Social Media and International Governance: The UNESCO Guidelines for Regulating Digital Platforms

9:23PM Apr 26, 2023

Speakers:

William J. Drake

Eli Noam

Anriette Esterhuysen

David Kaye

Laura O’Brien

Alison Gillwald

David Allen

Guilherme Canela

Keywords:

unesco

guidelines

platforms

process

regulation

issues

question

david

states

global

content

concerns

rights

human rights

laura

discussion

principles

regulatory

address

point

I'm Eli Noam, the director for the Columbia Institute for Tele-information. We are... been around for a while we have about 75.... For those of you who are new to this to these events, we have 75 books or more, we have continuous series of conferences workshops webinar. In this webinar, that build series that Bill Drake has been organizing. Bill is our director for International Studies. He put this webinar together the whole series, thank you very much. Also want to thank Jason Buckweitz, or executive director, who manages the whole thing. Thank you, Jason. The underlying issue before us today is the quality of information, disinformation, fake news, hate speech, etc. How to deal with them. It deserves a discussion. It deserves the positions of all stakeholders. This includes the platforms themselves, about which we willbe talking, but since they're not they're here on the panel itself, I hope that they are others in the audience will speak up in the discussion. The issue itself has been dealt with on national levels and regional levels. And now, the UNESCO comes in and produces a guideline to governments around the world. It's produced in what I believe is four UN organizations at the warp speed, a template of regulations and processes. version two, is still the governing version. But version three is I just heard is coming up in a few days. And the final guidelines will be coming in still this year 29 single spaced pages with extraordinary detail guidelines of processes and regulations. Just to give you the flavor read you wanted to, for example, the regulatory regulatory system of countries should have should establish standardized reporting mechanisms and formats. Ideally, reports should be made annually in a machine readable format. Or another example flatforms should put into place well funded and staffed support programs for content moderators to minimize harm caused to them through their recurring exposure to violent or disturbing content while at work. So this is a UN organizations tells government to kind of protect, how to tell platforms how to protect their own staff. And so the question is, why are we doing this? Why is the UNESCO doing this? Who is pushing this in particular? Now, of course, to take the big picture here, rather than get into the specifics of each of these recommendations and guidelines? Of course, we don't like this information, who would I but we should also keep in mind that even worse, could be to empower some governmental agencies, or some private companies to determine what is the truth? We'd like to always to believe that our views are the truth, or could we otherwise. But suppose the decisions of what is truthful, and what is correct and factual, are made by a government that is run by another party. Yes, we could lose elections. Most issues are not black and white. And some of the same people who have preached under post modernism that facts are subjective, and now advocating that there is room only for objective facts. And some of this is discussed in a great book on hate speech that I want to show and I'm very pleased to, to mention that the author of the author Nadine Strossen, happens to be awesome. My wife, so I think she's already what those of you who are interested in the topic, read the book, even better buy the book.

... an advertisement, in a session, Eli.

All right now, some of the here's some questions and bullet points to spark and provoke a discussion by the panelists and by the audience. There's a history here with UNESCO we all know this, the United States has lifted twice. There's a history of a new information, new world information order, New World Cultural order, etc. Support for licensing of journalist so this is so is this simply a continuation of UNESCO's anti to some people free press to some people anti Western anti American anti free market economy bias. Question mark, nother question. The guidelines basically urged governments to crack down on social media platforms so that they they the platforms were correct on an information. At the same time they complain. everybody complains about the power of these platforms. But isn't this a fundamental contradiction? You really do doesn't really want these commercial companies to become global censors and arbiters of what is true and factual. Third question, in most countries, online policy isn't handled by ministries of education or science or culture. So why is the Internet on the international level UNESCO, Science, Culture, Education? UNESCO already has a huge area of responsibilities. It's already overstretched. And yet it got into this and it got into it in extraordinary detail. Shouldn't it stay with what it does best education cultural heritage, which it does so well, and leave online edge regulation to others? First question. The objectives, definitions and recommendations are often off the guidelines are often so vague and nonspecific. Couldn't they give authoritarian governments legitimacy in controlling information and content under the guise of protecting the public's against disinformation and hate? I'm reminded of the government of Singapore, which has in the past been using laws of defamation, to crack down on its critics and the press by labeling critical comments as defamation and therefore subject to draconian penalties. And last question, the guidelines support crackdown on content that is illegal under international human rights law. But one must read the footnotes. What exactly are international human rights laws that make it illegal? The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights articles 19 and 20 don't really support restrictions on things like anti Vax or anti Climate Change All lies by political candidates. So these guidelines, in effect, broaden the scope of permissible restrictions. Are we okay with it? So those are my questions and our passes on to Bill and the panel. I note with satisfaction that virtually everybody here has some Columbia connection, of course, bill with a PhD at Columbia and being with us. I think that that was some of the other, Ellison has participated in one of our activities. David CIDI about being an author, Laura has a master's degree from the Columbia Law School. And David has published a major book a few years ago with the Columbia University. So thank you very much all of you. Take it away.

