WS #300 Information Integrity through Journalism & Alternative Platforms

Summary

This discussion focused on information integrity through journalism and alternative platforms, examining how to address the dominance of big tech companies in the information ecosystem and support quality journalism. The session was organized as a multi-stakeholder dialogue involving representatives from the OSCE, Denmark’s Tech Ambassador, Brazilian government officials, media development organizations, and platform innovators.

The participants emphasized that democracy requires daily informed discussion rather than just periodic voting, and that the current information environment faces serious challenges including journalist safety threats, business model disruptions, and platform concentration. Denmark’s Tech Ambassador highlighted the need for trust, agency, and diversity in information spaces, while noting that young people are finding credible news through alternative channels and platforms.

Brazilian representatives outlined their government’s comprehensive approach to information integrity, including media literacy initiatives, platform accountability measures, and compensation frameworks for journalists whose content is used by AI systems. They described three models under consideration: copyright remuneration, bargaining agreements similar to those in Australia and Canada, and platform taxation to fund public journalism support.

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee presented principles for platform regulation that prioritize information accuracy and promote quality journalism through recommendation systems. They emphasized the challenge of defining journalistic content and determining fair compensation mechanisms while addressing the financial sustainability crisis facing media outlets.

Media development experts stressed the importance of preserving journalism’s core functions: helping people understand the world, holding power accountable, and enabling societal dialogue. They called for focused international frameworks, applied research, and stronger partnerships to support media viability, particularly as development funding faces cuts.

A compelling example came from Jamii Africa, a Tanzanian platform reaching four million people daily through citizen-centric approaches to information sharing and fact-checking. Despite facing legal challenges and imprisonment, the founder demonstrated how local platforms can create safe spaces for meaningful conversations while maintaining editorial independence and community trust.

The discussion concluded that while there is no one-size-fits-all solution, successful approaches require understanding local contexts, ensuring meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, and maintaining journalism’s central role in information integrity efforts.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Information Integrity and Journalism’s Role in Democracy**: The panel emphasized that journalism serves essential democratic functions – informing citizens, holding power accountable, and enabling societal dialogue. Information integrity was framed as a positive concept focused on building trust, agency, and diversity rather than just combating disinformation.

– **Big Tech Power Concentration and Its Impact on Media**: Speakers discussed how major platforms like Google and Meta dominate information distribution, undermining media sustainability through business models that prioritize engagement over public interest. This concentration threatens media independence and creates fragmented information landscapes.

– **Financial Sustainability and Compensation Models for Journalism**: Multiple approaches were explored for ensuring media viability, including copyright remuneration, bargaining agreements (like in Australia and Canada), and taxation of platforms to fund journalism. The challenge of defining what constitutes journalism and who should be compensated was highlighted.

– **Alternative Platforms and Local Solutions**: The discussion featured examples like Jamii Africa from Tanzania, demonstrating how locally-contextualized platforms can foster meaningful civic engagement while maintaining journalistic standards. The importance of understanding local contexts rather than applying one-size-fits-all solutions was emphasized.

– **Multi-stakeholder Governance and State Role**: Participants explored how states can support information integrity without compromising editorial independence, emphasizing the need for multi-stakeholder approaches that include civil society, media organizations, and international bodies while avoiding both corporate capture and government overreach.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore concrete solutions for maintaining information integrity in the digital age, moving beyond simply identifying problems with disinformation to actively building healthier information ecosystems that support democratic participation and independent journalism.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and solution-oriented tone throughout. While speakers acknowledged serious challenges facing journalism and democracy, the conversation was notably optimistic and forward-looking. The tone became increasingly collaborative as speakers built on each other’s ideas, with particular enthusiasm when discussing successful local initiatives like Jamii Africa. The interactive format and diverse perspectives from different regions and sectors contributed to a sense of shared purpose and possibility for positive change.

Speakers

– **Julia Haas** – Advisor to the OSCE representative on Freedom of the Media, session moderator

– **Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard** – Denmark’s Tech Ambassador

– **Renata Mieli** – Special advisor for the Ministry of Science and Technology (Brazil), coordinator at NIC Brazil

– **Beatriz Barbosa** – Representative from Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, civil society sector

– **Jan Lublinski** – Head of Policy and Learning at Deutsche Welle Akademie, former journalist (20 years as reporter)

– **Magnus Ag** – Head of Public Interest Tech at IMS (International Media Support)

– **Maxence Melo** – Founder of Jamii Africa (Tanzania), runs multiple platforms including Jamii Forums, Jamii Check, Stories of Change, and whistleblowing platforms

– **Pavel Antonov** – Blue Link Think and Action Network (Bulgaria), former television journalist

– **Anna Luhmann** – Member of Parliament from Germany

– **Larry Maggott** – CEO of ConnectSafely (Internet safety organization), former journalist with The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, BBC, CBS News

**Additional speakers:**

– **Juliana Oms** – NIC Brazil (mentioned as monitoring online questions but did not speak in the transcript)

# Information Integrity Through Journalism and Alternative Platforms: A Multi-Stakeholder Discussion

## Executive Summary

This multi-stakeholder dialogue, organized jointly by the OSCE, International Media Support, NIC Brazil, and Deutsche Welle Akademie, examined critical challenges facing information integrity in the digital age. The discussion brought together representatives from international organizations, government officials, media development experts, and platform innovators to explore concrete solutions for supporting quality journalism while addressing the dominance of big tech companies in the information ecosystem.

Moderated by Julia Haas from the OSCE, the session featured Denmark’s Tech Ambassador Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard, Brazilian government and civil society representatives, media development organizations, and successful alternative platform operators. The conversation maintained a constructive and solution-oriented tone, moving beyond simply identifying problems with disinformation to actively exploring pathways for building healthier information ecosystems that support democratic participation and independent journalism.

## Foundational Principles: Democracy and Information Integrity

The discussion opened with a fundamental reframing of democracy itself. Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard, Denmark’s Tech Ambassador, established the philosophical foundation by arguing that “democracy is not an act of voting. Democracy is something that we exercise on a daily basis, an informed discussion, exchanging different views and opinions and doing it in an information environment that is healthy and sound and sprawling and allows for that creativity, expression and for a democratic debate.”

This perspective shifted the conversation from viewing information integrity as a technical problem to understanding it as the bedrock of democratic society. Renata Mieli, Special Advisor for Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology, reinforced this view, describing information integrity as “a central pillar of both democracy and human rights, essential for building sustainable democratic societies.”

Anne-Marie noted that Denmark has developed a blueprint on information integrity in partnership with Wikimedia and the Netherlands, emphasizing the need for international cooperation on these challenges.

## The Challenge of Big Tech Dominance

A central theme throughout the discussion was the unprecedented concentration of power in major technology platforms. Beatriz Barbosa from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee provided stark statistics, noting that two companies (Google and Meta) hold a dominant global position in the distribution of news and information, with their technical, political and institutional decisions determining what information billions of people access daily.

This concentration was identified as fundamentally incompatible with information integrity. The speakers argued that big tech’s business models prioritize profit and engagement over fact-based public debate, creating what Julia Haas described as an information ecosystem structure that prevents information integrity due to power concentration.

Renata Mieli emphasized the serious consequences of this concentration, referencing Brazil’s January 8th events and stating that big tech companies control the flow of information in society with unprecedented influence, leading to serious consequences including attempted coups, electoral interference, hate speech, and harmful content exposure to children.

## Preserving Journalism’s Democratic Functions

Jan Lublinski from Deutsche Welle Akademie provided crucial clarity on what is at stake in the media sustainability crisis. He argued that “it’s not about saving media houses per se, it’s about saving the function of journalism,” identifying three essential functions: understanding the world through information, holding power to account, and enabling dialogue in society.

Lublinski also highlighted that development funding for media is being severely cut, creating additional challenges just as the need for support is greatest. This creates particular pressure on media in developing countries and emerging democracies. He referenced the Media Viability Manifesto initiative and the State of Media Development report from DW Academy as frameworks for addressing these challenges.

Magnus Ag from International Media Support reinforced this perspective, arguing for “public interest infrastructure anchored in local communities with journalistic ethics and methodology.” The speakers agreed that while the institutional forms of journalism may evolve, its core democratic functions remain irreplaceable.

## Financial Sustainability and Platform Compensation

The discussion explored multiple approaches to ensuring media financial viability in the digital age. Beatriz Barbosa outlined three primary models under consideration in Brazil: copyright remuneration systems, bargaining agreements similar to those implemented in Australia and Canada, and platform taxation to fund public journalism support.

However, the conversation revealed significant complexity in implementing these approaches. Barbosa raised critical concerns about media concentration, warning that Brazil has a stark problem of media ownership concentration and that compensation mechanisms must be carefully designed to avoid reinforcing existing monopolies rather than supporting local and independent media.

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s approach emphasizes that regulation should protect the right to information and promote accuracy, credibility, and reliability of content, with platforms having due diligence obligations and proportional accountability measures.

## Alternative Platforms and Local Solutions

One of the most compelling aspects of the discussion was the presentation of successful alternative platform models. Maxence Melo, founder of Jamii Africa in Tanzania, demonstrated how locally-contextualized platforms can create meaningful civic engagement while maintaining journalistic standards.

Jamii Forums reaches over four million people daily, providing what Melo described as “a local alternative for meaningful conversations.” The platform operates multiple services including Jamii Forums, Jamii Check (fact-checking), Stories of Change, Future World (whistleblowing platform), and the upcoming Jamii Data. The organization has partnerships with 46 community radios and has trained over 1,000 journalists.

Melo’s personal experience, including 159 court appearances, frozen bank accounts, and travel restrictions, provided crucial insights into the challenges of building alternatives to global platforms. His approach follows three principles: “inform, engage, empower,” emphasizing that local platforms must adapt to specific country dynamics rather than treating all countries the same.

Magnus Ag reinforced this perspective, expressing enthusiasm for the growing number of new platforms that offer alternatives to the dominant platforms. He briefly mentioned goodcommons.world as a resource for connecting people building alternative solutions.

## Brazilian Policy Innovations and International Leadership

The Brazilian representatives provided detailed insights into comprehensive policy approaches to information integrity. Renata Mieli described how Brazil included information integrity in the G20 Ministerial Declaration for the first time and launched the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change in partnership with the UN and UNESCO.

Brazil’s approach includes multiple components: media literacy initiatives, platform accountability measures, due diligence obligations for platforms, and frameworks for proportional accountability. The country is also developing provisions for fair compensation when copyrighted material is used to train AI systems through the AI Bill currently in the Federal Senate before moving to the Chamber of Deputies.

