# GFMD Policy & Advocacy The GFMD's Policy & Advocacy Centre compiles the different initiatives led by GFMD, as well as reports, toolkits, events, and other resources. {% hint style="info" %} If you want to contribute to our resource collection, please do not hesitate to send any resources for the page to , using the subject: “*GFMD Policy and Advocacy Centre + name of the resource*” {% endhint %} ## Welcome to our Policy and Advocacy Centre GFMD works to gather knowledge and share relevant resources and initiatives with its partners and members - to create an evidence-based body of knowledge to improve our actions. Our objectives include local and global approaches to enhance the ability of the membership and the GFMD Secretariat to influence policy making. ## How to use the **Policy & Advocacy Centre** The different resources can be accessed **using the left-hand navigation section to skip to specific topics**. You can find your way around by using * The hyperlinks in the text * The "CONTENTS" navigation on the right-hand panel of each page * The search function, in the top right of the header ## Our goals We aim to offer policymakers, academics or practitioners the necessary background information to facilitate decisions making processes, based on fact-checked information about media development and journalism.

Featured resources

We work to update the ever-changing [legislations and regulations ](/policies-and-legislation/mff)on digital and media policy by explaining their relevance, how they work and how they are implemented around the globe.

EU's Multiannual Financial Framework

WSIS+20 Review

The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4)

European Media Freedom Act (EMFA)

Global Digital Compact

**These following** [**networks and initiatives**](/gfmd-initiatives/tech-and-journalism-crisis-and-emergency-mechanism-t-and-jm) **allow our members and partners the potential to target key advocacy opportunities:** {% hint style="success" %} [Tech and Journalism Crisis and Emergency Mechanism (T\&JM)](/gfmd-initiatives/tech-and-journalism-crisis-and-emergency-mechanism-t-and-jm) {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} [Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media](/gfmd-initiatives/dynamic-coalition-sustainability) {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} [EU Media Advocacy Working Group](/gfmd-initiatives/eu-media-advocacy-working-group) {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} [Working Group on UN Advocacy](/gfmd-initiatives/un-advocacy) {% endhint %} # Tech and Journalism Crisis and Emergency Mechanism (T\&JM) {% hint style="info" %} The **Tech and Journalism Crisis and Emergency Mechanism (T\&JM)** has been established as a platform to monitor and report account-related incidents and ongoing issues affecting trusted and verified independent news media organisations in prominent tech platforms. The dedicated page for the pilot project in Ukraine is [accessible here](https://tech-and-journalism-mechanism.gfmd.info/). {% endhint %} The concept note is also available [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PMenGfqrULqi_-GO1zRqPTH7BKeTmJbFZv5CEtUQ-eg/edit?usp=sharing). ## About T\&JM Tech and Journalism Crisis and Emergency Mechanism (T\&JM) will act as a forum where all stakeholders, journalism organisations, civil society organisations, companies and states can discuss, develop recommendations and adopt crisis and emergency protocols, share best practices in transparency reporting and account moderation of journalism and media organisations in the digital space. It will use a voluntary-compliance approach where all stakeholders sign up to a model that does not create legal obligations and where they voluntarily implement the T\&JM’s decisions and recommendations. The T\&JM will be a multi-stakeholder process where representatives of the different interested groups come together to improve the practises of the sector. The regional mechanism should involve and should be led by local and regional actors. * **Cross-industry collaboration:** Engage a leading group of local and regional organisations representing professional communities of ethical journalism organisations, digital and journalism experts, academics as well as technology companies, and facilitate multi-stakeholder conversations. It will ensure multistakeholderism, open partnerships, and avoid duplication of efforts. * **Solutions:** Private sector companies, journalists, media and their professional communities, academics, experts, international multilateral organisations and civil society collaborate to share best practices as they develop and implement new solutions through a joint cross-industry mechanism. * **Civil society engagement and empowerment:** Empower journalism and media communities to participate in policy forums in order to support and promote journalism as a public good. The mechanism should involve and should be led by local and regional actors. It will also link the initiative with international and regional players to collect data, advocate, monitor policies, and supervise the proper functioning of the mechanism. * **Knowledge, data sharing and transparency:** We work towards the goal that no knowledge and insights are lost, and that experiences and lessons learned at all levels are collected and processed – from global to local, directly from the field as well as in academia. ## The problem At the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in February 2022, major tech platforms didn't have enough information on who the country's and region's local trustworthy voices were. Despite the fact that platforms collaborated with international partners on numerous news trust initiatives and indicators, they lacked reliable mechanisms to identify professional and trusted local news sources in smaller markets. Ukrainian Public Broadcaster and Euromaidan Press, for example, were neither verified on Twitter nor recognised by Facebook as news publishers, whereas [Russia Today continued to earn advertising revenue on Facebook and YouTube until February 2022](https://www.thedrum.com/news/2022/02/28/google-and-meta-block-russian-state-media-monetizing-their-platforms). While technology companies have made significant efforts to combat the spread of dis- and misinformation, very few systems are in place to distinguish credible and trusted content creators, such as high-quality journalists and media organisations. At the time of [SembraMedia's Inflection Point International](https://data2021.sembramedia.org/reportes/executive-summary/) report 62% of the media organisations interviewed [\[1\]](#footnotes) were not verified on Twitter and 64% were not verified on Facebook. Overall, only 35% of the media organisations said they had a point person to speak with in connection to the social platforms. Small and local media, investigative journalism organisations, journalists, NGOs, and other professional content creators [often face prohibitive content moderation practices when reporting on current events and topics of public interest.](https://bird.tools/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ONLINE-INTIMIDATION-CONTROLLING-THE-NARRATIVE-IN-THE-BALKANS.pdf) “The Chilling: A global study of online violence against women journalists” report found that the percentage of women journalists surveyed who reported online violence to Facebook is 39%, Twitter 26%, Instagram 16%. Also, at least 20% of online gendered violence incidents result in physical violence. Furthermore, many news outlets and journalists struggle to effectively protect their accounts, appeal bogus account suspensions, or to quickly restore wrongly removed or restricted content. As they lack recognition, their content and accounts are often negatively affected by the platforms' current moderation systems and malicious actors. [Annex II](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PMenGfqrULqi_-GO1zRqPTH7BKeTmJbFZv5CEtUQ-eg/edit?pli=1#heading=h.nzkfz78l9vi3) gives examples of such restrictions. In addition, recent [series of articles by Forbidden Stories](https://forbiddenstories.org/case/story-killers/) partners expose the insidious black market for silencing journalists and their stories. There aren't many, easy to access, procedures in place to provide early warnings, an urgent response, or channels for communication in crisis for trusted content and accounts. Without such a mechanism, attacks on journalists will persist and mis- and dis-information will continue to thrive [\[2\]](#footnotes) On the other hand, there are users of digital platforms that enjoy privileges. Recommender systems, or algorithms that enable content moderation, benefit those who have achieved a privileged status or recognition. Facebook's XCheck programme has provided special treatment to celebrities, politicians, and other high-profile users,[ shielding millions of VIP](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353) users from the company's normal enforcement process. While XCheck grew to at least 5.8 million users by 2020,[ only selected media companies in the most lucrative markets](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/26/facebook-news-launches-in-uk-following-deals-with-news-outlets) are designated as news publishers on platforms. Finally,[ majority of content moderation efforts today focus on online speech-related harms and algorithmic moderation of all content](https://www.disinformationindex.org/blog/2021-7-29-want-less-awful-content-stop-focusing-on-content-moderation/), with only sporadic measures looking at affirmative action, safety protection and online recognition of credible actors and accounts. [Maria Ressa explained it perfectly with a metaphor](https://www.rappler.com/technology/maria-ressa-unesco-conference-2023-algorithms-undermine-right-to-facts/): “When we focus only on content moderation – it’s like there’s a polluted river. We take a glass. We scoop out the water. We clean up the water, and dump it back in the river. However, what we have to do is to go all the way to the factory polluting the river, shut it down, and then resuscitate the river.” ## The proposed solution Although some media outlets and journalism organisations have received recognition from the platforms, many others have been left behind. This has been especially true for small, independent, and investigative media outlets in nations and regions that aren't viewed as major tech markets. The invasion of Ukraine demonstrated that the current approach is not only ineffective but also potentially harmful to local media and journalists and overall information spaces online. To address the current bottleneck approach and ensure that credible and professional voices continue to exist and operate freely in digital environments, GFMD proposes a multistakeholder process to establish the Tech and Journalism Crisis and Emergency Mechanism (T\&JM), starting with the region of Ukraine and the neighbouring countries [\[3\]](#footnotes). **This initiative aims to strengthen content and account moderation systems by establishing an emergency and crisis mechanism**[\[4\]](#footnotes) **for journalists and media organisations and thus safeguard freedom of media and freedom of expression online. The project specifically targets small and medium-sized media, community and investigative journalism organisations and their professional communities**. The key objective of the Tech and Journalism Crisis and Emergency Mechanism's (T\&JM) is to engage journalism organisations, civil society, companies, and academics and experts to develop collaboratively: 1. **Processes and criteria for identification** of credible and trusted journalism actors online, their communities and representative groups; 2. **Crisis and emergency protocols, case escalation criteria, and functioning escalation channels**; 3. Key elements and processes for establishing a voluntary multistakeholder and emergency and crisis mechanism. ## The process The process of developing the T\&JM mechanism is multistakeholder and consultative, with the mission of being locally driven and empowering local actors. The first in a series of consultative meetings and gatherings to discuss the initiative's practical implementation, was **organised by the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and the Baltic Centre for Media Excellence (BCME), in January 2023 in Riga, Latvia** with a particular focus on the actors and experiences from organisations working in Ukraine and the region, as well as exiled media due to the conflict. During the workshop, participants discussed how the initiative could work in practice: the definition of "recognition," the identification of trusted communities, and existing emergency/crisis protocols. The report and list of participants can be seen [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sOSFO0KqSqvOZJBHLH9Nx5K7_N8qi2ZHK3b4Cu1RXko/edit?usp=sharing). A second **consultation was held during UNESCO’s Internet for Trust Conference in Paris on 21 February 2023, co-organized by GFMD and UCLA’s Institute for Technology, Law and Policy**, seeking views from a wider range of partners on how the mechanism should be operationalized, how players should be involved, and what the expectations of such a mechanism were. [This report](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eYB_XRE70VR62-b2_JtOVbJ1j_viLcRm-MDi5Zzk6g4/edit?usp=sharing) presents the key takeaways and findings from the consultation. ## The roadmap Draft project roadmap for developing a Tech and Journalism Crisis and Emergency Mechanism (T\&JM) includes future consultations in smaller working groups to address the implementation of the pilot, including: 1. **Define key elements and processes for establishing a voluntary multistakeholder emergency and crisis mechanism.** 1. Define the purpose and goals of T\&JM: * Define T\&JM’s mission and vision and its intended outcomes. 2. Determine the scope and composition of organisations setting up T\&JM: * Define the scope of the T\&JM, including the platforms that will be included and the stakeholders to be involved and their roles. 3. Define and establish the governance framework: * Develop a governance framework that outlines the roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes and criteria. * Develop transparency, accountability and risk assessment processes and reporting 4. Monitoring and evaluation of work of T\&JM: * Establish metrics and KPIs for T\&JM performance, and regularly monitor and evaluate the T\&JM performance against these benchmarks. 5. Optimisation of the mechanism: * Continuously refine and optimise the T\&JM practices based on performance feedback, emerging trends, and changing needs. 2. **Processes and criteria for identification of credible and trusted journalism actors online, their communities and representative groups;** 1. Technical expertise and main elements of the mechanism: * Existing standards and information integrity approaches that could provide a framework or guidance * Defining external references, such as news integrity and trust initiatives, professional and ethical self-regulation bodies, and donor and funder audits, that could be used to identify credible and trusted journalism actors online; * Defining processes and minimum criteria for demonstrating adherence to professional and ethical journalistic standards; 2. Collection of data/evidence around the treatment of credible and trusted journalism actors online, their communities and representative groups * Identify research to inform the efforts and guide future technical and policy decisions around the identification and relevant issues.
3. **Crisis and emergency protocols, case escalation criteria, and functioning escalation channels;** 1. Create policies and procedures for crisis and emergency escalation and management of cases: * Develop policies and procedures for crisis and emergency escalation and management of cases that align with the scope and governance framework. 2. Develop case management and escalation and monitoring tools and technologies: * Establish escalation communication channels, procedures and responses from platforms; * Develop and implement tools and technologies that can facilitate T\&JM work. 3. Train T\&JM members on policies, processes and procedures: * Provide training and support to members. ## About GFMD’s work in this area Global Forum for Media Development’s (GFMD) core mandate is to promote policies, programmes, strategies, and opportunities for the work of the journalism and media support sector in order to enhance journalism as a public good. We are actively supporting and promoting reputable journalism and civil society organisations on digital platforms as part of our ongoing [work to strengthen digital information ecosystems.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u4dNu9iAl3-TOZxNANBbigimS49wLNOMuqd4AhzAar8/edit?usp=sharing) We are collaborating with Twitter's and Meta's public policy teams to verify the accounts of journalists, news media, and journalism support organisations, particularly those in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. So far, this process has taken the form of ad hoc, informal communication between policy teams at tech platforms and civil society groups like GFMD. ### Footnotes \[1] The first study was based on 100 interviews conducted in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. For the 2021 report, in addition to Latin America, eight more countries were added; 49 digital media organisations from Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa were interviewed; and another 52 from Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand. \[2] Recognizing the problem, the European Commission proposed a regulation for establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market, [European Media Freedom Act](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/european-media-freedom-act-proposal-regulation-and-recommendation), which aims to address the sector's specificities by including a section on media service provision in the digital environment. Article 17.5 emphasises the need for more data on platform interference with news media content by requesting that platforms publicly disclose the number of times they imposed any restriction or suspension on news content creators. \[3] Initially focused on Ukraine and the neighbouring countries, this phase of the project is seen as a pilot for possible wider application in other regions. \[4] This mechanism aims to build on previous efforts such as [Access Now’s Declaration of principles for](https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2022/11/Declaration-of-principles-for-content-and-platform-governance-in-times-of-crisis.pdf) [content and platform governance in times of crisis](https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2022/11/Declaration-of-principles-for-content-and-platform-governance-in-times-of-crisis.pdf), the [Santa Clara Principles](https://santaclaraprinciples.org/) and others, in line with the international standards on freedom of expression and other fundamental rights.
\
# Consultations/meetings Reports The first in a series of consultative meetings and gatherings to discuss the initiative's practical implementation, was **organised by the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and the Baltic Centre for Media Excellence (BCME), in January 2023 in Riga, Latvia** with a particular focus on the actors and experiences from organisations working in Ukraine and the region, as well as exiled media due to the conflict. During the workshop, participants discussed how the initiative could work in practice: the definition of "recognition," the identification of trusted communities, and existing emergency/crisis protocols. The report and list of participants can be seen [here](/gfmd-initiatives/tech-and-journalism-crisis-and-emergency-mechanism-t-and-jm/consultations-meetings-reports/consultation-report-jan-25th-2023-riga). A second **consultation was held during UNESCO’s Internet for Trust Conference in Paris on 21 February 2023, co-organized by GFMD and UCLA’s Institute for Technology, Law and Policy**, seeking views from a wider range of partners on how the mechanism should be operationalized, how players should be involved, and what the expectations of such a mechanism were. [This report](/gfmd-initiatives/tech-and-journalism-crisis-and-emergency-mechanism-t-and-jm/consultations-meetings-reports/consultation-report-feb-21st-2023-paris) presents the key takeaways and findings from the consultation. # Consultation Report - Jan, 25th, 2023 - Riga The first consultative meeting to discuss the initiative's practical implementation, was organised by the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and the Baltic Centre for Media Excellence (BCME) ![](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/jeLD84yzLc6_4EHnYXu0pLU7zoQLPxs3vus7rZmdMelbAEVJJubFkxtzLhhhgi_Q48byG4AZ2iRLFm5zygZNwT-puQIuwa-Y2HemdHFEITiZxpcM8KBtMmmiYgaGjkZLilEALuPlQogpfKUj0ybd7IE) ## Key takeaways * Similar issues regarding content and accounts moderation during the conflict have been experienced across different platforms. Language is a challenge in itself, also impacting other regions using Cyrillic or Arabic alphabets as well as other minority languages. * Communication channels with platforms are rarely and inconsistently accessible. * Platforms' responsiveness to content and account moderation issues has been arbitrary, and during crises, often inconsistent and inadequate. * Ad-hoc communication channels are insufficient, not standardised, and not available to everyone, and, when they are available, there is limited opportunity to follow up on issues raised with tech companies. * Joint advocacy is needed to reach out to tech platforms and to improve communication with them, but more important, to establish a system or protocol. * The development of standards and ethical guidelines is needed for credibility and effective communication with tech platforms and policymakers. * The mechanism should be scalable across different regions and within digital platforms, taking into consideration local contexts. Information is valuable for platforms to receive data and new contact points. * A systematised mechanism should be designed with transparency and accountability in mind, including regular follow-ups and updates on the outcomes after an issue is flagged or resolved. ## Issues identified: * Lack of established communication channels and effective notice, appeal, and remedy mechanisms: Content from media outlets and journalists reporting from Ukraine and about events in Ukraine is often removed from platforms without a satisfactory response from official channels for complaints. Although each case is unique, journalism organisations usually had to find ways to contact platform representatives through informal channels, sometimes without success. Accounts or content were frequently restored after 10 days, but the content had already lost most of its value or the account's prominence had suffered. Ad-hoc communication channels are available only to a small number of players, and despite them, there’s little opportunity to follow up on the issues that have been raised with the tech companies. * GDPR and DMCA takedown notices are often used as a pretext to report journalism organisations to platforms and cause removal of content: Content has not only been taken down due to internal policies regarding sensitive content, or blocked because of the mention of certain trigger words that algorithms identified as Russian propaganda, but also because of false claims regarding copyright attributions coming from third parties. * Self censorship and inability to post war- and violence- related content are becoming commonplace for social media editors who are trying to avoid removal of the content or suspension of accounts: Media outlets have to take precautions with what they post, sometimes even rewriting the text or avoiding posting too much content that might risk being potentially blocked (especially photos or videos). Finding an appropriate balance between telling the story and allowing the story to be published on the platforms might lead to self-censorship on certain occasions. Platforms’ moderation policies should not restrict the dissemination of newsworthy content especially in countries at war (i.e., Bucha pictures). * Russian media in exile faced an additional layer of challenges due to Russian restrictions on digital platforms, impacting the functioning of digital advertising. Furthermore, some media outlets were unable to register on platform apps or promote their content online. Russian independent media were facing double censorship: on one side, they were banned in Russia for being opposition media and on the other, they were banned in Europe for being Russian media. * Languages: Language is a challenge for COMO, also impacting other regions using Cyrillic or Arabic alphabets as well as other minority languages.
## Suggested solutions: * Joint advocacy: It is hard for media on their own to reach out to big-tech platforms; however, sometimes, media don’t have the capacity to organise themselves, especially in conflict areas. While some of the interactions at the beginning of the conflict were successful despite the chaotic situation, this needs to be scaled to regular and systematised communications with platforms. * Explore existing mechanisms of tech platforms and how they can be used to better channel cases of journalism organisations: * * [Crisis Policy Protocol](https://transparency.fb.com/en-gb/policies/improving/crisis-policy-protocol/): Advance of a crisis: develop a baseline understanding of different risk factors in different countries basing that on media freedom index scores, levels of independent press, democracy or similar to identify potential risk. Problems with over enforcement of content, important to continue conversations and a mechanism to identify what has happened, whether it is a flaw on the enforcement or the policy itself. * [Trusted partner programme](https://transparency.fb.com/en-gb/policies/improving/bringing-local-context/) ー Establish relationships with local/regional civil society organisations predominantly around the world. Ask trusted partners to give us information about what is happening on the ground. Potential expansion of the types of organisations that will be part of the programme. * [Cross-Check programme](https://transparency.fb.com/en-gb/pao-cross-check-policy/): List organisations, individuals, or pages; when their content gets flagged, it will go under a second review by a human to check that it is not a case of over enforcement. The programme has been under review over the last few months, and there will also be a similar programme in which media organisations will be included for a second review. After the invasion of Ukraine some media organisations were also added to that programme. A conversation about how we can use the programme to include independent public interest media, especially in small markets? ## Systematised mechanism recommendations: * Potential actions/solutions by platforms: * **Urgency:** Platforms should be bound to react to major crises and emergencies by addressing over/under moderation issues related to local media in conflict/crisis areas. * **Name recognition:** Sometimes platforms won’t respond to local/regional media but they respond to international organisations. Many of these international organisations have been contacting platforms in parallel. To avoid duplication, streamline communication, and alleviate the burden on all parties, we propose creating a regionally coordinated system/mechanism for verification of accounts. The pilot = EEurope. * **Numbers:** Platforms, which are dealing with huge amounts of information, should be giving priority to find systematic, transparent solutions to avoid having issues that need to be addressed individually. * To give the mechanism some level of transparency and general agreement, consideration should be given to the **development of a set of standards or ethical guidelines, designed by and building on existing frameworks in the community, to which news organisations could be required to adhere if they are to be included in the mechanism.** Such standards and inclusion processes would likely improve the credibility of the mechanism, facilitating more effective responsiveness from and with tech platforms and policymakers. * Scalability should be considered since media and journalists all across the world experience the same censorial issues noted during the session. These issues are exponentially worse in those regions using Cyrillic or Arabic alphabets as well as other under-resourced digital languages. However, local contexts are unique, and from previous initiatives it has been noted that **it is necessary to realistically identify what is achievable for each specific context.** * **Accountability:** Such mechanism should ensure regular follow-ups and updates on the outcomes after an issue has been flagged or resolved by the platforms. * **Database of organisations or communities?**:The system should not decide what is true or not; rather, it should, for example, create an independent media database based on certain criteria, which is not very complex to implement and can be built on at the local level. ## Challenges ahead: * The creation of such a mechanism takes time, and meanwhile, most of the urgent issues remain unaddressed. Instead of reinventing the wheel, existing systems should be built upon, even those systems coming from fact-checkers and the disinformation community. Think of information integrity as a part of the solution to counter disinformation and to counter violent extremism and terrorism online. Other initiatives can inform the mechanism: {% hint style="info" %} * [Access Now Declaration](https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2022/11/Declaration-of-principles-for-content-and-platform-governance-in-times-of-crisis.pdf) * Access Now [Digital Security Helpline](https://www.accessnow.org/help/): A 24-hour hotline that provides direct assistance and support to those who are victims of cyberattacks or face security threats in the online ecosystem such as journalists, media platforms, and human rights defenders. * [Christchurch Call](https://www.christchurchcall.com/) * [Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT)](https://gifct.org/) * [European Fact Checking Standards Network Project](https://eufactcheckingproject.com/) * JTI, Ads for News, NewsGuard, Trust Project, etc- {% endhint %} - Tech companies might prefer informal structures to address these issues. However, such informal channels often lack transparency and accountability and benefit a small number of privileged players who have access to their communications channels. To overcome this challenge, the mechanism should find an appropriate balance between ensuring transparency and accountability and being easily accessible to and navigable by tech platforms, local journalists, and media organisations and mitigating the potential for abuse. - In general, in many parts of the world, there is an almost arbitrary difference in experience between media organisations and platforms’ responsiveness. Inconsistent and inadequate responses are even more obvious during crises: companies often fail to respect human rights by adopting ineffective mitigating measures that have an adverse impact on human rights protection. No general rule exists to identify which platforms are responsive and which are not, because that depends on the organisation in their context. While a systematised escalation channel could have added value, it needs to be effective in practice by leading to increased responsiveness. - Tech companies operate in different ways and are incentivised in different ways. - International organisations also operate in different ways and often have different standards or criteria for defining who should be considered as journalists or media. The shift should not be only at the platforms’ level but also in the way civil society operates. ## Next steps: {% hint style="info" %} *Define priorities:* Platform’s moderation challenges (transparency, language, algorithmic…) and escalation of issues. False flagging, trolling, cyber-attacks. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} *Which organisations should be involved and how?* The mechanism should involve and be led by local and regional actors. International actors, on the other hand, are better placed to advocate with the global tech platforms for adoption of such a locally- designed protocol and would have a supportive role, focusing more on monitoring and advocating for the creation and proper functioning of the mechanism. {% endhint %} {% hint style="warning" %} Define structure and main elements: Risk Assessment of this approach and type of mechanism. Existing standards and information integrity approaches that could provide a framework or guidance {% endhint %} ## Participants 1. BBC Media Action 2. Hromadske, Ukraine 3. Article 19 4. Reporters sans frontières 5. UCLA 6. Google 7. The Fix 8. Access Now 9. Free Press Unlimited 10. Open Society Foundations 11. International Media Support 12. DW Akademie 13. Meta 14. IREX 15. Lviv Media Forum 16. DT Global 17. Reporters sans frontières # Consultation Report - Feb, 21st 2023 - Paris The second consultation was held during UNESCO’s Internet for Trust Conference in Paris on 21 February 2023, co-organized by GFMD and UCLA’s Institute for Technology, Law and Policy.
## Key takeaways * In Ukraine and other conflict zones, journalism and media organizations face unique challenges when it comes to content moderation on social media platforms. Social media platforms seem to lack capacity for effectively and promptly dealing with content moderation challenges and media organisations frequently experience delays and a lack of follow-up from platforms after flagging moderation issues. By the time they make decisions, news items become outdated. * Some platforms remove graphic content related to war and potential violations of human rights. Media outlets often practice self-censorship to avoid being banned or to prevent their accounts from being suspended. There is a need to ensure that content about war crimes and human rights violations is not lost. * Navigating these challenges requires a collaborative effort between social media platforms, media organisations, and local actors to establish clear protocols and support for fair and effective content moderation practices. By understanding key actors and sources of information, companies can better respond to crises and ensure that valuable information is preserved. * To effectively address crises, companies should have a cross-functional team that can be work across issues and areas, and are able to work both externally and internally, with the ability to make decisions on both content issues and future directions a crisis may take. * Certifying "content" can be challenging. Therefore, the recommended approach is to focus on the account level, e.g. the media outlet itself and its practices. Ethical Journalism Network (EJN) and Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) recommend ethical audits to media outlets as a self-assessment procedure to evaluate their ethical standards and governance. They also propose defining a ready-to-use framework as soon as media outlets are in a crisis situation (or even better, in advance). A network of nominating sources, such as national press freedom organizations or councils, should be used to nominate media outlets that should be encompassed in this emergency protocol. However, there was also acknowledgement that crises come in many different shapes and sizes, including prolonged, slow burning ones, so that should be addressed in future iterations, * Participants advocated the development of an early warning system with a multistakeholder approach. This mechanism should be integrated into the UN Plan of Action on Safety of Journalists and its national plans of action, as the problem directly affects press freedom and the safety of journalists. * The mechanism must be data and evidence-driven, especially to support advocacy on social media accountability and facilitate systematic, sustainable collaboration between civil society and tech platforms. ## Issues identified In Ukraine and other conflict zones, journalism and media organisations face unique challenges when it comes to content moderation on social media platforms. The Lviv Media Forum has experienced delays and a lack of follow-up from platforms after flagging moderation issues, indicating a need for clear mechanisms of cooperation and involvement of local actors in responding to content moderation issues. Some platforms prioritise creating a "joyful, happy environment," leading to the removal of graphic content related to war and potential violations of human rights. While platforms lack the capacity to promptly and effectively deal with content moderation challenges, media outlets often practise self-censorship to avoid being banned or to prevent their accounts from being suspended. Evidence preservation and speech suppression were mentioned by several participants. It is necessary to ensure that information about war crimes and human rights violations is preserved. Media organisations also face physical risks, cybersecurity threats, and legal threats linked to their online activities. Frequent trolling campaigns are designed to manipulate algorithmic systems, causing them to automatically remove or suppress content. Trusted Partner programmes exist, but are unevenly and not transparently deployed. A systematic approach is lacking, with issues often addressed on a case-by-case basis. Navigating these challenges requires a collaborative effort between social media platforms, media organisations, and local actors to establish clear protocols and support for fair and effective content moderation practices during crisis. Local communities recognised by international organisations can provide recommendations and validation that media organisations observing ethical and professional standards. ## Lessons learned from existing initiatives There are numerous mechanisms and initiatives in place to deal with content moderating in crises and emergencies. Many of them are focused on countering hate speech and terrorist content online, like the [Christchurch Call](https://www.christchurchcall.com/), which was launched by New Zealand and France; [Terrorist Content Analytics Platform’s (T-CAP)](https://terrorismanalytics.org/policies/crisis-protocol-policy) crisis protocol policy employs an alert system, archives live streams and footage, and trains AI to detect violent terrorist content; the [Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT)](https://gifct.org/) was an initiative founded by tech platforms to prevent terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting digital platforms. Although the focus of these initiatives is narrow and targets a specific type of content, it is still difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. There is a lack of information on their goals, metrics, and benchmarks for success. Claims of success are often based solely on quantitative data, such as the number of takedowns or actions taken against content, provided by companies without access to independent review or audit. The focus on quantitative measures raises questions about the logic behind these mechanisms and whether they are truly effective in addressing the underlying issues. There are also crisis response plans in place for social media platforms such as Twitter, Google, YouTube, and Meta. Another initiative from the private sector is the [Global Alliance for Responsible Media](https://wfanet.org/leadership/garm/about-garm), which focuses on advertising next to problematic content. From the civil society side, [Access Now’s Digital Security Helpline](https://www.accessnow.org/help/), which provides rapid-response emergency assistance for online attacks (for more details please consult [Annex I](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eYB_XRE70VR62-b2_JtOVbJ1j_viLcRm-MDi5Zzk6g4/edit#heading=h.edjk8p9f9mte)). ### Discussion ### Emergency and crisis responses Crises can be defined in various ways, including natural disasters. The distinction between a continuing war or an invasion is that they present peaks in communication issues at different times. Issues arising from crises and emergencies are multifaceted, involving various actors in different locations who will influence how information is shared and how people, organisations, and governments share and respond to it. Many existing initiatives have focused on the content side and automated moderation that aims to take the burden off of individuals to review and deal with every single piece of content. Trusted flaggers/partners programs exist to leverage the expertise from the local context. To effectively address crises, companies should have a cross-functional team that can work across issues and areas, and are able to work both externally and internally, with the ability to make decisions on both content issues and future directions a crisis may take. Additionally, in a situation of crisis, the platform's perspective is to understand who the key actors are, where the information comes from, and mitigate [state-aligned information operations](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4192038) since there is little that individual journalists or media outlets can do to mitigate against these. By understanding key actors and sources of information, companies can better respond to crises and ensure that valuable information is preserved. A long-term framework is necessary to address crises, including protocols for the initial crisis and learning from the initial implementation. They need to look at the systemic challenges of individual companies, what is already working, where are the problems.
### Identification of credible and trusted journalism actors Sometimes, the regulation of hate speech and illegal content on platforms goes beyond the capacity of industry mechanisms because these issues stem from structural problems in society such as misogyny, homophobia, or racism. To address this, the Ethical Journalism Network (EJN) recommends ethical audits to media outlets as a self-assessment procedure to evaluate their ethical standards and governance. Smaller media outlets such as fact-checking, non-profit, and younger newsrooms are easier to work with, especially in relation to the [self-assessment program promoted by EJN](https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/self-regulation-and-media-audits). However, certifying "content" can be challenging. Therefore, the approach is to focus on the media outlet itself and its practices. During a crisis, it is difficult for media outlets to help formulate frameworks or mechanisms. To address this, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the [Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) ](https://www.journalismtrustinitiative.org/)propose [defining a framework](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wicIWsbn-tZ8uA-UMhqlDg-QAHhWSeHQ/view?usp=sharing) in the early stages of a crisis or even before a crisis. All stakeholders involved should agree on the adoption of a ready-to-use framework as soon as media outlets are in a crisis situation. A network of nominating sources, such as national press freedom organizations or councils, could be used to nominate media outlets that should be encompassed in this emergency protocol.
### Establishing a voluntary multistakeholder mechanism [The Chilling](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377223), ICFJ and UNESCO report reveals that online violence, which operates at the intersection of disinformation and other forms of hate speech, can be incredibly damaging due to its chilling effect. Among its recommendations, the study advocates for the development of an early warning system with a multistakeholder approach. This mechanism should be integrated into the UN Plan of Action on Safety of Journalists and its national plans of action, as the problem directly affects press freedom and the safety of journalists. The report also calls for the creation of a system that helps to predict, monitor, and ultimately prevent the escalation of online violence to offline harm. Shockingly, 20% of the women journalists interviewed for the report experienced offline attacks, abuse, and harassment that they believed had been seeded online. Platforms are comfortable with outsourcing risk assessments and monitoring of online violence escalation and targeting of journalists to civil society organizations. However, this poses many challenges and is not always efficient. Platforms should be asked to commit and invest more resources in this area. The non-responsiveness of platforms is a problem globally. Data and cases need to be systematically gathered to showcase the scale and depth of the problem. Governments need to be part of the conversation and should create regulatory frameworks to address this issue. The mechanism must be data and evidence-driven, especially to support advocacy on social media accountability and facilitate systematic, sustainable collaboration between civil society and tech platforms.
## Background information The Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD), is launching a multistakeholder mechanism Tech and Journalism Crisis and Emergency Mechanism (T\&JM), to establish an escalation channel between tech platforms and independent and public interest media, and community and investigative journalism organisations. After the [first workshop](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sOSFO0KqSqvOZJBHLH9Nx5K7_N8qi2ZHK3b4Cu1RXko/edit?usp=sharing) with local partners in Riga, GFMD and UCLA’s Institute for Technology, Law and Policy co-organised a consultation during UNESCO’s Internet for Trust Conference in Paris in February 2023. The consultation sought views from a wider range of partners on how the mechanism should be operationalized, how different actors should be involved, and what the expectations of such a mechanism were. Based on the findings from the Riga workshop, the consultation emphasised the importance of local news is and a need to protect local news organisations and journalists. They often lack a channel to communicate with platforms when their content or accounts are blocked or removed due to algorithmic decisions, false flagging, trolling or cyber-attacked. In the past, GFMD has been hearing about these same issues from members and partners on a regular basis, particularly in countries with small markets that do not receive a lot of commercial interest from the platforms. Local voices are finding it increasingly difficult to operate in an environment that can often be hostile to smaller players. ### ## Annex I: Existing crisis/emergency response initiatives
| **INITIATIVE** | **LED/FOUNDED BY** | **Brief description** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Internet Governance Forum ([IGF](https://www.intgovforum.org/en)) | United Nations | The IGF is a global multistakeholder platform that facilitates the discussion of public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. Whereas it is not a crisis/emergency response platform per se, it is a key place to discuss and debate policies in relation to the digital environment. | | Global Network Initiative [(GNI)](https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/about-gni/) | Private Sector, Academia, CSOs | Global Network Initiative aims to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy rights in the ICT industry by setting a global standard for responsible company decision making and serving as a multistakeholder voice in the face of government restrictions and demands. | | Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism ([GIFCT](https://gifct.org/)) | Private sector | The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) is an NGO designed to prevent terrorists and violent extremists from exploiting digital platforms. Founded by Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube in 2017, the Forum was established to foster technical collaboration among member companies, advance relevant research, and share knowledge with smaller platforms. | | [Christchurch Call](https://www.christchurchcall.com/) and Christchurch Call Advisory Network ([CCAN](https://www.christchurchcall.com/our-community/christchurch-call-advisory-network/)) | Governments | Initiative started by New Zealand and France, set pledges for companies to sign up and for civil society to sign up as supporters through the Advisory Network. | | Terrorist Content Analytics platform crisis protocol policy ([T-CAP](https://terrorismanalytics.org/policies/crisis-protocol-policy)) | United Nations / Governments | Tech Against Terrorism is an initiative launched and supported by the United Nations Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate (UN CTED) working with the global tech industry to tackle terrorist use of the internet whilst respecting human rights. With support from Public Safety Canada, Tech Against Terrorism launched the Terrorist Content Analytics Platform (TCAP) to prevent the spread of violent terrorist content and flagging it to content moderation teams. | | Internet referral units |


|

Law enforcement units that are able to refer content to platforms when this violates their terms of services. Little oversight or availability to audit the impact of those referrals.


| | Crisis Protocols by social media platforms | Private Sector |

Twitter: crisis misinformation policy in the context of armed conflict

Google: Crisis response focused on natural disasters, relying on AI driven predictive modelling

Youtube: crisis resource panel where they partner with verified service partners in specific countries or regions. Additionally, the panel has an open forum that anyone can submit through.

Meta: Crisis policy protocol aimed at anticipating risks, also partnering with different stakeholders.


| | Access Now [Digital Security Helpline](https://www.accessnow.org/help/) | Civil Society |


| | Global Alliance for Responsible Media ([GARM](https://wfanet.org/leadership/garm/about-garm)) | Private sector | Initiative through the World Economic Forum, association with advertisers: set of sixteen categories of problematic content where advertisers do not want their ads to show up next to. |
### ### Annex II: Existing initiatives for identification of trusted journalism actors
| INITIATIVE | LED BY | Brief description | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | [Ads for news](https://www.adsfornews.org/about-us/) | Internews, WAN-IFRA, PubMatic, Group m | Initiative of United for News, a non-profit coalition of global media industry and international brands | | [Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI)](https://rsf.org/en/journalism-trust-initiative) | RSF | International standard for showcasing and promoting trustworthy journalism | | [Global Media Registry](https://www.mom-gmr.org/en/about/gmr/) | Global Media Registry | Social enterprise | | [Ethical Journalism Network (EJN)](https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/who-we-are) | EJN | Coalition of journalists, editors, press owners and media support | | [NewsGuard](https://www.newsguardtech.com/about/team/) |


| Journalism and technology tool that rates the credibility of news and information websites | | [The Trust Project](https://thetrustproject.org/about/) |


| International consortium of news organizations building standards of transparency | | [The Global Disinformation Index](https://www.disinformationindex.org/product) |


| Tool that rates news outlets based on the "probability of disinformation | | Trust.txt |


| Machine-readable text file that news publishers add to their websites to signal their affiliations with other trusted news organizations | \ \
### ## Annex III: Agenda of the Side-Event and participants list ### Tech and Journalism Crisis and Emergency Mechanism: Side-Event UNESCO Conference 2023 - 21st February 9:00h | 09:00 to 9:30 | Registration and refreshments | | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 09:30 - 09:50 |

Welcome and introduction of the T\&JM initiative

Mira Milosevic (GFMD)

Courtney Radsch and Michael Karanicolas (ITLP)

| | 09:50 - 10:20 | Experiences of journalism and media organisations in Ukraine and the region | | 10:20 - 10.50 |

