Russia's invasion of Ukraine illustrates the role of governments in regulating information in ways few have imagined so far.
Images of real-time violence, distribution or blocking of real or fake news, the transformation of any cell phone owner into a journalist, all of these vectors are changing the rules of the game.
In previous wars, military sources controlled the information, with journalists placed next to the (correct) fighters and their reports beeing closly controled and censored.
In Ukraine, social networkers are spreading crude evidence of atrocities against civilians in real time.
Twitters and other network users have become key information agents, who provide detailed intelligence.
Media organizations leverage the “competition” and pass on these testimonies and visual evidence very quickly to their viewers and users around the world.
This transformation occurs during an ongoing discussion on Internet privacy and security, with different approaches adopted by different countries.
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) lays down strict rules regarding the protection of private information, and imposes high fines on those who do not meet the requirements.
The current US Digital Services Act (DSA) recognizes the benefits of the changes but wants to address the problems it creates.
China has significant and unique platforms, including Weibo, a social media platform that holds 90% of the country's activity. It is closely monitored by state authorities.
China is not suspected as a democracy.
However, the way it controls information is thought-provoking in the context of protecting and promoting democracies and democratic values.
Governments need to consider what the role of the state is in regulating the online content offered by internet platforms.
Most EU countries, the US, Canada and other democracies have decided to restrict what Russian users are allowed to post on social media.
And what is the role of social networks themselves in the story?
Former United States President Donald Trump has been singled out by Twitter for supporting the US government's violent abduction and controversy over leaving the responsibility for the platform and apps to set their standards.
The same tools that can be used to protect public officials from hateful violent posts can be used to support conflicting positions.
Because global platforms want users around the world to trust them, they want easy-to-operate capabilities to transfer their messages across borders.
A common minimum standard, easy to implement and control is essential.
Such international forums are beginning to emerge, while they raise difficult issues related to the core principle as well as the pracrices.
I raised some questions here. What are the correct answers and what are the effective ways to implement them? Times will tell ...
Commentaires