Okay. Thanks, Ali, for that detail. Background. I'm going to welcome everybody I'm going to back up a little bit and contextualize things a little first, just to say, it's great to have you all here. This is the sixth meeting of the series that we're doing on global digital governance. The videos and transcripts of the previous sessions are all available on the website for the series that was included in the announcement. Our next meeting will be in four weeks on Wednesday, May 24. That'll be the last one of the semester. So let me just take a couple of minutes to background this thing, and then launch some conversation with our distinguished panel. Just to put this into historical context as being a scholar of international communications history I want to do if you look at the evolution of things over time, interstate cooperation on matters of infrastructure, networks and services, despite the political differences and industry interests, and so on, have always kind of proceeded to some extent because there was strong incentives for states to cooperate in reach international arrangements together on rules of the game. So you have international telecom regime, radio regime, satellites, regime, so on cooperation on substantive content of communication exchanged over networks has always been more difficult and limited in some respects. For point to point to mass communications, there's arguably less functional incentive for states to have shared rules and of course, there's great differences among the states in their political orientation. shins towards different types of speech. So this has always been an issue. If you look at the evolution of some of these international arrangements like the telecom regime, it gives rights to states to interrupt, inspect and terminate. international communications is all written into the treaties, the spectrum agreements have, you know, and satellites have language on harmful interference and jamming and prior consent, etc. League of Nations UN have tried to have various kinds of provisions pertaining to particular kinds of substantive information. But that's often been more difficult. So the challenge of cooperating on matters of content around communication have just been a kind of light motif of international governance for many years. And of course, the Internet changed all this and turbocharged, a lot of the issues have made it more complicated still. And social media in particular has done that. I mean, much of the debate, has led alluded to, very much focused on harms, the notion of social harms that require governmental intervention in some manner to deal with hate speech dissipation, etc. There's been less focus, I would argue on kind of empowering aspects, the social media, which has often been very important to actors who lack access to other channels of expression and assembly, especially in non democratic countries, which I find that asymmetry, a little troubling. I mean, there should be a much more human rights orientation, in my view. But anyway, many countries are beginning to adopt policies here. And we're seeing other international efforts we will be seen just yesterday, the European Union Commission came out and identified the online platforms and search engines that must comply with its more rigorous rules under the Digital Services Act. There are 19 Very new acronyms for us all 19 very large online platforms. Those are V lops. And and very large online search engines, V losses, so far, which are alphabet two, which are meta 15 are US tour EU tour China. Interesting asymmetry there. But so the EU's been very leaning forward and proactive in trying to set international rules of the game here within the European Union's space. And now, yes, we have UNESCO, with its 193 members based in Paris, long standing key focal points of international communication discussions within the United Nations system. With its history, of course, as le alluded to late 70s, early 80s, the new world information order, the Convention on diversity, cultural expressions in 2005. And more recently, the there was the 2021, when HAC plus 30 declaration of information as a public good in the digital age, which appears to state that all information is somehow public good, I don't quite understand. And then in 2022, they launched consultations on this notion of creating draft guidelines on social media platforms. And this process is moving as Ellie indicated, very quickly, we're sort of in move fast briefings mode, it seems. So they had consultations last year. And then 2023 of this year, in February, they had a big Internet for trust meeting in Paris to discuss the second iteration of the guidelines, and received many comments and are now preparing a version three that is expected to drop next week at World Press Freedom Day, which probably won't be that different for version two, but we'll see. And I gather, it's hoped that they will conclude this whole process. Within the next half year or so you're talking about an international agreement of potentially quite significant significant impact on the global media landscape being launched, created, negotiated and finalized within the scope of year, which is fairly breathtaking. The guidelines are very broad in scope, in terms of the issues of actors covered, they have a strong kind of focus on social media harms and regulatory responses. They advance a uniform global framework applicable to highly variable national political systems. You know, if the world was made up of liberal democracies, that the rules might look different, but it's not. And there's five organizing principles that they apply, set out and then say, Okay, how will these be implemented by governments, regulators, platforms, intergovernmental organizations and stakeholders. So it's a very ambitious initiative, that's potentially very significant. So it's important to broaden the debate and that's why we're here. So, to explore all this, we've got a panel of leading expert participants in discussion all who were in Paris. We have Alison Gillwald. Alison's the Executive Director of Research ICT Africa, RIA, a digital policy and regulatory think tank based in South Africa. RIA did the background paper for the Paris meeting of UNESCO. Alison was a speaker there as was David, and Allson's a longtime telecom Internet expert. Been around for a while with all of us, and also an adjunct professor at the University of Cape town's Nelson Mandela school of public governance. David Kaye is Clinical Professor of Law and Director of International Justice Clinic at the University of California, Irvine. He's also the Chair of the Board of Directors of the global network initiative, a multi stakeholder initiative that brings together 85 leading businesses, NGOs and academics on digital speech issues and related matters. From 2014 to 2020. David served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression and opinion, opinion and expression, sorry, and it's a long term, David. Anyway, David was the author of some very important reports that were the subject of extended debate among many governments and other actors over the past decade. So it's great to have him here. And Laura O'Brien, Laura is a senior UN advocacy officer at Access Now, a prominent global NGO that advocates for digital civil rights and organizes the annual rights con convention, previously large engaged in strategic litigation support, including at the Inter American court of human rights, and for various human rights organizations, including the UN Special Rapporteurs. So the mechanics are that I'll pose you know, basically run for broad questions to the panel will turn the top and go around, and then we'll open it up to awfully bright, inclusive and dynamic discussion a bit later, closer to the hour. So okay, that's where we're going, what we're doing. So let's start with the panel. And again, thanks, everybody. So let's start with the the existential question. Why are we here? How did we get here? What, what is the political market demand for these international guidelines? I mean, who wants them or not? And why? Why or why guidelines rather than some alternative model of international governance that might be available? Interstate kind of obligations, or soft declarations, design? I mean, guidelines or specific sort of thing. So let's talk a little bit about what's gotten us here and what what they're trying to achieve, which of the panelists would like to kick off that conversation?

Even? I guess I could, I'll say a couple of words first, if that's all right. So I just, I just want to sort of situate what UNESCO is doing and maybe put, put the UNESCO effort in some institutional context. I mean, my view is that the outcome so far has has been wanting, I'm not that happy with it. But But, but but backing up a little bit. This is a space that UNESCO has been involved in for many years. And the fact is, you know, under the leadership of its previous director for freedom of expression and media Guy Berger, UNESCO, commissioned and did just a whole lot of really valuable work around media resilience around disinformation, around protection of journalists, safety of journalists, around misogyny in, in the media, both traditional media and and social media. So it's not it's not as if UNESCO has has sort of suddenly waltzed into a crowded ballroom. And, you know, I don't want to push this metaphor too far. But any sort of taken over the scene. I mean, this is a place that UNESCO has been involved in for a long time, and there's nothing to my to my mind, there's nothing unnatural about UNESCO caring about this space and being involved in the space. The bigger question, I think, which, as Bill and LSU, you both sort of set up is sort of what's the demand? What's What's the need right now for, for guidance to states, what what is actually needed within the international community in order to ensure that as you know, as Bill as you've laid out, as we're entering this very kind of dynamic regulatory space with you know, not just the Digital Services Act in the European Union, but kind of a rash of really, I mean, sorry to put a fine point on it. But idiotic laws at the state level in the United States, you know, in this in the midst of all of this, they're, you know, what is needed what is needed to say to states, you know, if you're going to regulate social media, which, by the way is regulating speech, whether you think of, you know, the companies themselves as speakers or whether you think of their users as ultimately the ones who will be kind of subject of these regulations, what's needed in this space? And I think that's, I won't answer that. I'll stop here, because I'd like to hear what Alison and Laura say, and think about this, you know, as we get into it, but But I think, to me, the question is, so in this environment, what's needed? What are the principles that need to be expressed? Who needs to be a part of that process? What should that process look like? Those are the initial questions that I think, you know, we're the kind of criticism of the UNESCO process has been both substantive and process oriented. And I think that that might lead us into kind of a rich discussion here about well, what would we like to see in its place? Or how would we like to see these evolve?

Next, David, Allison or Laura, whichever of you'd like to jump in? Yeah,

go ahead. No, go ahead.

Yeah, no, I was first want to start off by thanking CITI in Columbia Business School for invited me to this discussion. And I really appreciate how David reframed the question, again, getting back to you know, what's needed, what are the principles, and for those who couldn't attend the Paris conference, back in February, there was an interesting fireside chat with the Assistant Director General for communications and information of UNESCO, as well as Andrew DeFi, the Senior Consultant for UNESCO. And they really did dive into this question head on about why UNESCO? Why were they bringing this initiative. So I definitely encourage you to check that out if you haven't seen it. And jealousy really mentioned four main reasons as to why UNESCO felt it should initiate a global dialogue on what we see today as a UNESCO guidelines. But the point that I want to raise and in in in that he also talked about the Rome principles which have been mentioned in the chat, the wind hooked, plus 30 Declaration, which Bill mentioned, so really kind of showcasing, you know, the the track on how we got here today, and it's really compelling justification for how this was part of UNESCO's mandate. But it's true that multilateral institutions such as UNESCO, when they're doing initiatives in partnership with civil society, with other stakeholders, they can play an important role in advancing rights respecting regulatory guidelines. So long as they Center on Human Rights, they reduce risks, and they encompass meaningful consultation at the onset. And that's one of the main concerns we've been having an access now with this initiative. It must Center on Human Rights and like many civil society, we view it's imperative to cooperate with others. So you know, getting back to to David's question on who needs to be a part of this process, I think it's really important to note that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in any efforts to establish global guidelines of the sort that's envisioned by UNESCO must encompass those agencies, those underlying principles, because really, UNESCO has a more restricted mandate when it comes to overseeing state obligations under the ICCPR compared to Oh, H CHR, who has, you know, encompasses the relevant expertise and the guidance and initiative, as well as you know, other initiatives within their portfolio such as the BTech project, which is relevant, there are black Rabatt plan of action is timbul process. So this was something that we really tried to push forward in our initial submission to UNESCO on draft 1.1. And I think, is really, you know, part of the discussion today. And then if I may, just quickly go back to Bill's initial question. You know, I think it's important, you know, back in November 2022, you know, this initiative kind of came out of nowhere, and we were all asking, like, Where was this coming from? Like, what purpose does this serve? And I say, initiative, because I think we need to address the elephant in the room that this was not first established as a guidelines that we are discussing today. It was initially drafted as a regulatory framework and model legislation. And on that, I do want to give a shout out to article 19, who was one of the first civil society organizations to really submit comments to UNESCO and outlining the deep concerns that I think we're going to dive in today.