Crisis and emergency protocols, escalation channels, and mechanisms for identification and verification

| | 10:50 to 11:15 | Coffee break | | 11:15 to 11:45 |

Processes and criteria for identification of credible and trusted journalism actors online

| | 11:45 to 12:15 |

Key elements of establishing a voluntary multistakeholder mechanism

| | 12:15 to 12:30 | Next steps: conclusions and recommendations |
## Contributions by: * Olga Myrovych, Chief Executive Officer, Lviv Media Forum, Ukraine * Tetiana Avdeieiva, Project Manager on AI, Digital Security Lab, Ukraine * Courtney Radsch, Fellow UCLA, Institute for Technology, Law & Policy, US * Stephen Turner, former Director of EU Public Policy at Twitter, Belgium * Danica Ilic, Program Specialist, Ethical Journalism Network (EJN), UK * Thibaut Bruttin, Assistant Director General, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), France * Julie Posetti, Deputy Vice President and Global Director of Research, International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), US * Ruth Kronenburg, Executive Director, Free Press Unlimited (FPU), Netherlands
## Attendees (Organisations) 1. ARTICLE 19 2. BBC Media Action 3. Cafeyn 4. Cardiff University 5. Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información (CELE) 6. Center for Media and Information Literacy 7. Center for Law and Democracy 8. CREOpoint 9. Délégation permanente du Royaume du Maroc auprès de l'UNESCO 10. Digital Security Lab 11. EDRi 12. Ethical Journalism Network 13. European Endowment for Democracy 14. Free Press Unlimited 15. Ghana News Agency 16. Global Forum for Media Development 17. Global Media Registry 18. Global Partners Digital 19. Google 20. Islamic World Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ICESCO) 21. International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) 22. International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM) 23. International Media Support 24. Institute for Rebooting Social Media, BKC, Harvard 25. International Press Institute 26. Internews 27. Kaalmo legal Aid Center 28. Lviv Media Forum 29. Maharat Foundation 30. Media Council of Malawi 31. METÏS INNODEV SAS 32. Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services (Zimbawe) 33. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) 34. Open Society Foundation (OSF) 35. Meta Oversight Board 36. Permanent Delegation of Türkiye to UNESCO 37. RNW Media 38. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) 39. Surfshark 40. Tech 4 Peace 41. Thomson Reuters Foundation 42. Youth Committee on UNESCO Media and Information Alliance # Monitoring Organisations #### [7or - 7amleh | Report Violations on Palestine](https://7or.7amleh.org/) The Palestinian Observatory of Digital Rights Violations (7or) is the first open-source online platform to monitor, document and follow up on the digital rights violations of Palestinians. The platform offers a tool to report violations and search through the database of violations. #### [Digital Monitoring Database - BIRN and SHARE Foundation](https://monitoring.bird.tools/) BIRN and SHARE Foundation have partnered to monitor digital threats and trends, raise awareness about violations of digital freedom and issue policy recommendations. The Digital Monitoring database covers the state of digital rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, and Romania. It documents violations of digital rights and freedoms, with descriptions of the cases and corresponding sources in order to provide facts about the violations, and emphasises the use of technology to highlight social issues in targeted countries. The database categorises cases according to the type of violation, means of attacks, as well as the actors, including both the affected parties and attackers. This is important both for understanding the social context and for monitoring trends in violations of digital rights and freedoms. #### [Lumen Database](https://www.lumendatabase.org/) The Lumen database collects and analyses legal complaints and requests for removal of online materials, helping Internet users to know their rights and understand the law. These data enable us to study the prevalence of legal threats and let Internet users see the source of content removals. #### [Mapping Media Freedom - European Centre for Press and Media Freedom](https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/) Mapping Media Freedom is a crowd-sourced platform that enables anyone to upload an alert that relates to threats against journalists and media workers across Europe. The platform allows to map and visualise threats, violations and attacks that restrict media freedom. This includes physical attacks, threats of violence made online and offline, legal actions aimed at silencing critical coverage and moves to block access to independent media platforms. All these actions, and many more, restrict media freedom and the Mapping Media Freedom platform helps us gauge the health of the media environment across Europe. #### [Mnemonic](https://mnemonic.org/en/our-work) Mnemonic gathers, analyses, documents and archives digital content exposing human rights violations. In the context of conflict, they support the establishment of infrastructures to archive the content. Since content is also removed by digital platforms, they offer help reinstating this valuable information online.
# Resources and Literature Review Article 19 (2022) [EU: Will the Digital Services Act hold Big Tech to account? - ARTICLE 19](https://www.article19.org/resources/digital-services-act-big-tech-accountable/) (July 05, 2022) Center for Democracy & Technology (2022) CDT Comments to the UK Parliament on the UK Online Safety Bill; June 29, 2022. Available at: Digital Security Lab (2022), Digital Security in the Ukrainian Civil Society Sector during the War (October 14, 2022). Accessible at: Frosio, Giancarlo & Husovec, Martin (2020), Accountability and Responsibility of Online Intermediaries, in Giancarlo Frosio (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability (Oxford University Press, 2020), Available at SSRN: or Granger, Jacob (2022) [Google News Showcase: Is it viable for the smallest of newsrooms?](https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/google-news-showcase-is-it-viable-for-the-smallest-of-newsrooms-/s2/a944419/) Journalism.co.uk; (July 7, 2022) Horwitz, Jeff (2021) [Facebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite That’s Exempt](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353), The Wall Street Journal, (September 13, 2021) Husovec, Martin, (2021a). (Ir)Responsible Legislature? Speech Risks under the EU’s Rules on Delegated Digital Enforcement (September 17, 2021). Available at SSRN: or Husovec, Martin (2022) Trusted Content Creators. LSE Law - Policy Briefing Paper No. 52, Available at SSRN: or Husovec, Martin & Roche Laguna, Irene (2022) Digital Services Act: A Short Primer, in Martin Husovec and Irene Roche Laguna, Principles of the Digital Services Act (Oxford University Press, Forthcoming 2023), Available at SSRN: or Radsch, C. (July, 2022) Making Big Tech Pay for the News They Use. Washington DC: Center for International Media Assistance. Available at: Ponsford, Dominic (2017) [How the rise of online ads has prompted a 70 per cent cut in journalist numbers at big UK regional dailies](https://pressgazette.co.uk/how-the-rise-of-online-ads-has-prompted-a-70-per-cent-cut-in-journalist-numbers-at-big-uk-regional-dailies/), Press Gazette, (January 24, 2017) Reporters without Borders (2023) Concept note: [The JTI emergency protocol](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wicIWsbn-tZ8uA-UMhqlDg-QAHhWSeHQ/view?usp=sharing) Reporters without Borders (2022) [Ukrainian journalism – collateral victim of Big Tech measures | RSF](https://rsf.org/en/ukrainian-journalism-collateral-victim-big-tech-measures) Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022) [The 2022 Code of Practice on Disinformation | Shaping Europe’s digital future](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-disinformation), [2022 Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation | Shaping Europe’s digital future](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/2022-strengthened-code-practice-disinformation) (June 16, 2022) Waterson, Jim (2019) [YouTube blocks history teachers uploading archive videos of Hitler](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-blocks-history-teachers-uploading-archive-videos-of-hitler), The Guardian (June 6, 2019)
# Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media The Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media (DC-Journalism) is an open, multi-stakeholder initiative operating within the U.N. Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
## About the DC-Journalism Established in April 2019 the Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media (DC-Journalism) is a multi-stakeholder initiative formally operating within the IGF that is meant to be a hub for the journalism, news media, press freedom, journalism support, and media development communities to engage with important Internet governance and digital policy matters. The DC-Journalism, *previously known as DC-Sustainability*, arose as a key recommendation in our [2018 issue paper](https://policy-advocacy.gfmd.info/gfmd-initiatives/dynamic-coalition-sustainability/articles#governing-digital-convergence-an-issue-paper-on-media-development-and-internet-governance-2018-micha), and it specifically identified the sustainability of journalism and news media in the digital age as an area that urgently requires greater policy support. In the two years since it was launched, the Hub has evolved into a lively platform for conversations about media sustainability and with its global membership, the Hub has become a valuable space to collectively evaluate national-level opportunities and barriers to different solutions currently being explored by governments, advocacy organizations, and by newsrooms as they independently look to diversify income streams. More information is available at:
## Official documents For more information, see our [**official charter**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BINK564Lq4-jXnVfXAjZVJ-Mi1vRSaOu4fCZ0d79HXA/edit?usp=sharing) (ratified on 27 November 2019) On 5 November 2020, we released our [**inaugural annual report**](https://gfmd.info/dc-sustainability-launches-inaugural-annual-report/)**.** ## How to join To join, simply sign up to the **mailing list** or [**email us**](mailto:undefined)**.** ## Relevant articles about the DC-Journalism For more information, see our [**official charter**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BINK564Lq4-jXnVfXAjZVJ-Mi1vRSaOu4fCZ0d79HXA/edit?usp=sharing) (ratified on 27 November 2019) To join, simply sign up to the [**mailing list**](https://groups.io/g/dc-journalism) or [**email us**](mailto:undefined)**.** On 5 November 2020, we released our [**inaugural annual report**](https://gfmd.info/dc-sustainability-launches-inaugural-annual-report/)**.** {% hint style="info" %} Read the summary of discussions between 2019-2021 held on the DC-Sustainability mailing list [**here**](https://gfmd.info/the-dynamic-coalition-hub-for-public-interest-journalism-research-and-insights/). {% endhint %} ## **DC-Sustainability reports** Access DC-Journalism Annual Reports Read our latest report: [2024-25 Annual Report](https://2032103242-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FHiK1GuLfDqNqemz6Ckbt%2Fuploads%2FdFLyM9tSHdZPMNebGog0%2FDC-Journalism-Annual-Report-2024-25.pdf?alt=media\&token=0cc074a0-206b-4416-ad24-1e7702bbbc05) Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media # DC-Journalism Annual Reports ## [2024-25 Annual Report: Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media: On the theme of AI and Journalism (June 2025)](#id-2024-25-annual-report-dynamic-coalition-on-the-sustainability-of-journalism-and-news-media-on-the-th) Edited by Waqas Naeem, Daniel O’Maley, Courtney C. Radsch, Aws Al-Saadi, Lei Ma and Nompilo Simanje The annual report is a collaborative effort by the DC-Journalism. Members of the working group were invited to submit article abstracts on the theme of AI & Journalism, with the subthemes of AI governance, AI use for content production, the impact of AI on news business models and sustainability, the risks and harms related to AI, and the platformization of AI development. The articles provide diverse and critical perspectives on the actual and anticipated effects of AI on journalism, with a cross-cutting focus on Internet governance and media viability. The contents of the DC-Journalism annual report can provide you with evidence and inspiration to initiate dialogue with policymakers, the private sector and the technical community in the IGF system and with policy-making processes beyond the IGF, so together we can chart out actions and strategies to build and strengthen the sustainability of journalism and the news media in the service of effective public participation and strong democracies. {% file src="/files/gEUNvG9aUIrlr4BYIoJp" %} {% embed url="" %} ## [2023 Annual Report: Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media (October 2023)](#id-2023-annual-report-dynamic-coalition-on-the-sustainability-of-journalism-and-news-media-october-2023) Edited by Daniel O’Maley, Waqas Naeem, and Courtney C. Radsch In bringing together diverse voices and perspectives, this report is both a microscope and a telescope—offering detailed examinations of specific issues while also zooming out to consider their broader implications for the sustainability of journalism and news media in the digital and AI era. Through the lens of data, access, and transparency, we encounter a complex, interwoven narrative requiring not only attention but also action. As we move through a time marked by rapid tech advancements and shifting political landscapes, these key issues transition from being trendy topics to critical building blocks that can either support or weaken the future of media. {% file src="/files/63UMqB77ZvgIJzHMeXK3" %} {% embed url="" %} ## [2020 Annual Report: Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media (November 2020)](#id-2020-annual-report-dynamic-coalition-on-the-sustainability-of-journalism-and-news-media-november-202) Edited by Daniel O’Maley, Hesbon Hansen Owilla, and Courtney C. Radsch This publication represents the inaugural collective effort of members of the DC-Sustainability to develop research and policy analysis that informs internet governance decision-making and impacts journalism and the news ecosystem. The articles and case studies included in this year’s report explore various facets of media sustainability challenges and opportunities in an evolving digital world \ and what these could imply for how we choose to govern the internet. The contributions to this report address critical issues at the intersection of internet governance and the sustainability of news media and journalism. They are, however, merely a glimpse of the multitude of ways that these issues intersect in the digital sphere. What’s more, they all point to the need for greater engagement by the technical community and stakeholders from across the spectrum including \ governmental, intergovernmental, academic, and civil society and from all regions of the world. Ultimately, this is what members of this Dynamic Coalition are committed to doing. In that respect, this report represents just one effort in pursuit of that larger goal. {% file src="/files/3OiVdCao2Iofi2TTn6qB" %} {% embed url="" %} # Articles & Resources ## [Technology & media fair compensation frameworks - Global Tracker](https://www.journalismliberty.org/tech-media-fair-compensation-frameworks) (June 2024) This [tool ](https://www.journalismliberty.org/tech-media-fair-compensation-frameworks)tracks the development of global legislation and regulations that mandate Big Tech companies to fairly compensate news publishers and journalists for the news content they use and profit from. ## [Crucial Issues in Brazil’s Take on Saving the News from Big Tech - EFF (October 2023)](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/whats-goal-and-how-do-we-get-there-crucial-issues-brazils-take-saving-news-big) In Brazil, legislative proposals influenced by [Australia's News Media Bargaining Code](https://www.accc.gov.au/by-industry/digital-platforms-and-services/news-media-bargaining-code/news-media-bargaining-code) have sparked debates on establishing a "remuneration obligation" for [digital platforms](https://teletime.com.br/02/06/2022/no-forum-da-internet-orlando-silva-defende-regulacao-de-big-techs-contra-desinformacao/) using journalistic content. This initiative aims to address concerns over Big Tech's dominance and its impact on media sustainability and democracy. Critics highlight the risk of reinforcing power imbalances and undermining access to information. The [proposed solutions](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/whats-goal-and-how-do-we-get-there-crucial-issues-brazils-take-saving-news-big) involve private agreements for compensating publishers, amidst debates on market concentration and surveillance advertising. Alternative approaches suggest limiting Big Tech's role, enhancing ad transparency, and considering public subsidies to support a diverse and independent media landscape, crucial for a healthy democracy. ## [Data sharing to foster information as a public good: the case of media viability and safety of journalists in the digital ecosystem - UNESCO (2023)](< https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387896>) This brief comes as part of the UNESCO series [World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development](https://www.unesco.org/en/world-media-trends). It examines recent trends in and challenges to data sharing between media stakeholders and online platforms, specifically considering the potential impact on media viability and the safety of journalists. This analysis is carried out on the basis that such data sharing will benefit the strengthening of information as a public good. Drawing from expert insight and consultations, it delineates clear data asks, possible uses and benefits for all involved stakeholders, and recommendations moving forward. ## [2023 Annual Report: Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media (October 2023)](#2023-annual-report-dynamic-coalition-on-the-sustainability-of-journalism-and-news-media-october-2023) Edited by Daniel O’Maley, Waqas Naeem, and Courtney C. Radsch In bringing together diverse voices and perspectives, this report is both a microscope and a telescope—offering detailed examinations of specific issues while also zooming out to consider their broader implications for the sustainability of journalism and news media in the digital and AI era. Through the lens of data, access, and transparency, we encounter a complex, interwoven narrative requiring not only attention but also action. As we move through a time marked by rapid tech advancements and shifting political landscapes, these key issues transition from being trendy topics to critical building blocks that can either support or weaken the future of media. {% file src="/files/63UMqB77ZvgIJzHMeXK3" %} {% embed url="" %} ## [What’s up with Ukraine’s media regulation? ](https://freespeech.dslua.org/digest-3-september-2023/)- Digital Security Lab Ukraine, September 2023 DSLU has prepared its [third volume of the monthly digest](https://freespeech.dslua.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Digest-3-%E2%80%93-September-2023.pdf) on media and digital rights regulation, now covering September 2023. This series of digests provides an overview of the proposed and adopted legislation in the spheres of freedom of expression, media regulation, privacy and data protection, Internet regulation in general, and the activities of the National Broadcasting Council in the area of Media Law implementation. This third digest covers changes in governance inside the Parliamentary Committee on Freedom of Expression; the flaws of the recently adopted amendments to the Law on National Minorities (Communities) of Ukraine; the continued discussion surrounding two draft laws aimed at amending Article 301 of the Criminal Code currently criminalizing pornography in Ukraine and the threats to the National Broadcasting Council’s independence emanating from the new Law on Lawmaking Activities. ## [Policy case study: the impact of digital platforms paying for news in Australia](https://mediafreedomcoalition.org/news/2023/bargaining-codes-what-benefits/), Rhodri Davies, August 31, 2023 Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code in March 2021 to ensure fair compensation for news content, served as a stepping stone for similar legislation globally. While Google and Meta initially made deals with larger Australian media companies, forming the Public Interest Publishers Alliance (PIPA) allowed smaller independent publishers to better negotiate. While some argue that requiring platforms to do deals might yield more comprehensive results, Australia's approach aims to replicate a functioning market and distribute funds to publishers. ## [The Value of News Content to Google is Way More Than You Think](https://techpolicy.press/the-value-of-news-content-to-google-is-way-more-than-you-think/) - Courtney Radsch, August 8th, 2023 The article discusses the value of news on digital platforms such as Google Search and whether tech giants should pay for the news they use. According to the Swiss FehrAdvice & Partners AG recent study, the presence of journalistic content significantly enhances the user experience, with an estimated high value potentially reaching $440 million annually. The study highlights the need for cooperation between media platforms and content providers for a balanced information ecosystem and raises questions about how tech giants like Google should compensate news publishers for the value they provide. ## [Big Tech and Journalism - Principles for Fair Compensation | GIBS](https://www.gibs.co.za/news-events/news/pages/big-tech-and-journalism-principles.aspx) - Gordon Institute of Business Science, July 2023 The Big Tech and Journalism – Building a Sustainable Future for the Global South conference was held from 13-14 July 2023 at the Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) in Johannesburg. Hosted by the GIBS Media Leadership Think Tank, the conference brought together over 70 journalists, news publishers, media organisations, scholars, activists, lawyers, and economists from 24 countries to discuss solutions to the crisis of the sustainability of journalism and its intersection with the role of major tech platforms. The conference aimed to share lessons learned and identify commonalities within and across regions with regard to media sustainability initiatives via legislation and competition authorities. Find the report [here](https://www.gibs.co.za/news-events/news/documents/big%20tech%20and%20journalism%20-%20conference%20report.pdf). ## [News publishers declare global principles for bargaining with Big Tech - Poynter](https://www.poynter.org/commentary/analysis/2023/news-publishers-declare-global-principles-for-bargaining-meta-google/) - July 26th 2023, Anya Schiffrin & Courtney Radsch A two day meeting in Johannesburg gathered journalists and scholars globally to discuss principles for fair compensation and regulations to address the dominance of Big Tech. Australia’s influential 2021 legislation generating $140 million in payments to publishers has sparked global interest, paving the way for Canada, the United Kingdom and other nations to follow Australia’s footsteps. However, difficulties in balancing government involvement, transparency and adequate compensation remain for policymakers ## [Saving Journalism–Getting Big Tech to Pay for the News They Use?](https://techpolicy.press/saving-journalism-getting-big-tech-to-pay-for-the-news-they-use/) - Jonathan Heawood, Michael Markovitz, Anya Schiffrin, July 24th, 2023 The article discusses ways journalists can address the power of Big Tech companies in shaping the information landscape to maintain quality journalism. Laws have been introduced to regulate this relationship, such as the case in Australia, the UK and Canada, attempting to find balance between public interest and innovation. A set of principles, 'Big Tech and Journalism: Principles for Fair Compensation,' has been created to promote diversity, public interest journalism, and prevent preferential deals with powerful news organizations. The aim is to ensure fair revenue sharing with news publishers from platforms to maintain a democratic public sphere, calling for independent regulators, transparent deals, and public accountability. ## [Senate Judiciary Committee Passes a Bad Journalism Bill, Ignoring Better Options for Saving Local News | Free Press](https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/senate-judiciary-committee-passes-jcpa-bad-journalism-bill) - Timothy Karr, June 13th, 2023 The article discusses the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) as it has been advanced by the Senate Judiciary Committee, to push Google and Meta to pay news outlets for linking to their content. Critics argue that the JCPA benefits large commercial media, failing to support smaller independent media and noncommercial outlets. Controversies include ways of addressing content moderation, allowing extremist or conspiracy content providers to sue tech firms. According to Free Press Action, the JCPA fails to address the crisis in local journalism, prioritizing profits over quality journalism as a public service. ## [Regulating Online Platforms Beyond the Marco Civil in Brazil: The Controversial "Fake News Bill"](https://techpolicy.press/regulating-online-platforms-beyond-the-marco-civil-in-brazil-the-controversial-fake-news-bill/) - Joan Barata, May 23rd, 2023 The article discusses Brazil’s “Fake News Bill”, a law aimed at regulating online platforms and messaging services, threatening existing internet regulations and significantly altering Brazil’s online landscape. These limitations include the principles of intermediary liability exemption, risk assessment and mitigation, introduced vague crisis protocols, and broadly criminalizes the dissemination of “untrue facts”. This bill has polarized political debates on internet freedom and human rights with the Brazilian Supreme Court expected to issue a decision on the bill’s constitutionality of these provisions. ## [News publishers across the globe are presenting Big Tech with a bill - Poynter](https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2023/news-publishers-facebook-meta-google-money/) - Anya Schiffrin, May 23rd, 2023 Amid Australia’s New Media Bargaining Code, publishers from Canada, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, New Zealand, or the USA are estimating how much Google and Meta owe them for using their content. The article discusses the governmental scrutiny Google and Meta face in addition to Swiss publishers claiming Google owes an estimated $166 million. However, smaller media outlets have pushed for better bargaining rights while finding arbitration challenging due to limited resources. ## [Australia’s New Soft Power: Bargaining Codes Start to Spread Globally](https://techpolicy.press/australias-new-soft-power-bargaining-codes-start-to-spread-globally/) - Anya Schiffrin, April 28th, 2023 Two years after Australia's New Media Bargaining Code, with Brazil, Canada and the UK following, recent concerns include the lack of mention of transparency requirements, how media outlets spend the money and Google and Meta’s consistent pushback. Additionally, allocating these funds raises questions about supporting various roles within news organizations, growing divisions between large media outlets and independent journalists and ensuring protection of political influence. ## [Everything to know about Canada’s Online News Act hearings - Columbia Journalism Review](https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/online-news-act-hearings.php) Gaby Miller, November 18, 2022 Similar to Australia's News Media Bargaining Code, Canada's Online News Act (Bill C-18) aims to address the imbalance between digital platforms and news publishers. The legislation gives power to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to regulate agreements between digital platforms and news publishers, with "baseball-style" arbitration to ensure fair deals. However, critics argue it wrongly assumes platforms unfairly profit from news content and may lead to government interference. Google and Meta have expressed concerns, with Meta threatening to block news content on Facebook in Canada. Despite similar legislation growing globally, the future of the Online News Act remains uncertain, with a growing need of protecting public service journalism. ## [Australia’s news media bargaining code pries $140 million from Google and Facebook - Poynter](https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2022/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-pries-140-million-from-google-and-facebook/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center\&utm_campaign=bd9c88d2fa-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_08_16_01_47\&utm_medium=email\&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-bd9c88d2fa-399349281) - Anya Schiffrin, August 16, 2022 Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, requires Google and Facebook to pay for news, uniting political parties and media outlets and contributing over $140 million annually into Australian journalism. If no agreement is reached, this law mandates government intervention, avoiding prolonged negotiations that could harm smaller outlets. Despite initial concerns, it has benefitted numerous publications, both large and small, and received bipartisan and public support due to the vital role of reliable journalism, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns linger about transparency and nondisclosure agreements, while smaller Australian outlets have successfully secured deals through collective bargaining. Similar legislation is being considered in Canada and other countries. ## [Canada’s Online News Act shows how other countries are learning from Australia’s news bill | Nieman Journalism Lab](https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/08/canadas-online-news-act-shows-how-other-countries-are-learning-from-australias-news-bill/) - Taylor Owen, Supriya Dwivedi, August 9, 2022 The Canadian Online News Act, aims at addressing the perceived imbalance between digital platforms and publishers. The Act compels large digital platforms to negotiate with news publishers regarding payment for using their content or face arbitration. Despite Google and MEta’s opposition, it aims to ensure fair compensation for news content, support journalism, maintain journalistic independence, and promote the sustainability of the Canadian news marketplace. Criticism includes the potential exclusion of smaller publishers, issues related to transparency, and the risk of excessive government involvement in journalism. Nevertheless, the Act represents an effort to support journalism in Canada amid changing media dynamics and global policy developments. ## [Making Big Tech Pay for the News They Use](https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/making-big-tech-pay-for-the-news-they-use/) - Courtney Radsch, July 2022 As policymakers around the world consider how to rebalance the relationship between Big Tech and the news industry, it is imperative that they take a global view and consider the implications for independent news outlets in developing and low-income countries. Pioneering laws and policies like Australia’s 2021 News Media Bargaining Code and the European Union’s 2021 Digital Copyright Directive, which compel platforms to pay for the news they use, have inspired publishers globally and spurred other countries to pursue similar policies. This report examines three types of policy interventions: taxing digital advertising, empowering news media to collectively bargain with Big Tech, and requiring tech platforms to pay licensing fees for using news content. It finds that implementing any of these approaches is not just about political will, but also about institutional design, legitimacy, and trust. ## [Facebook looks ready to divorce the news industry, and I doubt couples counseling will help | Nieman Journalism Lab](https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/06/facebook-looks-ready-to-divorce-the-news-industry-and-i-doubt-couples-counseling-will-help/) - Joshua Benton, June 16th, 2022 The article discusses Facebook’s growing distancing from the news industry, reconsidering to financially support news organizations shifting towards short-form videos such as TikTok. Despite Facebook’s declining news-interests, publishers are getting money from Facebook and Google, largely driven to maintain good public relations. Australia, however, passed a law forcing tech giants to pay Australian publishers, with specific amounts held secret. This model has inspired the UK and Canada to pass similar laws, with Facebook increasingly removing news from its platform. ## [Saving Journalism 2: Global Strategies and a Look at Investigative Journalism](https://www.kas.de/documents/283221/283270/Saving+Journalism+2+-+Global+Strategies+and+a+Look+at+Investigative+Journalism.pdf/a8ec2655-5636-8d69-00e5-e698e76c3845?version=1.1\&t=1643317826159), Anya Schiffrin, Hannah Clifford & Theodora Dame Adjin-Tettey, January 18, 2022 The authors re-examine the steps documented in the first report and write in the executive summary: "The appetite for sweeping change and broad support for quality information we described then has grown. Many of the organizations we spoke to last year are close to making major announcements and all feel they made headway in 2020. In the absence of research and hard evidence as to what works best (not unique to journalism—some things are essentially unknowable) we’re seeing pragmatism, with different groups backing policies that seem politically feasible." The authors are looking to find answers to the question: "if there were agreement and a concerted push, would it make a difference given the political constraints that exist around the world?"
## Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility ([DCPR](https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr)) > Online platforms, such as social networks and other interactive online services, give rise to transnational “cyber-spaces” where individuals can gather and express their personalities imparting and receiving information and ideas. By reason of their transnational dimension as well as of their private nature, online platforms are regulated through contractual provisions, unilaterally established by the platforms’ providers and enshrined in the platforms’ Terms of Service (ToS). ## [The dynamic coalition hub: For public interest journalism research and insights (2021)](https://gfmd.info/the-dynamic-coalition-hub-for-public-interest-journalism-research-and-insights/) - Corinne Podger With a truly world-embracing membership, the Dynamic Coalition Hub has become a valuable space to collectively evaluate national-level opportunities and barriers to different solutions currently being explored by governments, advocacy organisations, and by newsrooms as they independently look to diversify income streams. ## [Governing Digital Convergence: An Issue Paper on Media Development and Internet Governance (2018)](#governing-digital-convergence-an-issue-paper-on-media-development-and-internet-governance-2018-micha) - Michael J. Oghia By identifying policy priorities and engagement synergies with existing communities, this issue paper establishes a foundation for journalism support and media development stakeholders to consolidate their strategies, promote a set of objectives for further collaboration, and customize their delivery at/within relevant Internet governance and policy-related fora/processes. This document does so by exploring the primary issues and processes that overlap between media development and Internet governance, and proposes terms and working modalities that the working group could adopt and focus on in terms of Internet governance. {% embed url="" %} {% file src="/files/FzgnTypbgXtRNwBoZWOC" %} # Conferences, events, and session recordings The DC-Sustainability has hosted several sessions at major conferences and fora around the world. Below is a selection of recordings and reports from the various coalition sessions. ### [IGF 2023 Session: Data, Access & Transparency: A Trifecta for Sustainable News](/gfmd-initiatives/dynamic-coalition-sustainability/conferences-events-and-session-recordings/igf-2023-session-data-access-and-transparency-a-trifecta-for-sustainable-news) This roundtable will assemble experts from media, governments, civil society, big tech, and academia to delve into the evolving regulatory landscape and its implications for the media industry. With the imminent implementation of the EU's Digital Services Act and the consideration in a number of countries of policies similar to Australia's News Media Bargaining Code, the discussion will center on how data, access, and transparency can bolster media sustainability in this rapidly shifting environment. The participants will examine the potential impact of these regulatory frameworks and explore how policies and practices can be developed to create an enabling environment for journalism and news media organizations. By considering these crucial developments, the roundtable aims to provide insights and recommendations that address the challenges and opportunities arising from the evolving regulatory landscape, ensuring a sustainable and thriving future for the media sector. ### [IGF 2022 Session: Unbreaking the news: Media sustainability in the digital age](/gfmd-initiatives/dynamic-coalition-sustainability/conferences-events-and-session-recordings/igf-2022-session-unbreaking-the-news-media-sustainability-in-the-digital-age) The nexus between long-term news sustainability and internet governance is undeniable and more important than ever. How are Internet policies affecting the ability of news organizations and journalists to sustain public interest journalism in the post-pandemic world? What can we expect from proposals to tax technology platforms to fund news media? How does the online advertising business model affect both Internet governance and digital journalism? The session “**Unbreaking the news: Media sustainability in the digital age”** approached these questions and identified some of the challenges for the sustainability of journalism and media online, both looking at the trends and practices of digital media natives, regulatory frameworks and their potential impacts outside the borders they were conceived and the influence (and effects) of platforms’ internal policies on the sustainability of the media around the world. The full report and the recording of the session are available [here](/gfmd-initiatives/dynamic-coalition-sustainability/conferences-events-and-session-recordings/igf-2022-session-unbreaking-the-news-media-sustainability-in-the-digital-age). ### [Frenemies: reinventing the Big Tech versus journalism dynamic (RightsCon 2022)](/gfmd-initiatives/dynamic-coalition-sustainability/conferences-events-and-session-recordings/frenemies-reinventing-the-big-tech-versus-journalism-dynamic-rightscon-2022) This session examined several of the efforts to build trust in reliable news sources, some of which show promise and others that have struggled to gain traction, with a specific focus on their relevance and utility for supporting independent media in the "Global South" and non-English media. The session introduced how projects such as The Trust Project or Ads for News work, and how the emergency response to the invasion of Ukraine triggered new forms of collaboration between tech platforms and media support organisations and what lessons have been learned so far. The full report is available [here](/gfmd-initiatives/dynamic-coalition-sustainability/conferences-events-and-session-recordings/frenemies-reinventing-the-big-tech-versus-journalism-dynamic-rightscon-2022). ### [Reinventing the Big Tech vs journalism dynamic: trust and integrity (International Journalism Festival, 2022)](https://www.journalismfestival.com/programme/2022/reinventing-the-big-tech-v-journalism-dynamic-trust-and-integrity) {% embed url="" %} ### [Big Tech and the Future of Journalism: Reinventing news and information in the age of Google and Facebook (RightsCon Tunis 2019)](https://rightscon2019.sched.com/event/Pvpl) {% embed url="" %} ### [Can media companies use community-based funding models while maintaining journalistic independence? (DW Akademie and Taz Panter Foundation – June 2019)](https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2135087333455593\&ref=watch_permalink) {% embed url="" %} ### [Fending off the trolls: Journalists in defence of democracy (EuroDIG 2019)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZWm0XKE_VA\&ab_channel=EuroDIG) {% embed url="" %} {% endembed %} # IGF 2023 Session: Data, Access & Transparency: A Trifecta for Sustainable News DC-Sustainability Session Key Takeaways, Report and Recording (IGF 2023) {% embed url="" %} **Date**: 10 October, 2023 **Time**: 10:30 - 12:00 JST **Format**: Hybrid {% embed url="" %} {% file src="/files/63UMqB77ZvgIJzHMeXK3" %} #### **Description** This roundtable will assemble experts from media, governments, civil society, big tech, and academia to delve into the evolving regulatory landscape and its implications for the media industry. With the imminent implementation of the EU's Digital Services Act and the consideration in a number of countries of policies similar to Australia's News Media Bargaining Code, the discussion will center on how data, access, and transparency can bolster media sustainability in this rapidly shifting environment. The participants will examine the potential impact of these regulatory frameworks and explore how policies and practices can be developed to create an enabling environment for journalism and news media organizations. By considering these crucial developments, the roundtable aims to provide insights and recommendations that address the challenges and opportunities arising from the evolving regulatory landscape, ensuring a sustainable and thriving future for the media sector. The discussion will focus on the following questions: {% hint style="info" %} How can policymakers ensure a fair and transparent distribution and monetization of media content on big tech platforms, while also protecting the interests of media organizations and preserving a diverse and independent media landscape? {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} What policies and mechanisms can be put in place to facilitate responsible and transparent data sharing between big tech companies, media organizations, and academics, while addressing challenges such as privacy, data security, and intellectual property rights? {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} What regulatory frameworks can governments implement to encourage and enforce transparency and accountability among big tech companies, with regard to their data practices and their impact on media sustainability? {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} How can transparency about media ownership, funding sources, and editorial practices foster accountability, credibility, and independence in journalism and news media? {% endhint %} This multistakeholder discussion will create a platform for collaboration and dialogue, fostering a shared understanding of the complex dynamics at play. It will allow for the exchange of ideas, identification of common goals, and the exploration of potential solutions that will address the interests and concerns of all stakeholders involved. ### Key Takeaways {% hint style="danger" %} Data, access, and transparency are fundamental to the sustainability of news and internet governance. However, data access discrepancies around the world, especially in Global South regions, limit the capacity of research, analysis and reporting about the impact that digital platforms have on news and journalism sustainability, as well as on society as a whole. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} The global reach of supranational policies might require regional/local parties to comply with rules originated elsewhere. The session acknowledged the interconnection of local issues with global ramifications and vice-versa, and stressed the importance of ensuring representation and access to digital policy discussions in all levels for those communities and sectors that will be most affected by these initiatives. {% endhint %} ### Calls to Action {% hint style="warning" %} **To Intergovernmental/Supranational Organizations**: Allocate resources and initiatives to enhance participation and access for underrepresented communities, ensuring their voices are heard in global internet policy discussions, including on data privacy, news sustainability, and generative AI, and that their perspectives are taken into account when drafting resolutions, policies, and guidelines. {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} **To Private Sector**: Ensure that the implementation of internal policies created in compliance with international or supranational bodies take into account the diversity of local context. Engage with local stakeholders, media organizations, journalists, and their communities to address the local implications of global digital policy frameworks. {% endhint %} ### Session Report #### Introduction The DC-Sustainability coordinators, Daniel O’Maley, Waqas Naeem and Courtney Radsch opened the session by underscoring the significance of balancing technology innovation governance with the sustainability of journalism and news media. The key highlight for the year was the dynamic coalition's focus on data transparency and access as vital elements for media sustainability. The coalition's annual report was launched during the session, a collaborative endeavor that offers a snapshot of the critical issues facing the news media industry. The report spotlighted topics like the power imbalances between media and tech giants, the dual nature of government regulations impacting media, and the challenges and opportunities presented by technological innovations, such as generative AI. In the first section of the session, authors of the report presented their chapters: Prue Clarke (New Narratives - Australia), Mike Harris (Exonym - United Kingdom), Juliana Harsianti (Independent Journalist and Researcher - Indonesia) and Juliet Nanfuka (CIPESA - Uganda). Following the presentations of each chapter, members of the DC-Sustainability took the floor to present their work: Michael Markovitz (GIBS Media Leadership Think Tank - South Africa), Ana Cristina Ruelas (UNESCO - Mexico), Julius Endert (DW Academy - Germany), Michael Bak (Forum on Information and Democracy - France), Sabhanaz Rashid Diya (Global Tech Institute - Bangladesh) and Ramiro Alvarez (CELE - Argentina). The session concluded with an open discussion with the audience. #### Global influence of EU/US policies A key topic was the overarching effect of policies and tech companies from powerhouses like the EU and the US on the global digital space. Despite being localized, their ripple effect transcends borders, impacting organizations working in so-called “Global South” countries. These organisations often find themselves grappling with the daunting task of compliance, struggling to decipher a logic they didn't create and can't control. Notably, these policies (both from companies and governments) play a pivotal role in shaping how journalists and media outlets operate, offering them limited avenues to challenge the tech giants. Courtney Radsch elaborated on these techno-legal systems, emphasizing the major influence of US and EU-based tech platforms on global media. These platforms determine how content rules and policies, such as the DMCA and GDPR, are implemented. Tying into the conversation on how centralized internet governance has impacted media visibility and sustainability, Mike Harris spoke about the importance of decentralized rulebook systems to empower news media, especially in the face of challenges from large online platforms. Juliana Harsianti shed light on the evolution of digital technology in Indonesia, emphasizing the implications of regulations intended for e-commerce now being used to restrict journalistic freedom. #### Digital Equity: Paving the Way for Sustainable Journalism Data stands as the backbone of informed decision-making in today's digital realm. Gathering the right data is the first hurdle. With tech platforms influencing the visibility and viability of content, there's an undeniable need for a coordinated approach to collect and utilize data. Such data can aid in understanding audience behaviors, advertising strategies, and the effectiveness of content distribution methods. Ensuring a fair compensation model, bolstered by clear data-driven strategies, can pave the way for the sustainability of quality journalism. In that regard, via a written statement, Michael Markovitz the Conference held in July, “Big Tech and Journalism - Building a Sustainable Future for the Global South” which culminated in the adoption of the Principles for Fair Compensation, aimed to be a framework for the design of policy mechanisms seeking to address media sustainability through competition or regulatory approaches. Prue Clark spotlighted the disparity faced by countries like Liberia in the digital age. The challenges faced by media in such countries, from a lack of digital monetization knowledge to reliance on government support, are evident. Juliet Nanfuka offered a parallel from Uganda, emphasizing the hesitancy in the media's approach to AI, despite the challenges they face. Both Clark and Nanfuka highlighted the struggles and gaps in media adaptation and digital training in lower-income countries. Daniel O’Maley emphasized the transformative power of data sharing, stressing the importance of understanding which data is essential for different sectors. He talks about the implications of data transparency policies, especially considering their global impact. While Nanfuka highlighted the challenges of integrating new technology into media spaces that are already grappling with other significant issues, Julius Ender dived into the transformative power of AI in media, emphasizing the importance of AI literacy. Both Ender and Nanfuka conveyed the urgency for media sectors, especially in developing countries, to understand and adapt to AI's growing influence. #### Regional Focus vs. Global Perspective: During the Members’ Spotlight, Sabhanaz Rashid Diya offered insight into the mission of the Tech Global Institute to bridge the equity gap between the global South and dominant tech platforms. Ramiro Alvarez provided a deep dive into the media landscape of Latin America, emphasizing the influence of state-driven media and the need for more open dialogue. This regional focus complements the broader global themes discussed, reinforcing the idea that global digital governance challenges often manifest in unique regional ways. Despite the fact that the media landscape varies by region and country, there are common threads of challenge and opportunity related to digital governance, sustainability, and the integration of new technologies. #### Conclusion and next steps Overall, the session emphasized the value of global collaboration grounded in local insights. It's not just about dissecting EU or US policies, but also diving deep into what's happening in places like Uganda and Liberia. The local challenges faced in these regions have global implications, reinforcing the need for an inclusive approach in policy discussions. While the EU and US might often take center stage due to their significant influence, the collective effort should focus on ensuring that voices from all corners of the world are heard: Global strategies must be informed by local knowledge and experiences. In the coming months, DC-Sustainability members will meet again to shape the priorities for the year ahead, especially when it comes to envisioning AI governance and its impact in the media. The goal is to ensure that as the world of journalism evolves, it remains rooted in authenticity, inclusivity, and the pursuit of truth. # IGF 2022 Session: Unbreaking the news: Media sustainability in the digital age DC-Sustainability Session Key Takeaways, Report and Recording (IGF 2022) ### Key Takeaways {% hint style="info" %} The digital sphere offers many new opportunities for digital media, however, issues such as monetisation of content, access to data or platform’s content and account moderation policies are threatening the sustainability of the information ecosystem. These issues are exacerbated in those regions where English is not the main language of communication as well as those in which the exchange rates weaken the value of their local currency. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Governments and tech platforms need to take into account the challenges faced by journalists and media in the “Global South” when devising digital regulation. Greater transparency on data collection, content/account moderation, and revenue and monetisation of content are essential to understand the scope of the problem, devise creative solutions and empower a viable and sustainable journalism sector in a constantly evolving digital ecosystem. {% endhint %} ### Recording {% embed url="" %} ### Report The nexus between long-term news sustainability and internet governance is undeniable and more important than ever. How are Internet policies affecting the ability of news organizations and journalists to sustain public interest journalism in the post-pandemic world? What can we expect from proposals to tax technology platforms to fund news media? How does the online advertising business model affect both Internet governance and digital journalism? The session “**Unbreaking the news: Media sustainability in the digital age”** approached these questions and identified some of the challenges for the sustainability of journalism and media online, both looking at the trends and practices of digital media natives, regulatory frameworks and their potential impacts outside the borders they were conceived and the influence (and effects) of platforms’ internal policies on the sustainability of the media around the world. #### Sustainability of independent digital native media organizations SembraMedia’s report, Inflection Point International was launched in 2021 with the goal to give better understanding of challenges and opportunities faced by digital media. Mijal Iastrebner, co-founder and Executive Director of SembraMedia affirmed that “*diversification of revenue is key to sustainability especially for digital business models*” since they are built in an ecosystem where the rules and users’ behavior change really fast. It is also essential for the media to have a strong strategy and a strong mission that can be carried from one platform to the other. This mission needs to be also connected to a social purpose, as Iastrebner warned: “*reach can be momentary, impact is everlasting. Working around your community needs and challenges is and will always be the most effective development plan for media*” Startups, especially in the Majority World or so-called “Global South” are usually the ones focusing on public interest journalism, reporting on minority or marginalized communities. Their social purpose is, in fact, especially relevant considering the impact these digital natives have as key actors in countering mis- and disinformation and improving their communities’ access to trusted and quality information. Essential to the sustainability of these journalists and digital media organizations is the regulatory framework or policies that need to be designed for them to grow and thrive in the digital information ecosystem. #### Rebalancing the digital ecosystem: Regulatory Frameworks and their impact beyond borders News organizations are dependent on platforms to reach their audiences and monetise their content which, especially for digital natives, is essential to ensure their existence and economic sustainability. In her study “Making Big Tech Pay for the News They Use” Dr Courtney Radsch, journalist and scholar at UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy, and co-coordinator of the DC-Sustainability, explores three policy interventions to rebalance the relationship between digital platforms and media: taxation, competition policy and intellectual property interventions. Examples presented were the Australian News Media Bargaining Code which gave news media the right to bargain and license their content to tech platforms or EU’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which provides ancillary rights and frameworks for news outlets to negotiate with platforms at an individual or collective level. The ethical dimensions of the money and how news organizations around the world would use it was a topic that also emerged among the participants. While some were wary of taking money derived from platforms and their collection and commodification of personal data, Anya Schifrin, director of the Technology, Media, and Communications at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, argued that all money comes with risks. While doing research for the report “Saving Journalism”, Schiffrin noticed that journalists in some regions were wary of accepting revenues that came from their governments. Iastrebner explained that in 2021 the leading source of revenue for digital native media continues to be grant funding, followed closely by ad revenue. While grant money abruptly leaving the sector is likely to have a negative impact on the media sector, Iastrebner affirmed that the problem is not being over-depending on grants, but over-depending on just one revenue source. Advertising, government and even private foundations money can all pose ethical questions and compromise the independence of the outlets if safeguards are not put in place. But when it comes to tech companies, the reality is that many of them are trying to minimize their tax burden, when not avoiding it entirely. On the other hand, small, alternative non-English speaking news outlets in the Global South are particularly struggling in the platform era because of constraints in a playing field created by dominant platforms in the Global North. Since governments in many countries around the world might not have the capacity to influence or rebalance this playing field, political powers with that capacity, like the US or the EU, should think outside their boundaries when developing meaningful policy to govern tech platforms. And, in any case, as Schiffrin mentioned, policies can help quality information and journalism no matter the situation of the country, as long as the regional context is taken into account. #### The missing pieces In order to empower journalists, media organizations and other public interest content creators worldwide, participants were nearly unanimous: transparency is essential. The question of what kind of transparency and the lack of it in the digital advertising, publishing and content moderation domains were quite important in the panel discussion, especially transparency regarding algorithms, advertising, revenue and content moderation. Relatedly, the question of how “transparency mandates” could address the lack of transparency arose, particularly since the Digital Services Act in the EU addressed some aspects, but focused primarily on content moderation. The Australian approach, as illustrated by Dr Radsch, included an “algorithmic transparency” requirement for tech platforms to share advance notice with news organizations which is a critical development since major policy shifts have an outsized impact on news media sustainability. There is also a lack of transparency by media organizations and tech companies involving licensing deals. Transparency is crucial to know how to rebalance the digital advertising system. Google and Facebook control 90% of the ads market and own the complicated infrastructure. This raises the question of “antitrust” laws and how to give news organizations the possibility to earn from the ads going to the platforms. In Europe the has been on copyright policy and what the critics have called the so called “link tax”, which would give news organizations some of the income from platforms ads. Tech platforms’ advertising policy also creates challenges for journalists and other content creators. An example of that was the case of sex education content being rejected because it was flagged as pornographic content, as raised by one participant. Others were simply asking for basic data: data that media outlets could use to try to understand and connect with their audiences, develop feedback loops and monetize that relationship, which is also essential for the media business sustainability. Content and account moderation issues were also raised, especially regarding its inconsistency, particularly for content in low resourced digital languages, which impacts the ability of media organizations to serve their audiences and by extension, the public good. Issues regarding the transparency of advertising, algorithms, content and account moderation practices, highlight the outsized influence that tech companies and their internal policies have on the sustainability of news media, as noted in the discussion. #### Conclusions The digital space offers many new opportunities for alternative and digital media, however, to fully achieve the Internet's potential as a channel to disseminate public interest information, facilitate public service and community journalism, and enable community building, the impacts of technology policies and practices on journalists and media organizations needs to be centered in more internet governance and data governance discussions. The lack of consistent policies by both tech companies and governments and the lack of channels to effectively address issues such as content monetisation, access to data or platform’s content and account moderation policies are threatening the sustainability of the information ecosystems worldwide, with an outsized impact in non-English, or smaller “markets” worldwide. Creators of public interest content often lack the capacity to bargain for the appropriate remuneration of their products or to address unjustified content moderation decisions that lead to account suspensions and content takedowns of legitimate public interest information. Participants highlighted the importance of building networks, communities to exchange information, knowledge and data, bring support and do joint advocacy. As one of the participants stressed, “network building is essential for the sustainability of media organizations: a global network is a place to share experiences and skills.” Networks have power: going back to the example of sexual education content, a big campaign succeeded in pressuring the tech company to update its advertising policy. Moreover, these types of communities are specially relevant to think globally, and go beyond boundaries: when connecting experiences from people in different places, more data is collected and stronger arguments are put together. And the more stakeholders involved in these communities, more lines of communication are opened to identify opportunities to collaborate, understand the issues and try to create remedies. The DC-Sustainability was created with this purpose: > “*When we started \[this Dynamic Coalition] it was difficult to convince people why a Dynamic Coalition on journalism and news media sustainability belonged at the Internet Governance Forum and trying to explain why Internet Governance fundamentally shapes the sustainability of news. \[...] We've always realized that the way we govern these platforms and the Internet more broadly has a fundamental impact on news and journalism, which is a public good. And which is fundamental to democratic governance and to accountable governance*.” Courtney Radsch, co-coordinator of the DC-Sustainability. As Radsch stressed: humanity needs reporting, it needs the accountability that independent media bring. The digital age has shown that information barely has boundaries, and while policy making needs to take into account regional particularities and needs, a fragmented approach would weaken the goal to ensure a sustainable information ecosystem worldwide. {% hint style="info" %} **Resources** Radsch, C. (July, 2022) Making Big Tech Pay for the News They Use. Washington DC: Center for International Media Assistance. Available at: SembraMedia, (November, 2021). Inflection Point International: A study of the impact, innovation, threats, and sustainability of digital media entrepreneurs in Latin America, Southeast Asia,and Africa. Available at: Shiffrin, A.; Clifford H., Adjin-Tettey, T. D. (January, 2022) Saving Journalism 2: Global Strategies and a Look at Investigative Journalism. Washington, DC: Konrad Adenauer Stiftng Foundation. Available at: Shiffrin, A. (August, 2022) Australia’s news media bargaining code pries $140 million from Google and Facebook. Poynter. Available at: [https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2022/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-pries-140-million-from-google-and-facebook](https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2022/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-pries-140-million-from-google-and-facebook/) {% endhint %} # Frenemies: reinventing the Big Tech versus journalism dynamic (RightsCon 2022) Report of the session at RightsCon 2022 ### Introduction “*Frenemies*” points out to this type of complicated relationship in which, despite the issues the different parts still need each other. One could notice that journalism and digital platforms have this kind of inseparable “love to hate” relationship, remarked the moderator of the session, Courtney Radsch, Tech policy strategist at GFMD and Co-coordinator of the DC-Sustainability. The digital convergence has upended the news media’s traditional business model while at the same time online disinformation has become an issue of global concern. Journalism “trust initiatives” strive to build a stronger digital news ecosystem and ensure users have access to high-quality news even as Google and Facebook create their own products focused on news media. This session examined several of these efforts to build trust in reliable news sources, some of which show promise and others that have struggled to gain traction, with a specific focus on their relevance and utility for supporting independent media in the "Global South" and non-English media. The session introduced how projects such as The Trust Project or Ads for News work, and how the emergency response to the invasion of Ukraine triggered new forms of collaboration between tech platforms and media support organisations and what lessons have been learned so far. After a brief presentation, the audience splitted in breakout groups to discuss and explore new approaches to trust online, what needs are these news integrity initiatives addressing, and what are their implications for journalism? Furthermore, the audience also questioned if these approaches can be inclusive or scalable, and if (and how) more localized efforts interacted with the global initiatives? ### How familiar was RightsCon audience with news integrity initatives? During the session we asked our audience about their familiarity with the different initiatives that were introduced in the session. The Trust project was one of the more known initiatives, with 65% of the audience stating that they were familiar with the initiative. 60% of the audience was also familiar with Facebook’s journalism integrity work. Although not least important, only a bit more than a third of the audience was familiar with Ads for News. Although this was not a surprise for Jason Lambert, Senior Director of Media Business at Internews, hopefully, for the other 68% of the audience, Ads for News was one of the big discoveries made during the session. ### Protecting news integrity: initiatives in and out digital platforms > “*There is a link between local news and being able to hold accountable those in power, healthy democracies and thriving environments and open markets.*” Jason Lambert, Senior Director of Media Business at Internews Over the last years of digital transition, which were accelerated by COVID, the big ad spend money that was going to print and broadcast, did not go to digital to the same extent. Big tech companies have become intermediaries through their digital platforms between content producers, advertisers and consumers. This has gone against the news media. In addition to that, Jason Lambert, Senior Director of Media Business at Internews pointed out that some big brands decided not to advertise in news because they do not want to have their ads placed next to “negative” stories like COVID, or Black Lives Matter, or Ukraine, for example. “*And that's really damaging*” Jason said, “*Having brands pull their money away from news is catastrophic* ''. For that reason, the initiative of Ads for News tries to bring back brands to trusted local news as a way to protect news integrity in the digital sphere. On the other hand, The Trust Project started in 2013 with the aim of helping news organisations strengthen their presence in the digital space. “*The idea behind The Trust Project is to ask news organisations to step forward to describe who and what is behind their news organisation, behind that individual news story, so people can make an informed choice about whether to trust this news.*” explained Sally Lehrman, founder and CEO of The Trust Project. This builds on the idea that journalists should not be saying what their audiences should believe, trust or vote, but, on the contrary give the information to the public so they can make their own decisions. Not only the donors or the general public use these indicators. Digital platforms are also joining the efforts to protect news integrity. Their approach, similar to The Trust Project, is to assist users to make their own judgements on what and how they consume by labelling content in the platforms, always making sure that is done in a transparent way. “*The challenge that platforms are facing is that there are lots of indicators and really good work that everyone is doing. But the implementation is really the challenging part.*” expressed Sarah Shirazyan, Content Policy Manager at Facebook. However it is still difficult to assess whether, for example, an entity is a state media or not. The platform’s team needs to decipher any information available, like ownership indicators. “*There isn't a list that really says all of these organisations are funded or supported by X, Y, and Z governments.*” Sarah stated, “similarly for the local news, we have to scramble.” > “*I think there is this misconception that Facebook and platforms in general are not interested in high quality content. But it is quite the opposite: high quality and diversified content is really at the core of the long term sustainability of digital platforms*.” Sarah Shirazyan, Content Policy Manager at Facebook. ### How are these initiatives used? The Trust Project formulated eight trust indicators, as a result of extensive research with news users. At the moment, these trust indicators are being applied by 265 news organisations in various countries around the globe: Europe, North and Latin America, Asia… * Expertise, who is the journalists, * Labelling news versus opinion versus paid content. * Referencing, when stories are more controversial or based on investigative work, show the sources to the audience so they can check the accuracy and reliability of the story that is being told. * Local knowledge, demographic expertise, knowing the community which also leads to the following indicator: * Including the diversity of voices and perspectives. * Allowing the audience or public to give feedback, to better engage and include them in the reporting. * Methods and explanation of the practices. * Best practices are really important since they show the why and how the public service agenda is retained, as opposed to an agenda that just serves whoever the owner is or the governments. Regarding their effectiveness, multiple studies have been conducted and the results show that using those indicators enhances people’s perceptions of the credibility of the site, the news, the reporter, and also stimulates a desire to engage. “In essence,” Sally affirms, “the indicators work''. In practical terms, Facebook has used the indicators when trying to separate news from other types of content, so have Bing and Google to surface reliable and reputable news via the rater guidelines. However, rebuilding trust in this era of uncertainty and polarisation that has been triggered by mis- and disinformation forces: > “*Trust indicators are one way to address this but not the only one. The last piece is in our news feeds, by starting to focus less on the conflict and both sides, and really showing more diverse news. That will help tamp down polarisation in both sides*” Sally Lehrman, founder and CEO of The Trust Project Ads for News has a list of 8000 news media websites, focusing primarily on local news websites in over 30 countries. The project has been active for over two-three years, “it’s been a pretty hard work” Jason admitted, “but we have some great partners”, Ads for News has an agreement with one of the world’s largest advertising agency to get a percentage of all their clients spend in the Asia Pacific region and give it to the trusted local news list of Ads for News. “Our definition of local news is that it is an organisation that employs journalists at the municipal level to hold to account those in power at that level. And that will also include national media, independent national media” But it is not an easy work: in order to drive more money to local news and to generate these lists used by Ads for News, there is a need to have a team dedicated to continuously fundraising from donors and have teams in each country to index local news. As Jason noted, it is not a sustainable model. For that reason, Jason’s team are looking for other approaches, like having a group of volunteers working with them in each country, indexing trusted local media according to the standards and the set criteria. This approach embeds the concept of social profit in their initiative. The idea behind this concept is that: > “All of us in order to have profit or to gain benefit from a system, whether it's a business that we're running or our careers, we all need to do things which are good for society in order to take that profit back out. The social profit for these volunteers is that they will do a good thing and they will also get recognized as knowing what trusted news is, they'll get recognized for being associated with an initiative like this, which feeds money towards trusted local news.” It is still to be seen if this idea of social profit can be embedded in the whole news ecosystem, to get people to look after the markets that they operate in and help identify the quality and trusted content, so the malicious or misleading one can be defunded. ### Supporting local news: Ukraine The Global Forum for Media Development is a network of more than 120 small, local, regional and international organisations in more than 50 countries that promote freedom of expression and freedom of the media by supporting journalists, journalism organisations and independent media in these countries. As Mira Milosevic, GFMD’s Executive Director, stated, “GFMD’s core mission is providing a convening space for the local independent community voices to give input, especially in the digital sphere, on how to build a more fair, inclusive and equitable digital environment”. This convening space is also used to bring different assistance to organisations in certain countries in times of crises. So, when the invasion of Ukraine started, GFMD quickly reacted by organising weekly meetings bringing together different organisations that were providing assistance to journalists, media organisations or human rights activists. During these meetings, organisations shared what they were doing, what was needed, and how to better coordinate among themselves and among others to better assist media outlets and journalists in the field. One of the main issues quickly identified during these meetings was that many local voices were not recognised by platforms as credible and trusted voices. As it has been noted above, before the invasion of Ukraine, Facebook had already started investing many efforts in supporting news integrity and news quality in their platform, by, for example, creating a dedicated teams that work with organisations and experts to synthesise and understand the different trust indicators and ensuring that the input received is channelled in their own policy and product development process. During the second week of Ukraine’s invasion, Facebook reached out to those different experts and organisations that had helped their work in supporting news in their platforms, like GFMD, this time, looking for recommended trusted and credible sources of information in Ukraine and the region. In response to that call to action, and being already identified , GFMD created a list of trusted local organisations by crowdsourcing information with their members and partners who not only subscribe to GFMD’s code of practice but also to the very elaborate vetting that include indicators from GFMD partners such as Internews and the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), and similar indicators as the ones in the Trust Project. As a result, in seven days, GFMD managed to crowdsource a list of organisations in Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and other countries in the region, including the very few independent Russian organisations that provide independent information in Russia. The list, however, did not only inform one of the big digital platforms, but GFMD also sent it to Twitter, seeking their assistance to “give the blue tick” to the organisations that GFMD members worked with in the region. GFMD and its members and partners continue updating and improving the list, keeping the communication’s channel open with both tech platforms to ensure that local voices are heard despite the ongoing turmoil. ### Conversations in the breakout groups #### AI and Content Moderation One of the issues that arose in the different groups was about content moderation and the use of Artificial Intelligence technologies or other kinds of algorithms to moderate and recommend content in the digital platforms. One group outlined the problems with current moderation practices, such as: {% hint style="info" %} NGO quasi-journalistic blogs getting mixed up with malicious actors and not appearing in algorithms, {% endhint %} {% hint style="warning" %} The use of moderation tools by savy malicious actors to grow misinformation {% endhint %} {% hint style="danger" %} And how the current system keeps amplifying extreme content, emphasising conflict, creating a distorted reality {% endhint %} Although not in the same room, other groups also recognised that AI does not precisely detect differences in media content and, despite that, AI is scalable and is being used by the ad industry. It was also said that AI is conservative: “as an example, a decision on news content with keywords such as ‘Ukraine’ would be seen as the content being negative (due to the Russian invasion/war) and AI will advise the advertiser to pull ads from that content” shared one participant. Moreover, since the lack of transparency in moderation can be harmful, one group came up with some actions that platforms could undertake to improve their moderation practices: {% hint style="info" %} Involve the broader public {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Come to a set of agreements/guidelines just for NGOs {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} Have more conversations to assist building up the guardrails. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Recognizing trusted partners who can develop those guidelines {% endhint %} #### Context, Scale and Diversity Another problem that was flagged was that different media environments could have different impact on journalism trust projects (e.g. polarised media contexts such as South Asia/MENA or elections/disinformation-related situations, as in the Philippines). Therefore, **indicators should be contextually sensitive:** one participant from the Philippines explained how during the 2016 elections, Facebook was used as a platform to spread disinformation, while, at the same time, trust in traditional media outlets and journalists was as rapidly eroded as it was their own safety: harassment and hatred were directed towards journalists and media workers, or anyone who, at some point, expressed criticism on Duterte. Bloggers and influencers filled the online information space that once belonged to journalism, without self-regulatory bodies or ethical councils that could redress the spread or mis- and disinformation or safeguard freedom of expression and ensure plurality of views. #### **Building trust: a pressing issue** One thing is clear: trust in the media is linked to trust in institutions. If the trust in mainstream media is eroded, it directly impacts the trust in the democratic institutions. But platform recognition of who is a credible news source presents also some challenges: It can seem really ad-hoc, and it can pose a challenge for media development organisations to decide about which media outlets to work with and where to spend money. Moreover if this also affects decisions related to platform takedowns, for example, in the case when a platform might not consider a certain news outlet as a news source therefore it will not consider their takedown complaints as a legitimate journalism issue. ### **Lessons Learned** “In our research” Sally mentioned ”we found a lot of uncertainty and anxiety”. Because of that, people are vulnerable to be exploited by toxic forces, “platforms could do more, we ought to do more to address that group.” To not leave anyone behind, Sally also recognised the collective need to uplift local BIPOC and other undercovered and often attacked voices. At the same time, local organisations struggle to find a channel to speak with tech platforms about the different issues that they face in the digital environment. This happens not only in the context of war or crisis, but also in peaceful times. > “*There is definitely a need to speak about more inclusive, meaningful representation, and for us, as a civil sector to come together to create mechanisms for all these credible voices to be systematically represented, and not only in the times of crisis.*” Mira Milosevic, GFMD’s Executive Director Nonetheless, although GFMD’s list has helped both local organisations and global tech platforms, similarly to the case of Ads for News initiative, some concerns arise about the sustainability of this model. Building those lists involves different teams updating them and crowdsourcing information, and, in addition, ensuring transparency in all the stages of the process, including who is contributing to the lists, needs to be a priority. While platforms are relying on such tools to uplift local voices, trusted media and journalist’s content, for Sarah, a question remains: “***how can we, as a community, create more practical implementations for those trust indicators?***” Although the question might remain unanswered for now, as perhaps there is no right or unique answer, the discussion in small groups flagged many issues and posed different ideas regarding ways to disentangle this puzzling but necessary relation between digital platforms and journalism. Since many things are left to be resolved, the conversation will need to remain open. To stay up to date on the most relevant issues of the field sign up for the official mailing list for the Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media [here](https://groups.io/g/dc-sustainability). ### Shared resources {% hint style="info" %} [This spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRBT_52r5vyQcI-k5GNyMUytO1SdJx89EVkkH37PK9lnSU-pFLPWHWdu3Ri_S2JtHIwQq_i7xKlqK-I/pubchart?oid=1637270376\&format=interactive) shows the geographic spread of media that have received funds from Google and Facebook's various journalism/news initiatives (from Prof. Charis Papaev presented at #ica22) {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} Recommended reading: *Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech under Surveillance Capitalism*, Jillian C. York (2021) {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} GFMD's [Internet governance resource centre](https://gfmd.gitbook.io/internet-governance/) {% endhint %} # EU Media Advocacy Working Group Introduction to the EU Media Advocacy Working Group and how to use the resource centre. This resource centre supports the work of the **EU Media Advocacy Working Group -** an informal network for organisations within the journalism support, media development, digital rights, media freedom, and wider democracy support communities conducting advocacy work within European Union (EU) institutions on media-related issues. It is administered by the [**Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD)**](https://gfmd.info/) but is not exclusively for GFMD’s members. If you are a GFMD member, you can also [explore this inspiring story](https://gfmd.info/eu-media-advocacy-working-group/) from our members who are part of the EU Media Advocacy group. ## Background The EU Media Advocacy Working Group (WG) first convened in autumn 2019 after representatives from GFMD, the [**Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)**](https://cpj.org/europe/), and the [**European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)**](https://europeanjournalists.org/) recognised the need for a dedicated space to share information, coordinate efforts, and collaborate together regarding the increasing number of media policy priorities within the EU. Since then, the group has expanded to include organisations working across the EU and EU Neighbourhood countries. The group meets on at least a monthly basis to share information and updates about ongoing advocacy, while also providing a space for organisations with shared media-related advocacy objectives to work together more efficiently. ## How do we operate? The EU Media Advocacy Working Group is a non-hierarchical network driven by the open exchange of knowledge and expertise with the aim to build cooperation and solidarity. It functions primarily to bring together relevant individuals and organisations who are working on shared advocacy objectives; thus, there is no formalised structure or centralised coordination. Instead, we identify the major policy areas relevant to EU institutions and coordinate via sub-working groups led by at least one volunteer (detailed below). As we are composed of a range of different groups with different mandates and approaches, we do not define objectives or set strategies for individual organisations. On the contrary, we meet regularly, share information, and then follow-up with agreed joint pieces of advocacy. Any member is also free to be as involved in either the working groups or the sub-working groups as they see fit and permitting their capacity under the condition that individual organisations do not take information provided by others and use it for their own means. We primarily communicate using the EU Media Advocacy Riseup list administered by GFMD ([**eu-media-advocacy@lists.riseup.net**](mailto:eu-media-advocacy@lists.riseup.net)), but [**sub-working groups**](/gfmd-initiatives/eu-media-advocacy-working-group/previous-groups-initiatives) coordinate their work on their own (e.g., by sending an email to all those interested in that particular topic). The mailing list membership list and archives are private, and only subscribed members may access them. ## Who can join and participate in the EU Media Advocacy Working Group? {% hint style="success" %} Any organisation working on media-related EU advocacy can be included in the working group and sub-working groups. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} In general, membership is open to civil society who, even if based remotely, undertake – at least to some degree and even if only minimal – media- and/or democracy-based advocacy within the EU. {% endhint %} {% hint style="warning" %} Involvement by for-profit organisations outside of the journalism sector has so far been restricted. {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} For any additional information, contact Laura Becana Ball, the coordinator of the WG mailing list, at [lbecanaball@gfmd.info](mailto:undefined) {% endhint %} ## EU Media Advocacy Priorities In 2026 negotiations for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) (EU's long-term budget) (2028–2034) have already begun. The EU Media Advocacy Group is following the EU's budgetary instruments that relate to: * AgoraEU Programme * Global Europe Instrument * European Competitiveness Fund Find out more about the EU's Media Advocacy work around the MFF here: {% embed url="" %} ## Sub-working groups At the beginning of 2020, the group set out thematic concerns that required regular consultation in terms of EU advocacy. Sub-groups have been created for each thematic area, to go further into detail (separately) in terms of substance, and then report back to the wider group during a plenary call (which happens around once per month for one hour). The sub-groups work at their own pace and independently set their priorities with the common understanding that anyone who is part of the wider group and wishes to contribute to the discussion is free to do so. **The following proposals have been addressed by sub-working groups:** {% embed url="" %} {% embed url="" %} {% embed url="" %} The overall effectiveness of this working group relies on both distributed participation from among its members and their sub-working group activities, as well as respecting the need to consult with the wider group to solicit greater support on our joint advocacy and policy initiatives. Doing so ensures greater cohesion among our members and our messaging, but even more crucially, aims to promote a more unified sectoral response to common policy areas. # EU Advocacy - 2025 Priorities {% embed url="" %} # EU Advocacy - 2024 Priorities As we step into 2024, the EU advocacy spotlight turns to the decisive European elections, and the implementation of key regulations: the DSA, the EMFA, and the AI Act. 2024 is a pivotal year marked by the European elections: the landscape of media and digital communications in the EU is on the brink of transformative change. With the implementation of landmark regulations—the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), and the AI Act— the EU Media Advocacy Group's focus is sharpened on safeguarding media freedom, ensuring transparent digital services, and establishing ethical AI use standards. These regulations are not just legislative texts; they are the blueprints for a resilient, fair, and innovative digital future. In the next crucial years, we will keep advocating for policies that strengthen media integrity, promote digital transparency, and protect the public interest in the ever-evolving digital domain. ### Priorities and Sub-working groups
PriorityCoordinators and Groups
Elections and post-election monitoringCPJ
European Media Freedom Act