However, the Brazilian representatives also acknowledged significant implementation challenges, particularly around defining journalistic content and ensuring that support mechanisms benefit diverse media rather than reinforcing concentration.

## Education and Professional Standards

The discussion identified significant gaps in journalism education and professional development. Renata Mieli argued that journalism schools are stuck in the last century and not preparing journalists for current challenges. She observed that journalism is unfortunately adapting to the format and standards of communication imposed by big tech, seeking headlines and approaches that generate more clicks.

Maxence Melo emphasized the importance of training journalists on AI use in digital age fact-checking, while the discussion touched on initiatives like the Journalism Trust Initiative developed by Reporters Without Borders as frameworks for maintaining professional standards.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance and Implementation Challenges

The discussion revealed sophisticated thinking about governance approaches to information integrity. There was strong consensus on the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, but speakers provided nuanced perspectives on implementation.

Maxence Melo offered particularly valuable insights on partnership management, arguing that there are times to engage or partner, times to disengage, and times to collaborate and align. This framework acknowledged the strategic complexity of multi-stakeholder work, particularly in challenging political contexts.

Regarding state roles, Jan Lublinski argued that financial independence doesn’t always mean editorial independence, noting that public support can work with proper safeguards, using public broadcasting models as examples.

## Audience Questions and Key Debates

The interactive session revealed important unresolved questions. Anna Luhmann from the German Parliament asked what mechanisms are needed for state actors to make decisions about which media outlets receive revenues collected from platforms, highlighting the need for careful institutional design.

Pavel Antonov raised questions about how professional journalistic standards and norms could potentially be extended to civil society communications, while Larry Maggott from ConnectSafely posed a fundamental challenge: “How do we convince people? How do we make the case that those of us are working very hard to tell the truth, independent of whatever ideology you happen to subscribe to?”

This question highlighted that mainstream media faces trust challenges, especially among young people who seek action-oriented information sources, and that technical and regulatory solutions cannot address the fundamental crisis of institutional credibility.

## Areas of Consensus and Remaining Challenges

Despite the complexity of the challenges discussed, the speakers demonstrated strong consensus on several key points: democracy requires daily informed discussion in healthy information environments; the concentration of information distribution power in major platforms poses serious threats; multi-stakeholder approaches are necessary; journalism serves vital democratic functions that must be protected; and effective solutions must be tailored to local contexts.

However, important disagreements remained about implementation, particularly regarding how states should distribute platform-derived revenues to media outlets, how to prevent compensation mechanisms from reinforcing existing media monopolies, and how to rebuild public trust in journalism.

## Future Directions

The discussion concluded with several concrete commitments: the OSCE will publish policy recommendations for states on information integrity in September; Jamii Africa plans to expand to neighboring countries including Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, DRC, and Zimbabwe with locally-adapted approaches; and continued development of networks connecting people building alternative platforms and solutions.

## Conclusion

This multi-stakeholder discussion successfully moved beyond problem identification to explore concrete approaches for supporting journalism and building healthier information ecosystems. The high level of consensus on fundamental principles provides a strong foundation for policy development and international cooperation, while the disagreements that emerged focused primarily on implementation mechanisms rather than core objectives.

As Julia Haas concluded, the path forward requires attention to local context, careful consideration of state roles in supporting media while maintaining independence, and recognition that building information integrity is ultimately about “seeding the democratic seed” rather than simply supporting media industries. The success of platforms like Jamii Africa demonstrates that alternatives to big tech dominance are possible and can achieve significant scale while maintaining democratic values and journalistic standards.

Julia Haas: and Erika Thiller Philanthropists Campacter Annabelle Juniper Good morning and welcome to our session. For all of you who are wondering how to use the headset, please turn on channel 5. We’re in workshop room 5, so that’s the indication that you need to press number 5. Otherwise you’ll be listening, spying on to our neighbour conversations. So good morning and welcome and thank you for joining us in this early morning hour after I think several receptions last night. So we appreciate you being here for this, what at least all of us here think will be a very interesting and important conversation. It will also be very interactive, so if anybody, I mean of course you’re all seated, that’s fine, but if anybody still wants to join here the head table, please feel free to do so. Otherwise of course also from the audience you will be invited to contribute. Maybe I should start with saying this session is called Information Integrity through Journalism and Alternative Platforms. My name is Julia Haas, I’m advisor to the OECE representative on Freedom of the Media and this is a joint session where we bring in really a lot of different components. So we organise it together with IMS and together with NIC Brazil and then also the Deutsche Welle Academie, so we really bring in a lot of different components, which I think just comes to show that the topic of information integrity, but also of course the broader issues that are linked to it, can really be approached from a vast, different perspectives and approaches showing that it’s an umbrella topic and there are different angles that we try to combine in this conversation today to really look at what information integrity means, what role journalism plays in that, whether and how big tech is undermining information integrity and how we can overcome this undermining through journalism and platforms and of course most importantly really what we can do about it. So I think the starting point for the conversation that we are having today is really this dominance, this power concentration that was also very highly discussed throughout the first day of the IGF yesterday where there was almost this basic understanding that we currently cannot have information integrity in the way that our information ecosystem and the digital part of it is organized, is structured and then there are different ways of approaching it, different angles and today we will try to bring it together to really say or see what concretely could be done and also what roles states can play in this regard. So I’m very happy to have a very multi-stakeholder panel also to bring in these different components to see what individuals, what civil society, what the media, what also the government very importantly and also international organization and media development organizations can do. So I will just very very briefly introduce the speakers once to take the floor but again to let you know that it’s interactive so please feel free at any point also to contribute if you think it’s an interesting question or angle, you want to add something, you have any experience or examples to share this will be very very useful. And with that I would like to hand over for kind of like another round of introductory opening remarks to to Denmark’s Tech Ambassador Anne-Marie Engtoft Meldgaard. And with this, thank you very much. The floor is yours.

Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard: Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here. I hope you can all hear me. I am delighted to be, this is my first, I think many of us, this is my first IGF workshop this year, this round. And I think there’s not a more important topic to start out on on this question of information integrity. When you look at the sheer numbers, things are not looking great. It’s never been more dangerous to be a journalist around the world. It’s never been more dire, I think, for traditional news and media to make its way through the absolute noise of what has also become the internet for many of us. I’ve been to IGF and NetMundial and a lot of these gatherings over the past many years discussing a deterioration of the information integrity environment. The role of big tech we discussed for, I think, close to a decade by now. And with that, the discussions on polarization, on a fragmented media landscape that sprawls into a fragmentation of our democracy. So I think the backdrop of what we are discussing and what we are meeting is incredibly grim and dark and many are facing the real life challenges. And it is a reminder that democracy is not an act of voting. Democracy is something that we exercise on a daily basis, an informed discussion, exchanging different views and opinions and doing it in an information environment that is healthy and sound and sprawling and allows for that creativity, expression and for a democratic debate. And so the system is under pressure, but one thing that does make me, I think, somewhat hopeful and optimistic is that we see more and more individuals trying to break free of what is a current environment. And so while I hope that today will. We’ll have a discussion that we continue on. So what do we do around these questions of increased polarization, disinformation, how it creeps into the very institutions of democracy? What is it with the business models that are still not serving public interest when it comes to information integrity? What is the opposite side of that? Who are those individuals who are finding different ways, using different platforms? I am delighted to see the number of new platforms that are taking that quest of saying, we don’t have to use the only big two, three, four platforms. We can make our own ones. When I meet young people, and I lament that they don’t read newspapers, they say, but I follow TikTok. And there are these individuals that I have no clue who are, but they have 50,000, 100,000 followers. And they actually give credible news, but in a very different way than my long format and slightly boring newspaper articles that I prefer to read. And so information integrity is a top priority for Denmark. This has been something we’ve been engaging in over the years. We launched a blueprint on information integrity in collaboration with Wikimedia in the Netherlands last year. We’ve been engaged through the Freedom Online Coalition and at these various gatherings with so many of you. We believe that it’s pushing a positive vision of trust, agency, and diversity. Trust, agency, and diversity. This really has to be a root course of how we’re thinking about information integrity. And I hope that we can have a conversation today on how do we do that, and how do we ensure that in that there’s better, greater platform accountability, and accountability in this community. How do we keep ourselves up to the standards so when we meet again five years from now, we have actually moved the needle in information integrity. We see that power is concentrated with big tech, and I’ll finish in just a second. Even the governments who regulate these things, and that’s the one I represent here, IGF is really an underpinning of the multi-stakeholder model. So with that, using the multi-stakeholder model today in today’s discussion on maybe telling the big tech or governments like myself what we need to do.