So Thanks, Laura. That was really helpful. Allison.

Thanks very much, Bill. So I said Post without being too repetitive I did, I did want to reiterate the long tradition that UNESCO has here, beyond science and education, which I'm sure you must have been saying partially tongue in cheek, because he did refer to the, to the New World information order. And I think for, for many people in the global south of the non aligned movement, or people who feel marginalized from these these networks, in these platforms, you know, this is this is seen as part of that kind of tradition. So, although it's only very briefly mentioned, and we often don't mention it enough, you know, this framework that you speaking about, is actually only pertains to, you know, less than half the world at the moment, because we have this massive people who are not online. So really those fundamental issues that the New World information order was dealing with 3040 years ago. Now, remember, but you know, I very much the same issues we're dealing today. And also, you know, around the issues of the sort of challenges to multilateralism. And the extremely, you know, you know, that there is no normative consensus that we tried to build these frameworks on in a situation where we can no longer assume, we obviously have to assume those human rights and, you know, these things because I can't hold the document together. But there isn't normative consensus on that, in the ways even that they work, possibly around the New World information order and certain things around, so you know, things around freedom of expression, etc, you know, the vast parts of the Internet now, that are controlled by countries and jurisdictions that there is no respect to the needs, a lot of countries who have historically sort of sat in between and are signatories to, you know, international human rights conventions, but are actually very comfortable with, with practices, Chinese merit systems and things that operate through the Internet on those systems. So I think I think it's a very important time to have this conversation, I think there's a, I think there's a lot of pressure from a lot, a lot of different places that are, you know, when I say smaller countries, get less developed countries, possibly without, you know, the kind of capacity to, to regulate or make the demands, either in the same frame or in a different frame than the European Union is able to make. And, of course, of course, pushed back against the, you know, that becoming the standard for everybody. But I think I think, you know, there is a strong sense that the challenges that we're facing now around, you know, misinformation, and just information disorder, at a global level, are no longer, you know, you're no longer able to address those through national institution in all arrangements, and that the issues of global cooperation that, you know, that were referred to, and the challenges that we face around that are extremely, extremely pertinent. And so I think, you know, I think the framing of this as a guidance document, going back to, you know, the the discussion of why is it that and not not something else? And why are we able to why we collectively the universe, people in the globe, are able to move on this so quickly on what this code is, anyway, is precisely because we it's a very highly mentioned be a very high level principle document. And that's part of the challenge, because as soon as you take that principle into the, into the ground on the ground, there are enormous challenges of implementation, these democratic assumptions that I was speaking about, you know, we making demands for certain things online that don't even exist offline. You know, we've making quite onerous institutional capability demands, you know, assuming that institutional endowments in countries that don't exist in many countries, and yet, we've got this problem of needing to, you know, realize what I think you were skeptically referring to as digital public goods, and to make those realized at the national level, that, in fact, that kind of domestication, that kind of implementation only occurs. And I think it's, you know, it's not impossible is a sense that, you know, we can't get some kind of cross jurisdictional thing. I'm not talking about world regulation of this. But I do think we need some kind of cooperative mechanism that will allow the enforcement of, you know, harmful information to be a big tech sector are compelled to act on this. So I think that I think there's a big demand from very many quarters for this. Thanks,

Alison. It's really helpful. Just to clarify my own view that the public goods aspect, there's certainly information that is a public good. My question is whether all information is public good, but that's that's another matter. But I think what Laura had made the point and this is I think kind of goes directly to what I was asking about it. sounds like this is an initiative that came from UNESCO itself. Am I correct to that, that they, they they felt that their member states, particularly the global South, as Allison suggested, would value an intervention here. So it wasn't like a coalition of states came to UNESCO and said, Please do this. Is that correct?

My understanding is that it's an initiative of the Director General, and others could correct me if I'm wrong. I'm, I mean, I would look all of all agencies of the UN and all international actors, you know, at a, at a moment of kind of, you know, dynamic discussions around regulation, all, you know, want to have a piece of it in a way they want to participate. And I think, you know, I don't know if if states actually were pushing UNESCO to do this, I wouldn't be surprised if some European states or states that are going through very similar kind of, you know, regulatory discussions like Brazil, you know, we're pushing for something like this, you know, not not necessarily to have global standards, but to have something that reinforces what they're already doing, or they want to do. That's and so that, I mean, anyway, but that's, I think, a little bit speculation on my part, it's not totally clear what the motivation behind it was.

Okay. Thanks, David. So the fact that we're speculating about drivers and initiatives raises some questions about the legislative history. And just before we get to the content of the thing, I would just like to talk a little bit more about the sort of the process aspect to institutional locus, I mean, UNESCO, has put himself forward as the place for the a global framework discussion here. One could argue it could have been done in a human rights context, or a truly multi stakeholder setting, etc. But UNESCO is taking the taking the bit to the teeth and said, We're gonna go forward. And they want to provide they say, a multi stakeholder platform to address social media issues. Those of us who have been heavily involved in real multi stakeholder processes, might have some questions about that. So I guess I'm wondering, how do people feel about the process going forward? Has it been sufficiently inclusive and transparent, and so on? I mean, I know, for example, I mean, Lars said that it was initially drafted as regulatory framework and model legislation. As far as I can tell, you cannot find on the UNESCO website, any legislative history, you can't find the earlier versions of the guidelines, you can't find any of the submissions that were made by the different parties. So I'm a little puzzled about how this open multistakeholder processes working, but maybe people can help me. So how does the how does the institutional locus here matter to the way this process is unfolding? Anyway? Laura, perhaps you could take the lead on that.