GFMD

Sub-working groups for implementation based on different articles

AI and JournalismEFJ, GFMD
Rule of Law

External group coordinated by EPD

Internal Coordinator: CPJ

SLAPPs

External groups coordinated by CASE

Internal Coordinator: FPU

Digital Services ActExternal groups by CDT + DSA - Human Rights Alliance (EFF, Access Now)
Together, these texts now cover a broad range of advocacy opportunities. {% hint style="warning" %} Mapping exactly what each text seeks to achieve and how the Commission is \[on paper] seeking to marry these initiatives requires a few mental gymnastics. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Which is why GFMD has launched this resource center to map out all the areas of concern. {% endhint %} ## Legislation & Regulation * [**European Media Freedom Act (EMFA)**](/policies-and-legislation/european-media-freedom-act-emfa) * [**Digital Services Act (DSA)**](/policies-and-legislation/digital-services-act) # 2024 EU Elections Manifestos, letters and recommendations from members of the EU Media Advocacy Group for the upcoming EU elections and the next mandate 2024-2029. ## [Do the next right thing for Media and Democracy](https://www.ebu.ch/guides/open/report/do-the-next-right-thing-for-media-and-democracy) - European Broadcasting Union {% embed url="" %} ## [Priorities for the new EU Commission 2024-29](https://www.article19.org/resources/eu-next-commission-must-strive-for-an-open-information-environment/) - ARTICLE 19 Recommendations {% embed url="" %} ## [Stand up for Journalism as a Public Good](https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2024/03/07/efj-manifesto-for-2024-eu-elections-stand-up-for-journalism-as-a-public-good/) - European Federation of Journalists Manifesto for 2024 Elections {% embed url="" %} # Previous groups/initiatives ### Previous groups/initiatives and their coordinators were: #### 1. Rule of Law Mechanism 1. Tom Gibson, CPJ 2. Nicholas Aiossa, Transparency International EU #### 2. Digital Services Act & Digital Markets Act 1. Ruth-Marie Henckes, EPD 2. Maria Luisa Stasi, ARTICLE 19 3. Nick Martlew and Layla Wade, Digital Action #### 3. SLAPPs 1. Tom Gibson, CPJ 2. Sarah Clarke, ARTICLE 19 3. Julie Majerczak, RSF 4. Camille Petit, EFJ #### 4. European Democracy Action Plan & Media and Audiovisual Action Plan 1. Ruth-Marie Henckes, EPD #### 5. COVID-19 reporting group 1. Oliver Money-Kyrle, IPI #### 6. Funding for independent journalism 1. Tom Law, GFMD (external funding) 2. Renate Schroeder, EFJ (internal and external funding) # Members & Observers This page is a list of the organisations who have representatives participating in the EU Media Advocacy Working Group as active members or as observers. * [**AEJ** Association of European Journalists](https://aej.org/) * [**Agora (Poland)**](https://www.agora.pl/) * [**AIJ** International Alliance of Journalists](http://www.alliance-journalistes.net/rubrique1.html) * [**AMARC Europea**](https://amarceurope.eu/) * [**AMO** Action for International Affairs](https://www.amo.cz/en/) * [**ARTICLE 19**](https://www.article19.org/) * [**Avaaz**](https://secure.avaaz.org/page/en/) * [**BBC** Media Action ](https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/) * [**BIRN** Balkan Investigative Journalism Network](https://birn.eu.com/) * [**CIMA** Center for International Media Assistance](https://www.cima.ned.org/) * [**CFI Media Development**](https://cfi.fr/fr) * [**CPJ** Committee to Protect Journalists](https://cpj.org/) * [**DCGF** Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation](https://www.daphne.foundation/en/) * [Democratic Society](https://www.demsoc.org/) * [Digital Action](https://digitalaction.co/) * [**Disinfo.eu**](https://policy-advocacy.gfmd.info/gfmd-initiatives/eu-media-advocacy-working-group/www.Disinfo.eu) * [**DRI** Democracy Reporters International](http://democracy-reporting.org/) * [**DW Akademie** Deutsche Welle Akademie ](https://akademie.dw.com/en/home/s-9519) * [**EBU** European Broadcasting Union](https://www.ebu.ch/home) * [**ECPMF** European Centre for Press & Media Freedom](https://www.ecpmf.eu/) * [**EDMO** European Digital Media Observatory](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-digital-media-observatory) * [**EDRi** European Digital Rights](https://edri.org/) * [**EFJ** European Federation of Journalists](https://europeanjournalists.org/) * [Empower House (Denmark)](https://empowerhouse.dk/) * [**EPD** European Partnership for Democracy](https://epd.eu/) * [**Faktograf** - the Association for the Informed Public](http://udruga.faktograf.hr/) * [**FPU** Free Press Unlimited](https://www.freepressunlimited.org/en) * [Fondation Hirondelle](https://www.hirondelle.org/fr/) * [Human Rights Society](https://humanrightshouse.org/) * [**IFD** Forum of Information and Democracy](https://informationdemocracy.org/) * [**GFMD** Global Forum for Media Development](https://gfmd.info/) * [**GNI** Global Network Initiative ](https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/) * [Index of Censorship](https://www.indexoncensorship.org/) * [IFEX International Freedom Exchange](https://ifex.org/) * [**IPI** International Press Institute](https://ipi.media/) * [**IMS** International Media Support](https://www.mediasupport.org/) * [Internews](https://internews.org/) * [**KAS** Konrad Adenaeur Stiftung](https://www.kas.de/de/home) * [Lie Detectors](https://lie-detectors.org/) * [Media4 Democracy](https://media4democracy.org/en/) * [Media Defence](https://www.mediadefence.org/) * [**MDI** Media Diversity Institute](https://www.media-diversity.org/) * [**MFRR** Media Freedom Rapid Response](https://www.mfrr.eu/) * [News Gain](https://www.newsgain.com/) * [**OBCT** Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa](https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/) * [**OCCRP** Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Network](https://www.occrp.org/) * [**OSF** Open Society Foundations](https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/) * [Pen International](https://pen-international.org/) * [**PUHF** Polytechnic University of Hauts-de-France](https://www.uphf.fr/en) * [Reset (Luminate Group)](https://www.luminategroup.com/reset%E2%80%8B) * [**RSF** Reporters Without Borders](https://rsf.org/en) * [**SEEMO** South East Europe Media Organisation](https://seemo.org/) * [Stiftung Neue Verantwortung](https://www.stiftung-nv.de/) * Transitions * [Transparency International](https://www.transparency.org/en) * [**UNESCO** United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization](https://www.unesco.org/en) * [Vikes](https://vikes.fi/) * [**WACC** World Association for Christian Communication ](https://waccglobal.org/) * [**WAN-IFRA** World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers](https://wan-ifra.org/) * [Wikimedia](https://www.wikimedia.org/) # Working Group on UN Advocacy Freedom of expression, media freedom, and access to information are fundamental to achieving the entirety of the Sustainable Development Goals: for fostering fair and just communities, pursuing meaningful and sustainable development and peace, and addressing shared interests in areas such as health, climate change, social justice, economic growth, gender equality, and youth empowerment. This Working Group provides a space for GFMD members and partners to share information and contribute to advocacy efforts regarding relevant UN-related processes. As of 2025, the main focus of the group are [the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)+20 review](https://policy-advocacy.gfmd.info/gfmd-initiatives/working-group-on-un-advocacy/wsis+20-review) and [the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4).](https://policy-advocacy.gfmd.info/gfmd-initiatives/working-group-on-un-advocacy/the-fourth-international-conference-on-financing-for-development-ffd4) Throughout 2024, this space has allowed GFMD and its members to actively engage with the United Nations around the Summit of the Future and its outcome documents, including the Pact for the Future and the Global Digital Compact. These efforts focused on advocating that these processes acknowledge the centrality of access to information and fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression and media freedom, including the safety of journalists, the vibrancy and viability of public interest media, and the resilience of a healthy, affordable, and autonomous information ecosystem. For more information about the group and how to join the effort, please contact us at . Visit the following pages to learn more: {% content-ref url="/pages/G9EMEt4iMJLCuQzx1W5A" %} [The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4)](/gfmd-initiatives/un-advocacy/ffd4) {% endcontent-ref %} {% content-ref url="/pages/KbK9JDe0oYC7YOnuBwmv" %} [WSIS+20 Review](/gfmd-initiatives/un-advocacy/wsis+20-review) {% endcontent-ref %} {% content-ref url="/pages/L5CPDh3WFNqyLF1VCrac" %} [Summit of the Future](/gfmd-initiatives/un-advocacy/summit-of-the-future) {% endcontent-ref %} You can find other resources and related information in the following pages of our policy meetings: * [GFMD Policy Meeting, March 2025](/meetings/2025/gfmd-policy-meeting-march-2025) * [Post-Summit of the Future Updates and Upcoming Opportunities (November 2024)](/meetings/2024/post-summit-of-the-future-updates) {% hint style="info" %} *To stay updated on the latest information and engage in our coordination efforts, join our UN Policy and Advocacy group by visiting* [*https://gfmd.groups.io/g/UN*](https://gfmd.groups.io/g/UN) *or* [*UN+subscribe@gfmd.groups.io*](mailto:UN+subscribe@gfmd.groups.io)*.* {% endhint %} # The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) ## About [**The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4)** ](https://financing.desa.un.org/ffd4)offers a unique opportunity to reform financing at all levels, including supporting the reform of international financial architecture. It is the only forum where leaders from governments, international organisations, financial and trade institutions, businesses, civil society, and the UN system meet at the highest level to strengthen cooperation. ## Why is this crucial for media assistance and journalism support? The framework for development financing shapes the architecture of international development. It is essential to ensure that **public interest media are explicitly referenced** in the outcome document, recognising their vital role in promoting transparency, accountability, and public engagement in development financing. Furthermore, the outcome document should include stronger references to civil society and robust **human rights commitments**, reinforcing the principle that international development and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) is one of the key global policy processes shaping the future of journalism and is pivotal in ensuring journalism remains a cornerstone of democracy and the public interest. To effectively advocate for journalism and media freedom, we must actively engage in these discussions. As we face growing challenges in securing the necessary preconditions and infrastructure—legal, financial, technological, and institutional—required for journalism to operate, it is essential to ensure that human rights, freedom of expression, civil society, and, in particular, the journalism and media community are recognised—not only as stakeholders but as a sector deserving of funding from both state and multilateral institutions. ## Roadmap

Source:https://financing.desa.un.org/ffd4

## Timeline * **10th March 2025** - New draft of the text was circulated. Time will be given for Member States to comment on the next draft and consult Capitals. * **24th March** — PR Level Meeting for general comments on the new text. * **1st - 8h April** will be the first round of intersessionals (negotiations). * **28 - 29 April** - ECOSOC Forum on FInancing for Development. * **30 April - 1 May 2025** - First part of the PrepComm’s fourth session. * **2 - 9 May 2025** - Second round of intersessionals (negotiations). * between intersessionals (May-June): * Member States offer general comments on the draft outcome document. * Line-by-line text-based negotiations. * Co-facilitators hold informal informals and consultations. * **27-30 May 2025 -** Third intersessional featuring line-by-line text-based negotiations. * **Mid-June 2025** - Fourth session of the PrepComm reconvenes with the aim of reaching consensus on the outcome document. * **30 June - 3 July 2025** - FFD4 convenes in Seville, Spain, focused on reforming financing and international financial architecture. The Co-Chairs of the FFD4 Preparatory Committee are Mexico, Nepal, Norway and Zambia. ## Outcome document ### First draft outcome document The [*First Draft Outcome Document* of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development ](https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/FFD4%20Outcome%20First%20Draft.pdf)was published on March 10, 2025. Previously, the [*Zero Draft Outcome Document* ](https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/FfD4%20Outcome%20Zero%20Draft.pdf)was released in January 2025. ## Key messages GFMD urges UN member states to consider two key points to strengthen FFD4 and ensure its success: **PT 1: Strengthen and incorporate existing global commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals and the Pact for the Future as foundations for success of the FFD4 agreement** While we commend first draft version document reaffirming commitment to realize sustainable development, including effectively implementing the 2030 Agenda and upholding all principles enshrined in it we call upon specifically referencing SDG16 and longstanding UN frameworks for fundamental freedoms including freedom of expression, and SDG 16’s specific targets for effective governance, transparency and safety of journalists. While we commend the commitments on financing and development in the [Pact for the Future](https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sotf-pact_for_the_future_adopted.pdf) in the first draft outcome document, we call for further reference to specific parts of the Pact representing broad consensus on a series of fundamental commitments to build trustworthy news and information systems that enhance transparency, accountability, access to data, and information literacy. Furthermore, as part of the Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact establishes principles for digital governance, digital rights, and diverse media ecosystems to ensure that the internet, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies serve human needs and progress. We urge that FFD4 reiterate these important goals in this section of the document as part of its foundational aims and objectives. #### PT 2: Support public interest media capacity to improve governance and promote transparency and public engagement in development financing We urge member states to acknowledge the pivotal role of public interest media in fostering transparency, accountability, and the protection of human rights within the context of financing for development—particularly the contributions of investigative journalists. We ask that FFD4 recognize the need for strengthening the institutional infrastructure for professional media that serves the public good and that it endorse enhancing the capacities of journalists to cover and explain the development finance process to the public. We also encourage states to recognize the role of public interest media in advancing financial literacy, raising awareness, empowering citizens to demand accountability, scrutinizing those in power, and guaranteeing public access to reliable information. FF4D’s initiative to enhance the quality of data and statistics and to strengthen the capacity of countries to produce their own development statistics necessitates a complementary focus on building statistical literacy among journalists and the public. This approach will ensure that new data is communicated in accessible and comprehensible formats, thereby providing essential feedback on the efficacy of development initiatives and enabling citizens to hold both governments and donors accountable for their actions. The successful implementation of FF4D will depend not only on widespread public understanding of its objectives but also on the availability of timely and accurate information regarding its progress. This flow of information will rely on the presence of a robust and independent media system—operating both domestically and internationally. **PT 3: Ensure investments in public digital infrastructure are transparent, secure, and user-centered** As international development financing increasingly supports digital infrastructure—often in collaboration with private sector partnerships—states bear the responsibility to implement robust safeguards that protect human rights, ensure transparency, and promote accountability. We urge member states to invest in resilient, secure, affordable, inclusive, and interoperable digital financial infrastructure, prioritizing the public good. These investments must be transparent and based on comprehensive human rights impact assessments and risk evaluations, incorporating secure digital systems and user-centered safeguards at their core. It is essential to prioritize initiatives that enhance civic resilience against digital information manipulation and improve digital, media, information and financial literacy. Both traditional and digital media play a critical role in bridging knowledge gaps and facilitating the dissemination of culturally relevant content, thereby fostering informed and engaged societies. \
# GFMD statement to the Fourth Preparatory Committee Session Comments from the Global Forum for Media Development to Fourth Preparatory Conference of FFD4 GFMD welcomes -- in the “first draft” of the outcome document -- the recognition of the media sector as a key stakeholder and contributor to sustainable development, particularly in fostering transparency, accountability, and good-governance practices. We also welcome the reaffirmation in this draft of the critical role of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda, the Pact for the Future and other references to fundamental freedoms established United Nations founding documents.
We also fully endorse the comments by UNESCO that were submitted to the co-chairs on April 10, which suggest specific wording and additions that will strengthen and enhance the Outcome Document. Today, we would like to emphasize three areas that we feel deserve further enhancement in the text. **Point 1:** The FFD4 framework should reaffirm and strengthen commitments to transparent, inclusive governance, fundamental freedoms, and trustworthy information systems—central to achieving sustainable development and the success of the FFD4 agreement. We endorse the additional sentence proposed by UNESCO to paragraph 13, which makes the point that free, independent, and pluralistic media will enhance FFD4’s commitments to transparency and good governance.
**Point 2:** Member states should recognize and support the vital role of independent public interest media in promoting transparency, accountability, and public engagement in development financing. This includes enhancing journalists’ capacity to report on financial processes, fostering financial and statistical literacy, and ensuring accessible, reliable information for all. In addition, we welcome the recognition in paragraph 24(b) of the role that media and civil society play in exposing illicit financial flows (IFFs), but we would propose that this paragraph be expanded to read: > We will support the role that the media and civil society play in exposing IFFs and will support efforts to strengthen the capacity and institutional infrastructure of professional journalism organizations as well as civil society in carrying out this role. **Point 3:** Member states should ensure that investments in digital public infrastructure are transparent, inclusive, and rights-based, with robust safeguards to protect human rights, promote accountability, and strengthen civic resilience against digital information manipulation. To this end, we endorse UNESCO’s proposals for insertions in Paragraphs 52 and 54, which reinforce these human rights and user-centered safeguards. Thank you. Mark Nelson on behalf of Global Forum for Media Development
# Advocacy Toolkit ## GFMD calls for stronger recognition of the role of public interest media, civil society, and robust human rights commitments within the development financing framework (2025) We’ve prepared this toolkit to help guide your advocacy around [The 4th International Conference on Financing for Development](https://financing.desa.un.org/ffd4). This toolkit includes guidance to engage in preparation for the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development and comment on the outcome documents. {% embed url="" %} # Relevant Resources ## EU and OACPS reaffirm commitment to Global Sustainable Development for the FfD4 (2025) Delegation of the European Union to Mozambique {% embed url="" %}
## CIVICUS at the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development: Statement and List of Events #### CIVICUS {% embed url="" %}
## Can the Conference on Financing for Development Succeed? (2025) Project Syndicate {% embed url="" %} ### **Civil Society engagement in Tax reform (2019)** Transparency and Accountability Initiative (TAI) This research project aims to provide a more politically informed understanding of civil society in relation to domestic tax reform (as opposed to the better documented international tax justice movement) and to explore how international development actors can lend more effective support to CSOs engaged in this space. {% file src="/files/DEntCi3ZSo8ccOle5GmV" %} {% file src="/files/PQD2HgMmNszc6SHVXqvL" %} ### **Setting the global agenda for tax, debt and international aid through 2035 (2024)** #### **Dr. Matti Kohonen** This [brief ](https://files.gitbook.com/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FHiK1GuLfDqNqemz6Ckbt%2Fuploads%2FtwV8jXijnkkMgYgw41wA%2FFinancing_for_Development_Briefing_for_Philanthropy_b7c399e0c4.pdf?alt=media\&token=7e80a385-6ead-4546-9313-af8afb03bde9)was commissioned by the Trust, Accountability, and Inclusion Collaborative (TAI) for the philanthropic donor community. \\ {% file src="/files/sBAo5tp8yEHGRCsOpkiM" %} ### Lula, Sánchez, Ramaphosa: 2025 will be decisive for multilateralism (2025) #### Andreia Verdélio - Agência Brasil - Brasília The presidents of Brazil, South Africa, and Spain urge that 2025’s global meetings must drive “real progress,” not just repeat past efforts. In a joint letter published Thursday (Mar. 6), they stress 2025 as a crucial year for multilateralism, highlighting key summits in their nations: FfD4 in Spain, COP30 in Brazil, and the G20 Summit in South Africa. {% embed url="" %} ### CIVICUS’ Input on the Financing for Development Zero Draft (2025) #### CIVICUS In early January, the co-facilitators released the [zero draft](https://financing.desa.un.org/document/ffd4-outcome-document-zero-draft) of the conference’s outcome document. CIVICUS calls for the explicit commitment to protect civic space, support for locally led development, and recognition of civil society as an independent actor in sustainable development. Their recommendations emphasise the need to combat the repression of civil society actors, move beyond transactional development approaches, and ensure financial flows prioritise accountability and human rights. Integrating civic space protection into international frameworks is essential for fostering inclusive, transparent, and equitable development. {% embed url="" %} ### **Investigative Journalism and Fiscal Transparency: Catalysts for addressing corruption in oil-producing developing countries ( 2023)** #### OECD This [paper ](https://files.gitbook.com/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FHiK1GuLfDqNqemz6Ckbt%2Fuploads%2FmPod4st0piIYCgMFdDaL%2Fed198202-en.pdf?alt=media\&token=bb1c4902-dc3d-4782-b4b1-8d594999a68b)is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and the arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries. {% file src="/files/EBLb0IXmH6KH6AApW8ya" %} ### **The Role of the Media and Investigative Journalism in Combating Corruption (2018)** #### OECD This [work](https://files.gitbook.com/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FHiK1GuLfDqNqemz6Ckbt%2Fuploads%2FQrLLCcC9aI9BmjYu0wSX%2F7590ec9d-en.pdf?alt=media\&token=09ad7de7-3ea8-4f18-bdc8-982051a15ca8) is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD or of the governments of its member countries or those of the European Union. {% file src="/files/pD6shUlIbmonHfTRa7dy" %} ### **The EU works with the United Nations for the rule of law over the use of force ( 2025)** #### Mr. JAY DHARMADHIKARI The [statement ](https://onu.delegfrance.org/the-eu-works-with-the-united-nations-for-the-rule-of-law-over-the-use-of-force) highlights the EU’s support for Ukraine, its contributions to crisis response and humanitarian efforts worldwide, and its strong partnership with the UN in addressing global challenges, including climate change, development financing, and human rights protection. {% embed url="" %} ### **Development finance (2025)** #### Yabibal M. Walle This [article](https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/never-heard-blended-finance-and-what-does-domestic-resource-mobilisation-actually-mean-4th) is part of a focus section on development finance accompanied by a series of AI-generated images. {% embed url="" %} ## The Opacity in Real Estate Ownership (OREO) Index (2025) #### Anti Corruption Data Collective The *Opacity in Real Estate Ownership (OREO) Index*, developed by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective and Transparency International, reveals how gaps in real estate data and weak anti-money laundering (AML) regulations enable criminals and kleptocrats to launder illicit wealth through property markets. {% embed url="" %} ## UN expert urges States to finance inclusive and sustainable development, not a war economy (2025) #### United Nations UN Special Rapporteur Surya Deva warns that time is running out to secure financing for sustainable development and urges world leaders to act decisively at the upcoming FfD4 conference. He calls for a shift from funding war economies to investing in people and the planet, highlighting the need to address debt burdens, ensure fair financial systems, and prioritize gender equality, climate action, and human rights. {% embed url="" %} ### Financing for development and the right to development (2025) #### United Nations A Negotiation Brief from the United Nations Special Rapporteur \ on the right to development, Surya Deva. {% file src="/files/HvTfSPaEYr0WCVsZ1HVX" %} ## Limited resources, greater responsibility: the UK must support global financial architecture reform (2025) #### Bond On 25 February, the UK announced a cut to its ODA budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 to fund defence spending—sparking strong backlash from civil society. Critics argue the move undermines global poverty efforts and the UK’s development credibility. With the upcoming *Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4)* in Seville, the UK has a crucial opportunity to restore its leadership by supporting inclusive global financial reforms and reaffirming its commitment to multilateralism, justice, and human rights. {% embed url="" %}
# WSIS+20 Review ## Introduction Twenty years ago, [the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)](https://www.unesco.org/en/wsis) process set the stage for a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance. As we approach the **WSIS+20 Review,** there are concerns that the [implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC)](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/Documents/Global%20Digital%20Compact) could shift internet governance toward a more state-led approach, potentially sidelining civil society. While the Global Digital Compact (GDC) offers valuable commitments for 2030, particularly relevant to our community those related to information integrity and media sustainability; **these commitments should be integrated into the WSIS framework rather than established as a separate or parallel process.** Embedding the GDC within WSIS allows us to build on two decades of progress and avoid fragmentation of the global governance architecture. For that reason, this review, marking the **20th anniversary of the WSIS,** presents a key opportunity to reaffirm the value of **inclusive, human-rights based and multi-stakeholder governance**. Ensuring the continued inclusion of civil society, media, and other non-governmental voices in shaping the future of digital governance and internet policy relies on the active participation of all stakeholders. GFMD Priorities for WSIS+20 Review ## What is WSIS? The **World Summit on the Information Society (**[**WSIS**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society)**)** was initiated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in 1998 to address the global digital divide and evolving internet-related public policy issues. This led to two pivotal summits: Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005, resulting in foundational documents like the [Geneva Declaration of Principles](https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html) and the [Tunis Agenda](https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html). These documents established the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance, emphasising inclusivity and collaboration among governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organisations like UNESCO, the OECD, and the World Bank. The upcoming WSIS+20 Review in 2025 will build on the work of the WSIS+10 review (2015), and set future priorities for digital governance. More information and resources about WSIS ## Why should the media development and journalism support community engage in WSIS+20 Review? The WSIS+20 Review is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to: * Defend media freedom and prevent state-centric governance models that risk excluding independent journalism and civil society. * Ensure that the Global Digital Compact strengthens, not sidelines, the WSIS framework. * Embed media priorities across all Action Lines—from infrastructure and access to ethics and inclusion. Internet governance directly impacts the following priorities of the media development and the journalism support community: * **Press Freedom:** Safeguarding media independence in digital spaces. * **Journalistic Safety:** Addressing tech-based violence and harmful legislation. * **Sustainability:** Supporting media organisations facing economic and market challenges. * **Artificial Intelligence (AI):** Shaping AI regulations and their implications for journalism. For that reason, engaging in the WSIS+20 Review ensures: * A **free and open internet,** preserving independent journalism and civil society participation. * **Human rights protection**, defending media freedom and combatting censorship. * **Inclusive digital governance**, upholding the multi-stakeholder model and including diverse voices in shaping digital policies. Active involvement in this process is essential to **safeguard media independence, promote human rights, and strengthen journalism as a public good in the digital era**. How to engage? Timeline and key outcome documents ## GFMD Priorities for WSIS+20 Review GFMD advocates for the WSIS+20 Review to reaffirm a transparent, inclusive, and rights-based approach to digital governance. The multistakeholder model must be preserved and strengthened. Action Line C9 remains vital to ensure that media, journalism, and access to trusted information are prioritized across all areas of digital policy. GFMD's three key priorities, as presented in our [Position Paper](/gfmd-initiatives/un-advocacy/wsis+20-review/position-paper), are summarised below: {% hint style="success" %} **Foster Multistakeholder Internet Governance and Human Rights-Based Approach** The WSIS+20 review process should be firmly grounded in the principles of transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability. These principles are consistent with [the Five Point Plan](https://www.gp-digital.org/five-point-plan-for-an-inclusive-wsis20-review/), strongly supported by a broad range of non-state actors. A strong multistakeholder model, as envisioned by the [NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement](https://netmundial.br/2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf), ensures that diverse perspectives, including technical experts and civil society, contribute to more holistic, legitimate, and effective governance. {% endhint %} {% hint style="warning" %} **Preserving Action Line C9 as a core component of the WSIS mandate** The sustainability and independence of journalism and public interest media are critical for any digital governance framework and for fostering resilient information ecosystems. Action Line 9 plays a fundamental role in upholding broader commitments of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and internet governance. {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} **Consider Media Perspectives Across Action Lines** \ Issues of media freedom, safety, viability, and access to trustworthy information intersect with Action Lines on access to ICTs, content governance, cultural diversity, and international cooperation. Media-related risks and priorities must be systematically integrated into the evaluation, assessment, and progress of all relevant Action Lines, in particular C2, C3, C5, C6, C8, C10, and C11. {% endhint %} GFMD's WSIS Position Paper ### Timeline and key outcome documents The [WSIS Timeline](https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2024/Home/About#timeline) is available at ITU’s page, as well as a timeline for the [20 year review preparatory process](https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2024/Home/About#prepprocess).
### Key outcome documents 1. **Roadmap** * The roadmap will lay out the process for the review, and is being drafted by the co-facilitators with support from UNDESA. * Published on May 21. Available here: 2. **Elements Paper** * An Elements paper will be developed by the co-facilitators, with support from David Souter, drawing on WSIS+10 outcome, the CSTD report, the UNCTAD report. * This paper will summarise twenty years of progress and inform upcoming consultations run by the co-facilitators. * Published in June, 20, 2025, is available [here](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/WSIS%2B20_ElementsPaper_20June.pdf). * Written inputs are invited from all stakeholders until **15 July 2025** via the [dedicated submission form](https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=2zWeD09UYE-9zF6kFubccA9MLsbciY9FuR_t2RxbPZ1UN1c1RVdMV09EQUg0VjdCTTZBMk1KMFowVC4u). 3. **Zero Draft** * Led by co-facilitators. * To be based on Elements Paper and inputs gathered through stakeholder engagement, both written and consultations. * Launch date in August 2025, according to the roadmap. 4. **Final Draft** * Led by co-facilitators. * To be based on intergovernmental negotiation and inputs gathered through stakeholder engagement. * Expected in November 2025 {% hint style="info" %} If you have questions or need assistance with your advocacy efforts, please contact us at {% endhint %} # GFMD's Position in the WSIS +20 Review Process As the WSIS+20 Review Process advances, GFMD has also made available the following submissions and responses reviewing the different drafts of the outcome documents:

GFMD's Submission to the WSIS+20 Zero Draft Consultation (October 2025)

GFMD's Inputs to the Elements Paper (June 2025)

### GFMD's initial Position Paper for the WSIS+20 Review (May, 2025) This document outlines the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) network’s core values and positions within the WSIS+20 Review process {% embed url="" %} {% file src="/files/7XX0o4cGc5Icfuqlhgrz" %} # GFMD's Submission to the WSIS+20 Zero Draft Consultation This submission was sent on October 3, 2025, as part of the stakeholder consultations on the Zero Draft. {% embed url="" %} {% file src="/files/cgRo0avjIUZrDK5cZGih" %} # GFMD's Inputs to the Elements Paper You can find below the responses submitted by GFMD for the WSIS+20 Stakeholder Consultation: Inputs to the Elements Paper (June, 2025). Other members and partners submissions are also available here:
{% embed url="" %} ### DC-Journalism Submission The [Dynamic Coalitions of the Internet Governance Forum](https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalitions) prepared a joint submission that incorporated some of their own positions. The submission is available here:\ The Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media prepared a one page position to be added to the DCCG, which is available below. {% embed url="" %} # Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS The Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS (GDRC-WSIS) promotes a human rights-based, people-centric and multistakeholder approach to the WSIS+20 review process. The [GDRC-WSIS](https://www.gp-digital.org/global-digital-rights-coalition-for-wsis/) is a collective of civil society organisations from the Global Majority and Global North, offering our shared expertise to advance human rights and multistakeholderism in the WSIS+20 review process. The Global Forum for Media Development joined the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS in April 2025. ## GDRC-WSIS statements and joint publications

Ten Steps to Strengthen Stakeholder Engagement in the WSIS+20 Intergovernmental Phase (October 2025)

**The coalition has published the following joint publications:** * [Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS (GDRC-WSIS) Input to the Zero Draft of the WSIS+20 Outcome Document](https://www.gp-digital.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/gdrc-wsis_joint_submission_to_zero_draft__1_oct_2025.pdf) * [Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS (GDRC-WSIS): Joint Input to Elements Paper for the WSIS+20 overall review](https://www.gp-digital.org/news/gdrc-wsis-joint-submission-to-the-wsis-twenty-year-review-process-wsis20/) * [Civil society joint input: ITU Council Working Group on WSIS & SDGs Call for Inputs on the WSIS+20](https://www.gp-digital.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/FINAL-Civil-Society-Joint-Response_-ITU-Submission.pdf) **Members of the coalition also contributed to the following cross-stakeholder publications:** * [Five-Point Plan Follow-up: Eight Practical Recommendations](https://www.gp-digital.org/wsis20-five-point-plan-follow-up-eight-practical-recommendations/) \[Cross-stakeholder] * [Five-Point Plan for an Inclusive WSIS+20 Review](https://www.gp-digital.org/five-point-plan-for-an-inclusive-wsis20-review/) \[Cross-stakeholder] ## GDRC-WSIS Priorities The GDRC-WSIS is working to achieve the following priorities: ### 1. Promote a human rights-based, people-centric, sustainable and development-oriented approach to the WSIS+20 review: Ensuring that the review and implementation of the WSIS action lines and outcomes are anchored in international human rights law. This includes strengthening the WSIS framework to safeguard against human rights abuses including surveillance, Internet shutdowns and censorship; promoting rights-respecting regulation; and formally recognising the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). ### 2. Advance the multistakeholder approach to global Internet governance and digital policy processes: Including through promoting the practical implementation of the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines, which will create more open, transparent, accessible, equitable, and inclusive policymaking at all levels. ### 3. Strengthen the WSIS vision and its institutions like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF): Preventing the WSIS institutions from being subsumed into or diluted by other digital governance processes and ensuring the continued existence and effectiveness of the IGF. New global digital frameworks, such as the Global Digital Compact, should be implemented through the WSIS architecture. # How to engage in the WSIS+20 Review Process? Timeline and key outcome documents Official Meetings and Preparatory Sessions ### [Elements Paper](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/WSIS%2B20_ElementsPaper_20June.pdf) The Elements Paper was released by the Co-Facilitators of the WSIS+20 Review process on June 20. The paper outlines key themes, priorities, and proposals drawn from preparatory discussions and stakeholder consultations to date. It is intended to guide continued dialogue with Member States and stakeholders in the coming months. [Written inputs](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/writteninputs) to the [Elements Paper](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/WSIS%2B20_ElementsPaper_20June.pdf) from all stakeholders are now publicly available here: . The Elements Paper is available [here](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/WSIS%2B20_ElementsPaper_20June.pdf). ### Consultations * Participate virtually in the different [Open Consultation Process](https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2025/Home/Consultations) meetings co-organised by ITU, UNESCO, UNDP and UNCTAD. * **Follow-up WSIS+20 Informal Stakeholder Consultation Session (29 July 2025)** * This was conducted virtually, providing a unified and multistakeholder platform for non-Government stakeholders and Member States to present their contributions to the [Elements Paper](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/WSIS%2B20_ElementsPaper_20June.pdf) and provide additional insights relevant to the WSIS+20 Review. Participants were encouraged to share brief summaries of their written inputs, organized according to the [thematic areas](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/Thematic%20Areas%20of%20WSIS%2B20%20Review.pdf) outlined in the Elements Paper. * **Resources:** * [Speakers List](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/\(FINAL\)%20Follow-up%20WSIS%2B20%20Consultation_Speaking%20List_280725_0.pdf) * [IMSB Notes and Reflections](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/WSIS%20consultations%2029%20July/IMSB%20notes%20on%20reflections%2029%20July%20consultation.pdf) * [Summary of the Follow-up WSIS+20 Stakeholder Consultation](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/WSIS%20consultations%2029%20July/Informal%20Virtual%20Consultation%20\(29%20July%202025\)%20%20-%20WSIS%2B20%20Stakeholder%20Consultation%20Session.pdf) * **Webinar recording:** [Follow-up WSIS+20 Informal Stakeholder Consultation (29 July 2025)](https://youtu.be/9YArqspMSgI?si=251EcdPJiAveHQ9F\&t=2) * [**WSIS+20 virtual stakeholder consultation sessions (9-10 June 2025)**](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/virtualconsultation) * [Concept note available here](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/2025/ConceptNote_Virtual_Stakeholder_Consultation_220525_new.pdf). * **Statements will be limited to 3 minutes and guided by the questions** below: * *To what extent and how has the vision of a "people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society" evolved over the past 20 years since WSIS?* * *What are the priorities and challenges to the implementation of WSIS outcomes today?* * *How can cooperation through the WSIS mechanisms, including multistakeholder dialogue and recently adopted the Global Digital Compact, enhance coherence in digital governance?* * [**Final Brief of the WSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025**](https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2025/Agenda/Session/492) **(June 10, 2025)** * The Final Brief will take place on Tuesday, 10 June 2025, 14:00-15:00 CEST/UTC+2 in Room K2, ITU Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland. * You can register using the links below for on-site or remote participation. * [Registration for on-site participation](https://www.itu.int/net4/CRM/xreg/web/Login.aspx?src=Registration\&Event=C-00015177) * [Registration for remote participation](https://www.itu.int/net/CRM/js/sr/C-00015178) * This is the final meeting in the Open Consultation Process, providing the latest updates on preparations for the WSIS+20 High-Level Event, scheduled to take place from 7 to 11 July 2025. * The Co-facs can also hold more sessions as needed and were present in various sessions during: * [UNESCO](https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-conference-capacity-building-ai-and-digital-transformation-public-sector), 4-5 June 2025 * [IGF](https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2025-sessions-related-to-the-wsis20-review), 23-27 June 2025 * [WSIS Forum](https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2025/), 7-11 July 2025 * **National Consultations:** * Australia: [World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-year review | Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts](https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/world-summit-information-society-wsis-20-year-review) - Deadline: End of 2025 ### Key events to attend * [**UNESCO Conference on Capacity Building on AI and Digital Transformation in the Public Sector**](https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-conference-capacity-building-ai-and-digital-transformation-public-sector) 🗓️ 4-5 June, 2025 📍UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, France For in-person participation, [register here](https://indico.un.org/event/1014639/). For virtual participation, [registration is available here](https://unesco-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Yi8tgYQeRNSRktRGxQdKfQ#/registration). * [**Internet Governance Forum (IGF)**](https://www.igf2025.no/) 🗓️ 23-27 June, 2025 📍NOVA Spektrum, Lillestrom, Norway \[Hybrid] Registration available here: * [**WSIS High-Level Event**](https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2025) 🗓️ 7 - 11 July, 2025 📍 Geneva, Switzerland \[Hybrid] For in-person participation, [register here](https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2025/Home/Registration). Please note that the e-confirmation will be the sole document provided for visa support. For virtual participation, [registration is available here](https://www.itu.int/net/CRM/js/sr/C-00014869). * **UNGA High-Level Meeting** 🗓️ 16 - 17 December, 2025 📍 New York, United States ### Advocacy Tips * Be clear and concise. Use straightforward language when submitting recommendations. * Link local issues to global challenges: Address regional press freedom or journalist safety issues. * Support multi-stakeholder governance: Highlight the value of inclusive governance and successful collaborations. * Share success stories: Use real-world examples to demonstrate the benefits of multi-stakeholder engagement. {% hint style="info" %} If you have questions or need assistance with your advocacy efforts, please contact us at {% endhint %} # Official Meetings and Preparatory Sessions ## UNGA First WSIS+20 Review Preparatory Meeting and Stocktaking session - May 30, 2025 [**UN Web TV**](https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1uazgz716?kalturaStartTime=948\&config\[playback]=%7B) | **SUMMARY** [**AR**](https://archive.org/download/un-pre-wsis20-1/un-pre-wsis20-1.AR.SUMMARY.pdf) **/** [**EN**](https://archive.org/download/un-pre-wsis20-1/un-pre-wsis20-1.EN.SUMMARY.pdf) **/** [**ES**](https://archive.org/download/un-pre-wsis20-1/un-pre-wsis20-1.ES.SUMMARY.pdf) **/** [**FR**](https://archive.org/download/un-pre-wsis20-1/un-pre-wsis20-1.FR.SUMMARY.pdf) **/** [**RU**](https://archive.org/download/un-pre-wsis20-1/un-pre-wsis20-1.RU.SUMMARY.pdf) **/** [**ZH**](https://archive.org/download/un-pre-wsis20-1/un-pre-wsis20-1.ZH.SUMMARY.pdf)\ [**ARCHIVE**](https://archive.org/details/un-pre-wsis20-1) **|** [**PERMALINK**](https://isoc.live/19420/) On **30 May 2025**, the [**United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs**](https://www.un.org/en/desa) (UN DESA) convened the [**1st Preparatory Meeting and Stocktaking session of the WSIS+20 General Assembly Overall Review**](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/1stPreparatoryMeetingStocktakingSession) at the UN HQ in New York City. In [**Resolution 79/2775**](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4080263/files/A_RES_79_277-EN.pdf), adopted in March 2025, the General Assembly decided to conclude the overall review of the implementation of WSIS outcomes, known as WSIS+20, with a two-day [**high-level meeting**](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/GA%20High-Level-Meeting) to be held on 16–17 December 2025. The preparatory meetings, with inputs from all relevant WSIS stakeholders, are to discuss expectations and inform the intergovernmental process. **Co-facilitators**\ **H.E. Ms. Suela Janina**, Permanent Representative of Albania\ **H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale**, Permanent Representative of Kenya
# Relevant Resources Stay updated via these resources: * WSIS+20 Latest News - UNDESA * Global Partners Digital – Everything You Need to Know About the WSIS+20 Review ### General WSIS+20 Background * Letter from President General Assembly on World Summit on the Information Society – Zero draft * WSIS+20 Review Action Lines, Milestones, Challenges, and Emerging Trends Beyond 2025 (ITU): * Global Digital Compact ([Full text](https://www.un.org/global-digital-compact/sites/default/files/2024-09/Global%20Digital%20Compact%20-%20English_0.pdf)) * Global Digital Compact ([UN DESA](https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/Documents/Global%20Digital%20Compact)) * NETMundial+10 Declaration\ [https://netmundial.br
](https://netmundial.br)(Sets principles for multistakeholder internet governance and human rights protections) * WSIS+20 Open Consultation Process (OCP) ([ITU](https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2025/Home/Consultations)) * Who Runs the Internet? Misconceptions About ICANN ([ICANN](https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/who-runs-the-internet-misconceptions-about-icann-25-11-2024-en)) ### Civil Society resources * Digital Technology Governance Hub ([Global Partners Digital](https://www.gp-digital.org/digital-technology-governance-hub/)) * Everything You Need to Know About the WSIS+20 Review ([Global Partners Digital](https://www.gp-digital.org/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-wsis20-review/)) * Advocacy Bytes: WSIS+10 Review ([Case Study by Global Partners Digital](https://www.gp-digital.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/WSIS10-Review-1.pdf)) * [GFMD’s Internet Governance Resource Centre](https://policy-advocacy.gfmd.info/resources/internet-governance) * 10 FAQs on Internet Governance ([GFMD](https://policy-advocacy.gfmd.info/resources/internet-governance/10-faqs-on-internet-governance)) * Governing Digital Convergence: An Issue Paper on Media Development and Internet Governance ([GFMD](https://policy-advocacy.gfmd.info/gfmd-initiatives/dynamic-coalition-sustainability/articles#governing-digital-convergence-an-issue-paper-on-media-development-and-internet-governance-2018-micha)) * Who Runs the Internet? Misconceptions About ICANN ([ICANN](https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/who-runs-the-internet-misconceptions-about-icann-25-11-2024-en)) ### Webinars and recorded events #### IGF MAG Working Group Strategy WSIS+20 Webinar Sessions Webinar 1: Webinar 2: Webinar 3:
# Summit of the Future ## What is the Summit of the Future? The[ Summit of the Future](https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future), scheduled to take place in September 2024, is a high-level event that aims to accelerate the efforts of UN member states to meet existing international commitments, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, and take concrete steps to respond to emerging challenges and opportunities. ## What is the Pact for the Future? The Pact for the Future is the Summit’s key outcome document, akin to a blueprint for development, that will be negotiated and endorsed by countries in the lead-up to and during the Summit in September 2024. The [Zero Draft](https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sotf-co-facilitators-zero-draft_pact-for-the-future.pdf) of the Pact initially contained no reference to media, journalism, or access to information. [Subsequent versions](https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/pact-for-the-future-revisions) now include a commitment to protecting journalists and media professionals during armed conflict (Action 14) and to respecting the right to freedom of expression while addressing disinformation and misinformation (Action 18). Given both the severity of challenges facing media and journalists around the world and the utmost importance of access to information in empowering people to address shared needs, GFMD has been advocating for the UN and Member States to further strengthen commitments on access to information, media freedom, and public-interest journalism throughout the Pact. {% hint style="success" %} ***The Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and the undersigned organisations urge the United Nations (UN) and its Member States to ensure robust commitments to access to information, media freedom, and public-interest journalism as they negotiate the final text of the Pact for the Future in advance of the Summit of the Future in September.***** Read the full statement** [**here**](https://gfmd.info/gfmd-statement-on-un-pact-for-the-future/)**. Your support matters!** [**Please sign the statement and join us in advocating for a future where media freedom is safeguarded, journalists are protected, and access to information is upheld as a fundamental right.**](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScJKdUNgOqexSENOCtu5iN6WMaemmp4qHX9diAq_Am6N59u1g/viewform) {% endhint %} ## What is the Global Digital Compact? The [**Global Digital Compact**](https://www.un.org/techenvoy/global-digital-compact), which will be included as an annex to the Pact for the Future, seeks to promote an “inclusive, open, safe, and secure digital future”, addressing issues such as the digital divide, the digital economy, data governance, and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. The Global Digital Compact includes references to freedom of expression and a commitment to promoting “diverse and resilient information ecosystems, including by strengthening independent and public media, and supporting journalists and media workers”. This commitment could be further strengthened, however, including via the expressed acknowledgement of the media community as a key stakeholder as well as by explicit reference to the [Global Principles for Information Integrity](https://www.un.org/en/information-integrity/global-principles) and its emphasis on the role of independent, free and pluralistic media (see GFMD’s post [here](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mediagfmd_mediadev-activity-7219002238503964672-uCyN?utm_source=share\&utm_medium=member_desktop)). ## What is GFMD doing? Among a range of efforts, GFMD has been engaging with formal United Nations processes, networking with governmental and civil society allies, and issuing advocacy statements. This includes a [statement on the Pact for the Future](https://gfmd.info/gfmd-statement-on-un-pact-for-the-future/) (initially issued in May and updated in July following the release of the second revision of the Pact), signed by more than 70 signatories around the world, and a [statement on the Global Digital Compact](https://policy-advocacy.gfmd.info/policies-and-legislation/global-digital-compact) (issued in June following the release of the first revision of the Compact). Other efforts include: {% hint style="info" %} [Written input](https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/pact-for-the-future-zero-draft#inputs) submitted at the end of December 2023 in preparation for the Zero Draft of the Pact for the Future and additional feedback on the Zero Draft, submitted in February 2024. {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} Additional feedback on the Global Digital Compact and a second outcome document, the [Declaration on Future Generations](https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/declaration-on-future-generations). {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Attendance at various online and in-person consultation opportunities, including the [UN Civil Society Conference](https://www.un.org/en/civilsociety/2024uncsc) in Nairobi, May 9-10. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Formation of an [informal coalition](https://gfmd.groups.io/g/UN) to advocate for the inclusion of media freedom and related issues into the Pact for the Future and the Global Digital Compact. {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} Engagement with UN Member States via various fora, including the Media Freedom Coalition, the Team Europe Democracy Initiative, and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Creation of a UN Advocacy Group for GFMD members and other interested parties. To join, see or . {% endhint %} {% hint style="danger" %} Monitoring of updates on a daily basis, including tracking additional opportunities to engage via other UN processes as well as through civil society allies. {% endhint %} # Journalism Cloud Alliance Inaugural Meeting A side event at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia, Italy **Organisers:** Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) **Date:** 17 April 2024 **Time:** 12:00 - 18:00 (CET) **Venue:** Hotel Giò, Perugia **Format:** Hybrid (in-person and online) {% hint style="info" %} *The Journalism Cloud Alliance (JCA) is spearheaded by the Global Forum for Media Development (*[*GFMD*](https://gfmd.info/)*) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (*[*OCCRP*](https://www.occrp.org/en)*). Its and partners include the Global Investigative Journalism Network (*[*GIJN*](https://gijn.org/)*), International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (*[*ICIJ*](https://www.icij.org/)*),*[ *Pulitzer Center*](https://pulitzercenter.org/)*,*[ *Center for Journalism and Liberty*](https://www.journalismliberty.org/)*,*[ *Big Local News*](https://biglocalnews.org/)*, Distributed Denial of Secrets (*[*DDoSecrets*](https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Distributed_Denial_of_Secrets)*),*[ *Forbidden Stories*](https://forbiddenstories.org/)*, Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (*[*BIRN*](https://birn.eu.com/)*),*[ *Pluro Labs*](https://www.plurolabs.org/)*, Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (*[*ARIJ*](https://en.arij.net/)*), and*[ *Paper Trail Media*](https://www.papertrailmedia.de/) *alongside academic and philanthropic organisations. The*[ *Patrick J. McGovern Foundation*](https://www.mcgovern.org/) *provided initial funding for the Journalism Cloud Alliance and its inaugural meeting.* {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} **Other news outlets and aligned groups can join the Alliance by contacting** [**director@gfmd.info**](mailto:director@gfmd.info)**.** {% endhint %} The Journalism Cloud Alliance was [launched](https://gfmd.info/briefings/journalism-cloud-alliance-launch/) on 17 April 2024 in Perugia, Italy, at the International Journalism Festival to tackle the challenges faced by investigative journalism and data newsrooms, arising from the significant expenses and constraints associated with cloud computing. Its aim is to collaborate in finding ways to make data storage and processing capacity more accessible, secure, and affordable for investigative and data newsrooms. This is a much-needed evolution to make the next big leap in investigative and enterprise journalism to better serve the public. Artificial intelligence’s (AI) ability to process vast amounts of data, identify patterns, and generate data analysis has opened new frontiers for journalism in general, but the impact is especially relevant for data and investigative journalism organisations and networks in particular. In a bid to navigate the evolving tech landscape, the inaugural meeting of the Journalism Cloud Alliance brought together stakeholders from across the sector. Hosted by the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), the gathering aimed to analyse the market and address the rising costs and constraints of cloud computing, while also developing collaborative solutions to help watchdog journalism fulfil its public service role. Participants concluded by outlining concrete steps for taking this initiative forward. Proposals included conducting detailed research on cloud capacity and costs for both current and potential members of the Alliance, as well as expanding membership to build a robust coalition that can secure long-term financial and technical support for journalism costs. Additionally, participants discussed engaging in collective bargaining to negotiate lower costs for cloud services. These initiatives underscore the group’s commitment to leveraging collective bargaining power to unlock significant cost savings and enhance accessibility for journalism and media organisations of all sizes. ## Learn more about the meeting: {% content-ref url="/pages/VjHRhbxzzUwycj8iwrbp" %} [Meeting agenda](/gfmd-initiatives/journalism-cloud-alliance-inaugural-meeting/meeting-agenda) {% endcontent-ref %} {% content-ref url="/pages/2yKIMrJJqmaIXPIzyiSv" %} [Speakers](/gfmd-initiatives/journalism-cloud-alliance-inaugural-meeting/speakers) {% endcontent-ref %} {% content-ref url="/pages/CtQWcMSo1OY0iKPFm8Ey" %} [Literature Review](/gfmd-initiatives/journalism-cloud-alliance-inaugural-meeting/literature-review) {% endcontent-ref %} # Meeting agenda Here you will find the agenda for the Journalism Tech Alliance Inaugural Meeting on April 17 *To find the full list of speakers, please visit this page:* {% content-ref url="/pages/2yKIMrJJqmaIXPIzyiSv" %} [Speakers](/gfmd-initiatives/journalism-cloud-alliance-inaugural-meeting/speakers) {% endcontent-ref %} | **Time** | **Agenda** | | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 12:00 - 13:00 | Networking Lunch | | 13:00 - 13:15 | Welcome and Introductions | | 13:15 *-* 14:00 | **Session 1:** Survey Findings on Cloud and Data Processing Services for Newsrooms | | 14:00 - 14:15 | Coffee Break | | 14:15 - 15:15 | **Session 2:** Cloud Service Provider Market Research and the Options Available to Journalism Organisations | | 15:00 - 16:10 | **Session 3:** Scope and Role of the Alliance | | 16:10 - 16:20 | Coffee Break | | 16:20 - 17:20 | **Session 4:** Engaging with Relevant Stakeholders and Initiatives | | 17:20 - 18:00 | **Session 5:** Agreeing on Next Steps and Wrap-up | | 18:00 - 20:00 | Cocktail Reception | # Speakers Here you will find the list of speakers for the Journalism Tech Alliance Inaugural Meeting on April 17 *To find the meeting agenda, please visit this page:* {% content-ref url="/pages/VjHRhbxzzUwycj8iwrbp" %} [Meeting agenda](/gfmd-initiatives/journalism-cloud-alliance-inaugural-meeting/meeting-agenda) {% endcontent-ref %} ## SESSION 1: Survey findings on cloud and data processing services for newsrooms Moderator: **Mira Milosevic,** Executive Director, [GFMD](https://gfmd.info/) {% embed url="" %} Contributions from: * **Emilia Díaz-Struck**, Executive Director, [GIJN](https://gijn.org/) * **Pierre Romera Zhang**, Chief Technology Officer, [ICIJ](https://www.icij.org/) * **Freddy Martinez**, Board of Advisors, [DDoSecrets](https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Distributed_Denial_of_Secrets) * **Kuang Keng Kuek Ser**, Data Editor, [Pulitzer Center](https://pulitzercenter.org/) * **Mark Nightingale**, Chief Product Officer, [OCCRP](https://www.occrp.org/en) * **Cheryl Phillips**, Founder and Co-Director, [Big Local News](https://biglocalnews.org/) ## SESSION 2- Market and trends analysis of cloud and AI services and what this means for journalism Moderator: **Courtney Radsch**, Director, [Center for Journalism and Liberty](https://www.journalismliberty.org/) at the Open Markets Institute Contributions from: * **Alix Nguyen**, Independent Consultant, Big Local News (Joining online) {% embed url="" %} ## SESSION 3- Scope and Role of the Alliance Moderators: **Cheryl Phillips**, Founder and Co-Director, Big Local News and **Paul Radu**, Co-founder, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) {% embed url="" %} {% file src="/files/zUsqIeef2WJsy0gSpMxH" %} ## SESSION 4- Connecting with other relevant stakeholders and initiatives Moderator: **Emilia Díaz-Struck**, Executive Director, GIJN Contributions from: * **Will Byrne**, [Pluro Labs](https://www.plurolabs.org/) and [AI for Democracy project](https://www.plurolabs.org/project/protecting-us-elections) # Literature Review Here you will find the relevant literature review for the Journalism Tech Alliance Inaugural Meeting on April 17 ### Market concentration in cloud services and its impact on investigative journalism Cloud services are the backbone of the modern economy and information systems, indispensable for the provision of digital products and services, from social media to artificial intelligence (“AI”) models. Yet the cloud market is becoming more concentrated in the hands of three giant corporations as businesses and governments have moved their operations to the cloud, and advances in AI reinforce its importance. This article by **Courtney Radsch & Karina Montoya** explores the dynamics in the cloud sector that raise concerns about the concentration of power in a handful of dominant tech companies that have already forced journalism to adapt to a platform logic that constrains and shapes the political economy of news. {% file src="/files/qyJNe3Fmx1toNXUIpjqB" %} ### Effects of Cloud Market Concentration The global cloud-services market, particularly for Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), exhibits several symptoms of market concentration: domination by a small number of hyperscale cloud providers,1 network effects, economies of scale, and relatively high barriers to entry. The size and sophistication of the leading cloud providers offer considerable benefits to their customers, including tightly integrated development platforms, centralized security, and software services on their infrastructure. But the market concentration also reduces competition, amplifies the risks posed by cloud outages, and potentially creates a situation wherein massive market dependence on a handful of cloud providers might encourage them to assume business risks that would have to be borne by governments and major customers. {% embed url="" %} ### Who wins from the AI boom? A dive into the value chain In their latest **Enders Analysis** report, **Joseph Teasdale, Jamie MacEwan and Hamish Low** explore how recent advances in 'Artificial Intelligence' have generated excitement, investment and improved valuations, on the plausible promise of greater efficiency in a range of areas, such as health and coding. It is still not clear who will profit from this boom. Currently, chip-maker NVIDIA is cleaning up, propelled by sales to model developers, also driving demand for cloud computing services. Leverage in the AI value chain depends on differentiation and barriers to entry, which are high in the chips industry. AI services like chatbots have much lower barriers to entry, while deeper vertical integration of more stages of the value chain could shake things up. {% embed url="" %} ### Regulating Cloud Computing The term “cloud computing” refers to the abstraction of infrastructure and computing resources traditionally managed by a customer to be instead managed by a third party, known as a “cloud provider.” Cloud computing services are now central to the economy. As companies continue to migrate their IT infrastructure needs to the “cloud,” they are placing great reliance on a small group of large tech companies; and cloud computing generates a growing share of those tech comp. Read the full [**TechREG® Chronicle**](https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/techreg-chronicle-regulating-cloud-computing/) March issue: {% embed url="" %} ### Generative AI: Differentiating disruptors from the disrupted Generative AI has the potential not only to reshape key business operations but also to shift the competitive landscape across most industries. In its report, [MIT Technology Review Insights](https://www.technologyreview.com/author/mit-technology-review-insights/) explores how the technology has already started to affect various business functions, such as product innovation, supply chain logistics, and sales and customer experience. Companies are also beginning to see a positive return on investment (ROI) from the deployment of generative AI-powered platforms and tool. {% embed url="" %} ### Cloud services market study Cloud computing is being rapidly adopted by businesses across the economy and has become an essential part of how digital services are delivered to consumers, including in the telecoms and broadcasting sectors. **Ofcom** has carried out a market study into the supply of cloud services in the UK to explore if these markets are working well and whether any regulatory action is required. This final report sets out Ofcom's findings and recommendations {% file src="/files/oJNfpzOogwMxjMi9ewG0" %} # 2026 # What the EU's Next Budget Means for Independent Media Around the World GFMD Policy Meeting March 16, 2026 GFMD is convening members to our March Policy Meeting on the EU’s upcoming funding framework “Global Europe Instrument”. This session will: * Brief members on the proposed GEI text and negotiation process * Examine implications for funding for media freedom and public interest journalism worldwide * Gather member inputs on regional gaps in the GEI's priorities and funding lines * Equip participants to engage in the legislative process in the European Parliament and Council 🗓️ 16 March 2026\ 🕐 13.00 - 14.00 UTC | 14.00 - 15.00 CET | 16:00 - 17:00 EAT | 21:00 - 22:00 SGT | 10:00 - 11:00 BRT/ART\ 📍 Online: [Register here](https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/F58PPGksTeaY_aCSV1TN_A) ## Agenda 1. Welcome and introduction (5') 2. MFF and the Global Europe Instrument: implications for funding for media freedom and public interest journalism worldwide (10’) 3. What we’ve done so far (5’) 4. Interactive exercise: priorities, dilemmas and advocacy tools (20’) 5. Advocacy opportunities: timeline, key stakeholders (5’) 6. Discussion and next steps (15’) ## Background Over the coming months, the European Union will decide its next [Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2034)](/policies-and-legislation/mff), including the future shape of the [Global Europe Instrument](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0551), EU’s main external funding framework, which significantly influences support for media development worldwide. For many organisations across Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia-Pacific, these decisions directly influence whether funding for independent media, journalist safety, and information integrity remains predictable, accessible, and prioritised, or becomes more limited and politically reframed. For the past months, GFMD has worked together with its partners through our EU Media Advocacy Group to produce a first batch of coordinated amendments for the Global Europe Instrument. ## Meeting materials * [Global Europe Instrument](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0551): proposed regulation * [Analysis of the Global Europe Instrument](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PXRvTTxEjSkE-OaveEpkR-KaJelijgO3/view) (by Leadeur) * Institutional timeline: [Timeline (institutions).pdf](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ov8Fj7vRGBLIaBY2dW1GcbrONPm3Kzx5/view?usp=drive_link) * Timeline of the MFF and the GEI processes: [MFF\_GEI\_Timeline\_V2.pdf](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HUdRYxRLlxYXP4VsOW-8ETCYwqxqsNzr/view?usp=drive_link) * Analysis of the actors and the MFF-GEI processes: [MFF\_GEI\_Process\_Actors\_&\_Timeline.pdf](https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YeyydPW-Yd2DxOm5uNUbo3RwoireFMe/view?usp=drive_link) * Meeting Slides/Presentation: {% file src="/files/ylPArPgna4mpzHuHnw1Y" %} If you want to access the Advocacy Toolkit, please contact GFMD's Advocacy and Policy Coordinator, Laura Becana Ball at # 2025 Here you will find GFMD Policy and Advocacy meetings held in 2025: {% content-ref url="/pages/Ai06rlBKw3BWIkpWrsKz" %} [Connecting the dots: How to use existing mechanisms to protect media freedom online? (January 2025)](/meetings/2025/mechanisms-to-protect-media-freedom-online) {% endcontent-ref %} {% content-ref url="/pages/Wlb67zxiVzB0ge2HgIHb" %} [GFMD Policy Meeting (March 2025)](/meetings/2025/gfmd-policy-meeting-march-2025) {% endcontent-ref %} {% content-ref url="/pages/nwndvmjNOAqBeSH69B7Q" %} [GFMD Policy and Advocacy Meeting (April 2025)](/meetings/2025/gfmd-policy-and-advocacy-meeting-april-2025) {% endcontent-ref %} # Affordable and Secure Digital Infrastructure for Media and Journalists (December 2025) As part of the side-event programming of the WSIS+20 UN GA High-Level Meeting, GFMD is organising the online session ““Affordable and Secure Digital Infrastructure for Media and Journalists.” Date: December 15, 2025 Time: 10:00-11:00 New York time / 16.00-17.00 CET

Access the Meeting Report

### Key Action Points and Takeaways {% hint style="success" %} Digital governance is central to the advancement of media freedom. Stakeholders must support public-interest infrastructure for media, including alternative and cooperative models, to reduce structural dependency on dominant technology platforms and strengthen resilient and plural journalism ecosystems. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Media freedom is also central for the operationalisation of the WSIS+20 vision. Through the WSIS+20 commitments, governments need to integrate media freedom, journalist safety, and information integrity safeguards into their digital governance frameworks and their national DPI strategies. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Media freedom can be an enabling right for all other human rights and democratic values. To that end, governments must advance human rights-respecting DPI through openness, interoperability, public interest design, and multistakeholder oversight, including alignment with human rights standards and DPI safeguards. {% endhint %} ## Description Media and journalism have long been recognized as key actors in fostering a people-centred and inclusive Information Society. The WSIS+20 Review process, and the forthcoming Outcome Document, reaffirm the essential role of independent media and journalism. The WSIS Review process also highlights the importance of public-interest infrastructure and open-technology standards as means of delivering digital services at scale and expanding social and economic opportunities for all. Building on these core WSIS elements, and at the intersection of media independence and public-interest digital infrastructure, this session, co-organized by the Global Forum for Media Development and ARTICLE 19, aims to explore how the WSIS+20 commitments can be translated into practical actions. As we look ahead to the implementation phase of the WSIS+20 Outcome Document, the Journalism Cloud Alliance (JCA) will be introduced to showcase a collaborative initiative designed to advance open and affordable digital tools and services for journalists and media organizations. By showcasing the JCA and other multistakeholder efforts, the session will demonstrate how WSIS commitments can be operationalized to build an inclusive, sustainable, and human-rights-based digital ecosystem. Intended for professional media, international, regional, and local media support organizations, it will be interactive, inviting participants to reflect on WSIS public-interest infrastructure priorities in the context of strengthening media and journalism. ### Speakers * Anna Oosterlinck, Senior Advisor, ARTICLE 19 * Annelies Riezebos, Senior Policy Officer FoE online, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, KNL * Emanuele Sapienza, Global Lead, Open and Inclusive Public Sphere, UNDP * Isabelle Lois, Senior Policy Advisor, DETEC, Federal Office of Communications OFCOM, Switzerland * Michael J. Oghia, Project Manager, JCA * Bojana Kostic, Senior Digital Policy Advisor, GFMD (moderator) ### Partner organizations [ARTICLE 19](https://www.article19.org/) ## Resources and literature review * [Right Respecting Digital Public Infrastructure Principles, Freedom Online Coalition](https://freedomonlinecoalition.com/rights-respecting-dpi-principles/), 2025. The document seeks to ensure that DPI is built with a commitment to fostering responsible innovation and economic growth so societies and businesses can thrive in today’s digital economy * [Sovereignty-as-a-service: How big tech companies co-opt and redefine digital sovereignty](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01634437251395003), R Grohmann, Sage Journal, 2025 (open access). The article critically examines the officially released documents of big tech companies and shows how these companies respond to regulatory pressures, particularly in Europe, by offering modular and branded solutions that frame sovereignty as a technical, legal, and infrastructural matter. * [Digital Sovereignty for Europe](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/651992/EPRS_BRI\(2020\)651992_EN.pdf), T. Madiega, European Parliament, 2020. This document explains the context of the emerging quest for 'digital sovereignty', and provides an overview of the measures currently being discussed and/or proposed to enhance European autonomy in the digital field. * [Infrastructure for the Public: A Primer for Advocacy](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zjcxVUlg0eX4JaI65EZukSc0McwW13rJfoK0qe7uk9Y/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.mqconwrfzu4b), M. J. Oghia, Global Forum for Media Development / Journalism Cloud Alliance, 2025. This primer presents public-interest infrastructure as an human-rights based, democratic and community-driven alternative to monopolistic digital systems. * [Designed for Control: Rethinking infrastructure, power and the public](https://balance.commonedge.asia/issue01-rethinking-infrastructure/), P. Hewawaravita, Balance, 2025. The article critiques how digital public infrastructure is being framed and deployed, showing that without attention to power, equity, and rights, these systems can deepen exclusion and entrench control rather than serve the public interest. ### Resources from UNDP * [UNDP Global Policy Centre on Governance | Information integrity](https://www.undp.org/policy-centre/governance/information-integrity) * [UNDP Digital, AI and Innovation Hub | Digital Public Infrastructure](https://www.undp.org/digital/digital-public-infrastructure) * [UN DPI Safeguards Framework](https://www.dpi-safeguards.org/) * [Call for submissions to the Atlas of Innovation in Public Communication](https://www.undp.org/governance/blog/atlas-innovation-public-communication) ## Agenda
Time (in CET)Agenda ItemObjectives / Discussion
16.00-16.05Welcome and introduction

  • Introduce session goals and relevance to WSIS+20.
  • Frame the discussion: operationalising the WSIS+20 Outcome Document to support media independence, access to information, and secure digital technologies.
  • Introducing the speakers.
16.05-16.10Context Setting: WSIS+20 and Digital infrastructure needs

  • Key provisions in the Outcome Document relevant to media, access to information, and public-interest digital infrastructure.
  • Challenges and opportunities for affordable, interoperable, and secure infrastructure for media ecosystems.
16.10-16.20The Journalism Cloud Alliance

  • The vision behind the JCA and its role in supporting open and affordable tools for journalists.
  • Concrete examples: services, collaborative governance model, early use cases.
16.20-16.40Recommendations to operationalise WSIS+20 Outcomes

  • How governments/IGOs see their role in operationalising WSIS+20 outcomes.
  • Policy levers, funding mechanisms, and governance pathways to support secure, affordable digital infrastructure for media and journalists.
16.50-16.55Discussion and Q&A

  • What are the key priorities needed to turn WSIS commitments into concrete support for the media and journalists?
16.55-17.00Closing remarks and key messages

  • Wrap up key takeaways.
  • Point to next steps for engaging with the JCA and WSIS+20 implementation.