Julia Haas: The democracy is really this process, right? It’s really about every day, then of course elections are a peak, but it’s about being able to be informed, and in the end what we’re talking about is pluralism, which is what democracy is about, and being able to have these different angles and different platforms and different opportunities to express oneself, to access information, and all of that. So I want to just very briefly also tell you a few sentences on the approach that the OECE is taking. So as you might be aware, the OECE is a security organization originally, but really understanding human rights as an essential component of security, and there we have our representative on freedom of the media, where we work a lot also on the issues that were mentioned, and we are about to finalize policy recommendations precisely to states that were developed over the course of the last almost one year now, in a set of roundtables and consultations to try to bring together different experts, different perspectives and experiences to try to identify not only what the key challenges are in the information space, particularly from the perspective of journalism and independent media, but to really say how to take it further, what are the different angles, and the way we approach it is to look at basically three components that we understood as being essential in building an information space that is based on information integrity, on agency, on pluralism, diversity. all the keywords that you have also been mentioning and one of that is the question of financial survival so really the question of media viability because if we speak about the availability and accessibility of public interest information of course we have to make sure that individuals and societies are able to continue to produce such quality information so one of the aspects we are approaching is to look at what measures are needed and how states can support an environment where media is sustainable in this ecosystem of power concentration so how to make sure that those who distribute and benefit also financially from journalism pay the journalists so there is a lot of experience that many of you will be aware of regarding remuneration, fair compensation, bargaining codes, digital levy it’s also a point that is coming more and more into the discussion but then the second aspect is also if we are able to make sure that journalism is available so they can are able to to exist and to continue to work then also it’s a question of how to make it visible right because we all know that in the current information space it’s not only about a high quality public interest piece of information being out there somewhere but it’s really the question of how to get it to the attention because the business model you’ve been referring to is really about this attention and way more the visibility than it being available at some point so the second aspect we’ve been looking at is really how to make sure that there is due prominence to journalism and to quality information and what approaches states could take to mend this visibility without risking on the one hand to further entrench the power of these actors to actually distribute the content but also without the risk of capture and political pressure from governmental side or from captured regulatory bodies and then the third aspect that we see as kind of interlinked but equally important is also the question of safety because of course And of course, if we want to have quality journalism available online, that means the journalists also need to be safe to navigate in these spaces. So we will also be providing a lot of recommendations on how the safety of journalists can be better realized in the digital spaces. But something that really became clear in all these discussions is while we need some of these urgent mitigation measures almost in this current ecosystem that we are in, there is also an increasing recognition from the entire community, be it the media community, the internet community, the information integrity community, all of that, that we are almost at a point in time where we really have to move beyond this kind of like fixing here and there the ecosystem, but we have to be stronger and better in imagining how do we see a healthy information space. This is also a word you’ve been using to really say how can we create a space where everybody is able to have trust, agency and diversity to go back to these keywords. And it’s really great that today we will be able to hear about a few initiatives from both sides, right? How to be able to rein in on this power concentration, the information space, but then also to go this extra extra mile, so to speak, to create alternatives, to have ideas of how we can reclaim almost this space that is supposed to belong to everybody, to be able to have informed people, informed societies, and therefore be able to have democracy and security in the end. So this will be published, just a short teaser in September, and I’m very happy, of course, to share it with everybody. It will also be published online. So just to give you a bit of the background also where the OAC is coming from and why we are also very happy to bring together this, together with the partners, this conversation today. And now I would like to bring in also the perspective of one specific country because an idea of today. The aim of today was also to really bring in the international component, all these different multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the IJF, but then also really go to the regional level, to the local level almost to see what has been tried, what lessons can we draw for this international conversation and for this multi-stakeholder cooperation. So I want to hand over to Renata Mieli, who is I think the coordinator also of NIC and from the Ministry of… Apologies, I didn’t prepare properly on the names. The special advisor for the Ministry of Science and Technology, apology for that. But it would be really interesting if you can, also building on this strong introduction that we heard, what is the experience, how does the Brazilian side go into this conversation on information integrity? Why do you think it’s important also from this positive framing instead of just speaking about disinformation as we did a few years ago? And also considering this big tech power, Brazil has intervened and has tried to take very concrete steps. So if you could share a little bit from your side, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Renata Mieli: Thank you, Julia. Thank you for having me. I have the responsibility of replacing my colleague, Secretary Joao Brant, in this workshop. He has led this agenda in our government and I will briefly present the perspective of our government and some initiatives regarding… Oh my God, much better. Regarding information integrity, it’s weird. Well, first I want to emphasize that we are living in a time when the very foundation of our public information environment is under threat. The existence of a shared framework guided by trust, credibility, public interest and professionalism is being seriously challenged. Yet, such a framework is essential for building and… Sustainable Democracy Societies, as Anne Marie said, is the very foundation of our daily basis democracies. The consequences of this erosion, mainly driven by the power of big tech companies, which control the flow of information in our society with unprecedented influence, are clear and serious. Attempted coups like the one we experienced in Brazil on January 23, interference in electoral and political processes, the rise of hate speech targeting vulnerable groups, and the increasing exposure of children and adolescents to harmful content. Tackling this problem is a strategic priority. That is why Brazil considers information integrity a central pillar of both democracy and human rights. This view is in alignment with ongoing global discussions within multilateral organizations. Let me highlight two important references. The United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity and the Global Digital Compact, which calls for inclusive, secure and trustworthy digital spaces, grounded in values like truth, inclusion, diversity and accountability, and, of course, agency like Ambassador Anne Marie said. During Brazil’s presidency in the G20 last year, information integrity was included for the first time in the Ministerial Declaration of the Digital Economy Working Group. This was a milestone and a clear sign of growing international commitment to shaping healthier, more plural digital ecosystems. From Brazil’s perspective, it is essential that countries work to foster diverse and resilient digital environments and to overcome the negative externalities created by the business models of major countries. To that end, Brazil has taken important steps with initiatives that are underway within the government, national congress like promoted media and digital literacy, for us this is a very strategic point because without literacy people can’t defend themselves from the disinformation, strengthening the debate and presenting proposals due diligence obligations for platforms, supported public media and developing frameworks for proportional and effective accountability in digital spaces. But we have also been addressing this issue through the judiciary, notably our Supreme Court, notably with the blocking of acts due to non-compliance with Brazilian court orders and now the debate about liability of digital platforms. One issue that deserves special attention is the impact of generative artificial intelligence on journalism. Brazil believes we must not normalize the uncompensated use of professional journalist content by AI systems. The current model undermines the economy’s sustainability of journalism and that affects our entire democratic ecosystem. In response, the Artificial Intelligence Bill, recently approved in the Federal Senate and now under discussion in the Chamber of Deputies, includes a provision for fair compensation when copyrighted material is mined or used to train AI systems. But we are aware that national measures alone are not enough. Extending presupposing to actions require coordinated multi-stakeholder efforts. It demands dialogue across sectors and regions to address algorithmic transparency and to ensure fast, Coordinated Responses to Disinformation Campaigns. In particular, regulating digital ecosystems requires international cooperation to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and accountability. Brazil is proud to have contributed to this agenda in partnership with the UN and UNESCO through the launch of the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, which I should mention is the topic of a dedicated workshop today at 3.30 PM. But just to point here, the initiative’s work is structured around the four main pillars. Integrating information on climate change into international agendas, promoting global mobilization by inviting diverse sectors to share tools, knowledge, and resources that support information integrity. Three, financing projects aimed at strengthening information integrity related to climate change, and institutionalizing the agenda of information integrity on climate change by encouraging the development of public policies on the issue. We invite the international community to join us in this effort. Let us then share the principles into practical collective action through participation in the UNESCO partnership call and the multi-stakeholder mobilization being led by the cooperative presidency. Information integrity is a shared responsibility. Together, we can build public trust, protect the democratic dialogue, and ensure that reliable, accurate information serves as a solid foundation to address the climate change of our time. Thank you very much.

Julia Haas: Thank you so much for this broad overview. I think you really brought in a lot of different perspective and also highlighted that there are really a lot of different initiatives out there. a very important angle to further explore. So, if Bia, you could jump on some of these keywords and also bring in the example of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and the approaches that you’re taking, I think this would help to take the conversation further. Thank you so much.

Beatriz Barbosa: Thank you, Julia. Good morning, everyone. It’s very nice to be here with you all. Thank you, Nick and the CGI, for helping organizing this gathering here and the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. As we mentioned, we are a multi-stakeholder space made up of representatives from government, business sector, academia and civil society where I come from and responsible for developing guidelines for the use and development of the Internet in Brazil. So, I’d like to share a little bit with you some reflections that we have made in the committee regarding this topic. But I would like to start reaffirming the importance of plural, diverse and independent information ecosystem to ensure the integrity of online information. We need journalism, we need media outlets, we need independent journalism initiatives to fight against the disinformation online, but only to be able to promote a more diverse public debate on this new public sphere. As mentioned before by Renata and by the Ambassador as well, large digital platforms including artificial intelligence, system for moderation and content recommendation have revolutionized the way we disseminate and consume information. And unfortunately, today is the technical, political and institutional decisions from these companies that determine what information we have access to through hyper-personalization of content. Specifically, two companies, Google and Meta, for sure, hold a dominant global position in the distribution of news and information. Daily, 5 billion people… The media’s heavy reliance on these platforms to reach their audiences threatens the independence and sustainability of journalism. This can lead to a fragmented information landscape, limiting access to pluralistic information, exacerbating political polarization, and hindering the construction of a pluralistic public discourse. All this in a scenario where users don’t know what journalistic information has been automatically excluded or to which they have been explicitly exposed. For this reason, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s effort to formulate guidelines for platform regulations has placed the integrity of information as one of the principles for this regulation. We have an open consultation on that to listen to Brazilian society about these principles, and according to this one, regulation should act to protect the right to information and promote the accuracy, consistency, credibility, and reliability of content, process, and information systems. In addition to that, to maintain a healthy and safe ecosystem, quality information, journalistic information, scientific content, and policies for preserving memory and combating fraud and misinformation should be promoted through regulation. In other words, in a scenario where social media are the main sources of traffic for online sites, according to about two-thirds of their global reach, social media content recommendation systems should expand diverse and reliable sources of information. This can be done, for example, through self-regulatory standards such as the Journalism Trust Initiative, developed by organizations as Reporters Without Borders and already adopted by more than 2,000 media outlets worldwide. But producing quality content, as Julio mentioned, is expensive, and the growing role of intermediaries between the media and their audience has led to a significant loss of advertising revenue for media outlets. These resources are now enriching platforms and, above all, being used by AI companies to train their models without taking into account the cost. the rights of content, the copyrights content, and the rights from creators and journalists. In Brazil, there are currently three models under discussion on how to compensate journalism for the loss of advertising to platform market, for the use of journalist content by these companies, and also for tackling the information disorder caused by business models that aim for profit rather than fact-based public debate. The first one, already mentioned by Julia, I think, already adopted in several countries, deals with copyright remuneration for journalistic initiatives. So the use of journalist content, for example, in platforms and news aggregators would generate payments for the links used in these systems. This is the model currently under discussion in the artificial intelligence regulation bill that Renata mentioned at the Brazilian parliament. The second model is the same one implemented in countries such as Australia and Canada, which provide compensation to media outlets through bargaining agreements. This was considering a legislative initiative discussed in the Congress, but has not yet been approved. And finally, a third model under discussion that is based on taxation of platforms, based on their annual income or advertising revenue, to allocate resources to a public fund to promote journalism, which should contribute to the sustainability of media in regions considered news deserts or with low information pluralism. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee also conducted a study on this topic, on this subject, mapping out the main tensions in this debate in Brazil. One of the difficulties they identified, for example, is conceptualizing journalistic content, what is journalist, what is not journalist, and establishing who should be remunerated, the journalist or the media outlets. Another controversy is who should pay and for what. That is, what should be remunerated by platforms, the publication of a link, the snippets, so small excerpts from a text, so journalist content. Should entertainment journalism be included in the remuneration rules or not? So these are all issues that require further study. but they need to be urgently considered by public authorities, decision makers and legislators if we don’t want journalism to become increasingly weakened in the face of the enormous powers of these digital giants and reliable information to be lost forever among cliques in search for engagement. Thanks a lot for these five minutes and I hope you can join the conversation afterwards. Thank you.