Yeah, certainly, I think yeah, this this point on transparency has been one of the main critiques and criticisms not only on the substance of it, but also procedurally as well. And since the onset of this process, there has been insufficient publicly available information on the guidelines, or the approach UNESCO has taken I think that's already come up to fruition today, in today's conversation, not enough information on the website, there's also been issues on you know, even like the publication of the guidelines have been only in English and French, not in Spanish. So you know, language barriers that have made it limited for certain civil society, certain other stakeholders in different regions to sufficiently contribute, and also noting, it's a un initiative, you know, the importance of ensuring that this is transparent in multiple languages. So that's an important criticism that was at the onset of the guidelines. And it also remains unclear like which and how many stakeholders UNESCO has engaged with during the process, like who contributed to the first draft guidelines, like unlike other UN affiliations, or other UN processes, you know, you can usually access and see the different submissions that stakeholders have made. And the problem with this is that, you know, someone could make a sweeping generalization that civil society is in disagreement on certain aspects or certain issues, but we won't have knowledge of that, or transparency, unless we're actually speaking with other civil society organizations and speaking with each other, to get a better sense of what positions we've been putting forward and what critiques we've been making. So I think, you know, another thing that's also been a frustration on the transparency point is that there's been you know, these quick turnarounds, you know, the version 1.1 was published in December of November, December. 2022 This is obviously a very busy time for a lot of us. And then one month ahead of the of the global conference, there was another iteration. So, you know, it's definitely been frustrating, I think, especially given the overall outlook to achieve this process in one year, to not have sufficient transparency on it. However, on the flip side, you know, positively, we can now say that this process is no longer a secret or known by the insiders of this space. And, and we strongly recommend that UNESCO use rights Khan, which was previously mentioned in the introduction, which access now leads, and is one of the largest convenience on the future of the Internet to advance the efforts to hammer out some of the consensus, the rough consensus, building legitimacy for this process, get more interaction with stakeholders, especially stakeholders from the global majority in civil society, that has largely been been ignored.

Thanks, Laura. So we're doing a process about communication, access to information, these kinds of issues, and the process is not completely open and transparent. So this little bit of irony, David, are Alison, thoughts about the institutional setting and process so far? Whichever of you like?

Well, I mean, I would only echo what Laura was saying. I mean, I do want to go back to what UNESCO sort of is and does. And also, I think the process is related to the output or the outcome here. I mean, the final document here isn't going to be and I don't think was ever intended to be an international agreement. Right. I mean, there was no, I don't think although I guess there's some opacity around this too. But I don't think there was any intention that states would somehow sign on to this as a kind of binding set of norms that they would then apply in their own places. That wasn't the goal. And so, so there's there's definitely room for for UNESCO, or, you know, frankly, for any UN agency or organization, to put out into the into the public its view of a particular area that needs to be, you know, subject to domestic regulation, or maybe human rights driven principles, whatever it might be. I mean, there's, this is all within the scope of UNESCO's work. And, but but the problem, I think, here is that it was just really unclear as to whether what they were trying to do was was kind of commission something that would be that would provide kind of regulatory guidance, in which case, if they just did it and put it out there, maybe fine. But I think there was an ambition that that at least seemed to people on the outside that there was more, more than the usual, just, you know, UNESCO report, which could be helpful as part of a debate, but more like, here's what the rules should be. And I think it was, it was that move from kind of researchy and kind of really guidance oriented approaches to something that looked a little bit more directive to state that put people off. And and it's the closer you get to something that's directive, the more you need, you know, an open process that involves, you know, real clarity from the very beginning. And I think, I think there was I think Laura was alluding to this, there was, you know, clearly some, you know, kind of concern around the first several months of this because it was unclear, it was entirely opaque. I think UNESCO has tried to retool, that doesn't mean that the outcome is going to be great. And we can talk about the substance as well, but but I think that sort of, as far as like process leading to substance, I think that that maybe frames that a little bit for

us, too. It does. Thank you, Allison. Yeah, so I

really don't have any kind of inside track on this. And he just really done background research on the side of it. But, you know, I think from September have been involved in various things. You know, UNESCO has tried to, you know, have consultations at IGF at various multi stakeholder forums are trying to get getting us something access now and as we're on their panels and IGF so I think there has been an attempt to kind of open up that multistakeholder The space. Um, you know, I think this is precisely the, you know, the challenges of, of trying to move quite quickly and try and build consensus within the UN system. And so I think, you know, if it was going to be, you know, a directive, it would have had to go through the member state process. And I think it's no secret that that is kind of closed process for many people, even if UNESCO keeps that open, many member states, they, they're not multistakeholder they're only the government representative there, and they will try and, you know, direct stuff in certain ways. So in a way, you know, not having a formal binding agreement, which I think many felt any way that, you know, we put it was kind of impossible to do it. So kind of unenforceable, how do you actually make this work, rather than through some kind of voluntary cooperation, that it actually lends itself more to that that type of guidance, which I, you know, I think what many of us really check was a more what is that guidance? To whom, when how, you know, what, how does this actually work? Because I think, you know, I think there is a sensible from some people and I know, many of us in terms of recommendations have have reiterated the need for multi stakeholder processes, and the transparency and accountability that goes with that, is that, you know, our experience in other areas of multi stakeholder ism in multi stakeholder governance is actually you know, they they talk shops, they're not places that make decisions and get things done. And this is actually a very important issue can't be dealt with by another talk shop that doesn't actually have any teeth. So I think it's important to distinguish between the kind of multistakeholder process that's required. And then actually, you know, what is coming out of this? And at the moment, it is just guidance to donations, as I read it, but I think there are people who are saying, well, this might this might actually not be enough to address these problems. And so looking at European Union, and you can various people who are putting, you know, transparency and accountable regulation into force,

right. Okay. You guys who have been involved in this, either platforms themself much discussed much involved in the process, they have a lot of representation in Paris and other parts of the process. That's for our impact. We know.

I mean, it hasn't been obvious, if that's happening. I mean, for anybody who was in Paris, I wonder in the tone, the tone was really striking. It was, it was sort of like, pitchforks are out for platforms. That might have been the sub title of the conference. I mean, it was really, it's just, you know, the, the vibe is very anti platform. And that's, you know, fine. I mean, there's, there's obviously, a lot that the platform's should be doing better, but But I see, I say unreactive, is suggesting that they've been actively involved. And, and that's, I think that's probably a good thing. But, you know, it hasn't been entirely evident from the public side. Okay.

I think it was, it was the lack of kind of very visible presence, you know, sitting on a lot of the platform discussion, not the those platforms, but a lot of the session panels and those kinds of things, there was a various points, people made a point that they weren't as present as they thought they should be in those conversations. Um, just to say, from my own experience on these sorts of things, I mean, I'm sure all of the panels at this kind of level of thing, in this kind of level of engagement would make themselves available. And I certainly saw people from everybody there, or they're not on all the panels. But there's also, you know, platforms have also been taking cover. And, you know, I've had a number of things recently that I can't actually get platforms to that there have been so possibly David because of the kind of Pitchfork sense of things. But I think they they're certainly, you know, I think it is a response to two platforms. In that sense. I think there is a tension, certainly there was a very strong tension, but I don't think they've been excluded or from the process.

