Thank you.

Allie Funk:
I’ll just make a pitch. I mean, if RightsCon is not happening until 2025, there is a little space in our calendars for an FOC conference. I can see if we can invite everyone to the Netherlands. All right, everybody, we’re going in the Netherlands. You’re gonna kill me. All right, we’ve got 15 minutes. I want to open it up to y’all. Who has a question? Anybody? Hi, Lisa. Oh, yes, Jit.

Jit:
Yeah, thanks, everyone, for this fabulous discussion. I learned a lot. You know, in thinking about how we can make meaningful impact since we’re at a UN conference, curious to hear what people think about the global digital compact, pros, cons, what we see happening with it.

Allie Funk:
Step right in, if anybody wants to take that tiny question. Yeah. And we also have questions. We can just get them all, maybe, and then. Oliver?

Audience:
For the gentleman, you mentioned that you can support, provide some type of support for people who are under some sort of threat for their online activism. So I was wondering if you could explain what type of mechanisms you have available in terms of what? To send lawyers if they’re already in prison or something like that? I’m just curious to know, what exactly do you mean by that? Bearing in mind the geography, bearing in mind different juristical systems, and so on, and so on. What is, is not crime in given legislation? Thank you.

Allie Funk:
Just going to collect them all. We’ll do Oliver, and then Lisa. Then we should answer some, because I’ll have a lot of questions.

Oliver:
Hi, this is Oliver. I won’t give my organization name, if you don’t mind, just because of security reasons. But I think it’s really important for FOC to be a bit more clear with the outside world about what they’re doing in regards to the UNESCO guidelines, which the global CSOs in the global south are extremely concerned about the direction of the guidelines and how they will encourage authoritarian states to crack down on the digital space. We haven’t seen much from FOC, not that we ever would really see it. But it would be very useful to know that behind the scenes, there is actually some pushback on something that looks like it’s being driven by authoritarian state members of UNESCO. Thanks.

Lisa:
Hi, everyone. I’m Lisa from USAID. So I’ve been doing a lot of stakeholder consultations this year in different countries where we are doing work or trying to scope out potential for new work. And one of the things that keeps coming up when we talk about international human rights frameworks and the GDPR and the DSA and the DMA and the EU AI Act and all of these frameworks is that other countries, particularly in the global majority, see the risk-based European model. They see the laissez-faire industry-based American model. They see the Chinese state-based model. And they don’t want to have any of those models plopped into their space. They’re thinking about, what is this third way? So it’s very Cold War rhetoric of we’re in the third space. And what does that mean? And how are we going to figure out a regional approach, perhaps, or a national approach? And I think one of the key concerns is that when you plop the GDPR into Serbia or Indonesia or Kenya or wherever, there are certain aspects of the regulation that are extremely onerous for countries that are at a different income level than a lot of European countries and that are very challenging to implement when you don’t have the oversight capacity. And there’s perhaps lack of political will and politicization of some of these oversight bodies. And so that’s also a concern. And so I’ve sensed that there’s a real frustration among a lot of actors in civil society and local tech in different countries with this very what people have expressed as a heavy-handed, the international human rights framework is the thing to implement everywhere. And so what are your thoughts? It can be for anyone on the panel about how to navigate that so that you still have the overall protections and safeguards that are being transferred to the extent that they’re going to be useful in those contexts. for human rights defenders and activists and the like, but you’re not imposing aspects of that regulation or imposing at all really, or like there’s a space for a conversation about what the human rights protections and safeguards look like in different contexts.

Allie Funk:
Anything else before we dive on in? Okay, all right. Who wants to start? My esteemed panelists, Olga, there you go. And I can also repeat the questions if need be and make sure we answer them all.