Julia Haas: Thank you so much Bia. I think really also your last sentence was very powerful on saying that it’s not being lost like the journalism and I think it really speaks to how important it is not only to speak about what we see and very often like this almost negative framing of oh there’s so much disinformation around but it’s really also about what we don’t see and what we want to see and how to make sure that that credible information, reliable information, independent media, the information that is needed for democracy is available, accessible in the digital space and also that we have this shared view on it. Some of the aspects that you mentioned like the fragmentation, the hyper personalization of course only increases with generative AI so it’s really important to turn back on the role, the essential role that journalism plays for information integrity with this positive framing and thank you also for outlining also these initiatives and different regulatory approaches to ensuring that journalists and their work is not being exploited by digital giants how you refer to them and that they make more profit while really draining out the journalistic work. With these examples from specifically the Brazilian context but also obviously you already referred to a lot of other initiatives and regulatory approaches it would be interesting to also link it back to this international discussions, international initiatives again we already heard about the digital at a global digital compact we know that there are a lot of different other initiatives. are out there like the Visus Plus 20 and other things. There are a lot of initiatives, so it would be really useful for the conversation and I would like to ask our next speaker, Jan Lublinski, who is the Head of Policy and Learning at the Deutsche Welle Akademie, to help us to kind of link this together, right? We now heard journalism is essential for information integrity. We have this big players out there. We have a lot of initiatives. So, where do you see the need and what concretely to do to foster media freedom to safeguard it in this international information integrity conversations and to also bring in the perspective of the Deutsche Welle? That would be great. Thank you.

Jan Lublinski: Yeah, thank you, Julia. I’m quite impressed by what we heard so far. I don’t know how it is for you, but it’s really a wealth of information and I’m just trying to get it together. And for me, it’s quite an exciting moment because in the past, IGFs, we’ve always struggled to get the journalism topics on the agenda and now suddenly it’s there and it’s clear to everyone that something needs to happen. So, this for me, being a former journalist, I’ve worked 20 years as a reporter, it’s exciting to see. And now I run with international development money, larger projects to support media freedom and the development of independent and reliable media. For me, it’s not about saving media houses per se, it’s about saving the function of journalism. So, it’s about understanding the world where we are through information. First function, second function is for me, holding power to account still, who else does it if not journalists? And the third is enabling dialogue in society. And this is what we want to be enabled in this new world that we’re in. Anne-Marie really pointed out well the problems and I think it’s good that we don’t only talk about the problems, but what we can do, and that’s my first answer to you, is that we really need focused and outcome-oriented… So, if we all travel to Oslo, I think we should each know why we’re here and what we’re targeting and what we want to achieve. That’s for me the first thing. But I’d like to add one problem to the problems Anne-Marie outlined. It’s that the development money is at the moment severely cut, not only by the US government, as you know, 268 million of annual spending are cut, which is a large portion of international development aid for media, but also other countries withdraw, which is a major problem, obviously. And I’d like to at least mention it. But it’s not only the funding cuts, it’s also the threats to journalists and human rights defenders that come when authoritarian regimes now take over. And you know, there’s this image of information deserts. So if journalism goes away, suddenly we have deserts or steppes or something like this. But the truth, it’s not dying out. It’s just that the whole space gets flooded with wrong and false and intentionally misleading information. So it’s more the idea of the mud sweeping across our spaces. And this is, I think, what we are up against. So for me, I’d like to highlight three aspects and I’ll go through each of them. The first is we need international frameworks. The second is we need to conduct fast and applied research to guide our strategies. And the third is that we need to strengthen partnerships for media viability and the survival of good quality information. So let me talk about the first, the international frameworks. For me, there are a number of frameworks that are of importance. The Media Freedom Coalition, the things UNESCO does. But at the moment, the most important process that you should all be aware of and you are aware of, obviously, is the VISTAs plus 20. And we should be, you know, the documents are for review since last Friday, I think. And it’s for me, it’s three things that are really important for the VISTAs plus 20. First of all, we need to make sure the basic human rights. The rights are strengthened in that document, especially freedom of expression in the, you know, line C9 for those of you who are involved. I think you should comment and strengthen this with your partners. Second is, of course, multi-stakeholder model is key. It’s not about states talking to each other. It’s about everybody being involved. It’s inclusive, human rights-based, human-centric, the type of multi-stakeholder at IGF that we want to advance also in the future. And then, of course, platform accountability is something that the WSIS 20 review should be insisting on, if you ask me. So, that’s my first point. The second point I’d like to make is research. I mean, the results Julia just highlighted are extraordinary. I’ve had the privilege to read her executive summary already and I’m really looking forward to reading the full report. It’s really in detail. It has a lot of, contains a lot of expertise from the people she interviewed and she got to roundtables. And it really will guide us and the Brazilian example is a brilliant one where we can all learn a lot. So, I think we need those kind of studies and I’d like to mention the state of media development report we as DW Academy have just published. It’s an overview of where international media development is at the moment. I can talk about it more later if you ask me to. And I’ll have a few copies if you want to have a look at where is media development at the moment going and what are the problems that we need to tackle. And my third and last point is the media viability manifesto initiative which is an example for really grassroots experts getting, coming together from, you know, I think over 20, you know, media development organizations really trying to say what can we do about media viability. And, of course, there’s no silver bullet in, you know, saving journalism and quality information. But there is now, thanks to this initiative, a common language. So, we have definitions of what we talk about when we talk sustainability, when we talk viability. And we have a common advocacy agenda and we know how to move forward. And, of course, we align, you know, practical implementation in the future which is really welcomed also by donors because they want…

Julia Haas: for also this very useful framing and additions and really pointing to the fact of the need to safeguard journalistic functions. So it’s not about just saving the newspapers nobody reads as we heard in the opening or something else, but it’s really when we speak about democracy and integrity, it’s really about how can we contain what journalism’s role is in society and in democracy. And I want to jump on one of the points that you said that of course the media development sector is now under additional strain also which means there is an increased need for better partnerships, for being more strategic, for being more focused, for really trying to identify also what specifically should be supported and invested to build a better and healthier information ecosystem. And that’s I think a perfect link to our next speaker and to Magnus Ag who is the head of public interest tech at IMS to really precisely try to do that, right? So to see, of course, the role of the media development sector is to help ensuring that journalism thrives ideally in all different contexts and under all different challenges, but then also really to look at what specifically can be done, how can technology be leveraged, how can we make sure that these big concentrated companies are not just taking over the information space, but to the contrary, how can alternatives be built that are sustainable in the best case scenario or that can be invested in to make sure that people can access the reliable and credible information that journalists are supposed to provide. So Magnus, it would be very interesting to hear from you, what is public interest tech maybe to start off with, and where do you see the role also of the media development sector with now this need for targeted action to support alternative infrastructures and to not only go to this assessment of the current ecosystem, it’s not in line with public interest, but what can we create alternative, how can we support and how can we catalyze also these maybe examples, local experiences and bring it to the international component?

Magnus Ag: Thank you so much, both for the questions, but also for I think for all of us to pull us together, we merged three panels in this and your work here has really been outstanding and you don’t get to say that as a moderator, but someone who’s been on the sideline of this, really grateful for that. And another one I just want to thank off the bat, Colette from my team who is on maternity leave now, have not given birth as far as I know, but looking online, thank you Colette for getting all of us here, you’ve really played a key role. Thank you to all of you panelists for being here, really excited for this conversation, I thought my contribution would try to limit it, but this solution focused, anchored on like three elements, IMS, what are we, information integrity, what do we see there, and then these alternative platforms, how does that fit into it? So just for the context, IMS is… next year 25 years of media development with a model of supporting good journalism, the production of it, the viability of it, the viability manifesto collaboration with Deutsche Welle and we of course very much aligned with Deutsche Welle on many many things so glad to be here on building on that. What Jan just said also the safety component key of course and then this enabling environment that over the years have changed it’s been very much safety at some point it’s still very much safety but of course digital environment is what dominates a lot so that’s kind of where I come from and where we do this development work and where we have our partners is in areas of crisis and conflict and democratic transition so the relationship with government are different and changing but not always easy so some of these conversations obviously interesting like what’s the perspective there from from those kind of places where you might not have the same level of trust in in your government and there looking at the solution is really exciting the journalist or others who building something they are so often the ones we kind of find inspiration from and that’s where this information integrity framing is is really welcomed by us in they are these journalists that we work with hit by disinformation the devastating consequences there they’re paralyzed sometimes or they’re targeted specifically business models challenge so the ability to fight back often limited and I think information integrity just hits at that what our partners are trying to do and whether or not to Guy Berger that many of you know and is our board chair now think of this as a field right you have a lot of weeds suddenly like the scale of the weeds growing in this field is just immense and you’re trying to to remove it but no farmer or gardener would stop there I just have an empty empty field you would see plant some seeds have some flowers some crops something that grows and nourishes and I think information integrity is really a helpful framing in like reminders of all that is not to not remove the weeds not to not have focused good disinformation efforts all around but it’s also a reminder that yeah there needs to be something some of that is good journalism it’s a treasure traditional sense. Some are other kind of good stuff that nurtures local democracy, local participation, conversation, etc. And that’s what we are here for to talk about. And I’m really excited for this solution focus on that. I think the challenge strategically and what we as an organization are trying to grasp, I would love to have input is this balancing between scale and local context, understanding and agency, right? Because when you look to the company and often when you talk platforms, you’re so blinded of how big Facebook is and like, what’s the alternative? Are we building the alternative Facebook? Probably not. What’s the Achilles heel of Facebook? Yeah, there’s many, but maybe also local context, understanding is pretty consistent there, right? So we as a media development organization, of course, have these wonderful partners that we have trust relationship with over 5, 10, 20 years into some extent that have this local trust and have this local understanding. They don’t have their Facebook platform and they don’t own it and they don’t have the capital to build it, but it’s not kind of rocket science by now to host some of these things. So that’s kind of how we came into talking about public interest infrastructure and that this hundred year tradition of journalism has a good understanding of some of what is in the public interest or how is the marginalized voice included when it functions the best and not a carte blanche to all journalism, but like when it functions, when it’s independent and when it’s anchored in local communities, it really has that power to change society or to link up with broader coalitions of other actors that uses that information for something. And we frame that then as public interest infrastructure, right? I’m really pleased with these processes and other global level conversations that kind of frames that and we really think our partners fundamentally are having something to contribute there. And it becomes kind of almost personally because there’s so much doom and gloom and for good reasons when you walk around these panels, I’m so privileged to then work at an organization that can focus and if you focus at a local level, at a local partner doing something, you may. Maybe macro developments are pretty devastating in that country or globally, but there’s like a little media house that is thriving or there’s a radio station that’s got a good community going on and I should stop talking actually because what it’s privileged here is also to then give the word to those organizations that are actually doing the stuff and often I go around on stages and talk about Jammy Africa and I’m sitting next to the founder so maybe I’ll flip it back to Julia to kind of ask the question but just for you guys to listen to what Maxence here has to say and then from a global perspective think of how do we scale that not necessarily like Max should take over the entire world but like similar initiative what do you see from with your hat on in a policy process somewhere that can scale or be copied or we can learn together come together and build something there that is better and it’s not that it’s all journalism but I’m pretty sure there’s a component there where good journalistic skills and ethics and methodology is helpful so with that over to Julia and hopefully then Max if you agree with that plan.