So thanks. So let's, let's talk a bit about the substantive content of the thing I outlined at the beginning, there are these five principles and then it specifies how different actors should what roles they should play in implementing them and so on. And a number of parties I mean, those documents that are available are in particular, statements from NGOs like access now and and global network initiative, so on providing input article 19, etc, providing input. I don't have access to the governmental statements or any inputs from the platform itself. But looking at what's been said, it seems that there have been a number of concerns raised about the scope of the entities that would be covered, what platforms are we talking about the scope of issues that would be covered whether you should have questions of electoral integrity being covered in the incident like this, whether there should be more of a human rights baseline for this discussion, whether there shouldn't be greater attention to questions of digital privacy, and data protection, competition policy, these kinds of issues, whether the kind of focus on harmful and illegal content isn't potentially lending itself towards some abuse. So if I could just have some top line feedback from y'all who were there, what are what are your main views on the sausage, the thrust of the guidelines at present and concerns about what they're putting forward? Would like to lead us off there? David, do you like to youever? You've written about this, so. Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I'd also really like to hear what Alison and Laura, think about them. I mean, so the first thing I'd say is that the guidelines have, they've improved, I mean, they're getting, they're getting better. Which, to me is a signal that, you know, when you when you kind of open source, when you have a multi stakeholder process, you know, you allow you allow the flaws, to be evident, and, and to be addressed. So, so there's, there's sort of a trajectory, where they're, where they're getting better. But I would say that, like my main, my main concern, is that, that that guideline, that I think there's a way in which guidelines can be very useful for some countries, you know, for some countries that in good faith, really want to do the right thing, and may not have the resources for a variety of reasons to develop their own regulatory regime, sort of, you know, from the ground up, in that context, guidelines can be really useful for those for those kinds of countries. The problem is that, that, that each country has its own, you know, regulatory regime, its own tradition, its own sort of governmental organization. That means that, you know, how you how you address, you know, whatever's considered a harm online, really is going to vary. And so, as a, as a substantive matter, I think it would have been, and I think we're well beyond this at this point, but I think it would have been much better for UNESCO, maybe in collaboration with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for example, to come up with a, you know, a list of principles, you know, much briefer, and much more, you know, obviously, from the beginning, rooted in human rights, standards, standards of freedom of expression. And, you know, Ellie mentioned human rights standards at the very beginning in his introduction of, you know, this webinar, and I think, I think there's actually a lot of very powerful and meaningful principles that come out of the human rights system, both in terms of the guarantees for freedom of expression. And for those who aren't familiar, and I think article 19 was mentioned before it, not the organization, but, you know, the the provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is, you know, the central civil and political rights treaty in international law. It protects everyone's right, to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers and through any media. That's almost a direct quote. And the beauty of that provision is that it prevent it protects and promotes the rights of speakers, but also the rights of audiences to access information. And then article 19 provides basically a narrower set of standards, a narrower set of limitations that states may apply to freedom of expression. And I think that a set of principles that really restated how, you know, the Internet and social media have been I would say really more generally the inner An ad and and search, perhaps more than social have really advanced access to information and how important it is to protect and promote that. Putting that up front. And then highlighting, like these are the limitations on the state's ability to restrict that right. And that includes social media regulation. And I would have reframed it that way and made a short document that states could all look to as a guiding set of principles rather than a lengthy regulatory document, which, what you kind of end up with now. And again, they've moved in a better direction, I think, over the last few months. And we'll see what the third version looks like. But I would have started with that more, you know, general, but also human rights rooted kind of agenda than the one that they started with.

Access that's really, I think, important to work for the baseline of human rights. considerations here, as and as I said, in the chat, I'd like to hear more about the what the rights of users are in this context, because it seems to be very much focused on regulation of the platforms in the narrow kind of way. Right. So Allison or Laura, whichever you'd like to mean, considerations about the content of the thing has Yeah,

I just want to come in to echo David's points and raise two points as well. I agree with the framing it from a guidelines to declaration of principles. And this is something we actually pushed for access. Now in our second submission, on the more recent version that we see because from our understanding, like a declaration would enable UNESCO and states to advance crucial international human rights law, which David pointed to, but also accountability commitments, while also acknowledging the existing complexities surrounding the context dependent regulatory challenge of measures of online speech. And I think that leads to the to the second point, I want to reiterate that David was raising, which is the application of this initiative and other contexts, you know, the creation of a guidance, which aims to be global in scope and application requires, you know, a diligent assessment of online information ecosystems, you know, and understanding of the current regulatory models and various jurisdictions, and the salient human rights risks associated with different content governance models, including self regulation, co regulation and state regulation. And my colleagues in the MENA and La time regions were specifically concerned that an authoritarian and non democratic context, the language about sticker regulation of digital platforms might open the door for wide open for abused and encourage further restrictions on the rights not only to freedom of expression and opinion, but also the right to privacy, and a host of other fundamental rights and freedoms enabled and enjoyed through the use of social media platforms. So we thought that the guidance, the version 1.1 really failed to encompass these regional considerations. And that was probably a result of not having proper consultation with people in those regions. But I think as David highlighted, and others have have pointed out, we do see that UNESCO has taken some, some concrete steps to make them more robust, and we really wanted to call for a reality check on this initiative. And then finally, just to cap off this intervention on this point, you know, I think consulting with civil society who are based in these regions is essential and access now, we actually co authored a declaration of principles, which again, which is what we're trying to get UNESCO to move forward to. But those principles were focused on content and platform governance in times of crises. And this effort was really to advance consistent and rights respecting principles for companies to respond appropriately to crises and meet their obligations and responsibilities under international human rights law. And these are the very issues that we have, and I'll post it in the chat. But this declaration is the exact issues that UNESCO needs to be mindful of, and that UNESCO should address.

Thank you very much for that, Laura. So what I'd like to go to opening it to the floor, but I just want to

Can I just say one thing? On the framing, I'll let you have the folks that see we are running on? So I suppose just a few things about about the document and in response to David and Laura's points. So I suppose David, the concern with you know, working with the appropriate rights organizations and framing the smokey alien Rights Framework, if you look at the original guidelines and the intention of the document, it's very explicitly that this is to be a rights preserving guideline, you know, that does these kinds of things. So it's very much the in the mandate and the rhetoric of the document and I'm sure you speaking about giving it some of the most the substance that wouldn't need from from that. I just wanted to add to that, and this is our response, reuse response, not the kind of background response to the document is that, you know, a lot of the discussions around the data governance and the content side. Firstly, as I said, they challenge they really serious challenges around assumptions, that everyone has access to this and that everyone has the capabilities to manage those harms, even individually as as audiences and build to go to your go to your point that, you know, if, you know, you're required a certain amount of media literacy, or digital literacy to identify misinformation, or if it's, you know, understanding the procedures for takedown notices, or whatever it is, this is not an evenly applied human rights system that's at work there. And of course, those principles should be there. But I think what you know, a whole body of our work is trying to do is actually to really return to some of those new world information order issues, but actually really highlight the importance of, obviously, safeguarding the first generation rights, the fundamental rights of privacy and the freedom of expression rights, these are core to what these issues are, but really also understanding the structural inequalities that make it very difficult for people to exercise these rights, effectively, and acknowledging the need for the realization of you know, of taking the degeneration of economic rights, so that people can be participating in the system effectively. And, you know, in the diversity and plurality of ideas that are there, and realizing that many of the people who are unable to do that are sitting in countries that do not necessarily, you know, safeguard those those rights. So I think, you know, just in terms of the rights framing, absolutely critical, but I do think there's a need to extend it from these quite individualized notions of rights, then quite individually visualized notions of process in rectifying or remedying things with a takedown pieces with an oversight procedures, these are very individualized rights, it's not much attention paid to issues of collective rights and interests. So I think that's one of the kind of important things in the framing of this subject is going to be well, you know, realized or, and then the other is that around this issue of yes, in a sense, you know, we don't want it more to be more than principles, because firstly, that would require a whole complicated process. And the also that, you know, if it is that it has all the potential to be abused, and misused, if it's, you know, down to you may regulate and do this, and by certain states, and we certainly have to safeguard against that. But I think, you know, for it to be useful in terms of your question of, you know, who prompted this? And did the director general just wake up one, one morning and say, Okay, we got to do it. I mean, I think there's obviously a lot of pressure from civil society and people who are, are being unable to, you know, be effective in getting misinformation or, you know, content regulation that they may feel is required, under way. So I think, I think, you know, this is where people are going to be looking for something more than principles, if this is going to be able to do anything in a sense, we have those human rights principles that end in place. So is it just about, you know, the application to the platform environment that we need guidance on? Or is it actually something that will really allow us to create these mechanisms of global cooperation that will need to be effective to change things. And so I suppose just my last point, which captures a whole lot of these things, is that at the moment, it's still addressing with, you know, regulatory models, different regulatory models. And of course, we do need, we will need multiple going forward, there's not going to just be one that works at the moment. And there were big problems with the definitions of CO regulation and stuff that I think can be addressed quite easily in the document. But I think broadly, what is really important is that, you know, if we're going to address this, we have to address it systemically, not on this kind of individualized case by case kind of oversight for the company basis. And those systemic things is really would be the enormous contribution of of this kind of document, if it could actually say, we're not going to address these overnight, but systemically, we have to deal with this. And that means not only dealing with content regulation, we have to be looking at algorithmic governance, data regulation is recommended algorithms that are actually perpetuating the content, your misinformation and those kinds of things. But even more broadly than that, we've got to be looking at competition law. We've got to be looking at intellectual property law. It's going to it has to be systemically addressed, otherwise, it's not gonna make any difference.