# Meeting Report This WSIS+20 side event, co-organised by the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and ARTICLE 19, took place in the context of the final negotiations on the WSIS+20 outcome document. Participants stressed that commitments to free, independent, and pluralistic media must be operationalised alongside efforts to build secure, inclusive, and affordable digital infrastructure. ARTICLE 19 outlined key provisions and gaps in the draft outcome document, noting progress on DPI and information integrity but flagging weakened human rights language and insufficient attention to media freedom safeguards, including protections related to surveillance, encryption, and platform power. DPI was framed as extending beyond services to the underlying technical layers, requiring openness, interoperability, public oversight, and multistakeholder governance. In this context, the Journalism Cloud Alliance was presented as a civil society-led initiative building a shared cloud infrastructure for investigative journalism. The initiative addresses the over-reliance on hyperscalers which increases security and surveillance risks, undermines technological self-determination, and limits accessibility and innovation due to the high costs. Such reliance on big technology companies also undermines both state sovereignty and journalistic independence. Governments and partners should support public-interest alternatives and help co-develop human rights-respecting shared infrastructure. Government representatives from the Netherlands and Switzerland shared perspectives on implementing WSIS+20 commitments at national and international levels, emphasising the role of states in supporting independent media, protecting journalists, and advancing human rights-respecting approaches to DPI. Switzerland highlighted the importance of the Rights-Respecting Digital Public Infrastructure Principles by the Freedom Online Coalition which seek to ensure that DPI is built with a commitment to fostering responsible innovation and economic growth so societies and businesses can thrive in today’s digital economy, as well as national efforts to safeguard media professionals, while the Netherlands stressed the importance of international cooperation to counter disinformation and digital threats to journalism. UNDP underscored that promoting free, independent, pluralistic media and advancing secure, inclusive, affordable digital infrastructure (DPI) are not separate agendas; they are mutually reinforcing pillars of democratic, people‑centred digital transformation. UNDP is building bridges between those two areas via coalition-building initiatives and efforts to ensure DPI development aligns with international human rights standards. In conclusion: meaningful implementation, multistakeholder participation, and policy coherence across global digital processes are now essential to ensure that “public” in DPI truly means public interest, and power structures are addressed so the technologies respond to diverse societal needs. ### Key Action Points and Takeaways {% hint style="success" %} Digital governance is central to the advancement of media freedom. Stakeholders must support public-interest infrastructure for media, including alternative and cooperative models, to reduce structural dependency on dominant technology platforms and strengthen resilient and plural journalism ecosystems. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Media freedom is also central for the operationalisation of the WSIS+20 vision. Through the WSIS+20 commitments, governments need to integrate media freedom, journalist safety, and information integrity safeguards into their digital governance frameworks and their national DPI strategies. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} Media freedom can be an enabling right for all other human rights and democratic values. To that end, governments must advance human rights-respecting DPI through openness, interoperability, public interest design, and multistakeholder oversight, including alignment with human rights standards and DPI safeguards. {% endhint %} # GFMD Policy and Advocacy Meeting (April 2025) When journalism dies, so does democracy: Advocating for funding to support independent media and journalism. **Date:** Monday, April 7, 2025 **Time:** 13.00 - 14.30 UTC / 15.00 - 16.30 CEST (find the meeting time in your [time zone here](https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Policy+Meeting\&iso=20250407T15\&p1=48\&ah=1\&am=30)) **Location**: Zoom. Please [register here](https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/acdXr1pqTI65lyZDms-q1Q) to attend. This policy meeting aims to bring together media development and journalism support organisations to discuss how our community can work together to advocate for immediate, medium, and long-term funding and resources to strengthen media freedom and pluralism, journalist safety, and media development. Based on the updates from GFMD’s Funding Crisis Coordination Working Group Meetings, the discussion will focus on urgent advocacy efforts to respond to the current funding crisis triggered by the US funding freeze, while also discussing strategies for sustained engagement with key initiatives, such as the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) negotiations. Participants will strategise on turning advocacy efforts into concrete policy changes, identifying priorities, topline messages, data and evidence, as well as optimal channels to effectively engage with key policymakers and donors. ## Agenda {% embed url="" %} ## Relevant resources and literature review {% file src="/files/G3E3JUM0Q0Zd2kqb5Bpa" %} Slides from the meeting {% endfile %} {% embed url="" %} {% embed url="" %} {% embed url="" %} {% embed url="" %} {% embed url="" %} {% embed url="" %} # Meeting Agenda The total duration of the Policy Meeting is 90 minutes. Below you can find the tentative agenda The times below are indicated in CEST. Find the [meeting start time in your time zone here.](https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Policy+Meeting\&iso=20250407T15\&p1=48\&ah=1\&am=30)
Time (in CEST)Agenda ItemMinutes
15:00 - 15:10Welcome and Introduction10'
15:10 - 15:20Updates from GFMD’s Funding Crisis Coordination Working Group Meeting10'
15:20 - 16:00Strategic Advocacy for Media and Journalism Financing: Turning Advocacy into Policy40'
16:00 - 16:20Tools and toolkits for upcoming advocacy opportunities20'
16.20 - 16:30Conclusion and Next Steps10'
# Key recommendations ### General Recommendations 1. **Encourage Broad Participation in Consultations:** * Emphasise the importance of organisations participating in consultations both individually and within coalitions to increase the impact of submissions. * Highlight that the more times certain points are mentioned in submissions, the higher the priority these points will have.
2. **Promote Joint Inputs and Coordination:** * Encourage organisations to submit joint inputs as supporting files, ensuring a unified approach to advocating for key points.
3. **Use Advocacy Tools Effectively:** * Advocate for the distribution of a master resource document and toolkit to support advocacy related to the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and Democracy Shield. * Ensure that submissions, even individual ones, are shared widely and that they align with a collective advocacy strategy.
4. **Raise Awareness Around Key Dates:** * Take advantage of significant dates such as World Press Freedom Day (May 3rd) and News Media Day (September) to amplify advocacy efforts and coordinate contributions.
5. **Engage Non-Traditional Stakeholders:** * Actively reach out to groups not typically involved in media advocacy, including advertisers, corporate donors, and those investing in digital infrastructure, to ensure long-term security for alternative spaces.
6. **Leverage Media and Journalists:** * Create opportunities for journalists and media outlets to contribute to the advocacy efforts, particularly through publications that address the core issues raised during the consultation process.
7. **Strengthen Long-Term, Proactive Advocacy:** * Focus on developing long-term strategies for media advocacy, ensuring a broader and more sustained impact on policy changes.
### Specific Recommendations for policy engagement 1. **Emphasise the Global Scope of Support:** * Ensure that global support, including for the European neighborhood, is considered in negotiations and advocacy, ensuring comprehensive international engagement.\
2. **Focus on Urgency and Timing:** * Acknowledge the urgency of the pre-negotiation phase of the MFF process and the importance of submitting inputs promptly to influence decision-making.
3. **Ensure Comprehensive Input from All Stakeholders:** * Encourage all relevant stakeholders, including those from diverse regions, to contribute to the consultation process, ensuring that all viewpoints are represented.
### Recommendations for Advocacy and Outreach 1. **Create Joint Contributions for World Press Freedom Day:** * Formulate joint contributions for World Press Freedom Day to address the current media landscape, using the master resource document to guide the messaging.\
2. **Develop Long-Term Campaigns for Media Advocacy:** * Use the opportunity provided by events like News Media Day in September to foster a proactive media campaign that addresses the evolving challenges faced by the media sector.\
3. **Engage with Non-Usual Stakeholders:** * Seek collaborations with sectors such as corporate donors, advertisers, and digital infrastructure developers to build long-term, secure funding for independent media initiatives.\
4. **Promote Cross-Border Collaboration:** * Encourage collaboration between media organisations across different countries, especially those in the MENA region, to promote shared learning and mutual support.
### Sector-Specific Recommendations 1. **Provide Targeted Media Support:** * Prioritise media support initiatives that focus on the specific needs of journalists and media outlets in conflict zones or areas with limited freedom of the press.\
2. **Develop Emergency Funding Mechanisms:** * Establish rapid response funding mechanisms for media organisations in crisis situations to ensure they can continue operations during emergencies or conflicts.
3. **Enhance Security and Protection for Journalists:** * Update tools and resources to protect journalists in conflict zones, including advanced training in digital security and anonymous reporting techniques.
4. **Strengthen Media Freedom Advocacy:** * Advocate for the decriminalisation of defamation laws and strengthen the protection of journalists in regions with restrictive media environments. # GFMD Policy Meeting (March 2025) GFMD Policy Meeting on March 21, 2025 **Date:** Wednesday 12 March\ **Time:** 15:00 - 16:00 CET\ **Registration:** *Please register*[ ***here***](https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/zf7hXxqVRhqCAHBdnjvWoQ#/registration) *to attend* ## Objectives This session will focus on two key upcoming global policy processes: 1. The 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+20) {% embed url="" %} 2. The 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) {% embed url="" %} ### You will find the meeting agenda here: {% content-ref url="/pages/LEYpehtUiYW00GjIXg6k" %} [Meeting agenda](/meetings/2025/gfmd-policy-meeting-march-2025/meeting-agenda) {% endcontent-ref %} ### You will find a relevant literature review here: {% content-ref url="/pages/j3W4hMEmHr8v5PzojtJi" %} [Literature review](/meetings/2025/gfmd-policy-meeting-march-2025/literature-review) {% endcontent-ref %} # Meeting agenda Here you will find the meeting agenda for the Policy meeting on March 12
TimeActivity
15:05 - 15:10

Introduction - Overview of the processes

WSIS+20 Review

15:25 - 15:35Q&A / Questions on next steps
15:35 - 15:50FFD4
15:50 - 16:00Q&A / Questions on next steps
# Literature review Here you will find the list of relevant literature for the policy meeting on March 12 ## Call for Inputs: WSIS+20 Review ITU Council Resolution 1332 resolves to invite the members and other stakeholders to contribute views on the work of the ITU in the WSIS+20 review including ideas related to the review of the WSIS Action Lines through the CWG WSIS\&SDG. **Deadline: 14 March 2025** Access the submission form here: {% file src="/files/0Tw6BU2uOpGDPfxU66ST" %} ### Other submissions Submitted by Global Partners Digital: {% file src="/files/h0Okpk7AA63RYXIqjXI1" %} Submitted jointly by the following organisations (in alphabetical order): ARTICLE 19, Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Data Privacy Brasil, Derechos Digitales, ECNL, Global Partners Digital (GPD), ICNL, Paradigm Initiative (PIN), Research ICT Africa, The Wikimedia Foundation: {% file src="/files/CeRe2cOs1IvufyQbRg3b" %} ICANN’s submission: {% file src="/files/JEMlGFYR5iFgbdmJKsK3" %} # Connecting the dots: How to use existing mechanisms to protect media freedom online? (January 2025) GFMD Policy and Advocacy Meeting on January 21, 2025 **Date:** January 21, 2025 **Time:** 14:00–16:00 UTC / 15:00–17:00 CET / 17:00–19:00 EAT / 09.00–11.00 EST **Registration:** *Please register* [***here***](https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZcvduChqzMoGN0zn8blMNtYDwi9VA3mJ0BZ#/registration) *to attend* ## Objective This policy meeting will explore the effectiveness of reporting mechanisms and escalation channels for journalism organisations online, their challenges and lessons learnt, and why their data matters to ensure evidence-based policies that address the gaps in safeguarding media freedom online. This discussion will gather civil society organisations, journalism support organisations, media advocacy groups, and policy experts, academics, and researchers. By presenting insights into existing mechanisms for reporting press freedom violations online and identifying policy opportunities, the meeting aims to explore how strategic information exchange and collaboration can drive evidence-based advocacy to influence key policy opportunities to strengthen the digital information ecosystem. The meeting will also present what can be learnt from the implementation of existing or upcoming policies and mechanisms and how these could impact other regions. * Where and how can a wrongful or arbitrary action be reported on digital platforms? * What are the existing gaps in regulation or tech platforms’ policies? * How can evidence-based policies be made? Where is the data? * How to influence policies that impact media freedom and journalist’s safety online? * Can regional policies impact policies outside the initial region? How do we use existing initiatives as part of an advocacy toolkit? ### You will find the meeting report here: {% embed url="" %} ### T\&JM Final Case Digest is available [here](https://gfmd.info/h-content/uploads/2025/02/TJM-Final-Case-Digest--gfmd.pdf). {% file src="/files/Y3FvleB7B3IlM1iFD7gx" %} ### You will find the meeting agenda here: {% content-ref url="/pages/0Rp5nxtAdSAB33rnWon7" %} [Meeting agenda](/meetings/2025/mechanisms-to-protect-media-freedom-online/meeting-agenda) {% endcontent-ref %} ### You will find a relevant literature review here: {% content-ref url="/pages/XyNMzauUUVnz60jKmhf1" %} [Literature review](/meetings/2025/mechanisms-to-protect-media-freedom-online/literature-review) {% endcontent-ref %} # Meeting agenda Here you will find the meeting agenda for the Policy meeting on January 21 Total duration of the meeting: 90 minutes (+ 30 minutes voluntary follow-up discussion)
TimeActivity
15:00-15:10Welcome and Introduction
15:10-15:40

Reporting Mechanisms

Learnings from different initiatives and escalation mechanisms

Escalation mechanisms in conflict zones: In conversation with Layla Samara (Sada Social, Palestine), Otar Dovzhenko (Lviv Media Forum, Ukraine) and Laura Becana Ball (Global Forum for Media Development)

The New Appeals Center Europe (10 min)

Conversation with Thomas Hughes, CEO of Appeals Centre Europe

15:40-16:00

Institutional Mechanisms (DSA and EMFA)

What can we learn from the transparency reports and risk assessments mandated under the Digital Services Act in Europe? (10min)

Conversation with Carlos Hernández-Echevarría (Maldita.es and European Fact-Checking Standards Network, Spain)

How can National Media Regulators contribute to the implementation of the EMFA and DSA, and how can advocates work with these institutions to safeguard press freedom online? (10min)

Conversation with Maria Donde (Coimisiún na Meán, Ireland)

16:00-16:20Policy opportunities and priorities in 2025
16:20-16:30Conclusion and Next Steps
16:30-17:00

Follow-up Discussion

Voluntary: Join us in these extra 30 minutes to brainstorm and discuss the implementation of the next steps agreed in the meeting

# Literature review Here you will find the list of relevant literature for the policy meeting on January 21 ### [Appeals Centre Europe](https://www.appealscentre.eu/) The [Appeals Centre Europe](https://www.appealscentre.eu/) (ACE) is a new, independent body, certified by the media regulator in Ireland under the EU’s Digital Services Act to resolve disputes on content moderation decisions by social media platforms. ACE provides quick and impartial decisions on wrongful takedowns, harassment or misinformation, as well as other areas. We are initially covering Facebook, TikTok and YouTube, and plan to expand to other social media platforms and content types such as account suspensions, this year. Cases can be brought by individuals or organisations from across Europe **and at no cost** for the time being. The Appeals Centre aims to regularly publish data on its work, which can be used by researchers, regulators, and other interested parties. For questions on how we could support your organisation, please reach out to . The [portal is accessible here.](https://portal.appealscentre.eu/)
### The Tech and Journalism Mechanism (T\&JM) {% embed url="" %} ### Protecting Digital Rights and Media Freedom in Palestine Sada Social is a Palestinian non-profit organization dedicated to defending digital rights, ensuring online safety for Palestinians—with a focus on journalists and media platforms—and promoting media freedom in one of the world’s most challenging digital ecosystems. {% file src="/files/O0HTh0Ccs6VrDftFlM6f" %} ### Access Now’s Digital Security Helpline Access Now’s Digital Security Helpline works with individuals and organizations around the world to keep them safe online. If you’re at risk, we can help you improve your digital security practices to keep out of harm’s way. If you’re already under attack, we provide rapid-response emergency assistance. {% embed url="" %} ### [Palestinian Digital Rights in January 2025: Between Restrictions and Complicity](https://sada.social/post/ynayr-2025-alhkok-alrkmy-alflstyny-byn-alkyod-oaltoat?_preview_token=TFhBjQMjii5PZgCgJZzOAOCzMeBYC51K&_preview_nonce=04618951806583911) - Monthly Report, February 3rd, 2025 In the first month of 2025, Sada Social documented more than 350 digital violations related to Palestinian digital content, with 43% occurring on Meta's platforms (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads, and Messenger), 35% on TikTok, 15% on X, and 7% on YouTube. You can access [Sada Social Montly report here](https://sada.social/post/ynayr-2025-alhkok-alrkmy-alflstyny-byn-alkyod-oaltoat?_preview_token=TFhBjQMjii5PZgCgJZzOAOCzMeBYC51K&_preview_nonce=04618951806583911). ### Taming Big Tech: Protecting expression for all Governments around the world are seeking to regulate how social media companies address problematic content on their platforms, especially hate speech, harassment, and disinformation. But while well-intentioned, their proposals risk doing more harm than good, and they fail to tackle the real problem: the excessive power of a few huge companies whose business models are inherently exploitative. ARTICLE 19’s policies set out a solution that would not only protect freedom of expression and privacy online but also – finally – give us all a viable alternative to Big Tech. {% embed url="" %} ### Engaging tech for Internet freedom in authoritarian countries ARTICLE 19 presents 2 new reports examining the human rights responsibilities of tech companies operating in authoritarian countries – part of their Engaging Tech for Internet Freedom (ETIF) project. The first report looks at how repressive governments in Asia – with a particular focus on China, Myanmar, and Vietnam – regularly violate the rights of their people online: censoring content, spreading state propaganda, and undertaking mass surveillance. What’s more, they expect tech companies to facilitate this repression, with catastrophic consequences for people’s right to speak and to know. {% embed url="" %} ### ICFJ Digital Security Course The International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), Border Center for Journalists and Bloggers (BCJB) and Meta partnered to create a [free online digital security and safety training course for journalists and human rights defenders](https://www.icfj.org/our-work/strengthening-digital-security-journalists-and-civil-society-advocates). {% embed url="" %} ### Rory Peck Trust - Resilience Programme Since 2018, Meta has sponsored the Rory Peck Trust, a vital lifeline to freelance journalists reporting from a war zone or the underbelly of a humanitarian or constitutional crisis, giving out over 140 assistance grants in the last year. The Trust provides practical and financial support to freelance journalists and their families worldwide, assisting them in times of crisis and helping them to work more safely and professionally. {% embed url="" %} ### October 2024: A Surge of Israeli Incitement, Mockery, and Surveillance of Palestinians The Sada Social Center emphasizes the need to confront these digital violations and crimes, calling on the international community and human rights institutions to take immediate action to protect Palestinian rights and stop the aggressive policies that threaten their lives and dignity. Report a Violation mechanism: {% embed url="" %} ### Tech platforms Explore a set of resources from Meta, TikTok and YouTube and discover the latest guidelines, updates and support systems available for you. {% embed url="" %} # 2024 Here you will find GFMD Policy and Advocacy meetings held in 2024: {% content-ref url="/pages/pYtzI3X3uljOUoWPXdNB" %} [Post-Summit of the Future Updates and Upcoming Opportunities (November 2024)](/meetings/2024/post-summit-of-the-future-updates) {% endcontent-ref %} # Post-Summit of the Future Updates and Upcoming Opportunities (November 2024) GFMD Policy and Advocacy Meeting on November 7, 2024 **Date:** November 7, 2024 **Time:** 3 pm - 4 pm CET **Location:** Zoom **Registration:** *Please register* [*here*](https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZEufumprDIiHd1gy-Gj8Tq4Sc6NgxqJkKC3#/registration) *to attend.* ## Objective With this policy meeting, we aim to provide a platform to debrief on the Summit of the Future, which took place on September 21 and 22, 2024, as well as to identify key upcoming opportunities to influence key global policies. Among these opportunities, we have identified the WSIS+20 Review, but we would also like to zoom in on different regional initiatives and key developments on the regional and national fora. ### You will find the meeting agenda here: {% content-ref url="/pages/GmmIV0EVrBqxjlB3nlsr" %} [Meeting agenda](/meetings/2024/post-summit-of-the-future-updates/meeting-agenda) {% endcontent-ref %} ### You will find a relevant literature review here: {% content-ref url="/pages/xy46AKe4dLzEUPT7oHN5" %} [Literature review](/meetings/2024/post-summit-of-the-future-updates/literature-review) {% endcontent-ref %} ### Why is GFMD organising this policy meeting? This session aims to equip GFMD members and partners with actionable insights on how to navigate these opportunities to advance advocacy efforts on media freedom, public interest journalism and digital governance. This policy meeting is part of GFMD’s approach to enhancing strategic collaboration among its members and partners. GFMD aims to create a shared space to support and ensure meaningful participation of organisations in shaping media and digital policies by: * Sharing resources and knowledge * Enhancing capacity and effectiveness of organisations working on policy and advocacy * Inclusion of local perspectives in decision-making processes * Coordinating and supporting joint policy and advocacy initiatives. * Bringing a multistakeholder approach and strategic partnerships to solving media and digital policy challenges ## Questions for discussion 1. Why is this process important for the media and journalism community? 2. What are the needs or requests of the media and journalism community in respect of this process? 3. How should the community engage for this process, and what is needed to include local perspectives and enhance the capacity and effectiveness of our policy work around this process?
# Meeting agenda Here you will find the meeting agenda for the Policy meeting on November 7 Total duration of the meeting: 60 minutes + 20 minutes (informal discussion)
TimeActivity
15:00-15:05

Welcome and Introduction

  • Opening remarks
  • Instructions (mute, criteria to select speakers) + few words on why focusing on policy and advocacy / why organising this call

Overview of the objectives and agenda. (Moderator)

  • Objectives
  • Agenda
15:05-15:55

Topics

  1. Debrief on the UN Summit of the Future + follow up on GDC call for endorsement and engagement
  2. Introduction to the World Summit on Information Society +20 Review and Call for input
  3. Western Balkans and the implementation of the DSA
  4. AOB
15:55-16:00

Conclusion and Next Steps

  • Summary of key points discussed.
  • Action items and follow-up plans.
16:00-16:20

Optional Follow-Up Discussion (15-20min)

  • Participants are invited to stay longer and informally continue with the discussion after the meeting ends. This space will allow participants to review action points, resolve pending questions, and address other issues.
# Literature review Here you will find the list of relevant literature for the policy meeting on November 7 ### Summit of the Future Overview {% embed url="" %} ### Adopted Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact and Declaration on Future Generations: {% embed url="" %} ### Global Digital Compact {% embed url="" fullWidth="false" %} Find the endorsement form [here ](https://input.un.org/se/3995D1A45D6E9B20)(for reference) ### About WSIS {% embed url="" %} ### WSIS Action Line C9 Media {% embed url="" %} ### Call for Inputs: WSIS+20 Review (open until 31 January 2025) {% embed url="" %} ### Study “Towards a Feasible Implementation of the Digital Services Act in the Western Balkans” {% embed url="" %} ### CSO Common advocacy position on regional interventions under the Digital Services Act {% embed url="" %} # 2023 # Workshop on Encryption and Media Freedom (June '23) A RightsCon Workshop for knowledge exchange to approximate the use of encryption for journalists and media workers.
**Date:** 7 June 2023 **Time:** 16.15-17.15 UTC / 18:15-19:15 CEST / 10.15-11.15 CST **Format:** virtual meeting Digital surveillance is becoming a greater threat to press freedom, especially when governments and private actors use spyware to target journalists and other content creators who report on matters of public interest. Journalists and their sources are increasingly vulnerable to persecution and harassment as a result of these new technologies, raising the risk of self-censorship. In combination with other digital security tools, end-to-end encryption is a powerful tool for preventing such surveillance of journalistic investigations and sources. This interactive session will build on previous efforts to approximate the use of encryption for journalists and media workers, encouraging participants to share knowledge, resources, and tools available. Finally, the session will also address government efforts to undermine encryption such as India’s Telecommunication Bill, the Child Sexual Abuse legislation in EU, or the Turkish Disinformation Law, and discuss further what journalists can do not only to protect themselves but to advocate for their right to secure communications when reporting on current legislation that affects their privacy. #### Facilitators * Rawan Damen ([Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism - ARIJ](https://en.arij.net/)’s Director General) * Alan Kawamara ([Global Investigative Journalism Network - GIJN](https://gijn.org/)’s IT Professional) * Geoff Hunter ([Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project - OCCRP](https://www.occrp.org/en)’s Chief Technology Officer) * Andreea Belu ([European Digital Rights - EDRi](https://edri.org/)’s Head of Campaigns and Communications) ## Call to Action {% hint style="success" %} **Joint advocacy** * Analyse proposals, provide recommendations, apply pressure when needed * Global Encryption Coalition * Check campaings in your region {% endhint %} {% hint style="danger" %} **Report on this topic** 1. Don’t take government claims at face value 2. Seek technical sources {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} **Tell your story on social media,** why do you think encryption is important, using the #*CelebrateEncryption* hashtag. {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} *You can read the workshop report and takeaways* [*here*](broken://pages/8InLMxY1W8XB6hBFhSPG)*.* {% endhint %} # Workshop Report ### Background In light of the 2023 Rightscon conference in Costa Rica, GFMD hosted the “Securing Journalism: The Importance of Encryption in Protecting Media Freedom” workshop to discuss how Encryption can prevent the growing threats of digital surveillance on journalists and their sources. Participants primarily included non-governmental organisations from the MENA region, Europe Central America and Asia. The workshop was structured around the following questions * What is Encryption? Why is Encryption important for journalists? * What action is needed to protect and promote the use of encryption? (break-out rooms). - What is your experience in using such tools? Challenges? Stories? Changes in their work? Benefits? * Why is encryption important for journalists? The five pillars of assurance (confidentiality, integrity, availability, authentication, non-repudiation) regularly came up whereby encryption addresses confidentiality issues - providing greater digital security to journalists. However, participants and speakers emphasised the threats and limitations such as unprotected metadata, compromised or seized mobiles from police or governments or unstable internet connection hindering encryption’s usage varying to countries and regions. The participants identified challenges and offered regional perspectives and solutions on using encryption, such as greater awareness, adapting encryption to journalists’ IT skills, media organisations standardising encryption, rebooting phones and deleting messages daily to increase journalists’ safety from spyware and infiltration. ### Protecting journalists with encryption In response to what journalists do and what digital threats journalists face, participants expressed how journalists investigate, hold power to account, protect democracy and protect their sources - faced with growing digital threats such as doxxing, digital surveillance, censorship, hacking and harassment.

Wordcloud generated with Mentimeter with participant's responses to the question "What do journalists do?"

Journalists have growingly faced digital threats and challenges in protecting their sources, communicating safely, and working free from surveillance while navigating local press restrictions. In addition to journalists, Callum Voge expressed the importance of encryption for minority group organisations such as the LGBTQI+ community, women’s health advocates, human rights advocates and survivors of abuse organisations. In accordance with the participants' contribution, Rawan Damen and Geoff Hunter expressed the need to consider encryption and journalists’ security holistically.

Wordcloud generated with Mentimeter with participant's responses to the question "What threats do journalists face in the digital environment?"