Julia Haas: Thank you so much also for your enthusiasm towards the topic I think this is also something that we that we often we need again right to see in this doom and gloom conversations we’re having to really see there is so much inspiring work out there so how can we scale it how can we better understand it and I mean you already introduced our next speaker but I just before handing over to you Max I think it’s really important what what at least comes to my mind now after hearing you speak Magnus is really this this integrity of information but also of the information spaces and the information ecosystem I think this is really what we’re talking about when when we go into this infrastructure and how platforms alternatives can be designed to make sure that information integrity flourishes but also because the system works right so the infrastructure and the platforms are really important and this I think is then the perfect introduction to our next speaker Max Melu Mubasi who is bringing the example Jami Africa that we already heard and if you can briefly of course introduce what this platform is and also specifically highlight maybe to build on what we heard before what are your lessons like what are really the things that that from the fantastic work you’ve been doing to really bring to this international community to say look this worked this hasn’t worked why has it worked why hasn’t it worked what can others learn from it so that we can really take it further and learn from the important work that you’ve been doing thank you so much.

Maxence Melo: Thanks julia um and thanks magnus um i’m not reading anything because once i read then i get lost um i’m maxence melo from tanzania um please do not search my name because you’ve come to realize that i’ve been in jail i’ve been um in courts for the work we do but we run an organization known as jami africa but we have several platforms uh the main one is known as forums the second one is jami check which is a citizen-centric approach of countering mis and disinformation we also have the stories of change platform which is a citizen-centric approach of having citizens including journalists to write meaningful content that can solve issues around the space that they are living in in especially in tanzania we also have another whistleblowing platform specifically designed to empower citizens to speak freely without fear while they are guaranteed over their anonymity we call it future world it’s a soil world and then we have a way an upcoming platform which is known as jami data that is designed to make sure that we decentralize data so jami africa works to have a more informed citizenry we work to have more responsive governments and also to have a participative citizen in the economic agenda so we have five approaches that we employ one is creating those digital platforms we we started back in 2002 And of course, by 2008, when the platform became more popular than even mainstream media in Tanzania, I got arrested. Then I was, authorities say that I was a terrorist back then, but also got arrested again, that you might find on the internet in 2016. And of course, they had three criminal cases against me for creating a space where citizens felt safe to have meaningful conversations. And what we do as a second approach is making sure that we entice citizens, including journalists, to make sure that they become citizens who are more informed to hold meaningful conversations. And that also led me into issues. But what we also do to make sure that we create safe spaces for people is creating, we have partnerships with mainstream media, and we have 46 community radios that we have signed agreements with, and we have trained over a thousand journalists, and we have over 500 journalists across the country that help us when we are fact-checking issues once they’re posted on the platform. Our main platform, Jamee Forums, reaches more than four million people per day. And with that, it becomes a local alternative for them to go hold meaningful conversations and remain safe. And of course, once I had those criminal cases from 2016 to 2020, I went to the court 159 times, and my bank accounts were frozen. I was not allowed to cross the borders of the city of Dar es Salaam. But in the end, the aim that we are pushing for as Jamee Forums was having safe spaces and making sure that we have a Personal Data Protection Act that safeguards people’s right to privacy, also making sure that we have a law. that guarantees people’s right to access to information. And as we speak, we have a Data Protection Act and I’m on the board of the Data Protection in Tanzania. But also we have an Access to Information Act which guarantees people’s right to go and ask for data. But the spaces that we have created, now we are expanding them to neighboring countries. We are now into Uganda, we are now getting into Rwanda, Kenya, DRC, and we are heading to Zimbabwe. The aim is having those local conversations in the local platforms. And whenever we go to countries, we don’t treat countries the same as we treat our Tanzania country. And what we do is making sure that whenever we go to a certain country, we do research in collaboration with CSOs, media actors, and state actors who are in the ecosystem that we work in. But also making sure that when we come up with the solution to works for the people, the reason is when you go to a certain region, the dynamics of a certain country are totally different from the country you’re serving. And that’s why when we are getting to Uganda, the kind of solutions that we are now providing into Uganda are totally different from Tanzania. Because I have only five minutes, I know I have only seconds, I have to end up there. Thank you so much for your introduction. I appreciate that, thank you so much.

Julia Haas: And I think this applause show to what I was about to say, but you heard it from everybody. Really thank you for your inspirational work and really for standing strong and for showing, I think also, all of us here in the room, but beyond that, of course, how all the individuals and communities with this citizen-centric, human-centric approach can really show how we can come together and we can foster information exchange and we can foster information integrity. And thank you very much for outlining it and obviously the work you do. The things that I think were really important, I mean, everything was really important to hear, I think, also for this room, but really a few aspects that you outlined, like this local approach, this multi-stakeholder approach, are really some of the key words that I think very nicely link also to these principles that we so much like to talk about in this international forum. You really show how it can be operationalized and how it can work on the ground. So I think this is really very inspirational to hear and also to learn from how to take this forward. Another thing that you mentioned that I think is really important is that you focus on the platforms and spaces for these meaningful conversations work for people. And I think this is really to link it back to what public interest is about, right? And what the journalistic function is about. It’s about holding power to account. It’s about enabling people to have meaningful conversation, bringing people together. So I think this is really a nice framing now after we heard from all of our speakers. We now have about like half an hour to still discuss, and this is really the intention. I know you’ve heard now a lot from our fantastic speakers, a lot of different experiences, examples on the regional, local level, on the international level, the initiatives that are ongoing. But we would really also like to bring all of you in if you think there are specific additional aspects, national examples you would want to inform us about, inform the room about. Also, of course, if you have specific questions or something else to share. I also maybe should introduce, and apologies for only doing it now, Juliana Oms from NIC Brazil, who will also look at the online site in case there are any questions or comments. And please also feel free for those following online to post something there. So I don’t know if there is already an immediate reaction. Otherwise, while you’re all thinking, I would want to bounce back kind of like a question that came up now. For me, at least. Thank you so much for listening to all of you. And this morning, actually, I looked at Germany-Africa at the strategic plan and kind of like the promotional informational material you have online. And you have there three key words that you say are framing kind of like your approach, which is inform, engage and empower. Excellent. And I think this really is for me, really, first of all, of course, a powerful statement that this is really everything you’re aiming to do. But this is also how I at least would define journalism. Right. This is the role of journalism, of information integrity and bringing it all together. So this is maybe a question now to you or to all of you, whether we also because we heard Jan also saying before we need to safeguard the journalistic function. So in this conversation on information integrity, how can we frame it around the role that be it now states or others can really to take to foster this inform, engage and empower perspective to journalistic function in the information integrity space? So I don’t know if you still want to add something here and then maybe also the other speakers want to jump on that as well. Thanks.

Maxence Melo: Thanks, Julia. Why we have inform, engage, empower. After I came out of the cases against me, which some of the cases I won and didn’t go public, we came to realize that we need to also have empathy. And it’s very key. When I was having cases, I managed to interact with the police, some state actors, some citizens, some media actors. One of the things that I came to realize that actually some of them were wrongly informed and some of them we needed to engage them and some of them needed to be empowered. So in whatever kind of activities that we are doing as Jamii Africa, we inform our actors, be it media actors, be it citizens, be it state actors and CSOs to make sure that they are informed. We came to realize we were sublowing staffs, and we came to realize once citizens were sublowing staffs, there was no response. Now, we created that tool, a sublowing tool, to become an instant impact tool. And for it to work, state actors were supposed to be responsive. You cannot have a responsive government without engaging it, without informing them, and also empowering them how to respond. After we started the Future World Tool, in Tanzania they call it TIMDAO, state actors started responding. But it’s after starting the trainings to communication officers from the government’s side, in a nutshell.

Julia Haas: Thank you for that. I think this is also an important aspect that also we briefly touched upon yesterday, and now you mentioned this cooperation with parts of the government, and I think this is really important to consider, especially in a context where you said you were imprisoned, you’re facing all these court cases, that still there are specific actors or individuals or specific bodies that you think is important to collaborate with, and to really trying to find also creative partnerships with those who are willing to drive information integrity forward. And this is, I think, also a lesson learned for this room. Yes, but please.

Maxence Melo: I wanted to add something so that when someone is reacting to this can be helpful to others. In our process we came to realize there are times when we want to engage or partner, and there are times when we need to disengage. And there are times when we need to collaborate, partner, and of course align. So in that process you need to know that there are partners with whom you can align without partnership, there are other actors whom you can partner with a partnership kind of agreement and there are partners whom you can have some kind of collaboration but without any kind of partnership or alignment. So once you’re having this, you need to know times when you have to disengage. There are partners that were from state actors that we decided to disengage when we came to realize it’s not working the way it used to work.

Julia Haas: Yeah, and this I think again points to the fact of needing to understand the local context very well. Yes, Magnus.

Magnus Ag: Yeah, and maybe building on that because all this great and we’re super support the multi-stakeholder approach and why we are here, I think the complexity of it is vast and when you put a meta person in the conversation and a global level is a certain level of conversation, some of the complexity at least for me, it’s not removed, it’s pretty complex what Max is doing there. But getting it to a certain geography, a certain community, I think we should remember when we talk multi-stakeholder, it’s not always to be up here at the global. The global is important and I think from IMS perspective, the kind of UN guidelines and the safety of journalists is a good example of a really good framework agreed at this kind of level and these kind of bodies. But then the value further on is then what’s the national mechanism? What are we implementing with local partners? And there are the very specific kind of understanding what is the actor and maybe what’s the actor this month who might not be the actor the next month and maybe with the tech ambassador when the war broke out in Ukraine, we had a relationship there and we have partners all over the world trying to reach big tech, suddenly geopolitical logics there were so the big companies actually showed up. But it’s just rare when you’re in the local context, they really want to send kind of director level to listen to local partners. But thanks to the tech ambassador and her great work and she hosted those kind of roundtables, we were able to do something. But it was still what the company came for there was the local context understanding. They had not mapped out who’s who in Ukraine and what are the credible voices. So they were eager to listen and facilitate with us. That’s then…

Beatriz Barbosa: battle among the big Journalist companies and the local journalism and we saw this in Brazil during the one of the debates in the parliament for journalism remuneration When we started to debate, okay, we’re going to tax platforms. Are we going to have a bargaining code who is going to bargain? Who is going to be at the table to negotiate with the platform is going to be global For example is the big Brazilian companies almost like a monopoly in Brazil Are we going to be the local journalism? Because of course we have a stark problem of media ownership concentration in Brazil There can cannot be Strength in this process. Otherwise, we’re gonna have some funds coming from platforms for example, but it’s going to be for this It’s going to be given to the same big companies that always Rule the journalism in Brazil So, how can we be able to take advantage of this kind of process at this moment to really? democratize at the media debate and and foster and support local initiatives And and fight against the news desert that we have everywhere. So we need a state at this point Otherwise, it’s gonna be the local journalist Journalists not even local media even Individuals that are doing their job by themselves Having to fight The national companies that have always be able to get all the money available for journalism Initiatives in the country.