I'm just said that was really helpful. Let me press you on. One quick before we, we open everybody. Just Did you agree, you raised the possibility of misuse of guidelines. And this is something I wonder about, I mean, the guidelines are saying, you know, governments, please create these regulatory mechanisms and have them do this and this and that, and that and that. And do you know focus Some harm, harmful content and cetera. And if we were talking about a world of liberal democracies, as I said at the outset, maybe some of this would not seem dicey. But we're not. We're talking about a world of 190 Something countries, many of which are non democratic. And so one wonders, I wonder if you guys could just address before we open everybody, is there a risk here of the guidelines providing international legitimacy and support for non democratic governments to penalize and suppress different types of speech? Is there a risk that the regulatory agencies and frameworks that would be created in order to implement this could go a little off the rails, and there's a lot of talk in the document about the broadcast regulation, which I found kind of wasn't quite sure how that relate. So can you guys address that briefly? And then we'll, we'll go to everybody

who'd like to jump in. Okay,

I, you know, I go back and forth on this question. I don't think the risk of some states taking the wrong lessons or abusing the guidelines or using the guidelines, but imposing them in a system that doesn't have like an independent judiciary, for example, I don't think that's a reason not to do the guidelines. I do think it's a reason to be particularly careful about how you define certain things. So So for example, there, in an earlier version, there was discussion about illegal contact. And, you know, in human rights law, no contact, there's no such thing as illegal content. I mean, there's content that can be prohibited, you know, incitement, you know, hate speech that constitutes incitement to violence, for example. But But generally speaking, you know, the question isn't what is illegal under human rights law, but it is, you know, what is the extent to which the state can restrict speech, you know, expression, whether it's restricting a speaker or an audience. And so, I think that, because, because of that risk of taking those kinds of terms, and expansively using those to restrict speech, the guidelines need to be especially careful, but I don't think there's some fundamental reason I'm not this was a big argument around the German regulation. That's DG, for example, where, you know, nets DG, which, you know, basically imposed some very significant and onerous requirements on platforms that were related to German law, essentially, you know, putting the platforms in the position of being adjudicators, which was deeply problematic. You know, there was, there's been a lot of discussion about how that law has been kind of copy pasted into authoritarian environments. And that's absolutely true. And that should be a concern. And that should be concerned here. But it's not some fundamental bar to, you know, putting out what the principles should be if, if you, you know, an agency wants to do that. That's my view on this.

I see people are already looking to jump in, did, did you, Laura Nelson, Jr. Think quick on this point, or should I just open it to the floor, and we can circle back to this issue in the context of discussion. Okay, let's do that. Because I see Ali's got his hand up. And hopefully, we have other people on the webinar to via will be willing to jump into the discussion, some of whom who are in Paris and have been closely involved. So please, anybody who wants to jump in, Ellie, you've got your hands. So go ahead.

Thank you, thank you. This was extraordinarily interesting, extraordinarily formative and good perspectives, good views, well informed. And my own four or five questions were addressed, with one exception, and that I'd like to raise which is, I mean, suppose the process works itself out. And we get all these transparency and everything that people had asked for. But we still the fundamental principle that these guidelines pursue, is to put the responsibility of cleaning up their the act of content to the platforms. And at the same time, as David said, kind of the Paris meeting was kind of pitchforks against the platforms. So we're concerned about the platform's and therefore we want them to we want to give them more power, more authority, more responsibility, over content, not just nationally, but really globally. If that is the fundamental contradiction that I don't grasp. And so if we get that, and Facebook meta and the others kind of do put in 1000s and 10s of 1000s of people in charge of what is disinformation, what is fact? And what is fiction? Have we actually gained anything? Are we actually going back into giving corporate entities enormous information power, something that they truly cannot, even if they're well meaning, and not profit oriented, but realistically, they will end up being over regulating over restricting, people will get upset, and everybody will say these big platforms, American, by the way, are controlling the world again.

Thanks, Ali. There are other people who've got their hands up, or who are at least sending me messages in the chat indicating interest in talking so you folks could put their hands up so I could see them? Or else put a question into the chat that I can read either way. I don't know yet. Esther Eisen from South Africa. Please join us on red.

And thank you very much, Bill, and thanks to you in LA for convening these fantastic seminars. And, and I see that I'm Guillermo from UNESCO has also joined us so you could also actually hear from UNESCO itself. And I just wanted to make a few remarks. I think that that, firstly, this is an important initiative. This is a conversation that's a good conversation to be had. But I do share the concerns that that's been expressed by Laura, in particular, and and by a by David. Allison, my question to you is addressed what? Yes, there's a need to address the systemic issues. But I think that I My concern is can they be addressed effectively by these guidelines? And and what I see here, as the context is, on the one hand, misinformation panic, I think the world is, particularly governments and are just have gone into overdrive with concern about this and misinformation. And, and, of course, it's a serious problem. But we have enough evidence already to show that legislative responses don't work. I've just done some research on Africa. And whether they are misinformation laws or other laws that have clauses to deal with misinformation, they're not achieving their objective, they're not getting the bad information off the Internet. What they are doing is restricting speech and limiting what journalists can do. Then I think the second thrust here is the platform's and pitch pitchforks, you know, concern? I think there is a sense that these platforms, these companies are too powerful. They need to be regulated, they need to be held accountable and be more transparent. And I think it is because done good work on that as well. And I share that concern. But I think that's a separate issue. And it needs to be addressed through market regulation, maybe through building on some of the work that ranking digital rights has done. I don't think that you should mix that with anything that touch touches content, because the moment you start regulating content, as David said, right at the beginning, you do end up regulating speech. And then I think finally, Amazon, I just wanted to respond, you said there's no consensus on norms, I think we do have normative consensus, the fact that many states break those norms doesn't mean we don't have those norms. And I'm not sure that the guidelines will make them even, you know, any more compliant with international human rights laws than then they are at the moment. So I think, but I do have norms. And I think we do have norms. And I think one of the strengths of the guidelines are that they that they really do affirm those international human rights norms around content. And then finally, but I think what also concerns me is that there's a bit of a distraction factor here. I feel that it's it's making regulatory agencies, I'm talking about Africa, specifically information regulators, they're dealing with data protection regulation, they're dealing with Freedom of Information legislation, they've got a lot on their plate, and telecoms, regulators are still dealing with affordable access. And it just concerns me that they couldn't to move and channel resources and time into regulation that could actually end up affecting content affecting freedom of speech. And at the at the expense of actually being more proactive, more positive media literacy. I mean, media literacy is incredibly important. And then I think just one more point, and then I'll stop. I also feel that we are not just UNESCO, I think we all assuming that the platform industry that social media, as it exists today, is going to continue to exist as it does today. And there's absolutely no reason to make that assumption. We just have to look at Twitter, and how Twitter has changed, you know, in the last few months to look at, you know, to keep in mind that this is a moving target. And if we're going to try and address misbehavior by platforms, bad content online, we need to find more long, long term, long lasting, and maybe simpler ways of doing that.