Olga Kyryliuk:
So on global digital compact, I think this is the same thing for me as for Freedom Online Coalition. I would want to see more clarity about what is happening, where it is going, and especially for civil society how to be part of that because there is a lot of frustration at the moment as to how they can engage. And same, we were trying to see how we can support our implementing partners to engage in this process and we don’t really see a clear way or a clear venue where this can happen. For the regulations, for Lisa’s question, I think the problem is that we think everything which is coming from the EU is just will solve all our problems. This is ideal and the standard which we all should be using, which is, as you’ve mentioned, has its own challenges once we start to implement and go to enforcement phase. But I think there are always, there is the framework of principles and standards which, let’s say, are basic and which can be replicated in every single country. But then you also should be aware that if you go into some detailed regulations, then they should be also conscious of the context where they are being thrown to. So it requires a dialogue and a conversation with the national legislators, but also probably some capacity building for them to understand that it’s okay, because what countries are doing, they just take the text of GDPR and implement as their national law. And then when it comes to implementation, now we have to face a lot of challenges, but then what you can do, the law is already there. So it has to be done at a little bit earlier stage when just some specific legal act is being incorporated into the national legal system.

Emilie Pradichit:
Thank you. So I’m gonna answer the question related to the protection of human rights. As Olga said, there is a need to also understand the local context. And most of the, I mean, most of the Southeast Asian governments, and I’m gonna talk about Thailand mainly, is that we have a Data Protection Act. You know, and what the Thai government said is that. Oh, we just took the GDPR and we developed the Data Protection Act, so we are, you know, following the EU example. But there’s no real oversight, there’s no independent oversight, it’s full, it’s totally government-led oversight and there’s no remedy. And there’s an exemption into that law that allows the government to violate our data under the consideration of national security. So governments, I would say, are really good, you know, to replicate what the EU is doing, which is a challenge for us because we want them to engage in a dialogue with parliamentarians but also with civil society. And what governments are doing is that they’re saying, I’m taking the German example, I’m taking the EU example, and I’m developing this law. And it’s government-led, it’s from the executive, it’s not from the legislative, and it allows the government not to engage with civil society. So there’s no dialogue, so that’s a real frustration for us. And they think that then they go into diplomatic discussion with diplomats in the country but also at the global level at the UN saying, we are following global standards and we are following good standards because we are in line with the EU. So it’s a real challenge for us because then diplomats believe it. So diplomats are then congratulating Thailand for having a Data Protection Act instead of really looking into the act because the act is in Thai unless a civil society translates it for the international community to know. So it’s really important for us that I don’t think civil society is against international human rights law. Like, we all follow international human rights law. Actually, we want governments to respect international human rights law. We just want to make sure that when there is an exchange between global north countries and global majority countries, that this exchange takes into consideration our context and that governments, like when they are exchanging the Thai government or the Lao government going to Australia or Australia to look at AI, for example, AI regulation, or when the Thai government is saying we are putting together an AI advisory committee and are inviting experts from all around the world, it’s just to appear as a good student or it’s just to appear as a good member state at the UN. But in reality, they’re just fooling the world. And never, ever we have the expert and the other government engaging with the Thai government, helping to develop those laws. Who is asking the Thai government, but where is civil society? Where is the dialogue with civil society? Where is the dialogue with parliamentarians? So this is where the frustration is coming. It’s the lack of dialogue and it’s the lack of understanding of the context. And it’s how easily EU member states and also the US and the international committee can be fooled by our governments. Thank you.

