Comments by “Media 21” Foundation, Bulgaria
Comments on the report of the UNSG’s High Level panel on Digital Cooperation.
Provided by Dr. Bissera Zankova, media expert
“Media 21” Foundation, Bulgaria
The UN report on digital interdependence is timely and highly relevant. Technology is fast developing and entails different intertwined consequences – of positive or negative nature. On the one hand, we experience the benefits of the Internet and its public service value in our everyday life, professional endeavours and future plans while on the other we face diverse challenges and risks that can affect human rights to a various degree and hamper individuals’ full-fledged inclusion in the digital society. The ambiguous role of the new information and communication technologies require their careful following, studying and counteracting the harms that can impinge on the foundation of human life.
We support the idea of the report that the direction societies will go to is crucial. The crux of this direction is shall we preserve the humanistic principles and complexion of our society or allow technical approaches and artificial intelligence to dominate over human beings. Man should be at the core of the technological revolution and that is why we speak about a human centred reality the backbone of which is the human centred Internet. The problem is how to achieve and sustain a human centred technological revolution and Internet in particular. It is a huge project that requires coordinated efforts of different players.
One conspicuous trend of modern technological development and Internet is their great dynamism. We witness that technologies are moving faster than social reaction. Technology is factually changing the social reality we are immersed in and responses to consequences are often delayed. In this respect what our societies need is a common ground for action. The UN report states the principles that can ensure this common ground and may serve as a basis to address the diverse impacts of digital technologies “in order to maximize their benefits and minimize their harms”. At the core of this approach is cooperation. In its report UN tries to put forward a new meaning of cooperation that reflects novel situation. Thus it wishes to create a common playing field for all states, societies, communities and individuals in the digital age, to achieve equality of opportunities, to stop fragmentation, increase digital dividends and cope effectively with digital divides of all sorts. It is an ambitious strategy, more visionary than real at the moment, but it leads us in the right direction. The point about individuals’ inclusion and participation is of extreme importance here – individuals with their knowledge, capacity and skills are fundamental in driving the process forward and no one should be left behind.
The definition of cooperation we consider the first step towards the realization of this vast global strategy that should be followed by other steps. Such definition should reflect complex development and be understood a living one and amended from time to time. The definition should also underline the goals that should be pursued at a given stage. At this point we would suggest better differentiation to be made between multilateralism and multistakeholderism, what is their genuine value and how they relate to cooperation. It will not be redundant definitions of multistakeholderism and multilateralism, even preliminary and open like the one about cooperation, to be included to serve as guidance for states and entities especially in CEE where in my view such notions remain hollow words only. CEE societies need also guidance how practically to implement cooperation, multilateralism and multistakeholderism in digital conditions. We wonder whether multidisciplinarity can be clarified and included among the principles and approaches for action. In addition we would suggest these principles to be elucidated and to be demonstrated how they fit within different areas – digital economy, institutional organization, human rights and human capital, etc.
Another point we wish to raise is about the organizational mechanisms that can assure advanced cooperation. Improvement and better concretization of these mechanisms need (theoretical and practical) efforts on the basis of multistakeholderism, multilateralism and multidisciplinarity. It is worth to be added that all countries are not equally active in the international processes. I would say that there are states that only nominally take part in international fora without any added value. Special organizational tools for better inclusion and substantial work should be envisaged. Our opinion is that mechanisms are sketched in the report only and necessitate further elaboration. We consider international fora on IG and other related issues as high profile diplomatic events but they should be imbued with real activities. There have to be not minutes, messages or communications as an outcome of these meetings but action plans with clearcut deadlines. Participation of developing and new democratic societies should become more meaningful. Renowned intellectuals and committed individuals from various counties and with different backgrounds can also invigorate these events. They can state their specific perspective and share valuable experience. If individuals are at the core, let us give opportunities to individuals to spread ideas that can bring cooperation activities forward. There should be follow up events and what is of utmost significance predominantly at a local level. Global fora seem to be too far away from regional and local life. Besides at such meetings some states are active while others are passive – how can we make silent states speak up? How can we understand the difficulties they face? Another problem is that states tend to be selective and announce positive results at the expense of real hurdles at high level events, often they are not completely honest about the situation in their countries – how can international community be aware of the different circumstances in various societies, give advice and help them? These are some of the topics that novel cooperation mechanisms should tackle.
Another issue we would stress is about the role of the third sector. Non- governmental organizations can make their own valuable contribution to international cooperation. Their activities could also be a corrective to the measures taken by states. We would support more thorough direct involvement of NGOs, local NGOs in particular, that can provide a bottom up perspective and assure the fragile link between the international high level cooperation and local endeavours. Various projects and their pursuits are intermingled with the efforts of the third sector. There should be a better understanding what these projects have achieved and how international cooperation can benefit of their results. We would suggest a special site to be created where information about projects and initiatives at various levels and of different scope can be found. Information is very much fragmented and dispersed on the net at the time being. Such step can underpin political efforts towards better cooperation and boost media literacy. In the same vein we would propose also as an evolving project a glossary of digital cooperation in the age of interdependence to be created. It should incorporate different basic terms through which digital society and its problems can be depicted. Harmonization of actions should go hand in hand with unification of terminology about digital society. We should know in what kind of society we are destined to live in.