Julia Haas: No, this is essential and I think it links to what we started off with to really say It’s about pluralism. Yeah, right So also state interventions need to make sure that the aim is pluralism and it’s not backfiring to again like not localizing and not Heading to diversity. So thank you very much. Now. We will please I think yeah, we sorry Give us a second so we can put on our headphones. But yes, please go ahead you.

Pavel Antonov: Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me. I’m Pavel Antonov with Blue Link Think and Action Network in Bulgaria. Thank you very much for making me feel home in this panel as a former journalist in television who has made the journey all the way to supporting civil society in the digital communication field. I have a question for you all. Since we are discussing the distinct ability of journalism to abide to certain norms which serve society and public interest, and these norms unfortunately have been in retreat over the past decades as we can observe, how would you think and would you support a grassroots initiative which is shaping that we try, apart from defending the field, as you are all doing and thank you for that, to also advance a bit with these norms, the package of norms which used to apply in good watchdog journalism onto society out there, onto the civil society communications in the form of self-regulation perhaps, we can think of other means as well, but try to use the same package of norms outside of the journalistic field. Thank you.

Julia Haas: Thank you very much. I mean I think this is what also the conversation about information integrity is maybe a useful starting point. I see that there are more statements, so maybe I will collect a few and then we can discuss them together so you don’t have to stand around if that’s fine for everybody. Then please go ahead.

Anna Luhmann: Thank you very much. My name is Anna Luhmann. I’m a member of parliament from Germany and my question actually feeds right into what Beatrice just said. What is the role for state actors in all of this? If we talk about now finding revenues for quality journalism, for independent journalism, these revenues, if they are collected by a state authority, then who makes the decision exactly like which media outlet gets it? And this in a day and age where actually the well-established public broadcasters are under a lot of attack and scrutiny. So what kind of mechanisms do you think are needed? What mechanisms do you think are good practice for this kind of debate that is just starting in Germany, by the way? We just started a debate about raising revenue from the ads of the big platforms. But the question is then, OK, then what? Who makes the decisions and what do you think are good models here? Thank you.

Julia Haas: Thank you so much. Yes, please go ahead.

Larry Maggott: Hi, my name is Larry Maggott. I’m CEO of ConnectSafely, which is an Internet safety organization. But during my career as a journalist, I’ve worked for The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, BBC, CBS News, as in some cases a contractor. And during that period, like every human being, I’ve made two or three mistakes over the years. And they were devastating. I mean, silly mistakes. I mean, once I accidentally referred to Macron as prime minister rather than president. And I was horrified that I had made an error and went to great lengths to make sure that this was CBS News, that they corrected it. Yet my MAGA friends are convinced that we in the mainstream media are full of lies and misinformation, even though that’s a fireable offense in any major newspaper or broadcast to deliberately mislead your audience. How do we convince people? How do we make the case that those of us, in my case formerly, and those who are actively working in journalism are working very hard to tell the truth, independent of whatever ideology you happen to subscribe to?

Julia Haas: Thanks a lot. So very easy questions. Thank you very much. Just to repeat briefly. So the first one was really pointing to the fact of the need of like having this professional standards, this like good norms of watchdogs and whether this could be advanced from the journalism sector to also civil society and society at large. The second question was a very important one of what is the role of the state? And to also just make sure that if if states in general, intervention wants to address this undue power of the big players that then it doesn’t lead to undue state control, right? So I think this is a very important question. And I would really love to also follow up after the session with you. And then the third one, which I think is maybe the most difficult one, I’m not sure whether we’re going to find an easy response to how to really foster in this whole conversation the essential role of journalism, of truth finding, of being fact based, evidence based, and not only. And I think if as a moderator, I will allow myself apologies to say one sentence on it, which is something how the OECE, we were approaching it to also try to frame the conversation on literacy. Now, there’s a lot of conversation, right? Literacy, media literacy, digital literacy, information literacy, which is very much about increasing individuals’ capacity to understand how not only what is wrong and what is right, but rather to understand how it all works, right? Where information comes from. And an aspect that we at the OECE try to add on to that is to also have media freedom literacy to help to better explain really the role that media and independent journalism and the journalistic function plays for democracy, for society and for everybody. So this was just one addition from my side. But then I will open up. I don’t know. We can also do a round. Maybe we still have like 15 minutes. Maybe each of you want to reply to some of the questions, also make some additions. Yes. Yeah. Please go ahead.

Jan Lublinski: Well, I can make a start. I don’t think I can ad hoc immediately answer it fully. But the first question, of course, this depends a lot on national context and culture that is already established, as you know, I’m probably not telling you something new here. But then you can use the international norms and things that are well established and then then have, again, a multi-stakeholder dialogue on what is now relevant and what needs to be put forward. It doesn’t always have to be as big, as grandiose as the Internet Governance Forum, but it can be a national initiative towards reshaping. The agenda and I’m quite optimistic that these these things can actually work The second question on the role of state support and not interference. I think it’s an important question But I think we have to differentiate between media that are Financially independent and those that are editorially independent, right? So I think it is important it is possible to in Nowadays that we are to face it that media sometimes needs support and public service broadcasting is one example for that, right? And yet we have established with public service broadcasters the idea that they must be editorially independent And there’s provisions for that and the same holds true for other public interest media, which is what we’re looking after, right? It’s the media that serve a public function as I said And there we of course then cannot only have the state actors or the ministries decide on how the money is being spent But they then need to engage different actors again Multi-stakeholders to discuss how in a given context this is best done and I’d like to stress there’s a role for the intermediaries here Like IMS like DW Academy for the development context There are other intermediaries for national contexts that have the expertise and the independence to then, you know advance on these matters That’s the first attempt as an answer. I’m sure you have other aspects and And So either third third was on media literacy. I think that’s an important component. I mean, it’s it’s all about Not only the you know, the classic journalist that is the gatekeeper and sends out this information It’s the dialogue with you with the educated audience Obviously that like we use the UNESCO term the media information literacy, which is not just an educative thing But it to me it’s a quite a political thing. It’s about critical thinking It’s about enabling as Max says right enabling people to take it into their own hands and to discuss the advocacy on their access to information on the as you say Julia the media freedom literacy so the knowing

Julia Haas: Thank you very much for the outline. Also for safeguards. Yes, Renata, please.

Renata Mieli: Just two things. I think regarding the norms and the challenges we are facing when we talk about public interest journalism, whatever it is, I think we have a challenge regarding the journalism schools. And this is not… we didn’t talk about this, we didn’t have time to do it. So I want to point something regarding this. We are not training or preparing our journalists to face the challenges we have nowadays. And the schools are… We are stuck in the last century, I think. What we are seeing, unfortunately, is journalism adapting to the format and standards of communication imposed by the big techs. Seeking headlines and approaches that generate more clicks. And this is very, very bad for our proposal regarding all the discussions because it’s not only about the remuneration, it’s not only about the framework, but we are talking about how to form people to produce a good content, a quality content. And these schools have an important role on that. So I think we have a homework to do regarding the formation of journalists and this needs to be done side by side with the literacy initiatives. I want to point about the role of the states. I think BIA brings some initiatives, but I think there is a plenty of initiatives that governments can use to foster a more diverse ecosystem. In Brazil, I want to remember an initiative we had in, I don’t know, previously government Lula, we call Lula 1 or 2, I don’t know, to create public calls for proposals to support local independent media that we call free media points. And that I start because focus on communities. And this is very important and it’s another approach to foster public interest journalism. Thank you very much.

Julia Haas: So all have a role to play from journalists, to states, to civil society, to all of us. Thank you. Magnus?

Magnus Ag: Yes, very good question. I’m really grateful for the kind of level of this conversation. I think for the first one, Blue Link was, well, Gary, if I understood it right, really interested in these kind of cell regulation and other good norms. And what we’re trying to do with some of these collaborations, also with alternative platforms that are a little like side to classic journalism is, what is it that the journalistic tradition actually did over a hundred years or wherever you frame it, that worked? And how does that look when you now have digital technology that at many levels is amazing? You can listen to your audience, your community, understand, engage in a way you just couldn’t with a paper newspaper. That in itself is a good development. Then we have all the big tech complexities around it. But that, I think, and for that, it’s not an easy task. We were actually starting an initiative with Jami and with Splice Media, some of you might know from Singapore, that we call Good Commons, and kind of exactly looking at what is it? It’s not that all of it will be journalistic products and solutions, but there’s something from journalism. That’s our claim to be part of it. But what the Good Commons kind of spaces we can create are there. Very newly, just working on it, but goodcommons.world, we really want to hear from people who are building something. So this sounds like very much like we should connect after. On the state responsibility, I think, frame it two ways, and the kind of democratic functioning Germany version of it, I think the synergies here, and in a truly post-colonial, like someone like Max have solved some of this already. We can listen, and we can learn there. And then as privileged states, I live in Copenhagen, Denmark. Think through synergies, like the development mechanisms you have, are they also, when you now think of the German solution to this, there are definitely synergies. We are in the same digital spaces, we are facing the same kind of issues around disinformation undermined business model. So even though we work a lot in Afghanistan, for example, I don’t think we talk to that government on how to kind of allocate funds from big tech, right? There’s a different solution there, but that it plays into the German conversation with big tech and taxation. I think it’s crucial for us to find those synergies. And Larry Maggett, CBS, or multiple outlets, but the CBS component there, not easy, but what I think young people, they hear CBS news and they don’t really trust it, or it’s not really a brand that kind of generates anything for them. I think one of the things I see with Maxence we’re doing is really listening, where are the young people now? And I think they trust the Jammie Africa brand because they see action happening. And I’m not saying, I’m deep admiration for CBS and the long history of what’s been going on, journalistic there, and come out of a media development tradition, of course. But an ability to meet people where they are, and an example of what Jammie’s doing, like the pothole in the road, right? People post on Jammie forums, there’s a hole in my road. And they see action, right? And that is taken and delivered to a government agency or some office, and maybe the whole is fixed, and not all journalism is that simple, or maybe that is not even journalism. But when you add a little bit of the complexity to a problem solved, there’s something there in trying to listen and really understand, because it’s not that young people don’t want to be informed. You saw during COVID some of the credible outlets and kind of thorough reporting, really got traction because people got to navigate, and they want to make good, healthy decisions for their own lives. I don’t think people don’t want that. That has not changed. They’re just doing it in different ways. And I think something like Jammie is kind of clever in how they approach that, because that’s difficult, but it is also a new opportunity.

