Chairs:

• Divina FRAU-MEIGS, Savoir*Devenir
• Lucien M. CASTEX, Internet Society France

Panelists:

• Speaker 1: Rasmus Nielsen, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), University of Oxford
• Speaker 2: Paula Forteza, French Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Deputée
• Speaker 3: Denis Teyssou, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Agence France Presse AFP
• Speaker 4: Jean-Baptiste Piacentino, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), QWANT
• Speaker 5: Emmanuel ADJOVI, Intergovernmental Organization, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), Organisation internationale de la Francophonie
• Speaker 6: Ahmet Murat Kilic, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization, Council of Europe

Information disorders have been rising with the emergence of social media and big data analytics and Artificial Intelligence. Their scope ranges from rumor to propaganda to cyber hybrid threats. They encompass issues of radicalization, hate speech and other forms of intimidation of populations. They potentially present risks for democratic processes and national sovereignty while presenting other societal costs that can undermine trust in the “information society”. Information disorders are varied and they don’t have a single root cause. Some of them have been enabled by the development of social media but this does not exonerate some political actors, and extremist groups in the civil society actors. They have caused disruption in elections and referenda, they have undermined confidence in the news and information sector, they have sought, directly or indirectly, to take control over media images and representations.

The organizers intention of this workshop was to create a dialogue with the panel of experts and to favor the participation of the audience focusing on solutions enacted and proposals to address the information disorders.

There was consensus that the issues for the multiple information disorders are diverse and need to be put into context in order to tailor responses:

• Social networks have a lot of responsibility as platforms. These same tools that are used for positive social movements and exchange of ideas, have also proven susceptible to manipulation and massive disinformation.
• There were also questions about if GAFA’s monopolistic powers, lack of transparency, and freedom from accountability as an impediment to solving these problems.
• Economic incentives created in an ad-based internet environment was also acknowledged as a problem.
• Images and videos are becoming more and more important for spreading disinformation as increasingly sophisticated image manipulation tools are being developed with the help of artificial intelligence. These are harder to track than word-based articles and can provoke a stronger emotional response.
• A crisis in confidence of authority within countries allows fake news to be more effective. Research has shown that in countries where confidence in public institutions is higher, disinformation campaigns are far less accepted by the population.

There was a lot of a discussion about what solutions were most effective:

• Self-regulation
  • One form of self-regulation is by the user themselves who can seek out alternative platforms. Choosing alternative search engines can be a key solution for individuals making sure that their searches are not tailored to their preferences.
  • Increased transparency from social networks so that researchers can see the full scope of the issue.
  • Increased funding (both public and private) to help researchers and media professional both analyze issues and develop tools for fact-checking as well as MIL actions.
• Governmental regulation
  • Discussion of a diversity of laws passed in various countries to regulate the situation. While there was debate still on which governments regulations were most effective, there was a call for these laws to respect fundamental human rights and to be flexible to meet the ever-changing technological tools used to spread disinformation.
• Co-regulation (multi-stakeholder)
  • A multi-stakeholder dialogue is essential to tackle the issue and come to grips with it: dynamically monitor and identify emerging issues, building solutions…
• Continued multi-stakeholder dialogues should not be used as an excuse for inaction but to monitor progress and find solutions through this soft-power approach.
• The promotion of Media and Information Literacy programs was a common theme by the panel and audience. There were repeated calls for governmental and civil society to promote these programs. There was also an acknowledgement that it was not the single solution but one of many.

Perspective for the future:

After two years of information disorders being a prominent global issue and inspiring many multi-stakeholder discussions, this workshop highlighted the array of experimentation and ideas being enacted or proposed on multiple levels of society. As the breakdown of the information society has multiple causes, it is important to continue to take the time to analyze the context at every level and for governments, civil society and international organizations to create agile policy that can adapt to future technologies. The consensus called for an increased funding for media and information literacy programs, dedicated academic research as well as support for journalists and fact-checkers. These issues are far from being resolved and there is a need for future conversations and actions in the coming years.