> “*We believe in physical, digital, legal, mental, emotional, and career safety*” - Rawan Damen, Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism. The Director General of Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism, shared examples of obstacles and regional limitations to using encryption: such as the Egyptian police force limiting movements of individuals having Signal on their mobile phones or Sudan lacking stable internet and electricity infrastructures to use these services, emphasising the need to consider local solution for local problems. Although journalists are encouraged to utilise encrypted apps such as Signal, IT specialist Alan Kawamara raised growing concerns about the Telegram app and data transit between users - considering the platform is not entirely encrypted. ### Defining encryption, how it works and its threats The Chief Technology Officer, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, Geoff Hunter, defined encryption as “the process of encoding information” including messages, emails or phone calls. More specifically, the process includes encoding the original information in a ciphertext which is presented in an encrypted format to the designated recipient who holds the key to encrypt the data. Geoff Hunter explains the 2 types of encryption * **Symmetric encryption**: The sender and receiver withhold the same key or password, to encrypt and decrypt the data. This method presents threats as those who withhold the key/password can access and control the data. * **Asymmetric (public key) encryption**: This method consists of having a private key (to decrypt data) and a public key (to encrypt data) to protect it from unauthorised access. Geoff Hunter explained how encryption is a mathematical process, using algorithms which are increasingly being challenged by the growth of computational power, aiming at cracking encryption. > “*It's a bit of an arms race, like a lot of information security, or other security for software, there are new ways of using the latest computer computational power to crack encryption*” - Geoff Hunter, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) In collaboration with[ the Internet Society](https://www.internetsociety.org/), GFMD has produced a comprehensive [infographic](https://impact.gfmd.info/opportunities/workshop-on-encryption-and-media-freedom-june-23/resources) describing the relevance of encryption, how it works, available toolkits for journalists and why it is crucial for media protection.
During the workshop, participants also had the opportunity to discuss the following questions in breakout rooms to share their experience with encryption and the existing benefits and challenges. * What is your experience in using such tools? * Challenges? Stories? Changes in their work? Benefits? * Why is encryption important for journalists? Their contribution underscored several challenges, including a lack of awareness of encryption and its use, concerns regarding surveillance, and metadata leaking. Although dangers remain, Geoff Hunter provided practical methods to reduce device threats, such as rebooting mobile phones daily, keeping them patched, and frequently erasing messages on Signal in the case of a seized phone. To tackle the lack of awareness, Callum Voge proposed standardising encryption technologies used by media organisations, increasing training for editors-in-chief and decision-makers, and encouraging using Signal in countries such as Tunisia to combat cybercrime legislation and disinformation. [SembraMedia](https://www.sembramedia.org/)’s contribution addresses language barriers by offering [reports](https://data2021.sembramedia.org/reportes/chapter-2-media-freedom-journalist-safety/) and [resource tools](https://www.sembramedia.org/herramientas-digitales) in Spanish to accommodate non-English speakers. For Andreea Belu, the legislative and political narratives constitute growing threats towards encryption and journalists’ safety. Andreea Belu elaborated on the laws hosting encryption safeguards, such as the European Media Freedom Act, fearing the legalisation of spyware and its usage against journalists - encouraging the digital rights and media and journalism organisations to advocate for encryption rights for journalists. ### Legislative threats to encryption Andreea explained the European Digital Rights organisation’s (EDRi) efforts against the suggested methods of the United States Child Sexual Abuse Regulation - despite rightfully combating such a horrific crime, using client-side scanning undermines encryption. Gender and reproductive organisations, human rights defenders and investigative journalists have spoken up against this law, resulting in over 130 NGOs and EDRi’s [Stop Scanning Me](https://stopscanningme.eu/en/how-CSAR-affects-us.html) campaign against the Child Sexual Abuse Regulation. Andreea mentioned the ongoing[ trial in France ](https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2023/06/05/criminalization-of-encryption-the-8-december-case/)criminalising encryption and the worrying “Brussels effect” whereby passed laws influence other European countries to replicate similar approaches, implementing ill solutions and ultimately - undermining human rights globally. Callum Voge’s intervention shed light on the worrying legislative developments and the role of legislators in the United Kingdom with the [Online Safety Bill ](https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaign/online-safety-bill-campaign-hub/)and the [EARN IT Act](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/earn-it-bill-back-again-seeking-scan-our-messages-and-photos) in the United States. Callum's recommended solutions address the alarming developments of criminalising encryption and endangering the safety of journalists and minority communities around the world. ### Promoting and protecting encryption: action points * Joint advocacy, such as the [Global Encryption Coalition](https://www.globalencryption.org/), analyses proposals, provides recommendations and applies pressure on Governments to influence policy outcomes - all efficient methods, according to Callum Voge. * Reporting on the topic enables growing awareness of encryption’s benefits and brings the issue to the public. Rawan Damen says that sharing the benefits of encryption fosters a shift from a negative to a positive narrative. * Seeking technical sources to understand better government or legislative proposals is essential to ensure accurate comprehension - “please do not take government claims at face value”, says Callum Voge. As such, among the 110+ local chapters, the Global Coalition on Encryption may have relevant regional information. This workshop promoted knowledge sharing and community building around issues such as digital surveillance and criminalised encryption, which would not have been possible without the speakers' and participants' involvement and contribution. # Resources This page features a summary of the resources collected for the workshop "Securing Journalism: The Importance of Encryption in Protecting Media Freedom" on June 7th, 2023. [**GIJN Webinar: Investigative Journalism and Digital Threats in 2024 Elections**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMcFHitxnQ0) The GIJN webinar delved into the critical intersection of investigative journalism and digital threats as they pertain to the 2024 elections, offering a global perspective on the evolving landscape. Esteemed journalists and experts provided insights into the multifaceted challenges posed by digital manipulation across various continents, highlighting the nuanced strategies employed to influence electoral outcomes. Moreover, they equipped attendees with invaluable tips and cutting-edge tools essential for effectively uncovering and countering disinformation campaigns, thereby empowering investigative journalists to uphold the integrity of democratic processes amidst the ever-expanding digital sphere. ### Securing Journalism: The importance of encryption in protecting media freedom \ In collaboration with [the Internet Society](https://www.internetsociety.org/), we have produced a comprehensive infographic describing the relevance of encryption, how it works, available toolkits for journalists and why it is crucial for media protection. Given our 2023 RightsCon workshop, you can find [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/17A3tAr5mjvSHz5ZH4GcSGc00DhNu7L1ibN0otUrj1Jc/edit#) a Google document including valuable resources shared by the speakers and the attendees' contributions.
{% file src="/files/pZWUDZy1Hb0yVr8xuKpT" %} ### [Digital Security](https://gijn.org/digital-security/) (November, 2023) [**The Global Investigative Journalism Network**](https://gijn.org/) published a comprehensive report summarising the [Digital Security Guide](https://rorypecktrust.org/resources/Digital-Security-Guide) issued by [The Rory Peck Foundation](https://rorypecktrust.org/). It includes simple but effective steps to increase journalists' protection and safety online - such as strengthening passwords, installing effective anti-virus software, contacting non-profit groups in the case of suspected hacking, and identifying suspicious email attachments or wordy written emails. The report also emphasises the importance of data encryption for emails to prevent leaked information from sources and secure your private messages. To avoid government tracking, they recommend various platforms such as Google Hangouts instead of Skype and avoid text messaging as it is not encrypted. Though journalists cannot be fully protected, these simple steps increase their security and privacy. ### [What is Encryption?](https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/encryption/what-is/) (April, 2023) [**Internet Society**](https://www.internetsociety.org/) has dedicated this section to explain what encryption is, how it works, when to use it, why it matters and the existing threats. They describe encryption as the process of scrambling or enciphering data so it can be read only by someone with the means to return it to its original state. It is a crucial feature of a safe and trustworthy Internet and it helps provide data security for sensitive information. ### [Encryption Ressources](https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/encryption/resources/) (March, 2023) [Internet Society](https://www.internetsociety.org/) published multiple fact sheets, guides and reports on encryption, as encryption is a crucial feature of a safe and trustworthy Internet. Encryption keeps personal information safe and is also critical to national security, protecting society from terrorists, criminals, and hostile governments. Internet Society warns how encryption is under threat and how some people want to introduce flaws into encryption systems and this makes encryption less safe for everyone. You can access [this ressource section](https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/encryption/resources/) to find more information on how they're promoting and defending encryption around the world and how you can stand up for encryption. ### [Protect Encryption, Protect Yourself](https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/encryption/protect-encryption-protect-yourself/) (July, 2023) With encryption under threat worldwide, [Internet Society](https://www.internetsociety.org/) recommends a few steps to ensure our safety, protect encryption, protect our data, and protect one another. Some measures include using end-to-end encrypted messaging apps, encrypting your devices, using strong passwords, or even turning on erase-data options to protect thieves from stealing your data. ### [Herramientas digitales para periodistas](https://www.sembramedia.org/herramientas-digitales) (October, 2022) With the growing prospects the internet has to offer to communities and businesses, [Sembra Media](https://www.sembramedia.org/) aims at filling the language gap with English-dominated sources- by providing resources in Spanish. ### [Encryption: How It Can Protect Journalists and the Free Press ](https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2022-Encryption-for-Journalists-Factsheet-EN.pdf)(August, 2022) [Internet Society](https://www.internetsociety.org/) and the [Committee to Protect Journalists](https://cpj.org/) drafted a report elaborating on ways encryption is valuable to keep communities and journalists safe. Some of them include the possibility of communicating with sources safely, protecting the integrity of information, and protecting from attackers - as for utilising encryption to hold governments and institutions accountable. ### [Encryption Kept Me Safe: End-to-end Encryption for Journalists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5qQsJipLpc\&t=9s) [The Global Encryption Coalition ](https://www.globalencryption.org/)posted this video explaining the role of encryption in guaranteeing the safety of individuals, activists and journalists worldwide. The investigative journalist, [James Ball](https://www.jamesrball.com/), shares his experience in Syria, where the lack of access to encryption endangered journalists' lives- rendering them vulnerable to oppressive regimes in conflict zones. He explains how encryption is essential for individuals to keep their privacy and protection from governments, spies or ill-intentioned individuals. {% embed url="" %} ### [Arab Contributions in Cryptography, Case Study: Ibn Dunaynir Effort](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315656791_Arab_Contributions_in_Cryptography_Case_Study_Ibn_Dunaynir_Effort#read) (2017) [Bushra Elamin ](https://independent.academia.edu/BushraElamin)published a paper presenting Arab contributions in cryptography, discussing Ibn Dunaynir cryptologist who was the first to describe an arithmetical cypher, in which cleartext characters are converted into numbers and then some simple arithmetic operations are performed on them. Cryptography paved the way for the development of arguably humanity's greatest achievements yet, Computers, the Internet and the digital world. Throughout history, the need for secrecy has been important. Governments and ordinary people have increasingly sought to secure the delivery of certain messages and important information in a way that allows only the intended recipient access and comprehension. This need for secrecy brought about the invention and the art of concealment, coding and code-making. In return, the need for intelligence and information lead to the development of code-breaking techniques. These techniques primarily attack a particular weakness that a code or concealment method may have, rendering the sought-after information apparent and comprehensible to the assailant. #### [Panel wrap-up: Press freedom and the threat to encryption](https://ipi.media/panel-wrap-up-press-freedom-and-the-threat-to-encryption/) (2021) [The International Press Institute](https://ipi.media/) joined the [Thomson Reuters Foundation’s](https://www.trust.org/) annual Trust Conference to discuss the importance of encryption for journalism. The discussion points included the current threats to encryption, how encryption protects journalists’ lives and some alternatives to anti-encryption policies. Additionally, encryption remains vital in safeguarding freedom of the press and expression, human rights, and democracy. Weakened encryption renders minority groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, vulnerable to persecution while also limiting journalists’ safety and freedom of the press. ### [What is Encryption and How Does it Work?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HQ8Bp-pfw) (2016) The Youtube channel [Mashable](https://www.youtube.com/@Mashable), presents a brief video explaining what is encryption works, how it works and how it prevents individuals from accessing encrypted messages. {% embed url="" %} ### [PEGASUS : LA NOUVELLE ARME MONDIALE POUR FAIRE TAIRE LES JOURNALISTES](https://forbiddenstories.org/fr/pegasus-nouvelle-arme-mondiale-pour-faire-taire-les-journalistes/) (2021) A survey published by [Forbidden Stories ](https://forbiddenstories.org/fr/)and written by [Phineas Rueckert](https://forbiddenstories.org/our-team/), indicates how at least 180 journalists worldwide have been selected as targets by customers of the cyber surveillance company - NSO Group. Indeed, clients of this surveillance company, including members of government across 11 countries, are suspected of using Pegasus to spy on journalists, obtain confidential information and consequently, threaten them. Developed by the Israeli company NSO Group, Pegasus allows its operators to access all the content of a telephone and even remotely activate the camera and the microphone. This article illustrates how the partnership between [Amnesty International’s Security Lab](https://www.amnesty.org/en/tech/) and Forbidden Stories has uncovered various attacks on journalists’ privacy and their genuine fear of protecting sources’ privacy - endangering the lives of journalists and human rights defenders worldwide. ### [Media freedom & journalist safety](https://data2021.sembramedia.org/reportes/chapter-2-media-freedom-journalist-safety/) (n/d) In their study's second chapter, [Inflection Point International ](https://data2021.sembramedia.org/)analysed the rate of global threats, attacks, denunciations, lawsuits, and physical violence journalists face. Their chapter indicates that more than 12% of journalists reported that they or someone in their news organisation had been victims of physical violence. The study includes statistics from the [ICFJ Online Violence Project](https://www.icfj.org/our-work/icfj-online-violence-project), presenting the themes most identified in faced persecution with increased attacks due to gender (47%), followed by politics and elections (44%), and human rights and social policy (31%). In addition to physical and online threats, 28% indicated their organisation were subject to judicial threats, varying from country to country. This study presents relevant data from various countries to illustrate the growing threats and dangers to journalism. ### [How does the CSA Regulation affect us all?](https://stopscanningme.eu/en/how-CSAR-affects-us.html) (n/d) The NGO [Stop Scamming Me ](https://stopscanningme.eu/en/index.html)conveyed the importance of digital privacy and safety for various groups, such as young, queer and racialised individuals, but also for professionals such as doctors, lawyers or journalists. Young people must be able to explore their identities and communicate safely online without private companies or the government accessing and using their data. The NGO emphasises how insidious online communication surveillance can lead to severe mental health issues for young people, self-censorship and disengagement from public and political life. For professionals entitled to professional secrecy, such as journalists and doctors, privacy is essential to practice their profession safely. A lack of privacy may result in harassment, intimidation, threats or worse. Human rights defenders face similar threats and are increasingly surveilled by States and malicious actors - leading to violence or repercussions. ### [Keep your data secure with a personalised plan](https://securityplanner.consumerreports.org/) [Consumer Reports](https://www.consumerreports.org/) have curated a customised security planner based on your answers to offer the best-suited methods to reduce data collection and protect your sensitive personal information, health data, and geolocation. You can find more information on their security planner below. {% embed url="" %} ### [Encryption is **freedom and security**](https://obcrypto.org/) [ObCrypto](https://obcrypto.org/) have published a series of Regional Report on Policies and Freedoms in the Use of Cryptography in Latin America and the Caribbean. The report exposes the state of public policies and the level of freedom regarding the use of encryption technologies in the region. The Cryptography Observatory monitors public and private policies on cryptography in Latin America. Please [send us](https://forms.gle/UHXKZvpZVtFXdxgi6) any materials, collections of tools, and other resources that can contribute to build this resource center on encryption and digital security. {% hint style="warning" %} Please [send us](https://forms.gle/UHXKZvpZVtFXdxgi6) any materials, collections of tools, and other resources that can contribute to build this resource center on encryption and digital security. {% endhint %} # 2022 Here you will find GFMD Policy and Advocacy meetings held in 2022: # Gender Equality in Media Regulation (May '22) A webinar for knowledge exchange on how media regulation can support gender equality in and through the media. Presentations by member organisations from research or practical work in this field.
**Date:** 12 May 2022 **Time:** 15:00-16:30 CEST / 14:00-15:30 BST / 9:00-10:30 ET **Format:** virtual meeting {% hint style="info" %} **Read the** [**meeting report here**](https://impact.gfmd.info/opportunities/gender-equality-in-media-regulation-may-22/meeting-report)**.** {% endhint %} **Organisers:** * Fojo Media Institute ([Fojo](https://fojo.se/en/)) * Global Forum for Media Development ([GFMD](https://gfmd.info/)) **Moderator:** Agneta Söderberg Jacobson, Gender Advisor, Fojo Media Institute ### Agenda #### Welcome (15:00 - 15:10) * Laura Becana Ball, Policy and Advocacy manager, GFMD * Agneta Söderberg Jacobson, Gender Advisor, Fojo Media Institute #### Topical overview of gender equality in media regulation and self-regulation (15:10 - 15:20) How can gender equality and women’s freedom of expression be promoted through law and policy without infringing on media freedom? Based on key findings from Fojo Media Institute's [global study](https://fojo.se/genderandmedia/). Presenters: * Sarah Macharia, Gender Expert, Fojo Media Institute * Joan Barata, Media Law Expert, Stanford Cyber Policy Center #### Safety of women journalists and media regulation (15:20 - 15:30) To what extent is gender equality incorporated in mechanisms for the protection of journalists? The UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity will be used as point of departure. The presentation will draw on [Digital Safe House and Collaborative Platform for Women Journalists in the Philippines (digitalsafehouseph.net)](https://www.digitalsafehouseph.net/) - a case study collaboration between International Media Support (IMS) and the The International Association of Women in Radio and Television (IAWART). Presenters: * Colette S. Wahlqvist, Global Safety Advisor, International Media Support * Lady Ann Salem, IAWRT Communications Officer and project lead for the Digital Safe House for Women Journalists in the Philippines #### Online harassment against women journalists (15:30 - 15:40) As part of the work of a coalition against online violence [https://onlineviolenceresponsehub.org/advocacy](https://onlineviolenceresponsehub.org/advocacy), Free Press Unlimited is leading advocacy to establish international standards on online violence against women journalists. At present there is no global policy in this area. Presenter: * Flora Schulte Nordholt, Policy & Advocacy Officer, Free Press Unlimited #### Sexual harassment in the (media) workplace (15:40 - 15:50) On the development of sexual harassment policies for media organisations. WAN-IFRA will share findings from their 2021 research on sexual harassment from media professionals in 20 markets as well as case studies from their work with media partners throughout Sub Saharan Africa. Presenters: * Melanie Walker, Executive Director for Media Development, WAN-IFRA * Jane Godia, Africa Director for Women in News #### Discussion and Q\&A (15:50 - 16:20) **Organisations and participants are invited to take the floor during the discussion to share their experiences and learnings in the gender and media regulation field** #### Conclusions (16:20-16:30) {% hint style="warning" %} For more details about this meeting see our literature review [here.](https://impact.gfmd.info/policy-and-learning-meetings/gender-equality-in-media-regulation-and-self-regulation-may-2022/literature-review) {% endhint %} # Meeting Report Meeting report from the webinar “Gender Equality in Media Regulation and Self Regulation – in theory and practice” convened by Fojo Media Institute and the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD). **Outline** 1. [Introduction](https://impact.gfmd.info/opportunities/gender-equality-in-media-regulation-may-22/meeting-report#undefined) 2. [Policy and Regulation](https://impact.gfmd.info/opportunities/gender-equality-in-media-regulation-may-22/meeting-report#undefined) 3. [Safety of Women Journalists](https://impact.gfmd.info/opportunities/gender-equality-in-media-regulation-may-22/meeting-report#safety-of-journalists-from-a-gender-perspective) 4. [Gendered Online Violence](https://impact.gfmd.info/opportunities/gender-equality-in-media-regulation-may-22/meeting-report#gendered-online-violence) 5. [Training to create a safe (media) workplace](https://impact.gfmd.info/opportunities/gender-equality-in-media-regulation-may-22/meeting-report#trainings-to-create-a-safe-media-workplacetrainings-to-create-a-safe-media-workplace) 6. [Steps forward](https://impact.gfmd.info/opportunities/gender-equality-in-media-regulation-may-22/meeting-report#steps-forward) Over the course of the webinar, presenters drew on their varied experiences, speaking on various studies, declarations, and policy briefs they have participated in or drawn on within their own work. In addition to the presentations, topics highlighted during the final discussion included: {% hint style="warning" %} The low level of integration of gender equality provisions in media policy and legislation across the world, particularly at statutory and industry levels {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} The need to adopt measures other than regulation to address obstacles to women’s freedom of expression and full participation in the media sector {% endhint %} {% hint style="danger" %} Violence against women journalists tools and strategies for redress {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" %} The importance of inclusive safety training for women and resources to combat gender disinformation and address content regulation. {% endhint %} > *“It will be very difficult to impose by law certain obligations in order to force equal gender representation in media entities or regulatory bodies, but the adoption of voluntary codes of conduct, self-regulation codes of ethics are of fundamental importance to protect, or to promote gender equality and women’s exercise of their right to freedom of expression.”* -Joan Barata Mir, Media Law Expert, Stanford Cyber Policy Centre ### Introduction The webinar addressed holistically the state of gender equality in media regulation. Firstly, the presentation of Fojo Media Institute’s global study on [Gender Equality and Media Regulation](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#gender-equality-and-media-regulation-march-2022), showcased the state of play of gender integration in media policy and legislation across the world. One of the key issues identified was that regulation in isolation is not sufficient to achieve gender equality goals; other tools must be applied, such as gender-sensitive national protection mechanisms to address threats to safety of women journalists. Online violence was identified as one of the main issues disproportionately targeting women journalists. Research by the[ ICFJ ](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#the-chilling-global-trends-in-online-violence-against-women-journalists-april-2021)revealed that online violence causes severe psychological harm to women journalists, leads them to self-censor and silences their voices. Currently, an international formal regulatory framework on online violence against women and women journalists, does not yet exist. There is a need to see and to recognize online violence as gendered and systemic and to underline the responsibility of states to protect women’s right to freedom of expression. The webinar also addressed [practical experiences](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#sexual-harassment-in-newsrooms-2021) from organisations working with media outlets and their staff to close the disconnect between the experience of sexual harassment and violence, and the understanding and the actions that are taken by media organizations. Thus, highlighting the importance of training and the sensitization of all media workers at all levels. ### Policy and Regulation Speakers highlighted how gender equality is both a principle and a basic human right necessary for democracy, which also converges with the right to freedom of expression and opinion, the right to access information and the right to non-discrimination on any basis. For that reason, it is important to understand how, and to what extent, gender equality is integrated in media policy and law across the world. In response to this need, Fojo Media Institute conducted research aimed at mapping and analysing how gender equality is integrated in the regulatory frameworks (policy and law) of almost 200 countries. [The Gender Equality and Media Regulation (GMR)](https://fojo.se/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/04/Gender_Equality_and_Media_Regulation-lowres.pdf) global study was carried out in collaboration with Fojo’s partners in six countries where the Institute is active: Armenia, Bangladesh, Rwanda, Somalia, Sweden and Zimbabwe. The study focused on the different levels of policy, ranging from supranational to national/statutory, to industry levels. The typology developed from the frameworks that were studied presented three types of approaches to supranational policymaking on gender and media: {% hint style="info" %} 1. Gender policy frameworks with media-specific provisions. These target dimensions such as media content, workplace practices and gender-based violence against women media workers, and are largely the result of advocacy by feminist/gender & media movements. An example of this is the Beijing Platform for Action Section J. 2. Gender policy frameworks that do not mention media explicitly but draw attention to issues that are in the media spheres of influence such as norms and stereotypes about femininity and masculinity and gender relations. An example of this is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 3. Media policies with implications for gender equality. While the central focus of these frameworks is media freedom and independence, they also underline the media's role in democracy which includes creating a platform for the diversity of voices in society to be heard {% endhint %} > “*Gender equality, freedom of expression and media freedom and independence are not mutually exclusive. All are protected in international standards.*” - Sarah Macharia, Fojo Media Institute, GMR study lead researcher. GMR study co-researcher and media law expert from Stanford Cyber Policy Centre Joan Barata Mir gave an example of the findings from Zimbabwe. While the country has a good legislative framework concerning gender equality and women’s empowerment, building implementation capacity in media houses is necessary to transcend policy adoption and enable monitoring of the efficiency of gender policies. > “*What counts as good practice is not always clear or easily apparent, I think clarity on what a good practice is, has to come from its outcomes and impact over the medium and long term.*” - Sarah Macharia, Fojo Media Institute, GMR study lead researcher. While there exist various intersections between freedom of expression and gender equality, both of which are universal human rights, protected by international legal instruments, the two must be understood and interpreted in a complementary manner. States are obliged not to interfere in the (media’s) freedom of expression while also creating effective conditions for full gender equality. Barata pointed out that restrictions to women’s freedom of expression come also from interpretations of culture, religion and traditions that subordinate women, thus creating a need for policy-making to take into account these additional bottlenecks. He explained as well that , “The right to access to information (ATI) is a key element for women’s empowerment and agency, especially when it concerns information on issues of particular relevance to women such as t reproductive rights The right to freedom of expression is not absolute; it is tempered by and co-exists with other rights enshrined in policy. For example, gendered hate speech can be banned and criminalised when it meets certain conditions such as inciting violence. Where legal restrictions cannot be applied, different measures such as education, workplace policy, and training of journalists. > “*At the end of the day, it's not all about law, there are certain legal implications, but law and policy need to complement each other in order to have proper enforcement or properly protect gender equality without disproportionately interfering with media freedom.*” - Joan Barata Mir, Media Law Expert, Stanford Cyber Policy Centre During her discussion on online harassment against women journalists, Flora Schulte Nordholt, Policy and Advocacy Officer for Free Press Unlimited, spoke on the importance of defining certain conduct. From a legal perspective, by doing so, you “delineate and demarcate the behaviour that you want to address, which is not only extremely important for further regulation for states, but also sends an important signal that demonstrates consensus at the international level, on the severity of online harassment, which is very much needed. Because at this moment, not one single country has developed a comprehensive framework to address online harassment.” By creating policies for issues such as online harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, and ensuring that staff are aware and knowledgable of these policies, we can begin to effectively combat gender inequality from the ground up. When it comes to effective legislation, a prime example comes from Pakistan which passed the Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act (2021) and within it, established the “Independent Commission for the Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals”. This legal and institutional framework, as highlighted by Colette Wahlqvist, the Global Safety Advisor for International Media Support, “embodies a multi-stakeholder approach to journalists’ safety” by making it mandatory to include a diverse set of voices in decisions. ### **Safety of journalists from a gender perspective** Different participants highlighted that the issues regarding the safety of women journalists all fall under broader issues of the general safety of journalists. Colette S. Wahlqvist stated that within the “*business of protecting journalists, the legal framework is not the only piece of the puzzle*”: > “*The safety of female journalists is part of the bigger problem of safety of journalists, something that needs to be considered in order to provide the proper protection to women when exercising the right to freedom of expression.*” Colette S. Wahlqvist**,** Global Safety Advisor for International Media Support #### UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists {% hint style="info" %} The UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists provides a “*global roadmap for how the international community can come together to promote the safety of journalists*” but acts as an initiator of the process as no single actor can keep journalists safe. Wahlqvist further spoke on how the UN Plan of Action is “*all about getting all stakeholders operating holistically, and proactively about the safety of journalists, including, of course, a gendered perspective*,” speaking on the three P’s it creates: **prevention, protection, and prosecution.** {% endhint %} > “*No single actor alone can keep journalists safe. So, with all of the solid regulation, strong legal framework, this alone is not the answer*.” - Colette Wahlqvist, Global Safety Advisor for International Media Support When it comes to targeting these gendered issues within the safety of journalists, it will take more than state protection alone, as indicated in the UN Plan of Action. Instead, according to Wahlqvist, we must look beyond policymakers and the government, working with media associations, to include prosecutors, police, the psychosocial and mental health and well-being sectors and human rights institutes. By “bringing civil society and governments together,” we can build strong national protection mechanisms for journalists. Given how contextual these situations are, there is a need to constantly monitor and report, build capacity, and create a different plan for every environment. > “*This is a component that can take shape with safety training, legal aid, mental health support, hotlines, and many other shapes and forms, but that's the key. They come in different shapes and forms, because it's all very contextual, you have to look at where the threats are coming from, to develop a national journalist safety mechanism. So, there is no singular blueprint, there is no one size fits all solution*.” -Colette Wahlqvist, Global Safety Advisor for International Media Support #### **Who helps the journalists?** Lady Ann Salem, IAWRT Communications Officer, highlighted the work done by [the Digital Safe House (DHS)](https://onlineviolenceresponsehub.org/advocacy) where she acted as project lead. Salem explained that “the project came from a bigger idea of establishing a global digital safe house and it became more imperative to do it during my arrest and the situation in Afghanistan.” There exists a need to better understand what is behind situations such as those in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Yemen, and Haiti because**,** despite years within the profession, many seem to be “*grasping at straws not knowing right away who they are working with or where to turn.*” {% hint style="success" %} The DHS is a “*one-stop or a first stop shop for women journalists seeking aid for their safety and well-being and also to report cases. It links programs for women journalists’ safety offered by various groups such as legal aid, digital-first aid, counselling, safe houses and more.*” -Lady Ann Salem, IAWRT Communications Officer {% endhint %} As a platform, the DHS campaigns around journalists, providing support in conversations and protection on social media platforms. It can be popularised to engage women journalists and their partners. Salem emphasised that as journalists, *“we are used to report about other things, but not about ourselves*.” In general, journalists are not used to seeking help, or dealing with safety issues, “*so we usually just brush \[these issues] aside and continue with our work unless we experience the more extreme cases.*” However, there exists a need to tackle these issues through platforms such as the DHS and provide support internationally. ### Gendered Online Violence One of the most prominent effects of violence towards journalists, especially female journalists today is online harassment. But this type of online violence has a gendered component since it targets women journalists. Joan Barata Mir explained that the threats and comments female journalists receive on social media refer to their condition as women. This gendered online violence includes rape threats and other forms of harassment and consists of content which wouldn’t be expressed if the journalists were not women. According to [recent research](https://www.icfj.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/The%20Chilling_POSETTI%20ET%20AL_FINAL.pdf), 73% of women journalists experience online violence with 20% of these attacks leading to real, offline violence, known as the spill-over effect. Flora Schulte Nordholt, the Policy and Advocacy Officer of Free Press Unlimited, stated that online harassment disproportionately targets women journalists, leading to severe psychological harm including isolation, loneliness, an absence of support, and severe overall mental health effects. > “*Apart from the direct harm to these women, online violence is also indirectly leading women to self-censor, or even driving them completely off social media. Sometimes even the threat of this violence alone is enough to achieve this effect. So, these chilling effects and the silencing of voices in the broader context is seriously affecting our public discourse.*” -Flora Nordholt, Policy and Advocacy Officer of Free Press Unlimited {% hint style="info" %} The [Coalition Against Online Violence](https://onlineviolenceresponsehub.org/advocacy) was founded by the International Women’s Media Foundation and consists of over 60 international organisations. Together, they create practical tools including an online violence response hub that pulls together the individual resources. Nordholt spoke on the importance of cooperation in research to create joint advocacy in three areas: * **Newsroom advocacy,** * **Platform advocacy, and** * **Legal and regulatory advocacy.** {% endhint %} > “There's a huge power imbalance between the platforms on the one hand, that often facilitate this online harassment, and users, such as women journalists, on the other hand, and in practice, we really see that these platforms only respond to one big common united voice” -Flora Nordholt, Policy and Advocacy Officer of Free Press Unlimited Online harassment is a particularly pernicious form of violence, that can take a variety of forms. It can come in insults and threats, cyber stalking or online impersonation, it can be completely orchestrated by political groups or mobs, but it can also be carried out by lone wolves. Nordholt emphasised that this is why clearly defining and demarcating such conduct is so important to tackling the issue. A completely free and open internet can become a dangerous place that excludes certain voices. Exclusion or silencing of voices such as those of women, minorities, or LGBTQI+ communities reserves participation in public debate to a small group, often white and male. Social media and the internet without protection mechanisms for the most vulnerable groups is in fact not a “free internet for all” as the right of freedom of expression is limited to the privileged few. {% hint style="danger" %} There exists a need “*to recognize online violence as gendered and systemic and to underline the responsibility of states to protect human rights.*” -Flora Nordholt, Policy and Advocacy Officer of Free Press Unlimited {% endhint %} ### **Training to create a safe (media) workplace** With regard to overcoming barriers of gender discrimination, especially in the workplace, training is undeniably of the utmost importance. It is through training that individuals are not only exposed to the experiences of others but can also acquire the tools necessary for creating a safe and just space for all. Melanie Walker and Jane Godia, the Executive Director for Media Development at WAN-IFRA and the Africa Director for Women in News (WiN), respectively, gave an in-depth description of the work being done by the WAN-IFRA WiN program. Working with over 80 different media partners, the program has trained over 4,000 journalists and editors on sexual harassment, gender equality, and all issues that fall within these realms. The program aims to close the gender gap in the news media industry and actively conducts research alongside the training. {% hint style="warning" %} [Global findings from WAN-IFRA](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#sexual-harassment-in-newsrooms-2021) have indicated that more than 40% of women and non-gender conforming journalists had experienced some form of harassment in their professional life. Only 20% (one in five) of those affected choose to report. When gender is taken out of the equation, looking just at journalists across the board, irrespective of gender, that number is still very high, with 30% of individuals experiencing some sort of harassment in the workplace. Despite the emphasis on women, it remains important to remember that men are also targeted, both verbally as well as physically. {% endhint %} > “*There was a real disconnect in terms of that recognition of there being a problem within their newsroom within the industry. There is a general perception that still lingers that this is a problem that existed 20 years ago, but no longer today. And of course, we have the results showing that is very much the opposite of the truth.*” - Melanie Walker, Executive Director for Media Development at WAN-IFRA The research findings from WAN-IFRA have helped create a base that has served as a platform for advocacy and training work. Training has proved pivotal in promoting advocacy around unfair practices and gender inequality and enabled participants to change their working environments. For example, training with a media group in Kenya revealed that some participants were not aware that sexual harassment was taking place. A sexual harassment policy had been developed and published on the website, however, staff were not made aware. By the end of the training, the staff fully understood the policy and were able to act on it. > “*Sexual harassment happens in all spaces, whether one works in a big media house or a small one.*” - Jane Godia, Africa Director for Women in News (WiN) It is imperative that training targets all staff, management, and individuals in the workplace. Furthermore, it is important that all types of organisations, corporations, and groups undergo such training. The experiences of WAN-IFRA WiN have indicated success in separating managers from the junior staff. When both groups are brought in together, the latter is less likely to speak out, but by having them go in separately, the Women in News initiative has gained “*traction in terms of getting people to speak out, getting people to say what their problem is, and also getting the managers to understand, to ensure that sexual harassment is addressed,*” as highlighted by Godia. Moving forward, making such training mandatory in the workplace will help support a shift in what is acceptable and how sexual harassment and gender inequality are dealt with. By creating awareness at all levels, from the executives to junior employees, we can ensure that there are witnesses everywhere, someone to speak up when they see something unjust occurring. There is an ongoing and increasing importance of training and sensitisation of all media workers on all levels. As illustrated by Sarah Macharia, only then can we “*close that disconnect between the experiences of sexual harassment and violence, and the understanding and actions that are taken by media organizations.*” ### **Steps forward** Further research is needed to fill the knowledge gaps and point direction on how the weak integration of gender equality dimensions in media policy and law may be addressed. The Online Coalition established by the International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF) has created practical tools and collaboration in research and joint advocacy. Each of these motions are timely and necessary, contributing to an overall movement towards a better understanding of the different challenges and how to overcome them. In countries with limited resources and capacity to contribute to such data collection and reporting, there exists a need for support, according to Maria Edström, Senior Lecturer, Department of Journalism, Media and Communication (University of Gothenburg) There needs to be systematic reporting about harassment, the forms it takes and the spaces in which it occurs, in order to understand the patterns. All of this contributes to increased learning and the development of methods to support fighting for gender equality. In conclusion, **media regulation is influenced by and interacts with attitudes and practices in the society and culture in which media operate**. This is especially true for issues regarding gender equality and diversity. {% hint style="success" %} What is clear is that there needs to be a **holistic approach to addressing gender concerns in and through media**, and regulation is one of them. Regulation should be accompanied by different **mechanisms and protections to the panoply of gender issues such as the online, physical and mental safety of women journalists, as well as gender awareness training for journalists, editors and other media workers**. {% endhint %} **Do you want to get the conversation going?** {% hint style="info" %} GFMD hosts an informal mailing list dedicated to share resources, research and reports related to Gender and Media, which aims to boost the collaboration among organisations working in Gender and Media Development. If you are not already in the mailing list, and would like to join, please contact our Advocacy and Policy Manager, Laura Becana Ball at stating your interest in joining the mailing list. {% endhint %} # Literature Review This page features a summary of the resources collated to inform the Fojo Media Institute and GFMD IMPACT webinar -- "Gender Equality in Media Regulation and Self Regulation" -- on 12 May 2022. The agenda for this meeting is available [here](https://impact.gfmd.info/policy-and-learning-meetings/gender-equality-in-media-regulation-and-self-regulation-may-2022#agenda): In preparation for the learning meeting, the Fojo Media Institute and [GFMD IMPACT](https://impact.gfmd.info/) team have produced a literature review of material related the subject that participants and others can refer to ahead of the meeting. {% hint style="info" %} Please [send us](https://impact.gfmd.info/activities-services/help-desk#contact-the-helpdesk) your research, evaluation reports and other resources that can contribute to the literature review and briefing that we will be developing in preparation for the meeting. {% endhint %} **Essential Reading List on Gender Equality:** * **Sarah Macharia and Joan Barata Mir –** [**Gender Equality and Media Regulation**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#gender-equality-and-media-regulation-march-2022) (Fojo Media Institute) * **Julie Posetti, Nabeelah Shabbir, Diana Maynard, Kalina Bontcheva, Nermine Aboulez –** [**The Chilling: Global Trends in Online Violence Against Women Journalist**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#the-chilling-global-trends-in-online-violence-against-women-journalists-april-2021) (UNESCO) * [**Platform for Women Journalists in the Philippines**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/learning-tools-interactive-maps-and-applications#digital-safe-house-and-collaborative-platform-for-women-journalists-in-the-philippines) (Digital Safe House) * [**Online Violence Response Hub**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/learning-tools-interactive-maps-and-applications#online-violence-response-hub) (Coalition Against Online Violence) * [**2022 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Gender Justice**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/declarations) (OAS, OSCE, African Commission, and Centre for Law and Democracy) * [**Sexual Harassment in Newsrooms**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#sexual-harassment-in-newsrooms-2021) (WAN-IFRA) **Readings & Resources Shared by Participants:** * [**Women Journalists and Online Harassment**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/academic-studies-papers/gender-equality#women-journalists-and-online-harassment-apr.-2018) (The University of Texas at Austin, Center for Media Engagement) * [**Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/declarations#declaration-on-fundamental-principles-and-rights-at-work-international-labour-organisation-nov.-2020) (International Labour Organisation) * [**Resources for Female-Identifying Journalists**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#resources-for-female-identifying-journalists-a-gijn-guide-2022) (Global Investigative Journalism Network) * [**Attacks on Media: Endangering the Media**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#attacks-on-media-endangering-the-media) * [**New Challenges to Freedom of Expression: Countering Online Abuse of Female Journalists**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#new-challenges-to-freedom-of-expression-countering-online-abuse-of-female-journalists-jan.-2016) (OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media) * [**Violence and Harassment Against Women in the News Media: A Global Picture**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#violence-and-harassment-against-women-in-the-news-media-a-global-picture-june-2018) (International Women's Media Foundation) * [**The Safety of Women Journalists: Breaking the Cycle of Silence and Violence**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#the-safety-of-women-journalists-breaking-the-cycle-of-silence-and-violence-oct-2019) (International Media Support) * [**Sexual Harassment in the Media: Africa Report**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#sexual-harassment-in-the-media-africa-report-july-2021) (WAN-IFRA Women in News and University of London) * [**Gender Balance Guide for the Media**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/learning-tools-interactive-maps-and-applications#gender-balance-guide-for-the-media-april-2021) (WAN-IFRA Women in News) * [**Sexual Harassment Handbook**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/learning-tools-interactive-maps-and-applications#sexual-harassment-handbook-2018) **and** [**Toolkit**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/learning-tools-interactive-maps-and-applications#sexual-harassment-toolkit-2018) (WAN-IFRA Women in News) * [**Let's Talk: Personal Boundaries, Safety, and Women in Journalism**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/learning-tools-interactive-maps-and-applications#lets-talk-personal-boundaries-safety-and-women-in-journalism-dec.-2017) (DART Center for Journalism and Trauma) * [**On The Line**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/learning-tools-interactive-maps-and-applications#on-the-line) (International Press Institute) * [**Time's Up Legal Defense Fund**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/learning-tools-interactive-maps-and-applications#times-up-legal-defence-fund) * [**The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development#the-media-for-democracy-monitor-2021-how-leading-news-media-survive-digital-transformation-vol.-1) (Nordic Information Centre for Media and Communication Research) **Other resources on gender equality** * [**Academic studies on gender equality**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/academic-studies-papers/gender-equality) * [**Research & reports on gender equality**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/research-reports/gender-equality-in-media-development) * [**Policy briefs, working papers & primers on gender equality**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/policy-briefs/gender-equality) * [**Articles on gender equality**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/articles/gender-equality) * [**Case studies on gender equality**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/case-studies/gender-equality) * [**Learning tools, interactive maps, and applications on gender equality**](https://impact.gfmd.info/resources/learning-tools-interactive-maps-and-applications) # Featured resources Below you can find a curated selection of key resources from the entire resource centre. We update this page regularly to feature resources we believe are most relevant to the community. ## [“Shadow banning”: The Subtle and Covert Censorship of the Major Tech Platforms](https://www.observacom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ShadowBanningEN.pdf) (OBSERVACOM) A study on practices of reducing the reach of content and accounts on social media, and their impact on freedom of expression online published by Observatorio Latinoamericano de Regulación, Medios y Convergencia (OBSERVACOM). This report confirms that *shadow banning*—the covert restriction of online content visibility—is a growing and harmful practice across major digital platforms. Drawing on case studies from Latin America, expert interviews, and an analysis of company policies from Meta and X (formerly Twitter), the investigation finds that these forms of algorithmic silencing severely affect freedom of expression, access to public-interest information, and democratic participation. These opaque moderation mechanisms disproportionately harm journalists, activists, creators, and marginalized communities, reinforcing existing social and structural inequalities. Ultimately, the report warns that the lack of transparency and accountability in platform governance threatens not only individual rights but also the integrity of democratic debate online. It calls for urgent regulatory and legal frameworks to ensure transparency, due process, and users’ right to appeal when platforms limit visibility or reach. The report is available in the following languages: Spanish: [bit.ly/PublicaciónShadowBanning](http://bit.ly/Publicaci%C3%B3nShadowBanning) \ Portuguese: [https://bit.ly/ShadowBanningPT]() ## [Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) Seminars on Global Digital Governance](https://business.columbia.edu/citi/events/citi-seminars-global-digital-governance) Global digital governance concerns the “rules of the game” set by states and stakeholders for digital communication/information networks and related technologies. It encompasses post-war rule systems such as those for telecommunications; institutions and procedures created since the 1980s for Internet governance; and current efforts to establish shared rules for data, artificial intelligence, social media, interstate cyber-conflict and other issues raised by emerging technologies. The purpose of this new webinar series is to foster expert dialogue on the analytical and policy issues that continually arise across the heatedly contested and complex institutional ecosystem of global digital governance. The series seeks to build on the sort of debates that occur around multistakeholder Internet governance processes but which often go dim between international meetings and negotiations. * [International Cybersecurity Norms in the UN and Beyond](https://youtu.be/gDvYRmk2-tU) (February 26, 2025) * [The WSIS+20 Review: What is Desirable? What is Possible? What is to be Done?](https://youtu.be/uf98Q25eLTM) (January 29, 2025) * [Digital Multilateralism After the UN Summit of the Future](https://youtu.be/1s51UQPAC88) (October 24, 2024) ## [With 100 days to go to EU elections, RSF proposes 12-point New Deal for Right to Information](https://rsf.org/en/100-days-go-eu-elections-rsf-proposes-12-point-new-deal-right-information) How can the European Union safeguard our right to reliable news and information in the face of growing disinformation, and technology such as generative artificial intelligence with an unprecedented ability to manipulate content? With 100 days to go to the EU elections, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is proposing a 12-point New Deal for the Right to Information. {% embed url="" %} ## [Facts not Fakes: Tackling Disinformation, Strengthening Information Integrity](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/facts-not-fakes-tackling-disinformation-strengthening-information-integrity_d909ff7a-en) (March 2024) The [OECD](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/) report 'Facts not Fakes: Tackling Disinformation, Strengthening Information Integrity' proposes a comprehensive policy framework encompassing enhanced transparency, accountability, and diversity of information sources, building societal resilience against disinformation, and improving governance and institutional measures to maintain a reliable information environment. And last but not least, it focuses on the benefits of prebunking and inoculation. ## [The AI Act and the Existential Risk Facing Journalism - Tech Policy Press](https://www.techpolicy.press/the-ai-act-and-the-existential-risk-facing-journalism/) (March 2024) This article by [Courtney Radsch](https://www.techpolicy.press/author/courtney-radsch/) discusses the European Union's recent passing of the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) and its implications for addressing the ethical, safety, and rights-based standards surrounding AI adoption. While the Act represents progress in regulating AI, it falls short in addressing existing harms caused by AI technologies, such as IP theft and algorithmic decision-making. The article highlights concerns regarding the Act's extended timeline for implementation, particularly in the context of elections and disinformation. However, it acknowledges the Act's potential to impact journalism and democracy positively by mandating transparency and copyright compliance in AI usage. ## [Content and platform governance in times of crisis: applying international humanitarian, criminal, and human rights law](https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Content-Governance-and-Platform-Accountability-in-Times-of-Crisis-update.pdf) (March 2024) The paper was drafted by our external consultant Dr. Talita Dias, Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC), University of Oxford. The paper complements [the Declaration of principles for content and platform governance in times of crisis ](https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Declaration-of-principles-for-content-and-platform-governance-in-times-of-crisis.pdf) by outlining the legal foundations on which the Declaration is grounded. Those foundations are made up of three key legal frameworks that apply concurrently to online content governance in different types of crises: international humanitarian law; international criminal law; and international human rights law. ## [Disconcerted Public Super election year 2024: Concerns about disinformation in Germany and the United States](https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/disconcerted-public) (February 2024) This study by the [Bertelsmann Stiftung](https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/startseite) examines the increasing polarisation and fragmentation of public opinion in Europe, covering the key aspects of the role of misinformation and disinformation in shaping public discourse, the impact of algorithm-driven content on political polarisation, and the strategies employed by various actors to manipulate public opinion. ## [The Risks of Internet Regulation: How Well-Intentioned Efforts Could Jeopardize Free Speech](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/risks-internet-regulation) - By David Kaye (March 2024) In his article "The Risks of Internet Regulation: How Well-Intentioned Efforts Could Jeopardise Free Speech," [David Kaye](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/risks-internet-regulation#author-info) scrutinises the recent decision by the U.S. House of Representatives to pass legislation targeting Chinese media conglomerate ByteDance and its popular social media platform TikTok. The bill aims to address concerns about data privacy and national security, particularly regarding the potential influence of foreign governments on users' information consumption. Kaye underscores the broader implications of such regulatory efforts, warning against the potential infringement on free speech and the transformation of the internet into a regulated space. This case highlights the complex interplay between security concerns, geopolitical tensions and the safeguarding of fundamental freedoms in the digital age. ## [NEXT GEN NEWS: Understanding the audiences of 2030](https://www.next-gen-news.com/downloadreport.pdf) This report delves into the intricate and evolving relationship between young news consumers and the current news delivery mechanisms, based on an eight-month-long research project involving 45 participants from diverse backgrounds. Despite recognizing the value of news in their lives, many young consumers express dissatisfaction or disinterest in traditional news formats, highlighting a growing divide between what they seek from news experiences and what is presently available. The report argues for the imperative adaptation of news delivery to cater to the needs and expectations of the next generation, emphasizing that bridging this gap is crucial for the news industry's sustainability and societal impact by 2030. ## [Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387339) - UNESCO, 2023 The Guidelines outline a set of duties, responsibilities and roles for States, digital platforms, intergovernmental organizations, civil society, media, academia, the technical community and other stakeholders to enable the environment where freedom of expression and information are in the core of digital platforms governance processes. The Guidelines were produced through a multi-stakeholder consultation that gathered more than 10,000 comments from 134 countries. These global-scale consultations fostered inclusive participation, ensuring a diversity of voices to be heard, including those from groups in situation of marginalization and vulnerability. The Guidelines are available in [English](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387339), [French](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387359), [Spanish](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387360), [Arabic](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387384) and [Russian](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387385). ## Online Research Guide (2023) #### Henk van Ess - Global Investiative Journalism Network The Online Research Guide by Henk van Ess is the third and final guide released by the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN) in concert with the GIJC conference, along with [Investigating War Crimes](http://a.sched.co/track/click/30040188/gijn.org?p=eyJzIjoiR19QcXBRUGpGemc2TXZfTjVMdXJudnVSRFJzIiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDA0MDE4OCxcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwczpcXFwvXFxcL2dpam4ub3JnXFxcL2dpam4tcmVwb3J0ZXJzLWd1aWRlLWludmVzdGlnYXRpbmctd2FyLWNyaW1lc1xcXC9cIixcImlkXCI6XCI4MjdmNTY1Y2ViM2E0ZWU0OGQ4NDYwZmMxMjM1ZDZmZFwiLFwidXJsX2lkc1wiOltcImUyYTkzNTIxYjIxNjFjNjIzZGI1YmFmMWYzM2JmYjc0NmE2Njc2NTNcIl19In0) and [Investigating Digital Threats](http://a.sched.co/track/click/30040188/gijn.org?p=eyJzIjoiMngtYVhKeGs5WExhaW1aaUY5MmJQY0dDUVJNIiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDA0MDE4OCxcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwczpcXFwvXFxcL2dpam4ub3JnXFxcL2dpam4tcmVwb3J0ZXJzLWd1aWRlLXRvLWludmVzdGlnYXRpbmctZGlnaXRhbC10aHJlYXRzXFxcL1wiLFwiaWRcIjpcIjgyN2Y1NjVjZWIzYTRlZTQ4ZDg0NjBmYzEyMzVkNmZkXCIsXCJ1cmxfaWRzXCI6W1wiMzExMzJhNDJhYjJhN2I2ODBiYWUyZDdhNjc0MDc0NTk3Y2IwOGQ3ZlwiXX0ifQ). The guide offers tips on how to search the biggest social media platforms and includes chapters on facial recognition search and online verification. ## [Meta's Human Rights Report: Insights and Actions 2022](https://humanrights.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2022-Meta-Human-Rights-Report.pdf) (2023) The report covers Meta’s human rights progress, actions and insights during calendar year 2022. It includes: * key findings of a foundational program tool, our comprehensive salient risk assessment; * detailed updates on prior due diligence; and * insights from country, crisis, language, and stakeholder engagement work. Meta has committed to report actions and insights annually in the Meta [human rights policy](https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Facebooks-Corporate-Human-Rights-Policy.pdf). Doing so helps Meta “know and show” its human rights risks, in the spirit of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The [inaugural report](https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Meta_Human-Rights-Report-July-2022.pdf) was released in 2022.
# Advocacy for Funding: Key Messages, Data and Resources This [master resource document](https://files.gitbook.com/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FHiK1GuLfDqNqemz6Ckbt%2Fuploads%2FglDXL7jZlh2mACSa9hEs%2F20250331%20Advocacy%20for%20Funding%20Key%20Messages%20%26%20Data%20%20\(3\).pdf?alt=media\&token=bdd7cc52-f40e-4e5e-a0e1-9f6dc1a8ed2b) is your go-to reference for building evidence-based, coordinated advocacy. It includes: * Adaptable messages and talking points * Key data and case studies * Links to research and arguments for funders * A collaborative space for contributors from across our network ***How to Use It:*** * *Request access and use “suggesting mode” to contribute directly:* [*https://docs.google.com/document/d/1\_-PSrWUpVcfJ\_\_B8NGKa9uX2HS-\_guYBdqKlt9WSvfU/edit?usp=sharing*](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_-PSrWUpVcfJ__B8NGKa9uX2HS-_guYBdqKlt9WSvfU/edit?usp=sharing) * *Extract key messages for policy briefs or stakeholder engagement* * *Share widely within your networks to align on advocacy priorities* {% file src="/files/W6egnnfgwJ563l9VdVcR" %} # Internet Governance # 10 FAQs on Internet Governance By Michael J. Oghia (GFMD's former Advocacy & Engagement Manager) & Daryna Sterina (GFMD Advocacy & Engagement Assistant, Autumn 2020) ## 1. **What is the Internet / How does it work?** The Internet is actually an abbreviation that stands for an “interconnected network of networks.” The Internet is built upon the principle of “network architecture,” which corresponds to the grouping of various technologies that enable the Internet to work. These layers include: * **The Physical layer** (e.g., computers, routers, optic-fibre lines, satellites, etc.) * **The Protocol layer** (e.g., the software protocols that enable devices to communicate to one another as well as both within and across networks, such as TCP/IP and Border Gateway Protocol) * **The Application layer** (e.g., email, the World Wide Web, browsers such as Chrome and Firefox, etc.) * **The Content layer** (e.g., websites, social media, blogs, videos, search engines, etc.) ## 2. **What are the initial, so-called “core values” of the internet?