Guuz van Zwoll:
That was a great point. And I mean, I think that for us, I mean, I think that although there might be some people that have hoped it, I think that the worldwide rollout or effect of GDPR came to us. where everyone was a little bit surprised, right? And then we’d start claiming Brussels effect and stuff like that. But I mean, I think that we didn’t really plan on it to be, well, it was not there in the room, I don’t know. But I mean, I think that we were, I would expect that, I mean, we’re diplomats, we’re human beings, we are, we’re from nine to five. And I mean, I don’t, but I mean, so the point being is that I think that we have to learn by doing on this. And I think that we, I mean, your feedback on this is extremely helpful. And each time we’ll get better at it. And, but we need your honest and open criticism on these things in order to do learn from it and to do implement it. The next time we’ll have these discussions on how are we going to have shared approach on AI? Or how are we going to have a shared approach on the DSA or the DMA? So that’s something that I would just urge everyone to keep doing and then also reach out to not only the embassy, but also try to, well, I mean, try to find the advocacy focal points to because these are the ones that are probably more resonating to these arguments than someone who’s covering 27 issues because we’re two people in the embassy. So that’s, I mean, that’s just very challenging. And so, yeah, I would try to do that. As on the UNESCO guidelines, I think that that is indeed, and we’ve been following that progress with great interest. We have, as the FOC, we did try to, we did approach it. We have the advisory network wrote terrific comments on it. And we took that all at heart when talking to UNESCO and then participating in the Internet for Trust. Conference, I mean, this is not completely FOC, but I do want to mention our recently launched global. declaration on information integrity that was signed by 30 countries, and more countries are signing on to it, which do try to say, well, it’s very important that we are going to fight disinformation and make sure that we are promoting information integrity, but at the same time, we do need these human rights guide rails, so to speak, in these international processes like the UNESCO process, but also the Code of Conduct that’s being run by Under Secretary General Fleming, to make sure that the human rights language is there in those processes, so that’s something that we are really pushing for us as the Netherlands, and with 30 other countries, including the US, the UK, but also countries like Brazil and Argentina and Chile have signed up to those principles. We do try to promote that in that way. About the GDC, that’s just, I mean, I think that it’s also very difficult for us, at least as diplomats, for me, to follow it. I mean, the process, I mean, there have been some stakeholder rounds, we attended those, I mean, they were open to watch online, I mean, you know as much as I do. I mean, it’s just, yeah, we are following it, and we try to make the best of it, and we do think that it’s great, at least in the chapters or in the sections that are there, human rights online is really there, so we do have good hope for it, but we have to see how it will develop, and for us it’s really a question on how this is something that we also set out in, pretty publicly I would say, it’s even in the strategy that we say, well, I mean, we have to strike a good balance between the GDC and UISIS, and they are both very important, and we have to find a good way in protecting human rights online, we have to find a way to encapsulate multi-stakeholderism in these governing processes, but at the same time, we have to make also sure that these processes are really transparent, that everyone can engage, that the global majority countries have a seat at the table, that we include them into the process, and that’s something that we… remains, that remains a constant challenge. I mean, but that’s always, of course, a challenge in these issues. Yeah. And then on supporters, support for human rights defense at risk. The Netherlands funds tons of NGOs and initiatives to protect human rights defenders who are at risk locally. So we, for example, fund Frontline Defenders that has, I think, 12 regional coordinators all over the world speaking. Well, I mean, Southeast Asia is, of course, difficult with tons of languages. But, for example, in Latin America we have where they speak local languages. They are there. I mean, they’re someone for Southeast Asia. But they’re really trying to provide practical, holistic support for at-risk human rights defenders, both in a legal way but also courses in physical protection, digital security, psychological well-being, etc. We fund that with Frontline. We have Reporters sans frontières we fund through the EU. We support protect defenders that has a conglomerate of, which is a consortium of 13 organizations that are doing this worldwide. I mean, I think that there are tons of organizations that are doing, that do try to provide these kinds of direct practical support for at-risk human rights defenders. And some of them are even here. I mean, Access Now has a booth. They have a helpline. They’re connected with Defend Defenders to work together with Frontline. And if you want to know more about it, I’m happy to to speak for hours about this topic because I’m really passionate about it.

Allie Funk:
These microphones, tricky. Well, thank you all. We’re at time. I think that we could go on for a really long time. All these, there’s just so many initiatives. I’m so tired. I’m sure everybody else is. I’m like, we’ve got a seven-person team. We have to make tough decisions about how to engage and when not to. And I’m grateful that we’re in partnership with all the fantastic panelists, for people in this room. that we’re doing this work together. And I won’t hold you back from dinner anymore. I know we’re all hungry as well. So thank you for joining us. A pitch again, you can read the latest Freedom on the Net report, freedomhouse.org. Let us know what you think. And looking forward to a great week. Thanks all.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.