Thanks, Andrea, that was wonderful. You know, why don't Elson there were a few points to you directly. But why don't we take more questions, and then which kind of address do responses around the back and we have somebody here from UNESCO, if you if you'd like to weigh in, that'd be really, really helpful. Okay, are you able to take the mic or

Hello, everyone? I'm good. I'm Guilherme Canela, as many of you know, and I'm the overall coordinator of this process in UNESCO. Unfortunately, I just heard about this event a few moments ago, and but I was following lively before joining the Zoom call. I think that may be it's more useful if you want to get more questions. And maybe it's what I mean, I think I would be very glad to receive the recordings of these because this is also an interesting input for the consultations we're doing. Of course, so I could clarify some points that you were discussing before. And as I said, I was listening and seeing that are more factual things that someone said, for instance, that we only have things in English and French, that's not true that from the beginning, the guidelines were available in Spanish, for instance, in how it started and things like that, but regarding on the on the content issues that haven't really asked us to discuss or they've raised or ALARA analysis, and this is part of what we are consulting. So although we might as UNESCO have some disagreements of things that were said here, and of course, Harriette knows because we are being we have been discussing that I actually now would be read more Gladding listening all those different viewpoints, because we are precisely in the moment of adjusting these elements through the consultations. However, as I said, if more towards the end, you prefer me to clarify more factual issues regarding this process. I'm glad to do

it. Fantastic. Well, that's much appreciated. And if anybody has any points that they want to pose to you directly.

I think we should hear a little bit more not about the process, but about the principles themselves and how you see yourself how these things should work themselves out and why you're doing this.

Yes. Okay. They want me to go our

Yes, sure. Go ahead. Please. Look,

as we think but maybe we are wrong, that this is very detailed in the way we communicated the process in the in the in the dedicated online space for that. But the our general conference, who asked the Secretariat of UNESCO to provide guidance to our member states, on how to address different issues related to the digital ecosystem, commenting, for instance, the problems that were mentioned here, disinformation, misinformation, hate speech, or how these things are affecting elections, but also in a broader perspective, the transparency of the Internet companies all day 193 member states of UNESCO approved for instance, the Binbrook plus 30 declaration, who asked for issues such as media literacy, transparency, etc. So the say the the issue behind these is a demand for the Secretariat doing to produce whatever it is in terms of activities. Of course, the Member States didn't set guidelines, or an event or a workshop, they said, You need to address these issues. And through policy advice, and then on the World Press Freedom Day last year made the for made the third in Norway, the Director General announced that one of the ways of addressing these was to convene a global discussion and a global consultation around these issues. And this is the process we are currently facing with the Secretariat produce the very initial version of a document that as Laura said, In the beginning, was mentioning the idea of a model regulatory framework, not a model wall, through the consultation processes in the comments we received in that's the purpose of consulting this was reframed as guidelines. But the principles and as David Del Sol said is the overall the Human Rights rights international environment and how to discuss these things while protecting freedom of expression. But in a nutshell, the mandate came with concerns of the overall constituency of UNESCO, on those issues that were mentioned before how to address them is part of the consultation, we are taking forward. Thank you, that's

very helpful. I don't want to drive too far into the process weeds on this, but only to share that there has been a concern about it, you know, making the documents available, so everybody could track the legislative history and see what the different inputs are. I think, you know, you guys could do that that would help to allay any misconceptions that you may think are out there. Do we have other people who'd like to weigh in, though? I haven't had I'm trying to keep an eye on the chat. I have I've seen several people making comments that Zayn buddy would like to, to make a comment or otherwise, while you're just stating that I could ask the panelists to speak. David Allen. Go ahead.

I will thanks. The conversation has proceeded. If I may be so bold as to suggest, on the grounds that freedom of expression is the dominant goal. There are other concerns, but freedom of expression has to take precedence over everything. The US has been a Petri dish demonstrating how that problematic social media has supercharge the capacity to effectively suborn very large segments of a population to create belief in that which is completely false. It's not the only factor. That is to say, but it is a central factor. If we're serious about some of the other considerations beyond freedom of speech, such as democracy and the rest of it, we're going to have to grapple with the tension here, we're going to have to sort out how it is that amongst other things, this new technological marvel social media can be brought to a effect, not cult like behavior amongst 10s of millions of people, but the opposites that we need. And I invite this discussion, to beyond all the concerns about process and what UNESCO has done. And the rest of it, get asked that question. Because until we deal with this, this tension, we're not going to have really useful things to say about what any human body or others should do. This, of course, takes note of all authoritarian regimes, who will try to bless us and so forth. Nonetheless, we've got to resolve this question of where freedom of speech fits in. Allison pointed out collective concerns as well as individualistic concerns. And that is fundamental here. Thanks.

Thanks, David. Very helpful. Who else would like to jump in? If are can we get to any other inputs from folks? Or should I circle back to the panel to respond to things said, so far? We've got another 12 minutes or so to go. Alright, well, while people are percolating, let me just ask the panelists to if you'd like to respond quickly to the points have made it particularly hellsten. There were some points directed to to you.