** These are a set of principles that are meant to underpin the technologies that make the Internet possible: Open, Global, End-to-end, User-centric, Interoperable, Decentralised, and Robust & Reliable. They were developed within a multi-stakeholder initiative called the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values (DC-CIV), but also acted as basic design principles when building the various technologies that would become the Internet since the 1950s (if not before). * **Open** - As a network of networks, any standards-compliant device, network, service, application, or type of data (video, audio, text, etc.) is allowed on the Internet, and the Internet’s core architecture is based on open standards. * **Global** - The Internet is a global medium open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. * **End-to-end** **-** Application-specific features reside in the communicating end nodes of the network rather than in intermediary nodes, such as gateways, that exist to establish the network. * **User-centric -** End users maintain full control over the type of information, application, and service they want to share and access. * **Interoperable -** Interoperability is the ability of a computer system to run application programs from different vendors, and to interact with other computers across local or wide-area networks regardless of their physical architecture and operating systems. Interoperability is feasible through hardware and software components that conform to open standards such as those used for the Internet. * **Decentralized -** The Internet is free of any centralized control. * **Robust & Reliable -** While respecting best-effort scenarios for traffic management, the interconnected nature of the Internet and its dense mesh of networks peering with each other have made it robust and reliable. ## 3. **What is Internet governance as a concept?** {% hint style="info" %} Internet governance (IG) refers to a set of interrelated processes that impacts how the Internet is managed. {% endhint %} What began as a way to develop and manage the technical infrastructure of the Internet, such as software protocols, domain names, and address registries, has morphed into wide-sweeping discussions and processes at the local, national, regional, and international levels that aim to create regulations, laws, policies, rules, norms, and standards applicable to the development and management of one or more layers of network architecture as well as discussions about almost every aspect of society’s relationship to technology – from child protection online to how disinformation is impacting communities. The official definition, as detailed in the 2005 [Tunis Agenda](https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html) of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), states the following: > “The development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” ### GFMD Guide: How to use your right of access to information (ATI)? (2019) The [Access to Information (ATI) guide](https://gfmd.info/gfmd-content/uploads/2019/07/ATI.pdf) is intended to help journalists and media professionals to use their fundamental right of access to public information. Through four steps, the resource seeks to concretely guide journalists as they are requesting information from a public authority. ## 4. **What are stakeholder groups in the context of IG?** One of the foundational principles of Internet governance, as established during the WSIS process, is the multi-stakeholder model. The major stakeholder groups included in this model are governments, civil society, the private sector, the technical community, and academia, but only the first three were officially recognised in the Tunis Agenda. Journalism and News Media are not generally considered an independent stakeholder group, and are typically incorporated into either the private sector or civil society based on whether they are a for-profit or non-profit entity. ## 5. **Why is the multi-stakeholder approach the most relevant to IG?** The multi-stakeholder model within the context of Internet governance refers to an open, inclusive, bottom-up mechanism where all interested individuals and groups can collaborate together based on accountability and transparency to discuss common issues pertaining to the Internet and information and communications technologies (ICTs), while generating robust, holistic solutions based on dialogue and consensus. Although this definition conforms to an ideal, collaborative multi-stakeholder model, the reality of how the Internet is governed tends to replicate entrenched power dynamics. Despite this reality, it is relevant to the IGF since there is an ever-growing number of stakeholders from across sectors, regions, and communities who want to participate in governance discussions. Perhaps even more importantly, however, is the fact that the Internet is a complex global resource that relies on multiple individuals, organisations, companies, governments, and more for both function and usefulness. Centralising those discussions into one narrow body, such as the government-led International Telecommunications Union (ITU), would severely limit the potential of the Internet, potentially undermine its core values, and stifle its growth and development. ## 6. **Why should civil society be involved?** Civil society was identified as a key stakeholder group in the Tunis Agenda for good reason. The various organisations, groups, and communities that constitute civil society offer unique expertise, represent interests (including special interests that may otherwise have been excluded), champion transparency and accountability of decision-making, and ultimately give voice to communities and individuals. The latter is especially why civil society’s involvement is so important: as Internet technologies continue to grow, develop, and evolve, affect new parts of society, and include new communities, policy-making and decisions should be inclusive, rights-respecting, and holistic. The diversity of civil society also offers different and unique sets of skills, knowledge, and expert voices, all while being a window into new methods, models, and solutions. Lastly, one of the most critical roles that civil society plays is defending and promoting human rights; fundamental freedoms such as free expression, press freedom, and access to information; consumer protection; environmental sustainability; good governance; and public and corporate responsibility. ## 7. **How to get involved in IG on the international, regional and local context?** Internet governance may arouse images of people in business suits jetsetting to fancy locals, but the reality is far from this. Internet governance takes place at all levels of governance from local communities and national governments, to international standards bodies and multilateral initiatives. The best way to get involved is to see what is available locally and/or nationally, such as an Internet Governance Forum ([IGF](https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/)). For an extensive list of resources and suggestions for how to get involved, see this [guide](https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/How_to_get_involved). ### [How to get involved in Internet governance ](https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/How_to_get_involved) EuroDIG wiki ### [Getting Involved in Internet Governance: An Introductory Guide (2017)](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/getting-involved-in-internet-governance-a-quick-guide/) - MICHAEL OGHIA Internet governance (IG) refers to all of the policies and processes that are shaping the evolution of the Internet. Given the increased reliance of journalists and media outlets on digital technologies, the overall success of media development is now inextricably linked to decisions made at the diverse set of Internet governance bodies. This includes a broad array of topics, such as safeguarding security and privacy online, ensuring content regulation policies uphold human rights, creating effective digital media literacy strategies, and finding responses to digital disinformation campaigns to name a few. These discussions all inform the media development community’s broader goal of ensuring that citizens have access to objective, high-quality information. ## 8. **What is the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)?** The IGF is a multi-stakeholder dialogue platform held under the auspices of the United Nations. Established by the Tunis Agenda and launched in 2006, it facilitates conversations and collaboration between stakeholders regarding Internet policy and emerging trends related to the Internet and ICTs on equal footing, but does not issue recommendations. A series of national, subregional, and regional IGF initiatives (NRIs) feeds into the annual global IGF. ### [How to Contribute to Global and Local Conversations on Internet Governance (2021)](https://openinternet.global/news/how-contribute-global-and-local-conversations-internet-governance) - PAOLA GALVEZ This blog outlines the importance of engaging in international and local fora focused on internet governance, and includes practical suggestions on how to engage in these discussions. ## 9. **What is the Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media?** Established in April 2019 and officially launched in November 2019, the Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media ([DC-Sustainability](https://groups.io/g/dc-sustainability)) is an open, multi-stakeholder initiative formally operating within the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It is meant to be a hub for the journalism, news media, press freedom, journalism support, and media development sectors to engage with important Internet governance and digital policy matters. For more information, see the DC-Sustainability [Charter](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BINK564Lq4-jXnVfXAjZVJ-Mi1vRSaOu4fCZ0d79HXA/edit?usp=sharing). ## 10. Which policy areas are most relevant in the context of IG for journalism and news media? Many of the issues discussed within Internet governance processes that are relevant to the journalism and media community can be roughly organised into three broad categories: ### 1. Freedom of expression * Content moderation * Cybersecurity * Platform moderation ### 2. Access to information & digital inclusion * Copyright * Gender * Network neutrality ### 3. Sustainability & economic viability * Algorithmic accountability and transparency * Antitrust action and media consolidation * Digital advertising market dynamics As an example of how these issues impact journalism and news media, take the issue of the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) – the umbrella term referencing the scrubbing of personal data from websites, the removal of content from either search engine indexes, or even the entire Internet so that it is not readily accessible to end-users. This is a principle that was codified into the EU’s Generation Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and is a cross-cutting issue between access to information & digital inclusion as well as sustainability & economic viability. How so? Well, while RTBF policy often manifests positively for individual rights (at least within the context of GDPR in Europe), left unchecked, it has the capacity to endanger press freedom by leading to the removal of news articles, disrupting the digital public record, and being wielded by elites to ultimately silence journalists and, in some cases, force small-scale news websites to close by inundating them with requests. Within the context of Internet governance discussions, it is important for journalists and news media organisations to share their stories with policymakers, courts, and regulatory bodies so that further safeguards and protections for press freedom can be considered going forward. Moreover, by issuing statements, replying to consultations, building awareness, and uniting together with other stakeholders in solidarity against abuses of RTBF policy are all valuable ways to engage within IG fora/processes on the topic. For a detailed breakdown of the specific policy areas, see our [Issue Paper](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hMclf0hz2PXa_VhOl7w2iRhFpvi-NZ0yeY2mJCN6QBA/edit#). ### [Governing Digital Convergence: An Issue Paper on Media Development and Internet Governance (Nov. 2018)](https://policy-advocacy.gfmd.info/gfmd-initiatives/dynamic-coalition-sustainability/articles#governing-digital-convergence-an-issue-paper-on-media-development-and-internet-governance-2018-micha) **Written by:** Michael J. Oghia | **Edited by:** Mira Milosevic **In partnership with:** DW Akademie, CIMA, ARTICLE 19, and IMS {% file src="/files/lpCdtwd2b3jS5VHepBHr" %} # Internet Governance # Academic Studies This resource section has leant heavily on the "Platform companies and news media" section of the reading list curated by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. ## [From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media and Democracy (2017)](https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/from-liberation-to-turmoil-social-media-and-democracy/) #### Journal of Democracy – Tucker, J. A., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Barberá, P. How can one technology—social media—simultaneously give rise to hopes for liberation in authoritarian regimes, be used for repression by these same regimes, and be harnessed by antisystem actors in democracy? We present a simple framework for reconciling these contradictory developments based on two propositions: 1) that social media give voice to those previously excluded from political discussion by traditional media, and 2) that although social media democratize access to information, the platforms themselves are neither inherently democratic nor nondemocratic, but represent a tool political actors can use for a variety of goals, including, paradoxically, illiberal goals. ## [**The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World (2018)**](https://www.amazon.com/Platform-Society-Public-Values-Connective/dp/0190889764) #### **Oxford University Press – JOS**É **VAN DIJCK, Thomas Poell, and Martijn de Waal. 2018.** Individuals all over the world can use Airbnb to rent an apartment in a foreign city, check Coursera to find a course on statistics, join PatientsLikeMe to exchange information about one's disease, hail a cab using Uber, or read the news through Facebook's Instant Articles. The promise of connective platforms is that they offer personalized services and contribute to innovation and economic growth, while bypassing cumbersome institutional or industrial overhead.\ \ In *The Platform Societ*y, Van Dijck, Poell and De Waal offer a comprehensive analysis of a connective world where platforms have penetrated the heart of societies-disrupting markets and labor relations, circumventing institutions, transforming social and civic practices and affecting democratic\ processes. This book questions what role online platforms play in the organization of Western societies. First, how do platform mechanisms work and to what effect are they deployed? Second, how can platforms incorporate public values and benefit the public good? {% hint style="info" %} **A book review is available** [**here**](https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091\&context=mgdr)**.** {% endhint %} # Policy papers & briefings ## [Key Issues in Digitalisation and Governance (June 2021)](https://www.shareweb.ch/site/DDLGN/Documents/SDC%20Digitalisation%20FINAL%2001VI21.pdf) #### Swiss Agency for Cooperation and Development (SDC) This four-pager is based on a longer report with the same title, written by Tony Roberts and Kevin Hernandez (Institute of Development Studies 2021, forthcoming). {% hint style="info" %} Download the paper [**here**](https://www.shareweb.ch/site/DDLGN/Documents/SDC%20Digitalisation%20FINAL%2001VI21.pdf). {% endhint %} > Digitalisation is perhaps the most important strategic challenge facing governance in the decade ahead. There are valuable opportunities that digitalisation provides to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 16 and 17, and particularly target 16.7 of ‘inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels’. At the same time, there are new governance challenges raised by digital disruption, including the loss of privacy due to mass surveillance, closures of online civic space, and the shift of governance power away from citizens and domestic institutions to unaccountable internet corporations in foreign capitals. The most important insight is that digital technologies themselves are neither good nor bad, nor are they ever neutral. Also, technology use tends to reflect the wider political and economic interests that are at play anyway. ## [Internet Infrastructure and Human Rights: A Reading List (2020)](https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/publication/internet-infrastructure-and-human-rights-a-reading-list/) #### Stanford PACS {% hint style="info" %} [**Download the reading list here.**](https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/InternetInfrastructureAndHumanRightsReadingList_BeatriceMartini_StanfordDCSL_2020.pdf) {% endhint %} > The infrastructure upon which the Internet is built determines who can be online, who they can communicate with, what they can access, and how this all works. The decisions that shape the Internet infrastructure can both advance and restrict how users communicate and how information is accessed and shared, thus having a significant effect on how the Internet can impact the public interest, especially in regards to social justice, civil liberties, and human rights. > > The design and governance of the Internet infrastructure have significant political and economic implications that affect the rights of users around the globe. Knowing how the mechanisms and practices embedded in the Internet’s underlying technology work is key to understanding and advocating for societal and political developments. > > This reading list is designed for civil society actors, technologists, policymakers, and users who wish to learn about the inner workings of the Internet infrastructure in order to approach its growth and the application of its governance as a site of advocacy. In addition to an introduction to the topic and a curated collection of readings, this resource also includes an index of civil society organizations that are actively advocating for a public interest Internet infrastructure, to inspire readers to further explore and engage with current and future initiatives and campaign. # Factsheets, Handbooks & Guides ## [Fact Sheet on Internet Governance](https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/wsis-factsheet-internet-governance-31-03-2025-en.pdf) (ICANN) Explains how Internet governance works as a shared global effort involving technical experts, policymakers, and civil society. Describes ICANN's technical role, the importance of inclusive collaboration, and how platforms like the IGF help support a secure, open, and resilient Internet. [Fact Sheet: Notable Achievements of the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance](https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/wsis-fact-sheet-achievements-multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-21-10-2024-en.pdf) (ICANN) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Highlights concrete outcomes of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, demonstrating how collaboration and consensus-building across diverse global stakeholders help keep the Internet open, secure, and accessible. ## [Fact Sheet: The Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance](https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/multistakeholder-model-internet-governance-fact-sheet-05-09-2024-en.pdf) (ICANN) Outlines the core principles of the multistakeholder model, how decisions are developed through open processes, and how the model is applied in practice across Internet governance. ## [**Internet governance: A guide to getting involved**](https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/How_to_get_involved) This [how-to guide](https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/How_to_get_involved) from EuroDIG provides many links and resources in order to help anyone get more involved in Internet governance at the local, national, regional, and international levels. ## [Explaining Internet Governance to Friends and Family 101: How to Improve Our Communication? (2018)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/16L7xlIenmIxxKJ1jesyJZQF9ODG97wL0/view) Final report and outcomes of Workshop 161 at the 12th Internet Governance Forum - December 2017 Session co-organisers & report authors: Agustina Callegari (Argentina), Michael J. Oghia (Serbia), Jelena Ozegović (Serbia) {% embed url="" %} # Articles ## [In Africa, Content Moderation Is a Dangerous Game (June 2021)](https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-in-africa-content-moderation-is-a-dangerous-game/) #### Wired – ODANGA MADUNG {% embed url="" %} > Platforms are finally taking action in African countries, but in Uganda and Nigeria's case, it’s led to an even worse outcome: citizens losing access. ## [Social Media Giants Must Regulate Hate Content Across Africa (June 2021)](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2021-06-24/social-media-must-regulate-hate-content-across-africa) #### US News & World Report – ROSE NAMAYANJA {% embed url="" %} Western social media giants are finally taking steps to tackle dangerous online content – but the African continent is being left behind. ## [Why Twitter Should Adopt a More Constructive Approach to Africa (June 2021)](https://intpolicydigest.org/the-platform/why-twitter-should-adopt-a-more-constructive-approach-to-africa/) #### The Platform – Komlan Avoulete {% embed url="" %} ## [Multistakeholder Internet Governance Under Attack in Brazil (2017)](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/multistakeholder-internet-governance-attack-brazil/) Once a shining example of the power of socioeconomic inclusion and the effectiveness of strengthening civic participation, the political upheaval in Brazil over the past two years has destabilized democratic gains once thought to be well established. As a researcher who was first drawn to Brazil because of its trailblazing digital rights movement that achieved momentous gains, like the [first-of-its-kind Internet Bill of Rights](http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/19/how-brazil-crowdsourced-a-landmark-law/), the unraveling of truly representative democratic representation at all levels has been distressing. But recent moves by the government of Michel Temer that would potentially disfigure the institutions that fostered Brazil’s digital rights leadership are even harder to watch. ## [Diversifying Internet Governance with a Focus on Media (2016)](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/diversifying-internet-governance-focus-media/) Seeing as the Internet is now, in many countries, the primary conduit for the circulation of independent journalism, how it is governed will impact both media development and press freedom. Will global Internet policies foster the free circulation of information? Will they be structured in ways that enable censorship and surveillance? These are important questions that impact people around the globe. However, to date, individuals and organizations from countries in the Global North have dominated the Internet governance decision-making processes. Indeed, the relative paucity of participation by groups from developing countries creates a situation in which policies may be created that do not take into account the unique circumstances of developing countries. The [multistakeholder nature](https://www.cgi.br/membros/perfil/) of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee means that in addition to corporate interests, like telecommunications companies and Internet Service Providers (ISPs), representatives from digital rights and digital inclusion organizations are also involved in setting the agenda. The voices of these NGO representatives as well as members from academia help counterbalance the profit-driven motives of corporate interests that dominate government policy discussions in most liberal democracies. For corporations and their allies within the administration of President Temer, this arrangement has been an impediment to their objectives of boosting the profits of large telecommunications companies. For example, the Brazilian Internet Rights Law of 2014 guarantees net neutrality and tasks the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee with defining how this would work in practice, who would provide oversight, how they could analyze and determine the credibility of complaints, and what government agencies could do to respond to violations. Telecommunications companies would prefer a lax interpretation of net neutrality, which would give media companies they own a competitive advantage over rival content producers. That is unlikely given the current composition of the committee. ## [The Missing Stakeholder in Internet Governance – The Media (2016)](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/missing-stakeholder-internet-governance/) As an Internet policy researcher I have closely followed the outcomes of the annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF), but this year was the first time I had the opportunity to participate in person when it was convened two weeks ago in Guadalajara, Mexico. I was there to coordinate [CIMA’s new initiative](http://www.cima.ned.org/blog/diversifying-internet-governance-focus-media/) to facilitate the engagement of journalists and media activists from traditionally underrepresented countries in debates on Internet governance. This project emerged because in the past critics, myself included, have noted how participants from developed countries often dominate the IGF. If we want to make multistakeholder governance truly function as intended, we need to have much broader input from people in developing countries. Fortunately, this is an issue on which there is broad consensus and there are a number of efforts, like CIMA’s, that seek to address this issue of global representation. ## [Open Internet Principles for Democracy: Putting Media Freedom Front and Center (2017)](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/open-internet-principles-democracy-putting-media-freedom-front-center/) Last year the editor of [Abia Facts Newspaper](https://www.facebook.com/abiafactsnews/), a small, local news platform in Nigeria was [arrested at his home](http://saharareporters.com/2017/10/17/how-nigerian-law-suppressing-citizens-freedom-internet) on charges of blackmail and criminal defamation. According to the state security officers who detained him, his crime was the reporting he had done on a local politician. More startling, however, was the fact that he was being charged under the then new [Cybercrime (Prohibition & Prevention) Act of 2015](https://cert.gov.ng/images/uploads/CyberCrime_%28Prohibition,Prevention,etc%29_Act,_2015.pdf). Rather than being used to target clearly criminal activity, the vague language of the act has been employed to crackdown on freedom of expression online. It is a clear example of how governments are creating new Internet policies and regulations that have the effect of limiting democratic engagement, often to the benefit of those already in power. Right now, we are looking for your input to identify the key open Internet principles relevant to media stakeholders and to provide real-world examples of what this looks like in practice for journalists and media development practitioners. Feedback from the broader media sector is essential to make this framework relevant to both advocacy groups and policymakers. At present, media voices are [highly underrepresented](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/diversifying-internet-governance-focus-media/) in global internet governance debates. Those who are working on policy need to know how to think about open Internet norms from a news media perspective. This means we need real-world examples of how Internet freedom is being circumscribed. We also need information about emerging trends in digital media that will shape how we think about Internet freedom going forward. ## [Information Laundering and Globalized Media – Part 1: The Problem (2018)](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/information-laundering-and-globalized-media-part-i-the-problem/) Money laundering is a familiar story: “dirty money” generated through illicit means must be “cleaned” through a series of phony transactions that make its sourcing appear legitimate before that money enters into a financial system undetected. The complexity, interconnectedness, and opacity of the global economy facilitate laundering and confound attempts to track dirty money. In Part I of this two-part blog post, I will argue that we see parallels to money laundering in the ways “dirty information” from sources such as intelligence services and fake news profiteers changes hands until it appears as legitimate “news” with its original provenance obscured. “[Information laundering](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01415.x)” is a useful concept to describe a systemic problem and to compare a spectrum of transactions ranging from coordinated disinformation campaigns to lazy “churnalism.” We can compare and rank all the cases cited above according to 1) degree of opacity of sourcing, which is in probably highly correlated to the number of layering steps taken before information reaches the mainstream, 2) the degree of dirtiness, that is, the degree to which news consumers’ interpretations of information would change if sourcing was transparent to them, and 3) the degree to which organizations complicit at placement, layering, and integration stages are knowing conspirators or unwitting accomplices. Establishing these axes for comparison can help us consider which forms of information laundering are the most serious threats to public knowledge and democratic politics. Considering such a variety of cases with reference to the unifying concept of information laundering can also point us toward a set of broad recommendations for transnational governance efforts to improve the health of the media. I take up this last point in Part II, drawing on lessons learned from attempts to combat money laundering to offer some preliminary suggestions for at least how and at what governance levels the problem of information laundering should be addressed. ## [Information Laundering and Globalized Media – Part 2: Solutions (2018)](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/information-laundering-and-globalized-media-part-ii-solutions/) In the case of money laundering, the definition of dirtiness is based we have a clear-cut definition of dirtiness: was the money acquired through the commission of crime? By contrast, dirtiness in the case of information should be measured according to the degree to which audiences’ interpretations of the information would change if they knew its true sourcing. Dirtiness is not quite the same as opacity. For example, a journalist might make it difficult to track the origin of information by granting a source anonymity out of necessity, but that does not in and of itself make the information dirty. It would only be dirty if readers would find the information less credible were that source to be identified. The same information and sourcing could look dirtier to one reader than to another. Not everyone minds if their information comes from a government or a corporate-owned news outlet. Information from such sources is not necessarily unreliable. The important point is that readers should be able to make their own independent judgements about sourcing standards. If there is not a single, agreed-upon criterion for the dirtiness of information or legitimacy of its producer, the best solution may be simply to give media audiences and monitors the tools to better assess the news they consume and investigate by understanding its true sourcing. Consumers should be able to recognize public diplomacy as public diplomacy, advertising as advertising, and political campaigning as political campaigning. Even if the average news consumer does not have time for a follow the chain of hyperlinks that trace the flow of information across the globe for every story they read, transparency can empower both professionals and amateurs who do want to dig deep into the information on whose basis policies are made and public opinion is shaped. # Research & Reports ## [AI From The Global Majority](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-032-07830-8), edited by Luca Belli and Walter B. Gaspar (2026) The book is the latest Outcome Report of the Data and Artificial Intelligence Governance Coalition of the UN Internet Governance Forum and delivers a crucial, underexplored Global South-centered perspective on AI governance, ethics, and regulation, challenging dominant narratives which are typically shaped by a handful of large corporations and few actors in high-income countries. The volume aims at amplifying the voices, experiences, and challenges from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, discussing concrete solutions tailored to the unique social, economic, and political realities of the Global Majority countries. The 25 chapters – authored by leading experts, policymakers, and researchers – dives into AI's impact on human rights, democracy, labor, cybersecurity, and digital sovereignty. It tackles pressing issues like algorithmic bias, data governance, disinformation, AI's role in global power asymmetries, and the need for inclusive, ethical policies. Backed by real-world case studies from 16 countries, it reveals how nations are shaping AI regulation, resisting digital colonialism, and pushing for fairer tech development. Contributors spotlight how AI can perpetuate inequalities, through labor exploitation in supply chains, discriminatory decision-making, and environmental costs, while proposing frameworks for transparency, accountability, and inclusion of marginalized communities. In case you do not have access to the Springer-Nature repository, a pre-print version of the volume is available in open access here ## [How Social Media Taxes Can Burden News Outlets: The Case of Uganda (2019)](https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/how-social-media-taxes-can-burden-news-outlets-the-case-of-uganda/) In July 2018, the government of Uganda implemented a tax on individual users of social media platforms. In the first three months following the introduction of the tax in the country, internet penetration dropped from 47 percent to 35 percent. Given that a significant amount of news circulation now happens via social media and messaging apps, how might this new tax impact the news media ecosystem? The negative effects on news media are less direct and arguably more pernicious than might be expected. * Internet penetration in Uganda dropped from 47 percent to 35 percent in the first three months after social media tax introduction. * Journalists noted a significant decline in the level of engagement with readers and sources via social media platforms. * Traffic to new sites has been only minimally impacted, indicating that sites were not reliant on social media to begin with and/or that many individuals have turned to VPNs to avoid the tax. ## [“Free Internet” and the Costs to Media Pluralism: The Hazards of Zero-Rating the News](https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/zero-rating-the-news/) In many countries, mobile operators have teamed up with social media platforms to offer free access to specific websites or internet services—including news websites. The most well-known of these offerings, Facebook’s Free Basics, has been explicitly pitched as a way to give citizens in developing countries greater access to news, but Facebook is not the only company touting these so-called “zero-rated” arrangements as a bridge across the digital divide. This report examines whether these arrangements are broadening access to diverse sources of news, as promised, and whether they might have broader consequences for the news market. * Little evidence exists that zero-rating alone has been a successful strategy to grow audience reach. * Technical hurdles jeopardize news media inclusion, especially for smaller outlets. * Zero-rated news is a concern for fair markets and pluralism as it might strengthen the dominance of large internet platforms. ## [Media Development in the Digital Age: Five Ways to Engage in Internet Governance (2017)](https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/media-development-digital-age-five-ways-engage-internet-governance/) The digital convergence means that how the Internet develops going forward — both in terms of policy and technology — will shape the very environment in which all other media operate. This report makes the case to this community that they can, and must, engage in the decision-making bodies that are shaping Internet governance (IG) to ensure that the Internet — and the growing media sphere it sustains — remains open, pluralistic, and democratic. * The media development community can work to improve the global enabling environment for media by actively engaging in Internet governance. * Policy issues being discussed at ICANN, IGF, ITU, IETF, and IEEE could greatly benefit from the input of those with media development experience. * Multistakeholder Internet governance presents a unique opportunity for the media development community to actively shape the future media ecosystem. # Journalism & Media Development – Digital Media # Toolkits ## Joint Emergency Appeal for Journalism and Media Support GFMD, the International Civil Society Organization on the Safety of Journalists Coalition (ICSO SoJ Coalition), and numerous GFMD members, partners, and affiliate networks launched an emergency appeal for journalism and media support in response to the COVID-19 crisis. The statement is a call to action to governments; journalism and media development donors and funders; journalism and media organisations; technology, telecommunication companies, and Internet intermediaries; advertisers, and all those who rely on journalism and news media to stay informed in this unprecedentedly challenging time. You can read the statement [here](https://gfmd.info/emergency-appeal-for-journalism-and-media-support-2/) # Handbooks ## [Open Internet for Democracy Advocacy Playbook (2019)](https://openinternet.global/resources/open-internet-playbook) The Open Internet for Democracy Advocacy Playbook serves as a companion piece to the Democratic Principles for an Open Internet, which is a framework for understanding what principles must be upheld in order for the internet to foster democracy. The initial draft of this Playbook was developed by the 2018 Open Internet for Democracy Leaders - digital rights advocates from six countries - as part of an effort to help their peers learn from the experiences of others. Their experiences demonstrate that the determination to preserve an inclusive, open internet for civic and economic opportunity exists around the world, despite authoritarian governments, limited tech awareness, or low internet penetration. The Playbook includes ideas and recommendations for the advocates of digital freedoms, focusing on tailored approaches to advocacy that apply across diverse local contexts. ## Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy (2011) – ROBIN MANSELL & MARC RABOY [The Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy ](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444395433)offers insights into the boundaries of this field of study, assesses why it is important, who is affected, and with what political, economic, social and cultural consequences. * Provides the most up to date and comprehensive collection of essays from top scholars in the field * Includes contributions from western and eastern Europe, North and Central America, Africa and Asia * Offers new conceptual frameworks and new methodologies for mapping the contours of emergent global media and communication policy * Draws on theory and empirical research to offer multiple perspectives on the local, national, regional and global forums in which policy debate occurs # Videos ## [Internet Governance and Journalism - Videos](https://www.cima.ned.org/resources/internet-governance/) #### Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) - National Endowment for Democracy (NED) > "Together, these episodes point to the urgent need for a conversation among journalists, civil society activists, policymakers, engineers, and digital media companies about how the internet should be governed to safeguard the health of the public sphere in countries around the world." ### Episode 1 – The right to be forgotten {% embed url="" %} Episode One shows how the “right to be forgotten” that various countries are beginning to enforce can protect people from the stigma of an embarrassing past but might also limit access to important information of public interest. ### Episode 2 – Encryption {% embed url="" %} Episode Two illustrates the importance of digital security for journalists and activists in an era of increasing online surveillance and how improvements in technical encryption standards can help create the conditions for free speech to thrive. ### Episode 3 – Zero-Rating {% embed url="" %} Episode Three introduces the concept of “zero-rating,” the policy of providing free but limited internet that is becoming popular in the developing world, and warns of the danger that zero-rating creates an uneven playing field in the online market for news. ### Episode 4 – Sustainability {% embed url="" %} Episode Four demonstrates how social media platforms’ decisions about how to display and rank content can have dramatic effects on news producers’ abilities to reach audiences. # Academic Studies This resource section has leant heavily on the "Platform companies and news media" section of the reading list curated by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. ## [The Platform Press: How Silicon Valley Reengineered Journalism **(2017)**](https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:15dv41ns27) #### Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University – EMILY J. BELL, TAYLOR OWEN, PETER D. BROWN, CODI HAUKA, NUSHIN RASHIDIAN This report, part of an ongoing study by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School, charts the convergence between journalism and platform companies. In the span of 20 years, journalism has experienced three significant changes in business and distribution models: the switch from analog to digital, the rise of the social web, and now the dominance of mobile. This last phase has seen large technology companies dominate the markets for attention and advertising and has forced news organizations to rethink their processes and structures. ## [Dealing with Digital Intermediaries: A Case Study of the Relations between Publishers and Platforms (2017)](https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817701318) #### New Media & Society – RASMUS K. NIELSEN & SARAH A. GANTER The rise of digital intermediaries such as search engines and social media is profoundly changing our media environment. Here, we analyze how news media organizations handle their relations to these increasingly important intermediaries. Based on a strategic case study, we argue that relationships between publishers and platforms are characterized by a tension between (1) short-term, operational opportunities and (2) long-term strategic worries about becoming too dependent on intermediaries. We argue that these relationships are shaped by news media’s fear of missing out, the difficulties of evaluating the risk/reward ratios, and a sense of asymmetry. The implication is that news media that developed into an increasingly independent institution in the 20th century—in part enabled by news media organizations’ control over channels of communication—are becoming dependent upon new digital intermediaries that structure the media environment in ways that not only individual citizens but also large, resource-rich, powerful organizations have to adapt to. ## [Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy - and How to Make Them Work for You (2016)](https://wwnorton.com/books/Platform-Revolution) #### WWNorton and Company – GEOFFREY G. PARKER, MARSHALL W. VAN ALSTYNE & SANGEET PAUL CHOUDARY Uber. Airbnb. Amazon. Apple. PayPal. All of these companies disrupted their markets when they launched. Today they are industry leaders. What’s the secret to their success? These cutting-edge businesses are built on platforms: two-sided markets that are revolutionizing the way we do business. Written by three of the most sought-after experts on platform businesses, *Platform Revolution* is the first authoritative, fact-based book on platform models. Whether platforms are connecting sellers and buyers, hosts and visitors, or drivers with people who need a ride, Geoffrey G. Parker, Marshall W. Van Alstyne, and Sangeet Paul Choudary reveal the *what*, *how*, and *why* of this revolution and provide the first “owner’s manual” for creating a successful platform business. *Platform Revolution* teaches newcomers how to start and run a successful platform business, explaining ways to identify prime markets and monetize networks. Addressing current business leaders, the authors reveal strategies behind some of today’s up-and-coming platforms, such as Tinder and SkillShare, and explain how traditional companies can adapt in a changing marketplace. The authors also cover essential issues concerning security, regulation, and consumer trust, while examining markets that may be ripe for a platform revolution, including healthcare, education, and energy. As digital networks increase in ubiquity, businesses that do a better job of harnessing the power of the platform will win. An indispensable guide, *Platform Revolution* charts out the brilliant future of platforms and reveals how they will irrevocably alter the lives and careers of millions. # Books * How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism ([Cory Doctorow](https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59)) * Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern our Digital Lives ([Nicolas P. Suzor](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/lawless/8504E4EC8A74E539D701A04D3EE8D8DE)) * New Media Unions: Organizing Digital Journalists ([Nicole S. Cohen and Greig de Peuter](https://www.crcpress.com/New-Media-Unions-Organizing-Digital-Journalists/Cohen-Peuter/p/book/9781138327115)) * The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power ([Shoshana Zuboff](https://profilebooks.com/surveillance)) * The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age ([Tim Wu](https://globalreports.columbia.edu/books/the-curse-of-bigness/)) # Articles ## [Rather than privatizing public service media, we should be expanding it online (June 2021)](https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/rather-than-privatizing-public-service-media-we-should-be-expanding-it-online/) #### Nieman Lab – CHRISTIAN FUCHS {% embed url="" %} > Imagine an advertising-free, non-commercial, not-for-profit internet, with digital archives of public service content available to everyone for an unlimited period from anywhere at any time. ## [Internet Universality Indicators: UNESCO Invites Media Development Stakeholders and Journalists to Help Develop New Indicators (2017)](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/unesco-invites-journalists-media-development-community-help-develop-internet-universality-indicators/) #### UNESCO – XIANHONG HU While the emerging digital environment offers new opportunities for journalists to investigate and report information in the public interest, it also poses particular challenges regarding privacy, access to information, source protection, freedom of expression and participation. In this emerging digital environment, UNESCO believes that all stakeholders – including individual users, companies and governments, as well as journalists and media development stakeholders – should take part in the framing of values and norms that could apply to all and be a positive force in shaping Internet development. In this context, UNESCO launched last April, in partnership with the [Association for Progressive Communication](https://www.apc.org/), the project called “[**Defining Internet Universality Indicators**](https://en.unesco.org/internetuniversality)”. The outcome of this project will include both quantitative and qualitative indicators, enabling a comprehensive view of national Internet developments, as well as recognizing the different experiences and characteristics between countries. ## [Status Code 451: An Internet Governance Standard to Expose Censorship (2017)](https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/status-code-451/) #### Center for International Media Assistance – CORRINE CATH & DANIEL O’MALEY {% embed url="" %} ## Articles and Statements * 5 Business Models for Local News to Watch in 2020 ([GIJN](https://gijn.org/2020/01/27/5-business-models-for-local-news-to-watch-in-2020)) * 5 CEOs of wealthy foundations pledge to do more to help charities pay overhead (Maria Di Mento – [philanthropy.com](https://www.philanthropy.com/article/5-CEOs-of-Big-Foundations/247063)) * A digital declaration: On big data as surveillance capitalism (Shoshana Zuboff – [Frankfurter Allgemeine](https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/the-digital-debate/shoshan-zuboff-on-big-data-as-surveillance-capitalism-13152525.html)) * A long, slow slog, with no one coming to the rescue (Rasmus Kleis Nielsen – [Nieman Lab](http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-long-slow-slog-with-no-one-coming-to-the-rescue/)) * Advertising is the Internet’s original sin ([The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/)) * American journalism is dying. Its survival requires public funds (Victor Pickard – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/19/american-journalism-press-publishing-mcclatchy)) * Australia is making Google and Facebook pay for news: what difference will the code make? (Amanda Meade – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/09/australia-is-making-google-and-facebook-pay-for-news-what-difference-will-the-code-make)) * Australia’s new tech code is a road worth exploring (Anya Schiffrin Stiglitz – [Financial Times](https://www.ft.com/content/234d44b5-b876-489c-8639-056f48205ac7?shareType=nongift)) * “Big tech is watching you. Who’s watching big tech?” The Markup is finally ready for liftoff (Sarah Scire – [NiemanLab](https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/02/big-tech-is-watching-you-whos-watching-big-tech-the-markup-is-finally-ready-for-liftoff)) * Can Independent Journalism Thrive under Paywalls? (Prateek Sibal – [Economic and Political Weekly](https://www.epw.in/engage/article/can-independent-journalism-thrive-under)) * Common understanding of G7 competition authorities on “Competition and the Digital Economy” ([G7](http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/doc/g7_common_understanding.pdf) – July 2019) * Competition rules could protect human rights on social media platforms (Maria Luisa Stasi – [OpenGlobalRights](https://www.openglobalrights.org/competition-rules-could-protect-human-rights-on-social-media-platforms/)) * Digital platforms, regulation, and media sustainability: A lesson for Europe from Down Under ([GFMD](https://gfmd.info/digital-platforms-regulation-and-media-sustainability-a-lesson-for-europe-from-down-under/)) * Disinformation sites generate over $200 million: study ([DW Akademie](https://www.dw.com/en/disinformation-sites-generate-over-200-million-study/a-50537297)) * Facebook and Google should pay for the news they use (Courtney C. Radsch – [Thomson Reuters Foundation](https://news.trust.org/item/20210129143656-ok269/)) * Facebook just dealt another potentially lethal blow to local journalism ([CNN Business](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/29/perspectives/facebook-news-local/index.html)) * Foundation grants have strings attached, and nonprofit journalists sometimes don’t like being told what to do by them (Laura Hazard Owen and Joshua Benton – [NiemanLab](https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/01/foundation-grants-have-strings-attached-and-nonprofit-journalists-sometimes-dont-like-being-told-what-to-do-by-them/)) * Global journalism is fighting for international development funding but shouldn’t need to. Especially now. (Rieneke Van Santen – [Medium](https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/global-journalism-is-fighting-for-international-development-funding-but-shouldnt-need-to-96f75e632f59)) * How can competition law help to secure freedom of expression on social media? ([ARTICLE 19](https://www.article19.org/resources/how-can-competition-law-help-to-secure-freedom-of-expression-on-social-media/)) * How Google is hurting local news (Sean Fischer, Kokil Jaidka, and Yphtach Lelkes – [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/22/how-google-is-hurting-local-news/)) * How May Google Fight an Antitrust Case? Look at This Little-Noticed Paper ([NY Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/technology/google-ads-antitrust.html)) * How to ask for money ([Splice Media](https://www.splicemedia.com/how-to-ask-for-money)) * How to evaluate commercial revenue as a sustainability strategy for investigative media organisations ([GIJN](https://gijn.org/how-to-evaluate-commercial-revenue-as-a-sustainability-strategy-for-investigative-media-organizations)) * Internet economics is a thing, and we need to take note (Geoff Huston – [RIPE Labs](https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/internet-economics-is-a-thing-and-we-need-to-take-note)) * It’s not that we’ve failed to rein in Facebook and Google. We’ve not even tried (Shoshana Zuboff – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/02/facebook-google-data-change-our-behaviour-democracy#comments)) * It’s time to reboot the startup economy (Tim Wu – [OneZero](https://onezero.medium.com/its-time-to-reboot-the-startup-economy-822d65f9a19)) * Media Viability: 6 strategies for success ([MDIF / DW Akademie](https://www.dw.com/en/media-viability-6-strategies-for-success/a-48851981)) * News media needs to convince readers to open their wallets. Consolidation has not helped (Elizabeth Hansen and Elizabeth Anne Watkins – [Columbia Journalism Review](https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/newsroom-consolidation-product.php)) * Public infrastructure isn’t just bridges and water mains: Here’s an argument for extending the concept to digital spaces (Joshua Benton – [NeimanLab](https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/01/public-infrastructure-isnt-just-bridges-and-water-mains-heres-an-argument-for-extending-the-concept-to-digital-spaces/)) * Public investments for global news (Victor Pickard – [Centre for International Governance Innovation](https://www.cigionline.org/articles/public-investments-global-news)) * Restoring competition in ”winner-took-all” digital platform markets ([UNCTAD](https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=2279)) * Targeted advertising is ruining the Internet and breaking the world (Nathalie Maréchal – [Motherboard](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xwjden/targeted-advertising-is-ruining-the-internet-and-breaking-the-world)) * The media’s post-advertising future is also its past ([The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/post-advertising-future-media/578917/)) * The trilemma of big tech: We can have democracy, market dominance, and business models that optimise for anger and junk — but only two at a time ([International Politics and Society](https://www.ips-journal.eu/index.php?id=344\&L=0\&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=3454\&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News\&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail\&cHash=a48619a7314d516b39cf95aa1a08c8e0)) * The Truth Is Paywalled But The Lies Are Free ([Current Affairs](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/08/the-truth-is-paywalled-but-the-lies-are-free)) * The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data ([The Economist](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/the-worlds-most-valuable-resource-is-no-longer-oil-but-data)) * Threats to media sustainability and freedom of expression in the digital era (Michael J. Oghia & Mira Milosevic – [GFMD](https://medium.com/global-network-initiative-collection/threats-to-media-sustainability-and-freedom-of-expression-in-the-digital-era-by-michael-j-41fab4d8664a)) * UNCTAD: ARTICLE 19 joins the 18th Intergovernmental Group of Experts’ meeting ([ARTICLE 19](https://www.article19.org/resources/unctad-article-19-joins-the-18th-intergovernmental-group-of-experts-meeting/)) * Universal Advertising Transparency by Default joint statement ([EPD and partners](https://epd.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/joint-call-for-universal-ads-transparency.pdf)) * We can’t fight fake news without saving local journalism (Emily Bell – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/15/we-cant-fight-fake-news-without-saving-local-journalism)) * ‘We can’t reach the women who need us’: the LGBT YouTubers suing the tech giant for discrimination (Jenny Kleeman – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/14/youtube-bria-kam-chrissy-chambers-lesbian-vloggers-lgbtq-discrimination)) * We need to fix the news media, not just social media (Public Knowledge – [Part 1](https://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/part-v-we-need-to-fix-the-news-media-not-just-social-media-part-1/), [Part 2](https://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/part-v-we-need-to-fix-the-news-media-not-just-social-media-part-2/), and [Part 3](https://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/part-v-we-need-to-fix-the-news-media-not-just-social-media-part-3/)) * We will finally confront systemic market failure (Victor Pickard – [NiemanLab](http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/12/we-will-finally-confront-systemic-market-failure/)) * Why am I not seeing this ad? (Jan Pieter Balkenende – [EU Observer](https://euobserver.com/opinion/149400)) * Why Facebook Can’t Fix Itself (Andrew Marantz – [The New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/19/why-facebook-cant-fix-itself)) * Why local journalism needs a funding pipeline (Yvonne Leow – [Reynolds Journalism Institute](https://www.rjionline.org/stories/why-local-journalism-needs-a-funding-pipeline)) * Year in review: Everything I wrote about media business and revenue models in 2019 (Damian Radcliffe – [Medium](https://medium.com/damian-radcliffe/year-in-review-everything-i-wrote-about-media-business-and-revenue-models-in-2019-c02717948d73)) ## Digital Media Literacy The importance of digital skills and media literacy (also known as media information literacy – MIL) has already been recognised by many Internet governance and development stakeholders, particularly in relation to education, democracy, access to information, and countering disinformation and misinformation. Stakeholders from across the Internet governance ecosystem recognise the importance of user capabilities (such as digital media literacy skills) as a core competency for the advantageous development of the Internet and enabling meaningful access. Digital media literacy includes topics such as but not limited to: * What it means to use digital media in a responsible way; * Understanding news cycles; * Analyzing the bias held by different media outlets; * Evaluating conflicts of interest and funding behind content producers; * Recognising misinformation or “[deep fakes](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-13/the-deep-fake-video-threat);” and * The ability to identify and evaluate the credibility of information. Additional references and resources include: * Bad News game ([Drog](https://www.aboutbadnews.com/social-impact-game)) * [Center for Media Literacy](http://www.medialit.org/) * Did media literacy [backfire](https://points.datasociety.net/did-media-literacy-backfire-7418c084d88d)? * Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action – A white paper by Renee Hobbs ([Knight Foundation](https://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/Digital_and_Media_Literacy_A_Plan_of_Action.pdf)) * [Education 3.0 and Internet Governance](https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/gcig_no27web_0.pdf): A New Global Alliance for Children and Young People’s Sustainable Digital Development (Global Commission on Internet Governance – GCIG) * Fact-checking and verification resources ([GIJN](https://gijn.org/fact-checking-verification/)) * Factitious game ([American University](http://factitious.augamestudio.com/#/)) * Fake news: Is media literacy the answer? ([ECPMF](https://www.ecpmf.eu/news/threats/fake-news-is-media-literacy-the-answer)) * Focus on media and information literacy ([Better Internet for Kids](https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/practice/awareness/detail?articleId=1001234)) * Freedom of Expression, Access to Information, and Empowerment of People ([UNESCO](http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001803/180312e.pdf)) * Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework: Country Readiness and Competencies ([UNESCO](http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002246/224655e.pdf)) * Learn to Discern: Media Literacy Trainer’s Manual ([IFEX](https://www.irex.org/sites/default/files/node/resource/learn-to-discern-media-literacy-curriculum-english-2.pdf)) * Media and information literacy resources ([UNESCO](https://en.unesco.org/themes/media-and-information-literacy)) * [Media Bias / Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/) * [Media Education Lab](https://mediaeducationlab.com/) * Media Literacy: Empowering Youth Worldwide ([CIMA](https://www.cima.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CIMA-Media_Literacy_Youth-Report.pdf)) * Media Literacy: Understanding the News ([CIMA](http://www.cima.