Julia Haas: Thank you.

Maxence Melo: Thank you. In less than a minute. I’m not alone. I have a team of 55 behind me at Jammie Africa. But fact-checking in the digital age is a bit tough. That’s why we have initiatives with five universities in Tanzania, journalism schools. So we train journalists on the use of AI in the digital age when it comes to information fact-checking. But we have cases which are a bit tough. When you’re fact-checking a president,

Julia Haas: Thank you so much. I think this is perfect timing. So I will just take the last 20 seconds to try to, obviously it’s not possible to summarize, but this was really an incredibly rich discussion. So I’m just going to say what I’m going to take from this conversation is really, I think one of the key aspects, there is no one size fits all, but we really have to look at the local context, even if we have these principles that of course apply everybody. There is an important role of the state, but also to ensure meaningful multi-stakeholderism and synergies that I think were also pointed to. And then something that we have to uphold is really the central role of journalism in the conversation on information integrity. And then I want to add on the sentence that was inspired by something that Magnus said before. I think that all of us really have a role to play in seeding the democratic seed by investing in journalism, information integrity and alternative platforms. So please join me in thanking the fantastic panels and also the audience. Thank you so much for your contribution. Thank you.

Agreement points

Democracy requires informed citizens and healthy information environments beyond just voting

Speakers

– Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard
– Renata Mieli
– Julia Haas

Arguments

Democracy is not just an act of voting but something exercised daily through informed discussion and exchanging different views and opinions. This requires a healthy and sound information environment that allows for creativity, expression, and democratic debate.

Information integrity is a central pillar of both democracy and human rights, essential for building sustainable democratic societies. The erosion of shared frameworks guided by trust, credibility, and public interest seriously threatens the foundation of democratic societies.

Media freedom literacy is needed to help people understand journalism’s role in democracy and society

Summary

All speakers agree that democracy is a daily practice requiring informed citizens with access to diverse, credible information in healthy information environments, not just periodic voting.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Big tech companies have excessive power concentration that undermines information integrity

Speakers

– Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard
– Renata Mieli
– Beatriz Barbosa
– Julia Haas

Arguments

The system is under pressure due to business models that are still not serving public interest when it comes to information integrity

Big tech companies control the flow of information in society with unprecedented influence, and this power concentration has led to serious consequences including attempted coups, electoral interference, hate speech, and harmful content exposure to children

Two companies (Google and Meta) hold a dominant global position in the distribution of news and information, with their technical, political and institutional decisions determining what information 5 billion people have access to daily through hyper-personalization of content

Current information ecosystem structure prevents information integrity due to power concentration

Summary

There is strong consensus that big tech companies have concentrated too much power over information distribution, creating serious threats to democracy and information integrity.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Multi-stakeholder approaches are essential for addressing information integrity challenges

Speakers

– Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard
– Renata Mieli
– Jan Lublinski
– Magnus Ag

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model is essential for addressing information integrity challenges

National measures alone are insufficient – coordinated multi-stakeholder efforts are needed

International frameworks like WSIS+20 review should strengthen basic human rights and platform accountability

Multi-stakeholder approaches work at local levels, not just global forums

Summary

All speakers emphasize that solving information integrity problems requires collaboration across different stakeholder groups at both local and international levels.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Journalism serves essential democratic functions that must be preserved

Speakers

– Jan Lublinski
– Magnus Ag
– Julia Haas
– Maxence Melo

Arguments

Journalism serves three key functions: understanding the world through information, holding power to account, and enabling dialogue in society

Public interest infrastructure should be anchored in local communities with journalistic ethics and methodology

Media freedom literacy is needed to help people understand journalism’s role in democracy and society

Jamii Forums reaches over 4 million people daily as a local alternative for meaningful conversations

Summary

There is consensus that journalism plays vital democratic functions including informing citizens, holding power accountable, and enabling public dialogue that must be protected and supported.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Local context and community understanding are crucial for effective information integrity solutions

Speakers

– Magnus Ag
– Maxence Melo
– Jan Lublinski

Arguments

Alternative platforms can leverage local trust and understanding as advantages over global platforms

Local platforms must adapt to specific country dynamics rather than treating all countries the same

Financial independence doesn’t always mean editorial independence – public support can work with proper safeguards

Summary

Speakers agree that effective solutions must be tailored to local contexts and built on community trust rather than applying one-size-fits-all approaches.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from Brazil emphasize the need for regulatory frameworks that hold platforms accountable while protecting information rights, showing alignment on Brazil’s policy approach.

Speakers

– Renata Mieli
– Beatriz Barbosa

Arguments

Brazil is developing due diligence obligations for platforms and frameworks for proportional accountability

Regulation should protect right to information and promote accuracy, credibility, and reliability of content

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers recognize the financial sustainability crisis facing journalism and the need for new funding mechanisms to support quality journalism.

Speakers

– Beatriz Barbosa
– Jan Lublinski

Arguments

Three compensation models are being discussed: copyright remuneration, bargaining agreements, and platform taxation for public journalism funds

Development funding for media is being severely cut, creating additional challenges

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers identify significant gaps in journalism education and training, particularly regarding digital age challenges and new technologies.

Speakers

– Renata Mieli
– Maxence Melo

Arguments

Journalism schools are stuck in the last century and not preparing journalists for current challenges

Training journalists on AI use in digital age fact-checking is essential

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Unexpected consensus

State role in supporting journalism while maintaining editorial independence

Speakers

– Jan Lublinski
– Renata Mieli
– Anna Luhmann

Arguments

Financial independence doesn’t always mean editorial independence – public support can work with proper safeguards

States can foster diverse ecosystems through public calls supporting local independent media

Asked about the role of state actors in collecting revenues from platforms for journalism and what mechanisms are needed to decide which media outlets receive funding

Explanation

Despite traditional concerns about state interference in media, there was unexpected consensus that states can play a positive role in supporting journalism financially while maintaining editorial independence through proper safeguards and multi-stakeholder mechanisms.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Importance of alternative platforms and local solutions over global platform reform

Speakers

– Magnus Ag
– Maxence Melo
– Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard

Arguments

Alternative platforms can leverage local trust and understanding as advantages over global platforms

Jamii Forums reaches over 4 million people daily as a local alternative for meaningful conversations

I am delighted to see the number of new platforms that are taking that quest of saying, we don’t have to use the only big two, three, four platforms

Explanation

Rather than focusing solely on regulating existing big tech platforms, there was unexpected consensus on the potential of building alternative platforms that serve local communities better, suggesting a shift from reform to replacement strategies.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on core issues: the essential role of journalism in democracy, the problematic concentration of power in big tech companies, the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, and the importance of local context in solutions. There was also agreement on the need for new funding mechanisms for journalism and the importance of proper safeguards when states support media.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with strong implications for coordinated action. The agreement spans different stakeholder groups (government, civil society, media development, platforms) and different regions, suggesting potential for effective international cooperation on information integrity initiatives. The consensus on both problems and solution approaches provides a solid foundation for policy development and implementation.

Different viewpoints

State role in funding journalism distribution and decision-making authority

Speakers

– Beatriz Barbosa
– Anna Luhmann

Arguments

States can foster diverse ecosystems through public calls supporting local independent media

Asked about the role of state actors in collecting revenues from platforms for journalism and what mechanisms are needed to decide which media outlets receive funding, particularly given attacks on public broadcasters

Summary

Beatriz advocates for state-led public calls to support local independent media, while Anna raises concerns about state decision-making power in determining which media outlets receive platform-derived funding, questioning the mechanisms and safeguards needed.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Media concentration concerns in compensation mechanisms

Speakers

– Beatriz Barbosa
– Renata Mieli

Arguments

Three compensation models are being discussed: copyright remuneration, bargaining agreements, and platform taxation for public journalism funds

States can foster diverse ecosystems through public calls supporting local independent media

Summary

While both discuss compensation mechanisms, Beatriz specifically warns about the risk of compensation going to big media companies that already dominate Brazilian journalism rather than supporting local initiatives, whereas Renata focuses more broadly on state support mechanisms without addressing concentration concerns.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Trust-building approaches for journalism credibility

Speakers

– Larry Maggott
– Magnus Ag

Arguments

Mainstream media faces trust challenges, especially among young people who seek action-oriented information sources

Alternative platforms can leverage local trust and understanding as advantages over global platforms

Explanation

This represents an unexpected philosophical divide about how to rebuild trust in journalism. Larry, from traditional mainstream media, struggles with how to convince people of journalism’s commitment to truth despite making occasional honest mistakes. Magnus, however, suggests that young people trust alternative platforms like Jamii Africa because they see tangible action and results, implying that traditional media’s approach to building trust through accuracy alone may be insufficient.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on major issues (big tech dominance, need for information integrity, importance of local context) with disagreements primarily focused on implementation mechanisms rather than fundamental goals. Key tensions emerged around state roles in funding distribution, media concentration risks, and approaches to rebuilding public trust in journalism.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic significance. While speakers largely agreed on problems and principles, the implementation disagreements are crucial for policy development. The debates around state funding mechanisms and trust-building approaches represent fundamental choices that will shape the future of information integrity initiatives. These disagreements suggest a need for more detailed frameworks and safeguards in policy implementation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from Brazil emphasize the need for regulatory frameworks that hold platforms accountable while protecting information rights, showing alignment on Brazil’s policy approach.

Speakers

– Renata Mieli
– Beatriz Barbosa

Arguments

Brazil is developing due diligence obligations for platforms and frameworks for proportional accountability

Regulation should protect right to information and promote accuracy, credibility, and reliability of content

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers recognize the financial sustainability crisis facing journalism and the need for new funding mechanisms to support quality journalism.

Speakers

– Beatriz Barbosa
– Jan Lublinski

Arguments

Three compensation models are being discussed: copyright remuneration, bargaining agreements, and platform taxation for public journalism funds

Development funding for media is being severely cut, creating additional challenges

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers identify significant gaps in journalism education and training, particularly regarding digital age challenges and new technologies.