This UN report, very much forward looking, should be complemented with another, not less challenging, report. Such report may dwell on the impact of global cooperation in the age of interdependence and intercommectedness on regulation and regulatory instruments that should be put in force at a global and national level. For instance, national regulatory efforts, as we understand, should support and facilitate global cooperation. What we see today is how states unilaterally produce more and more regulation and impose it without any coordination among themselves and this leads to overregulation and serious cross border conflicts. Such approach can be detrimental to our interdependent future. If specific approaches how states can act best under the conditions of digital interdependence are outlined in a report similar to the one we discuss, this can be very helpful to enlighten policy makers and legislators what is appropriate to be done in the digital environment.
Recent Comments on this Site
3rd July 2023 at 2:58 pm
I agree with Michael’s comment.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 2:56 pm
This first message makes no sense. Please take into consideration the comment made by Torsen.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 2:37 pm
3 The Ukrainian Internet resilience is impossible without worldwide cooperation, help and support. There are very good examples of such cooperation, and not very good. These lessons also have to be documented and analysed.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 12:14 am
In responding to the points around the impact encryption, I would ask that the comments I made around the UK’s Online Safety Tech Challenge Fund and academic paper by Ian Levy and Crispin Robinson are added to the key messages.
I referenced a paper by Ian Levy and Crispin Robinson, two internationally respected cryptographers from the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, which set out possible solutions to detecting child sexual abuse within End-to-End Encrypted Environments that companies could be exploring to balance both the rights to privacy and the rights of children to grow up in a safe and secure environment free from child sexual abuse.
The link to the paper is copied below:
[2207.09506] Thoughts on child safety on commodity platforms (arxiv.org)
And the UK Safety Tech Challenge Fund:
Lessons from Innovation in Safety Tech: The Data Protection Perspective – Safety Tech (safetytechnetwork.org.uk)
It is important that we balance the concerns about the breaking of encryption, with the possibilities that should be being explored to prevent child sexual abuse from entering or leaving these environments.
Andrew Campling also made points about the right to privacy not being an absolute right and the need to balance this right, with other rights- another point I think that is worth reflecting in this final paragraph.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 12:00 am
I agree with the amendment Torsten has proposed to the initial text.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 11:58 pm
I would be careful about saying these images have been created consensually. Just because an image is “self-generated” it does not mean it has been created through “sexting”. Children are being “groomed” and “coerced” into creating these images as well.
I agree- however, with the rewritten text above regarding what companies currently do and what they will be required to do if the EU proposal becomes law and is clearer than what was written in the initial text.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 3:21 pm
The Internet has changed how war is fought, and how it is covered by media. At
the same time, the war has put “One world, one Internet” to a stress test. The foundations of global and interoperable Internet should not be affected by the deepening geopolitical divide, even though it has fragmented the content layer.
No one has the right to disrupt the global network that exists as a result of voluntary cooperation by thousands of networks. The mission of Internet actors is to promote and uphold the network, and to help restore it if destroyed by armed aggression.
The war has been accompanied by heightened weaponization of the content layer of the Internet. New EU legislation is expected to curb at least the role of very large platforms in spreading disinformation and hate speech.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 2:36 pm
I kindly suggest the following changes:
Please add these two important points that were said by the speakers/audience:
– There is an initiative on the Nordic level to protect children from the harms of the Internet, and this initiative has already been promulgated into legislation in Denmark.
– As the role of parents is crucial in educating children to use the Internet in a savvy way, also parents need education. That’s why we need adult education also from beyond the formal education system, just like the adult education system in Finland already provides training in basic digital skills.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 2:35 pm
I kindly suggest the following changes:
– governs => governments
– Replace this: ”Therefore, the contemporary political landscape requires three-level trust: political power; knowledge organisations; and individual.”
– By this:
– ”Therefore, the contemporary political landscape requires three levels of trust: trust in basic societal functions and structures of the society, trust in knowledge organizations, and trust between one another as individuals.”
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 2:32 pm
I kindly suggest the following changes:
Replace this: ”Thus, one of the key priorities is to enhance citizens digital literacy and education going beyond only digital competencies and including cultural aspects.”
with this: ”Thus, one of the key priorities is to enhance citizens’ digital literacy and education by going beyond just digital competencies and including also ethical, social and cultural dimensions.”
Add this important point that was said by the speaker: Responsibility for digital information literacy education lies not only with the formal education system, but also cultural institutions, NGOs, youth work play a key role.
See in context