Yeah, I can jump in first. So just to respond to some of the points that that Andrea had made. So yeah, I mean, when I said we've got to deal with this systemically, I did try to identify the multiple things that you'd have to deal with that in order to address systemic content issues, and that you would require, for example, you know, probably the horses bolted bolted on a lot of this, but sort of adequate content regulation, you know, adequate, other forms of regulation that would allow for opportunities. And I think, broadly, you know, there's a lot of concern around the ability to regulate is, you know, concerns that they've been over time around regulating. It's not as if we've not had content regulation before, especially outside of the, you know, the US context. We have very extensive positive content regulation across many of the jurisdictions coming up jurisdictions historically, that you know, that have very positive regulatory, so positive discrimination, positive regulation around quotas and kinds of content and language content content. So there's a whole lot of content, the problem is that, you know, enforcing one's normative system or values in this global context where you don't actually have control of those regulates those those platforms through, you know, ordinary regulatory channels means that one needs other forms of doing it. So there is the issue of harms. But as I said, dealing with the issues of harms will require global collaborative collaboration in order to deal with them. But there are also these very fundamental issues around, you know, being able to exercise those rights and the extension of those rights to deal with some of the collective systematic issues, structural inequalities, some of the things that the David referred to as well, those are not going to be dealt with purely, you know, in, in the protection of freedom of expression, which is an important, very important consideration. And just the short answer to, you know, what, or is there a danger of countries abusing them? Absolutely. And as Andreas has said, already, the misinformation has been used extensively against us Information Law coming out of COVID has been used extensively for non COVID purposes and misinformation and a curtailment of journalistic freedoms, personal freedoms. So absolutely, that's, that's a problem. That is something that needs to be guarded against. But um, absolutely, I really need to stand behind David on that can't stop us doing anything. So then we just default to what Eli's Ellie's just referred to as, you know, the basically the the platform's being told them is just have this oversight and do it better. We had a situation at the moment where the the platform's are making decisions that were traditionally state decisions, these were not decisions that were just not made, or something, it was struck, like they developed this, these are responsibilities to citizens, that platforms have taken and have generally taken largely to avoid, you know, through the property of other forms of regulation, stronger forms of regulation. So so, you know, I think we, we need to, yeah, be careful of stealing, you know, we can't do this, because of the potential harms that might happen. And we have to continue to address those breaches, where they're occurring often online in those countries. Yeah, so I mean, it can be done, you know, we can get this global collaboration, we've seen it, you know, heart go horribly wrong, but actually continued to work around cybersecurity, and, you know, it's, it's, it's in all our interest to get this to work, somehow something and it goes bad, and there's all sorts of problems with it, but it's kind of the best we've got, and we need to kind of continue to work with it, it's these kinds of things that we're going to, we're going to have to muddle our way through and find things that work and don't work, but I, as I say, I can't see how we can do this outside of global collaboration, which then, you know, we enforce at the, at the national level. Yeah, so, I think I mean, that I think those are the main points that I would like to make this that, you know, I think these issues are far too important for us to leave to either, you know, self regulation, which has actually been solar regulation, this has been, you know, giant corporations are making decisions about terms on which these are going to be regulated, the way this is going to be done, the resources that are going to be put to this and and these these are these are, you know, digital public goods that need to that need to be regulated in order to make them available and to and to protect people who are who are using them, you know, as people have said, as you would with airlines and other global infrastructures, obviously, content and language and freedom of speech does have a particular you know, deeper requirements and nuance in the regulation. But the regulation has to be able to, you know, it has to be able to find ways of dealing with these, you know, complex adaptive systems that will that old kind of fashioned, you know, instrumental quite stodgy regulation is not is simply not going to work. And mainly because that was primarily operated at a national level. And these are global global challenges. Thanks, awesome.

Either the two of you like to answer the phone, otherwise, I will pick up a few points in the chat.

Maybe I'll just add something because David sort of presented this, I think, important dichotomy in a way of sort of the individual rights in the face of kind of social harm, and I think, or democratic harm, however you want to put it and I thought that was it was a good way to put it, because I think we're all very alive to the fact that, you know, democratic institutions are facing a lot of strain around the world right now. And so, and social media has played a part in all of that. So So on the one hand, you can't kind of hide your head in the sand and, and avoid that that big issue. But but then it comes to the question of how do you address that? In regulation? You know, what does that actually look like? And how do you do it in a way that doesn't open the door to over regulation? And I mean, I think we also need to be kind of honest about regulation, historically, most specific content, regulation has become over regulation. So, you know, there's this phrase in, in one of the one of, I think, in the second version, where it talks about a category of content that quote, risks significant harm to democracy. And that's, I mean, that's a big question. You know, what, what does that exactly mean? And is that kind of phrase, something that even though in the democratic world, we might say, oh, yeah, we know what you're talking about. As a regulatory matter, that's not enough. And so what does it mean to define that? And I just don't know that. And it may be and you'll hear me may be able to help us understand how the process will, you know, better define that, but, but even with clear definition, what does that really mean, in terms of how states, again, that are looking for guidance, can operationalize such a broad problem. And that's, that that is where, you know, in the European context, it took them a couple of years with, you know, significant hearings and try logs and a whole lot of discussion of terms. Before they came up with the DSA. And the DSA, I think, is Allison to reflect on what Allison was saying before, the DSA is only one element of a broader approach to this whole area, which also has to include consumer protection, competition, policy, and so forth. So, so I, you know, some very serious concerns around that, which may be resolved in the next version, but it's just something that we should be, you know, alive to. Thanks, David.

We're coming up towards the end of our time, Laura, do you have a last thought? And then I just wanted to flag a couple things that were said in the chat.

Yeah, thanks. I'm mindful of time. So I don't want to echo what David and Allison said, and more so on the substance. But just moving forward, I think, you know, it's really glad to hear that the version 1.0 and 2.0 are going to be publicly available, and that all the comments received will be published, I think that will really help us going forward, as well as receiving version 3.0 had a World Press Freedom Day. So I think there's going forward, you know, really hoping that UNESCO Can, can can use the upcoming World Press Freedom Day, and all of us working together on these issues to really ensure that we're seeking more input on the substance of the guidelines as they stand, particularly centering on civil society from those at risk regions. So I just want to echo the opportunity for that and hope to and look forward to future contributions.

Thanks, Laura. I certainly agree. I mean, it's fundamental to running a multi stakeholder process, that the information will be readily accessible, that everybody can be up to date with what's happening. I just wanted to flag that in the chat. We had some comments from Jacqueline piccata, saying, This is precisely a discussion we're having in Brazil, with the bill for platforms, what constitutes an independent regulatory body? And there's a real question there about that. We are encouraging the development of regulatory bodies or the repurposing of existing ones here, and there was a comment from Iran canceling any thought on the recent proliferation of hostage taking laws, a government's forcing platforms to have local grievance officers who could be threatened with arrest, if takedown orders which could be global in nature, are not complied with. This is something that guidelines address are mentioned. And then there was another comment from Henrietta as well. But just is there is there a 15 second response to either of those points, that either of you and if you could share? If not, I leave them out there as open questions, because we're at 29 minutes after the hour. I thank you all very much for participating. The panelists. It was really, I think, very helpful and useful, and I hope useful to the folks who are with us from UNESCO as well. We're really looking forward to having more access to the information and ability to engage everybody in this process. Again, the last seminar in the this webinar series for the semester will be Wednesday, May 24. At the same time, topic is TBD, but the announcement will be so Sit down. So enough for me, Ellie, would you like to close?

Oh, yeah, I will do so first to thank everybody in particular bill for organizing it for three great panelists. I'm left with some skepticism here about the guidelines. I think that they, the danger is that they will give government local governments and powers that will come to bite us. I fear that it will also give platforms actually powers of enforcement and restriction that will come to bite us. And even if I can live with those scenarios, the question is whether these laws will even be effective in accomplishing what they're trying to accomplish. Because the players after all, the ones who do try to sell this information, then organize disinformation. They're not stupid either, they will find ways in which they will couch the whatever they say in ways that will remain on those platforms. So I'm, I'm not particularly certain that this is the right direction to go, as well meaning as it is. And so, in addition to thanking everybody, let me just tell you that on another series of webinars, we will have on May the Fourth, so in a few days, Shelly Palmer and noted consultant with his own well known blog, will speak about, quote, The intractable problem of alignment in AI, the intractable problem for alignment AI, how do you align the models to give you output aligned with human values, so that is somewhat related here. By introducing the concept of AI into the human and human values into content, you will kind of to connect this to the UN guidelines. They also talk about automated processes of monitoring and takedowns. So thank you very much panel again, and we'll see you. Bill's event is on May the 24th. Don't miss it. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.