Speakers

– Renata Mieli
– Maxence Melo

Arguments

Journalism schools are stuck in the last century and not preparing journalists for current challenges

Training journalists on AI use in digital age fact-checking is essential

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Key takeaways

Information integrity is fundamental to democracy and requires daily informed discussion in healthy information environments, not just periodic voting

Big tech power concentration (particularly Google and Meta) undermines information integrity by controlling information flow to 5 billion people daily with business models prioritizing engagement over truth

Journalism serves three essential democratic functions: helping understand the world through information, holding power accountable, and enabling societal dialogue

Local context matters – there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and alternative platforms must adapt to specific country dynamics and community needs

Multi-stakeholder approaches are essential at both global and local levels, involving government, civil society, media, and international organizations

Media sustainability requires new financial models including copyright remuneration, bargaining agreements with platforms, and public funding mechanisms with proper safeguards

Alternative platforms like Jamii Africa demonstrate that local solutions can successfully create spaces for meaningful democratic conversation and citizen engagement

States have important roles in supporting media viability while maintaining editorial independence through intermediary organizations and proper regulatory frameworks

Information integrity should be based on principles of trust, agency, and diversity rather than just combating disinformation

Media literacy and media freedom literacy are crucial for helping citizens understand journalism’s role in democracy

Resolutions and action items

OSCE to publish policy recommendations for states on information integrity in September 2024

Continue international cooperation through frameworks like WSIS+20 review to strengthen human rights and platform accountability

Expand Jamii Africa model to neighboring countries (Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, DRC, Zimbabwe) with locally-adapted approaches

Develop Good Commons initiative (goodcommons.world) to connect people building alternative platforms and solutions

Train journalists on AI use in digital age fact-checking through partnerships with universities

Strengthen partnerships between media development organizations and local platforms for scaling successful models

Implement Brazil’s AI regulation bill provisions for fair compensation when copyrighted material is used to train AI systems

Continue multi-stakeholder dialogue on platform regulation principles through Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s open consultation

Unresolved issues

How to define ‘journalistic content’ and determine who should be compensated (journalists vs. media outlets) in platform remuneration schemes

What specific content should be remunerated by platforms (links, snippets, full articles) and whether entertainment journalism should be included

How to ensure platform taxation and compensation mechanisms support local/independent media rather than reinforcing existing media concentration

How to rebuild public trust in mainstream journalism, particularly among young people who are skeptical of traditional media brands

How to balance state support for media with avoiding government capture or political pressure on regulatory bodies

How to scale successful local alternative platform models internationally while maintaining local context sensitivity

How to extend journalistic professional standards and norms to broader civil society communications

How to address the challenge that journalism schools are not adequately preparing journalists for current digital challenges

Suggested compromises

Differentiate between financial independence and editorial independence – allow public support for media with proper safeguards to ensure editorial independence

Use intermediary organizations (like media development agencies) to allocate public funds rather than direct government distribution to maintain independence

Implement graduated approaches to platform engagement – knowing when to align, partner, collaborate, or disengage based on changing circumstances

Combine traditional journalism standards with new digital engagement methods that meet audiences where they are

Balance global frameworks and principles with local implementation that respects specific country contexts and needs

Integrate journalism training with broader media and information literacy initiatives to address both supply and demand sides of information integrity

Pursue synergies between domestic policy solutions (like platform taxation) and international development mechanisms to address shared digital challenges

Democracy is not an act of voting. Democracy is something that we exercise on a daily basis, an informed discussion, exchanging different views and opinions and doing it in an information environment that is healthy and sound and sprawling and allows for that creativity, expression and for a democratic debate.

Speaker

Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard

Reason

This reframes democracy from a periodic electoral process to a continuous daily practice dependent on information integrity. It establishes the foundational premise that information ecosystems are not just technical infrastructure but the bedrock of democratic society itself.

Impact

This comment set the philosophical foundation for the entire discussion, shifting focus from technical solutions to democratic imperatives. It influenced subsequent speakers to frame their contributions around democratic participation and citizen empowerment rather than just media economics or platform regulation.

It’s not about saving media houses per se, it’s about saving the function of journalism. So, it’s about understanding the world where we are through information. First function, second function is for me, holding power to account still, who else does it if not journalists? And the third is enabling dialogue in society.

Speaker

Jan Lublinski

Reason

This comment crystallizes the core issue by distinguishing between institutional preservation and functional preservation. It provides a clear framework for understanding journalism’s societal role beyond commercial considerations.

Impact

This functional framing became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple speakers referencing the need to preserve journalistic functions rather than just supporting media businesses. It helped focus the conversation on public interest rather than industry protection.

There are times when we want to engage or partner, and there are times when we need to disengage. And there are times when we need to collaborate, partner, and of course align. So in that process you need to know that there are partners with whom you can align without partnership, there are other actors whom you can partner with a partnership kind of agreement and there are partners whom you can have some kind of collaboration but without any kind of partnership or alignment.

Speaker

Maxence Melo

Reason

This nuanced view of stakeholder relationships challenges the often simplistic ‘multi-stakeholder’ rhetoric by acknowledging the complexity and strategic nature of partnerships, especially in challenging political contexts. It provides practical wisdom from someone who has faced imprisonment for their work.

Impact

This comment added crucial complexity to the multi-stakeholder discussion, moving beyond idealistic collaboration models to acknowledge power dynamics and strategic considerations. It influenced the conversation to become more realistic about implementation challenges and the need for contextual approaches.

When we started to debate, okay, we’re going to tax platforms. Are we going to have a bargaining code who is going to bargain? Who is going to be at the table to negotiate with the platform is going to be global For example is the big Brazilian companies almost like a monopoly in Brazil Are we going to be the local journalism? Because of course we have a stark problem of media ownership concentration in Brazil There can cannot be Strength in this process. Otherwise, we’re gonna have some funds coming from platforms for example, but it’s going to be for this It’s going to be given to the same big companies that always Rule the journalism in Brazil

Speaker

Beatriz Barbosa

Reason

This comment reveals a critical paradox in platform regulation – that solutions designed to support journalism might actually reinforce existing media monopolies rather than promoting pluralism. It highlights how power concentration exists at multiple levels.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from simple platform-vs-journalism dynamics to more complex multi-layered power structures. It influenced subsequent comments about the need for careful state intervention design and the importance of supporting local and independent media rather than just ‘journalism’ broadly.

We are not training or preparing our journalists to face the challenges we have nowadays. And the schools are… We are stuck in the last century, I think. What we are seeing, unfortunately, is journalism adapting to the format and standards of communication imposed by the big techs. Seeking headlines and approaches that generate more clicks.

Speaker

Renata Mieli

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental structural problem – that journalism education itself may be perpetuating the problems the discussion aims to solve. It suggests that the crisis goes deeper than platform economics to professional formation and standards.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of solutions beyond regulation and funding to include educational reform. It added a generational and institutional dimension to the discussion, suggesting that sustainable change requires reforming how journalists are trained, not just how they are funded or regulated.

Yet my MAGA friends are convinced that we in the mainstream media are full of lies and misinformation, even though that’s a fireable offense in any major newspaper or broadcast to deliberately mislead your audience. How do we convince people? How do we make the case that those of us… are working very hard to tell the truth, independent of whatever ideology you happen to subscribe to?

Speaker

Larry Maggott

Reason

This personal reflection from an experienced journalist exposes the crisis of trust that undermines all technical and regulatory solutions. It highlights the gap between journalistic professional standards and public perception, showing how the information integrity crisis is also a crisis of institutional credibility.

Impact

This comment brought the discussion back to fundamental questions of trust and legitimacy that technical solutions cannot address. It prompted responses about media literacy, community engagement, and the need for journalism to demonstrate value through action rather than just professional credentials.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about platform regulation into a deeper examination of democratic infrastructure and social trust. The most impactful comments challenged simplistic framings – moving from ‘saving journalism’ to ‘preserving democratic functions,’ from ‘multi-stakeholder cooperation’ to ‘strategic relationship management,’ and from ‘regulating platforms’ to ‘avoiding regulatory capture.’ The discussion evolved from problem identification to nuanced solution design, with speakers building on each other’s insights to reveal the multi-layered complexity of information integrity challenges. The comments from practitioners like Maxence Melo and Larry Maggott grounded theoretical discussions in lived experience, while policy perspectives from Brazil demonstrated how good intentions can have unintended consequences. Together, these interventions created a sophisticated dialogue that acknowledged both the urgency of the information integrity crisis and the complexity of sustainable solutions.

How do we ensure better platform accountability and accountability in this community?

Speaker

Anne-Marie Engtoft Meldgaard

Explanation

This was identified as a key challenge in moving the needle on information integrity over the next five years

What are the different angles and approaches states could take to ensure due prominence to journalism without risking further entrenchment of power or political capture?

Speaker

Julia Haas

Explanation

This addresses the complex balance between making quality journalism visible while avoiding unintended consequences

How can we conceptualize journalistic content and establish who should be remunerated – the journalist or the media outlets?

Speaker

Beatriz Barbosa

Explanation

This is identified as one of the key difficulties in implementing compensation frameworks for journalism

What should be remunerated by platforms – the publication of a link, snippets, or other forms of journalist content?

Speaker

Beatriz Barbosa

Explanation

This represents a fundamental controversy in developing fair compensation mechanisms

Should entertainment journalism be included in remuneration rules?

Speaker

Beatriz Barbosa

Explanation

This question highlights the need to define boundaries in compensation frameworks

How do we strike the right balance between freedom of expression and accountability in regulating digital ecosystems?

Speaker

Renata Mieli

Explanation

This requires international cooperation and coordinated multi-stakeholder efforts

How do we balance scale and local context understanding and agency in building alternative platforms?

Speaker

Magnus Ag

Explanation

This addresses the strategic challenge of creating alternatives to big tech platforms while maintaining local relevance

How would you support a grassroots initiative to advance journalistic norms onto civil society communications through self-regulation?

Speaker

Pavel Antonov

Explanation

This explores extending professional journalism standards beyond the journalism field to broader society

What mechanisms are needed for state actors to make decisions about which media outlets receive revenues collected from platforms?

Speaker

Anna Luhmann

Explanation

This addresses the critical governance question of how to distribute platform-derived funds to media without state interference

How do we convince people that mainstream media journalists are working hard to tell the truth, independent of ideology?

Speaker

Larry Maggott

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of rebuilding trust in professional journalism amid widespread skepticism

How can journalism schools be reformed to prepare journalists for current digital challenges?

Speaker

Renata Mieli

Explanation

This identifies a gap in journalism education that needs to be addressed to maintain quality journalism standards

What are the synergies between domestic policy solutions and international development mechanisms in addressing information integrity?

Speaker

Magnus Ag

Explanation

This explores how privileged states can align their domestic and international approaches to information integrity challenges