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CIMA-Media_Literacy_Understanding_The_News-Report.pdf)) * Media Literacy as a Core Competency for [Engaged Citizenship](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764213489015) in Participatory Democracy * Media literacy fundamentals ([Media Smarts](http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/general-information/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/media-literacy-fundamentals)) * Media Literacy and Internet Governance: A Necessary Marriage, Exemplified by the Case of the Belgian State Versus Facebook ([Vrije Universiteit Brussels](https://cris.vub.be/en/publications/media-literacy-and-internet-governance\(e7f12a2b-7848-40c3-ad11-60ed02b3d5b8\).html)) * Media Literacy Toolkit ([Global Investigative Journalism Network](https://www.globaleditorsnetwork.org/programmes/the-media-literacy-toolkit/)) * [NewsGuard](https://www.newsguardtech.com/) * Play the villain: Learn to fight disinformation with news literacy (EuroDIG 2019 – [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8Q1bBtFD4A\&feature=youtu.be) | [wiki](https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Play_the_villain_%E2%80%93_learn_to_fight_disinformation_with_news_literacy_%E2%80%93_WS_12_2019)) * Survey on Privacy in Media and Information Literacy with Youth Perspectives ([UNESCO](http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002589/258993e.pdf)) * The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy ([Data & Society](https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/DataAndSociety_Media_Literacy_2018.pdf)) # Research & Reports ## [Liberties Media Freedom Report 2024](https://dq4n3btxmr8c9.cloudfront.net/files/flccsm/Liberties_Media_freedom_Report_2024_FIN.pdf) {% embed url="" %} ## [Cuba’s Parallel Worlds: Digital Media Crosses the Divide (2016) ](https://www.cima.ned.org/resource/cubas-parallel-world-digital-media-crosses-divide/) – ANNE NELSON Cuba offers a new challenge to the media development community. It is a land of paradoxes, with an extremely high literacy rate and educated population, yet a constrained information ecosystem. Its population has coped with severe shortages of hardware, software, and even instructional materials, yet it has produced a hacker culture whose ingenious approaches could be helpful to other countries with low bandwidth. For the media development community, Cuba could provide lessons for how to broaden the information space in closed or authoritarian societies and in areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America with underdeveloped electrical grids and information infrastructure. ## [Media Feast, News Famine: Ten Global Advertising Trends That Threaten Independent Journalism](https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/media-feast-news-famine-ten-global-advertising-trends-threaten-independent-journalism/) (2017) – MICHELLE FOSTER This report looks at ten factors that have altered the media marketplace and that pose challenges to national and local news producers and their sources of revenue. They include ways in which governments interfere in media markets; changes in the structure of news distribution and audience behavior; and the way these changes have transformed how advertising media is bought, sold, and distributed. It then examines the key engagement metrics taken from a sampling of media development partner organizations to offer thoughts on how well these news producers are prepared to compete for audiences and revenue. Finally, it offers thoughts about the implications of these issues for media development organizations. ## Media Development in the Digital Age: Five Ways to Engage in Internet Governance This [report](https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/media-development-digital-age-five-ways-engage-internet-governance/) makes the case to the journalism support and media development community that they can, and must, engage in the decision-making bodies that are shaping Internet governance to ensure that the Internet — and the growing media sphere it sustains — remains open, pluralistic, and democratic. It includes an examination of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), ICANN, IEEE, ITU, and IETF. ## [The Rise of Internet Throttling: A Hidden Threat to Media Development (2020)](https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/the-rise-of-bandwidth-throttling-a-hidden-threat-to-media-development/) – SAMUEL WOODHAMS An increasing number of governments around the world are forcing internet service providers to slow their services during critical sociopolitical junctures—a practice known as throttling—infringing on citizens’ right to information and freedom of expression. Despite its deleterious impact on media development and foundational rights, throttling remains an often-neglected topic and risks becoming a pervasive, yet hidden, threat to press freedoms, democracy, and human rights. * Throttling refers to the intentional slowing of an internet service by an internet service provider. * It stifles the free flow of information during critical moments and prevents journalists from providing vital information to citizens abroad and at home. * Due to its difficulty to detect, throttling shields authorities from public scrutiny. * Businesses have a duty to be transparent about how and when governments force them to disrupt their services, yet often remain silent on the issue. # Digital Media Literacy The importance of digital skills and media literacy (also known as media information literacy – MIL) has already been recognised by many Internet governance and development stakeholders, particularly in relation to education, democracy, access to information, and countering disinformation and misinformation. Stakeholders from across the Internet governance ecosystem recognise the importance of user capabilities (such as digital media literacy skills) as a core competency for the advantageous development of the Internet and enabling meaningful access. Digital media literacy includes topics such as but not limited to: * What it means to use digital media in a responsible way; * Understanding news cycles; * Analyzing the bias held by different media outlets; * Evaluating conflicts of interest and funding behind content producers; * Recognising misinformation or “[deep fakes](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-13/the-deep-fake-video-threat);” and * The ability to identify and evaluate the credibility of information. # Articles ## Play the villain: Learn to fight disinformation with news literacy (EuroDIG 2019 – [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8Q1bBtFD4A\&feature=youtu.be) | [wiki](https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Play_the_villain_%E2%80%93_learn_to_fight_disinformation_with_news_literacy_%E2%80%93_WS_12_2019)) The lack of news literacy lies at the root of the disinformation or “fake news” crisis. In this workshop, we will work to address the issue and suggest solutions through a game. Both the live and remote audience will play posing as the “bad guy” that creates disinformation, first through impersonation, then by exploiting people’s emotions. The end goal is to be picked up by mainstream media and successfully mine people’s trust by polluting the information ecosystem. Key participants will help find the way from scepticism to a healthy relation with the news, and debrief participants to offer recommendations and resources to help increase news literacy. ## The Internet Trust Tool – [NewsGuard](https://www.newsguardtech.com/) Trust ratings for all the news sites that account for 95% of engagement. Written by journalists, not secret algorithms. Transparent, accountable, and right in your browser. Get detailed trust ratings for 6,000+ news websites that account for 95% of online engagement with news. See ratings displayed as icons next to links on all the major search engines and social media platforms. See who’s behind each site and how it fares on the nine journalistic standards NewsGuard uses to assess each site. Get warnings on new trending misinformation sites as they are flagged and rated by NewsGuard’s 24/7 rapid response SWAT team. ## Media literacy fundamentals – [Media Smarts](http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/general-information/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/media-literacy-fundamentals) This section looks at the various aspects and principles relating to media literacy. The relationship between media literacy and media education is also explored and tips are provided for integrating media literacy into the classroom in subjects across the curriculum. ## [Media Bias / Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/) They are the most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet. There are currently 3800+ media sources and journalists listed in our database and growing every day. Don’t be fooled by Fake News sources. Use the search feature above (Header) to check the bias of any source. ## Media and information literacy resources – [UNESCO](https://en.unesco.org/themes/media-and-information-literacy) People across the world are witnessing a dramatic increase in access to information and communication. While some people are starved for information, others are flooded with print, broadcast and digital content. Media and Information Literacy (MIL) provides answers to the questions that we all ask ourselves at some point. How can we access, search, critically assess, use and contribute content wisely, both online and offline? What are our rights online and offline? What are the ethical issues surrounding the access and use of information? How can we engage with media and ICTs to promote equality, intercultural and interreligious dialogue, peace, freedom of expression and access to information? Through capacity-building resources, such as curricula development, policy guidelines and articulation, and assessment framework, UNESCO supports the development of MIL competencies among people. Free and open [online courses](http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/media-development/media-literacy/online-mil-and-intercultural-dialogue-courses/) are available for self-paced learning about MIL. Through media and information technologies, the Organisation facilitates networking and research through the [Global Alliance for Partnerships on MIL](http://www.unesco.org/new/en/gapmil) (GAPMIL) and [MIL University Network](http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/media-development/media-literacy/mil-and-intercultural-dialogue-university-network/). The recently-launched [MIL CLICKS](http://en.unesco.org/MILCLICKS) social media initiative is also part of UNESCO’s strategy to enable media and information literate societies. ## Focus on media and information literacy – [Better Internet for Kids](https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/practice/awareness/detail?articleId=1001234) The sixth edition of the Better Internet for Kids (BIK) bulletin has now been published with a focus on media and information literacy in Europe. ## Fact-checking and verification resources – [GIJN](https://gijn.org/fact-checking-verification/) A comprehensive list of resources concerning the digital medial literacy. ## Did media literacy [backfire](https://points.datasociety.net/did-media-literacy-backfire-7418c084d88d)? – Points: Data & Society Anxious about the widespread consumption and spread of propaganda and fake news during this year’s election cycle, many progressives are calling for an increased commitment to media literacy programs. Others are clamoring for solutions that focus on expert fact-checking and labeling. Both of these approaches are likely to fail — not because they are bad ideas, but because they fail to take into consideration the cultural context of information consumption that we’ve created over the last thirty years. The problem on our hands is a lot bigger than most folks appreciate. # Handbooks & Manuals ## [Investigative Journalism Manuals](https://gijn.org/investigative-journalism-manuals/) Looking for tips, tools, and tutorials? Thiese guides focus on investigative journalism and provide case studies and examples from around the world. Most are available for free, unless indicated otherwise. ## Learn to Discern: Media Literacy Trainer’s Manual ([IFEX](https://www.irex.org/sites/default/files/node/resource/learn-to-discern-media-literacy-curriculum-english-2.pdf)) It’s about skill building, not prescribing a list of “good” or “bad” information sources to participants, or to criticize their choice of news outlets. Instead, we are equipping them with the skills and tools to judge the veracity of the content they read and to independently draw accurate conclusions about outlets’ reliability. People have different views - acknowledge it, and leave your own political views outside the room.Politics may come up from time to time, and one of your jobs is to keep the participants’ minds focused on the task at hand - namely, improving their ability to discern good information and good sources. Keep them on task, and don’t try to convince others of your own point of view. You are creating a team of watchdogs who will be leading the fight against misinformation and manipulation. # Academic Studies ## Media Literacy and Internet Governance: A Necessary Marriage, Exemplified by the Case of the Belgian State Versus Facebook ([Vrije Universiteit Brussels](https://cris.vub.be/en/publications/media-literacy-and-internet-governance\(e7f12a2b-7848-40c3-ad11-60ed02b3d5b8\).html)) In recent years media literacy has gained in importance both in academic debates as in policy discussions. Several countries such as the UK, Finland, the Netherlands, Flanders/Belgium, have integrated media literacy into their media or/and educational policies. Multiple countries have set up new institutions or given older institutions the mandate to actively foster media literacy—e.g. respectively Ofcom (UK) and Mediawijzer.net (the Netherlands), Mediawijs.be (Flanders/Belgium). At the EU level Media Literacy has been integrated into the 2007 Audiovisual Media Service Directive. The Directive states that ‘(...) the development of media literacy in all sections of society should be promoted and its progress followed closely’ (European Commission, 2007). Whether the revision of the Directive in 2016 will result in a stronger focus on media literacy remains to be seen. At least the Paris Declaration on Promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education —as a direct reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris—re-emphasizes the role of media literacy, in particular in ‘developing resistance to all forms of discrimination and indoctrination’ (Ministers of Education, 2015). At the international level UNESCO has rediscovered the importance of Media and Information Literacy. Under the banner of GAPMIL, the Global Alliance for Partnerships on Media and Information Literacy, it is driving new initiatives on different continents. The renewed interest in media literacy is the result of a couple of factors. First, the digitization of media and the advent of the Internet have lead to an abundance of choice in terms of content, which is much more difficult to navigate and assess. Second, the internet and social media more specifically have turned all users into potentially active producers of communication and content (Hoechsmann & Poyntz, 2012). Third, governments all over the world have largely deregulated media and increasingly rely on self-regulation and co-regulation by the media and on the Internet (Marsden, ...). The result of these evolution is that the individual is more and more expected to regulate it’s own use and that of other—often minor—members of his/her family. However, many user studies on Internet use, media use, online privacy, etc. show that not all users have the necessary skills and competences to self-regulate, hence the importance of media literacy. The shift from regulation by government to self-regulation by the individual sounds straightforward. However, this reasoning depends on two fundamental preconditions: 1) that all individuals obtain—with support of media literacy actions—the necessary capabilities to critically engage with media, 2) that the individual has the choice to act on the acquired knowledge. In this article we would like to argue that in the current internet environment this choice to act is often lacking. What is even more, a lack of transparency on how the internet and actors on the internet—such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn— operate leads to a basic distrust about the use of technology and the use of the internet and digital media. This is certainly the case in relation to privacy. A lack of choice, transparency and trust currently has a couple of consequences: 1) media literacy at the internet level currently requires very high levels of internet and computer understanding, especially in relation to privacy protection, 2) it leads to funny and partially ineffective defense strategies such as covering webcams (very effective), using different browsers for trusted and untrusted websites (more questionable), etc., 3) a growing disinterest and disbelief in the possibility of self-regulation. A recent US study reveals that users who have high levels of understanding of online privacy, are more and more tempted to give up their privacy in the realization that they cannot protect themselves. This paper will further develop the argumentation presented above. It will apply this to the current case of the Flemish Privacy Commission versus Facebook in Belgium. (explain). What is clear is that in absence of genuine choice, transparency and trust media literacy becomes a fake proposition. Especially for those interpretations of media literacy that believe in the empowerment possibilities of the Internet. ## Media Literacy as a Core Competency for [Engaged Citizenship](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764213489015) in Participatory Democracy The ubiquitous media landscape today is reshaping what it means to be an engaged citizen. Normative metrics for engagement—voting, attending town meetings, participation in civic groups—are eroding in the context of online advocacy, social protest, “liking,” sharing, and remixing. These new avenues for engagement offer vast opportunities for new and innovative approaches to teaching and learning about political engagement in the context of new media platforms and technologies. This article explores digital media literacy as a core competency for engaged citizenship in participatory democracy. It combines new models of engaged and citizenship and participatory politics with frameworks for digital and media literacy education, to develop a framework for media literacy as a core political competency for active, engaged, and participatory citizenship. # Reports ## The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy ([Data & Society](https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/DataAndSociety_Media_Literacy_2018.pdf)) Media literacy has become a center of gravity for countering “fake news,” and a diverse array of stakeholders – from educators to legislators, philanthropists to technologists – have pushed significant resources toward media literacy programs. Media literacy, however, cannot be treated as a panacea. This paper provides a foundation for evaluating media literacy efforts and contextualizing them relative to the current media landscape. Media literacy is traditionally conceived as a process or set of skills based on critical thinking. It has a long history of development according to different values, swinging between protection and participation. Contemporary media literacy tends to organize around five main themes: youth participation, teacher training and curricular resources, parental support, policy initiatives, and evidence base construction. Programs like these have demonstrated positive outcomes, particularly in the case of rapid responses to breaking news events, connecting critical thinking with behavior change, and evaluating partisan content. However, media literacy programs also have their challenges. In general, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation data of media literacy efforts. Some research shows that media literacy efforts can have little-to-no impact for certain materials, or even produce harmful conditions of overconfidence. ## Survey on Privacy in Media and Information Literacy with Youth Perspectives ([UNESCO](http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002589/258993e.pdf)) An understanding of privacy online and offline is, at its core, an understanding of how media and information are created, analysed, distributed, applied and used, as well as how they are monetized, and the conditions under which all this can contribute to sustainable development. Understanding privacy and actively participating in its promotion requires critical thinking skills. In other words, what are called “privacy competencies” can, to a significant extent, be usefully seen as part of MIL competencies. While privacy as a concept is separate from MIL, many of the competencies needed to protect personal privacy are also MIL competencies; these include the ability to demand one’s right to privacy, or to act wisely about what information one shares as well as how to secure one’s information. Privacy is an issue that merits close consideration by all engaged persons interested in global citizenship. At the same time, all people, including young people, need strong MIL competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitude) to help them understand the kinds of questions to ask about how their data is accessed and used, how they may be consciously and unconsciously permitting and facilitating this access, and what the implications may be. Ultimately, this report aims to provide conceptual, development and policy recommendations to foster privacy in MIL, while enabling the critical engagement of people, including young women and men, in an environment conducive to sustainable development and to freedom of expression online and offline. It seeks to provide clarity on the complex issue of how MIL and privacy intersect. ## Media Literacy ### Understanding the News ([CIMA](http://www.cima.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CIMA-Media_Literacy_Understanding_The_News-Report.pdf)) – Susan D. Moeller In regions of the world that lack independent media, citizens cannot elect their best representatives, accurately monitor industry, or judge how to foster healthy development because they are often starved of information and do not know how much trust to place in news sources. Media literacy training is a tool the development sector can use to educate citizens and other stakeholders to better understand the role of information in a democracy and pressure governments to be accountable and to root out corruption. A media literate citizenry is essential to building and sustaining democracy. Media literacy training creates a demand for accurate and fair news on both traditional and digital media platforms. This encourages checks and balances and democratic debate not just at election time but between elections as well. Teaching the public to be media literate does not mean telling people what to think or do. Rather, creating a media-literate society is a step toward finding better ways to communicate and toward solving humanity’s most difficult political and economic problems. U.S. and international donors in media development and communications for development projects have begun to identify media literacy as a priority, but donors outside those fields are still learning about the concept. ### Empowering Youth Worldwide – Paul Mihailidis Media literacy is growing globally. At all levels of education, initiatives in media literacy are premised on teaching youth and young adults to consume media critically—from how media shape political messages to the increasing pervasiveness of advertising. Few would argue with the need to offer youth effective educational platforms to help them understand the role of information in an increasingly hyper media age.The successful implementation of such platforms, however, depends on many variables. Governments must have the proper infrastructure and expertise to enable successful media literacy education initiatives for youth. Educators must have adequate training to teach media literacy. Schools must have the resources to engage students with media on a personal level. And educational bodies must have a framework from which they can produce positive outcomes in media literacy learning in classroom settings. These challenges are not small. With media growing and converging at ever-quickening rates, civil societies and civic dialogue are being influenced by media in new and unforeseen ways. Supporting media literacy education for youth can help prepare children and young adults for lives of active inquiry around media and for a better understanding of the ties between information, community, and democracy.Government agencies, NGOs, foundations, and private developers looking to support civic and democratic endeavors in the developing world should be made aware of media literacy as a key educational component for developing stable democratic discourse. This report explores support and development of media literacy education and curriculum initiatives for youth in the developing world. ## Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework: Country Readiness and Competencies ([UNESCO](http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002246/224655e.pdf)) Media and Information Literacy (MIL) brings together Information Literacy and Media Literacy, along with Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Digital Literacy, as a new literacy construct that helps empower people, communities and nations to participate in and contribute to global knowledge societies. The adoption of such an approach should be viewed in the light of the greater accessibility, convergence and distribution of information and media content, in various formats and via diverse digital tools. MIL helps to develop critical thinking and problem solving, while also increasing collaboration and participation. This means that every country needs to invest in the creation of an enabling environment for MIL and that citizens need to be equipped with the necessary tools and resources to achieve individual, professional and societal goals that are based on MIL-related competencies. ## Freedom of Expression, Access to Information, and Empowerment of People ([UNESCO](http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001803/180312e.pdf)) * Freedom of Expression and the Right to Information are fundamental rights. * Press Freedom and access to information support participatory democracy. * National communications policies should rest on UNESCO’s four principles. * ICTs can help empower people for a “multi-logue”. * Media pluralism, an enabling legal environment and journalistic safety are essential to empower-ment and access to information. * Community media and audience participation are especially important for empowerment. * Media production capacity, media literacy and information literacy are essential. ## Digital and Media Literacy: [A Plan of Action – A white paper](https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Digital_and_Media_Literacy.pdf) by Renee Hobbs This report offers a plan of action for how to bring digital and media literacy education into formal and informal settings through a community education movement. This work will depend on the active support of many stakeholders: educational leaders at the local, state and federal levels; trustees of public libraries; leaders of community-based organizations; state and federal officials; members of the business community; leaders in media and technology industries, and the foundation community. It will take the energy and imagination of people who recognize that the time is now to support the development of digital and media literacy education for all our nation’s citizens, young and old.In this report, we define digital and media literacy as a constellation of life skills that are necessary for full participation in our media-saturated, information-rich society. ## [Education 3.0 and Internet Governance](https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/gcig_no27web_0.pdf): A New Global Alliance for Children and Young People’s Sustainable Digital Development (Global Commission on Internet Governance – GCIG) As a global resource managed in the public interest, the Internet depends not only on policy makers and decision makers, but also on education leaders, on the adults around children and, most importantly, on children themselves. Mindful of children’s cognitive development, cultural differences in the conceptualization of childhood and children’s exposure to all sorts of materials and resources online, this paper explores the mutually reinforcing opportunities for both children and the multi-stakeholder Internet community through their alliances in education and Internet governance. This paper also considers the risks of inaction in the transition to education 3.0. It draws attention to a crucial element for effective change: the need to raise awareness and to support teachers, students and public authorities alike to embrace the notion of education 3.0, to consider the tools and resources needed (e-learning, data analytics, massive open online courses \[MOOCs], and so on) and to engage in the phased adjustments needed at all levels of its governance. Incremental, scalable, step-by-step change is key to success in the education sector, which has already experienced many “computer-in-the-school” plans with mixed results. Education 3.0, based on pedagogy for participation and “co-design” as collaborative problem solving, buttressed on human rights and shared values, provides a comprehensive vision that can engage all actors at their level of interaction. # Media Sustainability & Digital Markets The sustainability and economic viability of journalism and news media is one of – if not *the –* most critical issues currently facing the sector. Yet, global debates raging in legislatures and policy circles often overlook or minimise their attention to the news, journalism, and information ecosystems, and the implications of digital platforms’ market power on access and the availability of quality news content online. This includes the wider impact that the digital economy and platforms have on society. Any serious effort to address the myriad problems plaguing digital platforms must also address the challenges faced by news media. In other words, content-related issues must also be seen within the wider context of market-related challenges, while clearly distinguishing content regulation from market regulation vis-a-vis platforms. In order to foster a pluralistic media ecosystem that detects disinformation and produces high-quality, fact-based news, media sustainability must be considered a significant priority. GFMD is addressing this within the Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media ([**DC-sustainability**](https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-the-sustainability-of-journalism-and-news-media-dc-sustainability)), a GFMD-led, multi-stakeholder initiative within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), our Internet Governance Working Group, as well as through our advocacy efforts (e.g., our [**issue paper**](https://bit.ly/IssuePaperV4), and our [**blog post**](https://gfmd.info/digital-platforms-regulation-and-media-sustainability-a-lesson-for-europe-from-down-under/) titled, “Digital platforms, regulation, and media sustainability: A lesson for Europe from Down Under”). ### **General resources, initiatives, and links** * A model ethical funding policy ([DFF/CLUE/ECPMF](https://www.ecpmf.eu/news/press-releases/a-new-model-ethical-funding-policy-for-ngos)) – [.pdf](https://www.ecpmf.eu/files/model_ethical_funding_policy_20190831.pdf) | [.doc](https://www.ecpmf.eu/files/model_ethical_funding_policy_20190831.docx) * Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility ([DCPR](https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr)) * Facebook Ad Library ([link](https://www.facebook.com/ads/library)) * GIJN’s sustainability resources ([GIJN Helpdesk](https://helpdesk.gijn.org/support/solutions/articles/14000036516-sustainability)) * Global Alliance for Responsible Media ([GARM](https://www.unilever.com/news/press-releases/2019/global-alliance-for-responsible-media-launches-to-address-digital-safety.html)) * News Sustainability & Business Models ([Shorenstein Center](https://shorensteincenter.org/about-us/areas-of-focus/digital-journalism-sustainability-business-models/)) * [ProMarket](https://promarket.org/) – The blog of the Stigler Center at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business * Save Journalism Project ([link](https://savejournalism.org/)) * United for News ([link](https://www.unitedfornews.org/)) # Interviews, speeches, videos, and talks ## We’re building a dystopia just to make people click on ads ([Zeynep Tufekci](https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads)) We're building an artificial intelligence-powered dystopia, one click at a time, says techno-sociologist Zeynep Tufekci. In an eye-opening talk, she details how the same algorithms companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon use to get you to click on ads are also used to organize your access to political and social information. And the machines aren't even the real threat. What we need to understand is how the powerful might use AI to control us -- and what we can do in response. ## Video series examining best practices for making investigative journalism sustainable ([GIJN](https://gijn.org/2020/02/17/new-video-series-examines-best-practices-for-making-investigative-journalism-sustainable)) > One of the greatest challenges for investigative journalism is making it pay. It’s hard enough for journalism in general, harder still for public-interest journalism, but hardest of all for investigative journalism which takes time and money and can carry substantial risk. Large commercial media organizations can more easily support investigative teams. But for nonprofit investigative journalism organizations, like most [GIJN members](https://gijn.org/member/), this challenge keeps journalists and their business managers awake at night. > > GIJN has been providing ideas and expertise about bringing in money and developing financially sustainable nonprofit investigative journalism. We’re responding to the evident need and strong demand from both our members and the wider community of journalists. The challenges are greatest in developing and transitioning countries, but exist everywhere. ## Should Big Tech Be Regulated? ([Intelligence Squared US debate](https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/europe-has-declared-war-american-tech-companies)) > European regulators are taking on American technology companies, including Apple, Facebook, and Google, in a big way. Is Brussels waging war against Silicon Valley? Proponents of European regulations argue that these tech giants make billions of dollars while avoiding taxes, and they engage in risky activities that jeopardize user privacy with little to no consequence. Regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), they say, will bring power back into the hands of tech consumers by protecting their data and will restore faith in tech companies, ultimately benefitting all. But not everyone agrees. Their opponents argue that regulations like the GDPR are bad for business, and Silicon Valley was built on the idea that innovators need the room and freedom to create without constraint. Tight regulations, they say, will stifle innovation, which will be a detriment to the West’s global influence – and an impediment to societal progress. Is Europe right to wield a regulatory sword at American tech companies? ## Four Ways Journalism Can Make Money with MDIF Deputy CEO Mohamed Nanabhay ([GIJN](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTAMOxOigfg)) Nanabhay talks about the four ways that journalism organizations can make money: selling to audiences through subscriptions or membership; selling advertising; offering unique services such as data, events, and training; and donor funds. “The most important thing you can do,” Nanabhay says, “is to have clarity around your revenue – really knowing what you are selling and how you are going to bring that money in.” ## Digiday’s path of profitable growth: Brian Morrissey interview ([Reuters](https://www.reuterscommunity.com/topics/monetization/digidays-take-on-profitable-growth/?utm_source=Eloqua\&utm_medium=email\&utm_campaign=Media%20-%202019%2005%2022%20-%20Reuters%20Community%20Newsletter\&utm_content=Media%20-%202019%2005%2022%20-%20Reuters%20Community%20Non%20Connect%20Segment%20Newsletter)) > Vertical media company [Digiday](https://digiday.com/) hit 10 years of age last year. As they enter their teenage years, we asked President and Editor-in-Chief Brian Morrissey for tips on sustainable, profitable growth. ## Competition and the digital economy ([Margrethe Vestager](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/vestager/announcements/competition-and-digital-economy_en) – European Commission) # Toolkits, Newsletter, Indexes, guides, tools, & courses ## Knowledge Bridge – digital audience development ([MDIF](https://www.kbridge.org/en/)) The Knowledge Bridge provides resources to help news executives in emerging markets develop digital products, generate digital revenues and make informed decisions about their digital business. Most of the guides, outlines and slideshows are taken from training materials created for Media Development Investment Fund consultancies, and have already been shown to be effective learning tools for news organisations in transitional countries. Others have been specially created to provide actionable insight into critical digital issues or step-by-step how-to guides ## GIP Digital Watch newsletter The [Geneva Digital Watch newsletter](https://dig.watch/newsletter) is a monthly newsletter, published by the Geneva Internet Platform and DiploFoundation, as part of the GIP Digital Watch initiative, that means to be a one-stop shop for updates and developments in the Internet governance and policy ecosystem. It includes a round-up of developments for each month, interviews with prominent Internet governance experts, features and articles on various digital policy areas, and a just-for-fun section. The newsletter complements the [GIP Digital Watch observatory](https://dig.watch/) and the monthly GIP [briefings](https://dig.watch/briefings) on Internet governance. Sign up for the monthly newsletter [here](https://dig.watch/newsletter) ## World Economic Forum Strategic Intelligence ([resource center](https://intelligence.weforum.org/)) Explore and monitor the issues and forces driving transformational change across economies, industries, and global issues ## Transparency Report Tracking Tool ([Open Technology Institute](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/transparency-report-tracking-tool/)) > Today, transparency reporting on issues such as government requests for user data is considered an industry-wide best practice for technology and telecommunications companies. Over the past few years, internet platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube have also begun publishing transparency reports that outline how they are enforcing their own content policies and rules. This reporting has been expanded to include a number of metrics and categories of content that are unique to these types of platforms. However, although companies have made some positive strides toward providing transparency and accountability around their content moderation practices, there is still significant room for improvement. Through our [Transparency Reporting Toolkit on Content Takedowns](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/transparency-reporting-toolkit-content-takedown-reporting/) and the [Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation](https://santaclaraprinciples.org/), which we drafted as part of a coalition dedicated to freedom of expression online, we have put forth a number of recommendations on how internet platforms can improve their transparency reporting on content moderation. The charts below outline what metrics and categories of content Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube are reporting on in their transparency reports related to content rules enforcement. These charts intend to depict the breadth of categories and metrics that companies are reporting on, how these reports have evolved over time, and also enable comparison between the companies’ reports. In addition, these charts can be used to identify fundamental gaps in reporting. ## Poynter’s News University ([link](https://www.poynter.org/newsu/)) They ar ehere offered 100+ **interactive journalism courses** and the possibility to join their international community of 150,000+ professionals, educators and students. ## Membership Puzzle Project ([Studio 20/De Correspondent](https://membershippuzzle.org/tools)) > The Membership Puzzle Project seeks to offer useful resources for journalism organization staff, freelancers, and consultants as they create new membership programs and/or revamp existing offerings. We’re especially eager to show examples that demonstrate meaningful two-way knowledge exchange between news sites and their members. We’re showcasing sites whose interactions with members benefit organizational sustainability and make for better journalism. These tools are works in progress, and we hope that you will provide additional examples and feedback throughout the course of our research. ## Media Viability Indicators ([DW Akademie](https://dw.com/akademie/mvi)) What stops a country's media sector from producing high quality journalism and being sustainable? DW Akademie offers media practitioners, activists, and scholars a new framework to assess media viability. ## Media Sustainability Index ([IREX](https://www.irex.org/resource/media-sustainability-index-msi)) > IREX's Media Sustainability Index (MSI) provides in-depth analyses of the conditions for independent media in 80 countries across the world. The MSI will be replaced by the [Vibrant Information Barometer](https://www.irex.org/resource/vibrant-information-barometer-vibe) (VIBE) in 2021. > > Since the [Europe and Eurasia MSI](https://www.irex.org/resource/media-sustainability-index-msi#europe-eurasia) was first conceived in 2000, in cooperation with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the MSI has evolved into an important benchmark study to assess how media systems change over time and across borders. > > IREX added a study for the [Middle East and North Africa](https://www.irex.org/media-sustainability-index-archived-reports#middle-east-north-africa) in 2005, and in 2007 launched the [Africa MSI](https://www.irex.org/media-sustainability-index-archived-reports#africa). In 2017, IREX and the Sri Lanka Development Journalists Forum conducted the [Sri Lanka MSI](https://www.irex.org/media-sustainability-index-archived-reports#asia). ## Media Sustainability Barometer ([Innovation Research Group](https://innovationresearchgroup.com/2019/02/01/media-sustainability-barometer-pilot-report-is-now-available-for-download/) with GFMD – [full report](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1baZcgWwP4IKh-uFd4XwJMC8lUXzCNk4e/view)) > Those concerned with the sustainability of the news media worldwide recognise that if this issue is to managed, it needs to be measured and monitored. While several frameworks for media viability indicators have been proposed over the past three years, calls for their implementation have not been answered – until now. > > Drawing on proposals by UNESCO and Deutsche Welle Akademie, the Innovation Research Group (IRG) has worked with the [Global Forum for Media Development](https://gfmd.info) (GFMD) and to create a broad-based, quantitative tool to measure, monitor, map and model the forces shaping media sustainability globally. ## Journalism Now online interactive courses ([Thomson Foundation](http://www.thomsonfoundation.org/e-learning/live-courses/)) > Level up your skill set and give yourself an original edge. Our free Journalism Now online interactive courses are designed and led by industry experts with most courses also supporting your Continuing Professional Development ([CPD](https://cpduk.co.uk)). ## Global Disinformation Index ([GDI](https://disinformationindex.org)) > The internet has given people access to new tools and platforms to build communities – and new capabilities to speak truth to power. > > Yet these same spaces are being abused to spread division, fear and mistrust – and sow the seeds of disinformation. > > **It is time to disrupt, defund and down-rank disinformation sites.** > > The Global Disinformation Index provides advertisers, ad tech companies and platforms with trusted, non-partisan and independent ratings to assess a site’s disinformation risks. ## Gather: An Engaged Journalism Collaborative ([Knight Foundation](https://gather.fmyi.com/public/sites/20801)) Useful space to see case studies and resources on journalism and media. ## Digital Economy Enabling Environment Guide: Key Areas of Dialogue for Business and Policymakers ([CIPE](https://www.cipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Digital-Economy-Guidebook-FINAL-PDF.pdf)) This Guide aims to explain the complex legal and regulatory aspects of the digital economy for all stakeholders, regardless of their technical knowledge or policy experience. ## Corporate Accountability Index ([Ranking Digital Rights](https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2019/)) The 2019 Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index evaluated 24 of the world’s most powerful internet, mobile, and telecommunications companies on their disclosed commitments and policies affecting freedom of expression and privacy of internet users across the world. # Academic Studies This resource section has leant heavily on the "Platform companies and news media" section of the reading list curated by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. # Policy Papers & Briefings ## Unlocking digital competition, Report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel ([UK Government](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unlocking-digital-competition-report-of-the-digital-competition-expert-panel)) This is the final report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel. Appointed by the Chancellor in 2018, and chaired by former Chief Economist to President Obama, Professor Jason Furman, the Panel makes recommendations for changes to the UK’s competition framework that are needed to face the economic challenges posed by digital markets, in the UK and internationally. Their report recommends updating the rules governing merger and antitrust enforcement, as well as proposing a bold set of pro-competition measures to open up digital markets. ## The Economic Value of Data: Discussion paper ([UK Government](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-economic-value-of-data-discussion-paper)) > Data is the fuel of the digital economy. Technological change has radically increased both the volume of data in the economy, and our ability to process it. This presents an opportunity to transform our economy and society for the better. > > This discussion paper provides an assessment of the economic value of data, and sets out five challenges to getting the most out of it for the UK economy: > > 1. Addressing ownership and control of data > 2. Maintaining protection of personal data > 3. Openness in public sector data > 4. Driving interoperability and standards > 5. Enabling safe, legal data sharing ## Media Councils in the Digital Age: An inquiry into the practices of media self-regulatory bodies in the media landscape of today ([DG-CNECT](https://presscouncils.eu/userfiles/files/Media%20Councils%20in%20the%20Digital%20Age.pdf)) > We had two goals in mind with these interviews: one was to construct a comprehensive database to enable comparisons between media councils on a vast array of variables. This database can be found on the website of the Media Councils in the Digital Age project2. The second goal was the present report, in which we have selected a number of themes that media councils deal with, and that we thought deserve some more scrutiny. This study is part of the Media Councils in the Digital Age project, implemented by the European Federation of Journalists, together with the Raad voor de Journalistiek and the Conseil de Déontologique Journalistique, both from Belgium, the Finnish Julkisen Sanan Neuvosto, the Press Council of Ireland, the Austrian Presserat, the German Presserat, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium) and Fundació Blanquerna (Universitat Ramon Llull) (Spain). ## Media and Audiovisual Action Plan ([European Commission](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2239)) > Today the Commission adopted an [Action Plan](https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/695721) to support the recovery and transformation of the media and audiovisual sector. These sectors, particularly hit by the coronavirus crisis, are essential for democracy, Europe's cultural diversity and digital autonomy. The Action Plan focuses on three areas of activity and 10 concrete actions, to help the media sector **recover** from the crisis by facilitating and broadening access to finance, **transform** by stimulating investments to embrace the twin digital and green transitions while ensuring the sector's future resilience and **empower** European citizens and companies. ## Lawsuit filed against Google related to its ad business ([multiple U.S. state attorneys general](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/20201216%20COMPLAINT_REDACTED.pdf)) > Google, however, did not accrue its monopoly power through excellence in themarketplace or innovations in its services alone. Google’s internal documents belie the public image of brainy Google engineers having fun at their sunny Mountain View campus while trying to make the world a better place. Rather, to cement its dominance across online display markets, Google has repeatedly and brazenly violated antitrust and consumer protection laws. Its modus operandi is to monopolize and misrepresent. Google uses its powerful position on every side of the online display markets to unlawfully exclude competition. It also boldly claims that “we’ll never sell your personal information to anyone,” but its entire business model is targeted advertising—the purchase and sale of advertisements targeted to individual users based on their personal information. From its earliest days, Google’s carefully curated public reputation of “don’t be evil” has enabled it to act with wide latitude. That latitude is enhanced by the extreme opacity and complexity of digital advertising markets, which are at least as complex as the most sophisticated financial markets in the world. ## European Democracy Action Plan ([European Commission](https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2020/EN/COM-2020-790-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF)) > The Commission will focus on strengthening cooperation between Member Statesand relevant regulatory authorities on parity of treatment and balanced media coverage during elections, given that traditional media and online platforms are not subject to the same obligations. Further guidance in this area could be facilitated at EU levelbenefiting also from the expertise of national media regulators in the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA)20and of self-regulatory media bodies. This work will also draw on expertise in the European Cooperation Network on Elections and the EU’s Rapid Alert System. Upholding standards of journalistic and editorial integrity is particularly important in the electoral context.The Commission will also strengthen the knowledge base and explore ways of helping citizens and national electoral authorities to build resilience against threats to the electoral process.This could include studies, pilot projects, support for education for active citizenship, and helpdesks or similar shared resources. ## EU Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act ([European Commission](https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/proposal_for_a_regulation_on_a_single_market_for_digital_services.pdf)) > The proposed Regulation introduces a horizontal framework for all categories of content, products, services and activities on intermediary services. The illegal nature of such content, products or services is not defined in this Regulation but results from Union law or from national law in accordance with Union law. ## Digital Competition Expert Panel ([UK Government](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/digital-competition-expert-panel)) > The Digital Competition Expert Panel was established by the Chancellor in September 2018. The Panel was chaired by Professor Jason Furman and composed of experts in economics, competition policy, law and computer science – Professor Diane Coyle, Professor Amelia Fletcher, Professor Philip Marsden and Professor Derek McAuley. The Panel’s terms of reference asked it to consider the potential opportunities and challenges the emerging digital economy may pose for competition and pro-competition policy, and to make recommendations on any changes that may be needed. In particular, the Panel was asked to examine: the impacts of the emergence of a small number of big players in digital markets such as social media, e-commerce, search, and online advertising; appropriate approaches to mergers, takeovers and anti-competitive practices in digital markets; opportunities to enhance competition, to increase business innovation and expand consumer choice how best to assess consumer impacts in ad-funded products and services that are ‘free’ to consumers. > > The Panel ran a call for evidence between October and December 2018 to inform its analysis of competition in digital markets and to support its development of recommendations. Copies of public response to the call for evidence can be found on the [consultation page](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/digital-competition-expert-panel-call-for-evidence). > > The Panel’s final report – ‘Unlocking digital competition’ – makes recommendations for changes to the UK’s competition framework that are needed to face the economic challenges posed by digital markets, in the UK and internationally. Their report recommends updating the rules governing merger and antitrust enforcement, as well as proposing a bold set of pro-competition measures to open up digital markets. ## Competition policy for the digital era: Final report ([European Commission](http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf)) > Commissioner Vestager has asked us to explore how competition policy should evolve to continue to promote pro-consumer innovation in the digital age. We structured our report as follows. First, we describe the digital world and what we see as the main ways in which markets function in the digital era (Chapter 2). We then outline our views of the goals of EU competition law in the digital era and the methodologies it should use (Chapter 3). Second, with this framework as background, we discuss the application of competition rules to platforms (Chapter 4) and data (Chapter 5), and we inquire whether European merger control needs an update(Chapter 6). We finally provide our conclusions.An important caveat at the outset: we make general suggestions, but of course digital services can be very diverse and the ways they compete require, as always under competition law, a case-by-case analysis. ## Canada’s Communications Failure: Time to Act – final report ([Government of Canada](https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/110.nsf/vwapj/BTLR_Eng-V3.pdf/$file/BTLR_Eng-V3.pdf)) > Our work is firmly rooted in an overarching vision for the legislative framework: one that reaffirms Canada’s sovereignty, supports our democratic values and inclusivity, and aims to realize the promise of advanced technologies for the benefit of Canada’s economy and future prosperity, and Canadians as citizens, users, and creators. All Canadians deserve to live a connected life: to connect with ideas, opinions, content, news and information, people, cultures, services and economic opportunities locally, nationally and globally. And to do so in a trusted environment.Overall, we have put forward a comprehensive set of recommendations for a modernized communications legislative and regulatory framework that would better prepare the country for an era of constant and rapid technological change. In this new regime, all undertakings, including international online platform providers not currently covered, would contribute fairly and proportionately to Canada’s national objectives, whether with respect to cultural policy or the goal of universal broadband connectivity; users would be better served and their interests protected; the roll-out of advanced networks would be accelerated to spur innovation and provide affordable services to Canadians. ## Cairncross Review: A sustainable future for journalism ([UK Government](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779882/021919_DCMS_Cairncross_Review_.pdf)) * The UK Government’s [official response](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-response-to-the-cairncross-review) ## ACCC Digital Platforms Inquiry: Final Report ([Australian Competition and Consumer Commission](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20platforms%20inquiry%20-%20final%20report.pdf)) * The Preliminary Report is available [here](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20Digital%20Platforms%20Inquiry%20-%20Preliminary%20Report.pdf) * News media bargaining code draft legislation is available [here](https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-media-bargaining-code/draft-legislation) > In December 2017, the ACCC was directed to consider the impact of online search engines, social media and digital content aggregators (digital platforms) on competition in the media and advertising services markets. In accordance with the Terms of Reference (Appendix A), the ACCC has examined the implications of these impacts for media content creators, advertisers and consumers, focussing, in particular, on the impact on news and journalism.The ACCC has benefited from extensive engagement in the course of the Inquiry. Over 120 submissions were received in response to the Preliminary Report published on 10 December 2018, and 60 submissions were received in response to the Issues Paper published on 26 February 2018. The ACCC issued approximately 60 statutory notices under section 95ZK of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 requiring the provision of information and documents to the ACCC. ACCC Commissioners and staff also spoke directly to participants in multiple forums conducted as part of the Inquiry.Since the Preliminary Report was published in December 2018, there have been a number of significant reports commissioned and published by overseas government agencies and expert panels, which have reached many similar findings to the ACCC. The increased international focus on the impact of digital platforms, their business models and the significance of the user data they collect demonstrates the substantial and widespread impact of digital platforms, irrespective of geography ## Media Independence and Sustainability policy brief Written by GFMD’s Executive Director, Mira Milosevic, for the 2020 [Global Conference for Media Freedom](https://www.international.gc.ca/campaign-campagne/media_freedom-liberte_presse-2020/index.aspx?lang=eng) – hosted by the Government of Canada and the Government of Botswana as part of the Media Freedom Coalition – on 16 November 2020, this policy brief provides a short, yet concise overview of the various challenges to media sustainability and independence, particularly in the digital age. Available in [English](https://www.international.gc.ca/campaign-campagne/media_freedom-liberte_presse-2020/policy_paper-documents_orientation-independence-independance.aspx?lang=eng) and [Français](https://www.international.gc.ca/campaign-campagne/media_freedom-liberte_presse-2020/policy_paper-documents_orientation-independence-independance.aspx?lang=fra) # Books ## The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age ([Tim Wu](https://globalreports.columbia.edu/books/the-curse-of-bigness/)) We live in an age of extreme corporate concentration, in which global industries are controlled by just a few giants firms—big banks, big pharma, and big tech, just to name a few. But concern over what Louis Brandeis called the “curse of bigness” can no longer remain the province of specialist lawyers and economists, for it has spilled over into policy and politics, even threatening democracy itself. History suggests that tolerance of inequality and failing to control excessive corporate power may prompt the rise of populism, nationalism, extremist politicians, and fascist regimes. In short, as Wu warns, we are in grave danger of repeating the signature errors of the twentieth century. In The Curse of Bigness, Columbia professor Tim Wu tells of how figures like Brandeis and Theodore Roosevelt first confronted the democratic threats posed by the great trusts of the Gilded Age—but the lessons of the Progressive Era were forgotten in the last 40 years. He calls for recovering the lost tenets of the trustbusting age as part of a broader revival of American progressive ideas as we confront the fallout of persistent and extreme economic inequality. ## New Media Unions: Organizing Digital Journalists ([Nicole S. Cohen and Greig de Peuter](https://www.crcpress.com/New-Media-Unions-Organizing-Digital-Journalists/Cohen-Peuter/p/book/9781138327115)) Investigating the wave of unionization that has seen over 60 digital and legacy media outlets unionize since 2015, this book explores how a flash of organizing by digital-first journalists has become a full-blown movement to unionize journalism, particularly in the United States. Through in-depth interviews with journalists and organizers, New Media Unions maps the process of labor organizing, foregrounding journalists’ voices and documenting a historic and ongoing moment in the digital media industry. Cohen and de Peuter examine what motivates union drives, then follow journalists through the making of a union from scratch. They explore how journalists strategically self-organize, apply their communication skills to alternative ends, generate affective bonds of solidarity, and build power to confront anti-union campaigns and bargain first contracts, winning significant gains and drafting a new labor code for journalism in a digital age. This book demonstrates that if journalism is to have a future, it must be organized. New Media Unions provides a counter-perspective on an industry in flux, whose protagonists—young journalists facing precarious futures—are using collective organizing to articulate a bottom-up vision for journalism’s future. This is a valuable resource for academics and researchers interested in political economy, journalism studies, and labor studies. ## Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern our Digital Lives ([Nicolas P. Suzor](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/lawless/8504E4EC8A74E539D701A04D3EE8D8DE)) Rampant abuse, hate speech, censorship, bias, and disinformation - our Internet has problems. It is governed by technology companies - search engines, social media platforms, and infrastructure providers - whose hidden rules influence what we are allowed to see and say. In Lawless, Nicolas P. Suzor presents gripping examples of exactly how tech companies govern our digital environment and how they bend to pressure from governments and other powerful actors to censor and control the flow of information online. We are at a constitutional moment - an opportunity to rethink the basic rules of how the Internet is governed. Suzor offers a vision of a vibrant, diverse, and flourishing internet that can protect our fundamental rights from the lawless rule of tech. The culmination of more than ten years of original research, this groundbreaking work should be read by anyone who cares about the internet and the future of our shared social spaces. ## How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism ([Cory Doctorow](https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59)) > Surveillance capitalism is everywhere. But it’s not the result of some wrong turn or a rogue abuse of corporate power — it’s the system working as intended. This is the subject of Cory Doctorow’s new book, which we’re thrilled to publish in whole here on OneZero. This is how to destroy surveillance capitalism. # Articles ## Year in review: Everything I wrote about media business and revenue models in 2019 (Damian Radcliffe – [Medium](https://medium.com/damian-radcliffe/year-in-review-everything-i-wrote-about-media-business-and-revenue-models-in-2019-c02717948d73)) > This is the second part of a series bringing together all of my work from the past year. You can see Part One, the four new research reports I dropped in 2019, [here](https://medium.com/damian-radcliffe/2019researchreports-3f88d750a9e9). > > I’ll share additional updates in the coming days related to my output on changing journalistic practice (including local media,) media trends, digital/tech in the Middle East, as well as the podcasts I hosted. ## Why local journalism needs a funding pipeline (Yvonne Leow – [Reynolds Journalism Institute](https://www.rjionline.org/stories/why-local-journalism-needs-a-funding-pipeline)) > In one year, nearly a billion dollars poured into the local news industry from tech companies and philanthropies: > > * March 2018: Google commits [$300 million](https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/03/google-announces-a-300m-google-news-initiative-though-this-isnt-about-giving-out-grants-directly-to-newsrooms-like-it-does-in-europe/) to fund local journalism programs and initiatives; > * January 2019: Facebook pledges [$300 million](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/01/15/facebook-pledges-million-local-journalism-projects/) to support local journalism projects; > * February 2019: The Knight Foundation says it will double its investment in local journalism to [$300 million](https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/knight-foundation-focuses-on-building-the-future-of-local-news-in-300-million-five-year-commitment/) over the next five years (disclosure — I am a consultant for the foundation); > * March 2019: The American Journalism Project announces a [$49 million fund](https://nonprofitquarterly.org/another-nonprofit-news-milestone-ajp-has-a-plan-and-42-million-to-date/) to support local nonprofit newsrooms. > > If you were a budding or seasoned media entrepreneur, the message was clear: Now is the time to start a local news company, and predictably, [many did](https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/10/why-im-starting-a-company-to-build-out-a-new-model-for-local-news-in-the-2020s/). ## Why Facebook Can’t Fix Itself (Andrew Marantz – [The New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/19/why-facebook-cant-fix-itself)) > When [Facebook](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/facebook) was founded, in 2004, the company had few codified rules about what was allowed on the platform and what was not. Charlotte Willner joined three years later, as one of the company’s first employees to moderate content on the site. At the time, she said, the written guidelines were about a page long; around the office, they were often summarized as, “If something makes you feel bad in your gut, take it down.” Her husband, Dave, was hired the following year, becoming one of twelve full-time content moderators. He later became the company’s head of content policy. The guidelines, he told me, “were just a bunch of examples, with no one articulating the reasoning behind them. ‘We delete nudity.’ ‘People aren’t allowed to say nice things about Hitler.’ It was a list, not a framework.” So he wrote a framework. He called the document the Abuse Standards. A few years later, it was given a more innocuous-sounding title: the Implementation Standards. ## Why am I not seeing this ad? (Jan Pieter Balkenende – [EU Observer](https://euobserver.com/opinion/149400)) > Why am I seeing this ad? The question is simple - but the answer is still opaque. It has been some time since Cambridge Analytica shook up the world of political advertising, but its ghost still haunts electoral authorities in EU member states and the European Commission alike. > > As it should, considering the mechanisms that allowed for such political manipulation to happen are still in place. As the EU is looking to regulate social media platforms, the question remains how to deal with political ads. While political ads broadcasted on TV are visible to anyone tuning in to that particular channel, online political ads are often only visible to a homogenous group of people who were targeted with such an ad. ## We will finally confront systemic market failure (Victor Pickard – [NiemanLab](http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/12/we-will-finally-confront-systemic-market-failure/)) > Those unconstrained by market ideology might dare to consider what a new, truly public, digital media system could look like in the United States and beyond.” ## We need to fix the news media, not just social media (Public Knowledge – [Part 1](https://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/part-v-we-need-to-fix-the-news-media-not-just-social-media-part-1/), [Part 2](https://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/part-v-we-need-to-fix-the-news-media-not-just-social-media-part-2/), and [Part 3](https://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/part-v-we-need-to-fix-the-news-media-not-just-social-media-part-3/)) > *Focusing blame Google and Facebook for the decline of in-depth news reporting and print journalism ignores the real and long-standing problems that lie at the heart of our troubled relationship with corporate media. Insisting that these companies should fund existing corporate media, or that we should solve the problem by allowing even more consolidation, would be a disaster for democracy.* ## ‘We can’t reach the women who need us’: the LGBT YouTubers suing the tech giant for discrimination (Jenny Kleeman – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/14/youtube-bria-kam-chrissy-chambers-lesbian-vloggers-lgbtq-discrimination)) The platform made stars of Bria Kam and Chrissy Chambers. But now the duo, along with other gay content creators, say they are losing their voice and their living because of the unfair way an algorithm works ## We can’t fight fake news without saving local journalism (Emily Bell – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/15/we-cant-fight-fake-news-without-saving-local-journalism)) Local news is often trusted more than national news but it is highly vulnerable to online disinformation ## Universal Advertising Transparency by Default joint statement ([EPD and partners](https://epd.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/joint-call-for-universal-ads-transparency.pdf)) > The political campaigning landscape has changed significantly with the digitalisation of our public sphere, which has created new opportunities for political participation, but also poses significant risks to the integrity of elections and political debate. Unlike broadcast political ads shown to the wider public, online ads are tailored to specific homogenous groups of people, which can segment and polarise the voter base and distort political debate. Advertisers can purchase exorbitant amounts of ads and flood people’s social media feeds, thereby buying themselves space in public policy and political debates. The lack of transparency of which ads are shown to whom, why, and who has paid for them, further creates a situation where anyone - from a political party and interest group to a foreign advertising firm like Cambridge Analytica - can distort political debate and easily evade public interest scrutiny. This threatens the credibility of our electoral processes, and ultimately the legitimacy and representativeness of our democracies. > > At the source of these problems lies the lack of transparency offered by digital platforms such as social media sites, video apps and search engines. While some platforms have found ways to provide some transparency on political ads (partly due to pressure by the European Commission), their voluntary measures fall short of providing meaningful transparency. One crucial weakness of the status quo is that it leaves platforms to decide what is and is not political advertising - and thus, what advertising will and will not be subjected to platforms’ transparency regimes. To avoid this issue and to recognise the kind of behavioural targeting and algorithmic delivery that underlies all types of social media advertising, it is necessary to require meaningful default transparency for all ads ## UNCTAD: ARTICLE 19 joins the 18th Intergovernmental Group of Experts’ meeting ([ARTICLE 19](https://www.article19.org/resources/unctad-article-19-joins-the-18th-intergovernmental-group-of-experts-meeting/)) On 10-12 July, ARTICLE 19 attended the [UNCTAD Intergovernmental Group of Experts (IGE) meeting on competition in Geneva](https://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=1895). The event brings together experts and delegations from competition authorities around the world to discuss various challenges related to competition policy and enforcement, with the aim to exchange experiences and best practices. This year’s agenda included, among other things, discussions on competition issues in the digital economy. [ARTICLE 19 has been recently active in the field](https://www.article19.org/resources/how-can-competition-law-help-to-secure-freedom-of-expression-on-social-media/). We are convinced that competition rules can help to secure freedom of expression in a number of digital markets, and in particular in [social media ones](https://www.openglobalrights.org/competition-rules-could-protect-human-rights-on-social-media-platforms/). Against this background, we have submitted a written contribution to the UNCTAD Secretariat in preparation for the IGE meeting, in order to contribute to the debate and share our suggestions and recommendations with attendants as well as with a broader public. ## Threats to media sustainability and freedom of expression in the digital era (Michael J. Oghia & Mira Milosevic – [GFMD](https://medium.com/global-network-initiative-collection/threats-to-media-sustainability-and-freedom-of-expression-in-the-digital-era-by-michael-j-41fab4d8664a)) > Journalists and the news media industry as a whole face unprecedented threats in the changing information environment — economic and market challenges, increasing distrust and denigration of their work, and new forms of digital repression — that are often overlooked in today’s regulatory conversations. Especially now with the perfect storm of disinformation, market destabilization, digital repression of critical voices, and the disruption of our daily lives caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the situation facing journalism and news media is dire. The need to address these challenges are what led us at the Global Forum for Media Development ([GFMD](https://gfmd.info)), an international network of journalism support and media development organizations, to work with our members and partners to establish the Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media ([DC-Sustainability](https://groups.io/g/dc-sustainability)). The DC-Sustainability is an open, multi-stakeholder initiative operating within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that already includes multiple Global Network Initiative (GNI) members, and seeks to work more with GNI via GFMD to promote one of our core shared concerns: protecting our online information ecosystems by promoting human rights, press freedom, and access to information. ## The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data ([The Economist](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/the-worlds-most-valuable-resource-is-no-longer-oil-but-data)) > A NEW commodity spawns a lucrative, fast-growing industry, prompting antitrust regulators to step in to restrain those who control its flow. A century ago, the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns are being raised by the giants that deal in data, the oil of the digital era. These titans—Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft—look unstoppable. They are the five most valuable listed firms in the world. Their profits are surging: they collectively racked up over $25bn in net profit in the first quarter of 2017. Amazon captures half of all dollars spent online in America. Google and Facebook accounted for almost all the revenue growth in digital advertising in America last year. ## The Truth Is Paywalled But The Lies Are Free ([Current Affairs](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/08/the-truth-is-paywalled-but-the-lies-are-free)) > *Is there a justifiable rationale for treating ideas—and particularly stories—as a form of “property”? One obvious reason for doing so is to ensure that writers and other creators don’t starve to death: In our present-day capitalist utopia, if a writer’s output can be brazenly copied and profited upon by others, they won’t have any meaningful ability to make a living off their work, especially if they’re an independent creator without any kind of institutional affiliation or preexisting wealth.* ## The media’s post-advertising future is also its past ([The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/post-advertising-future-media/578917/)) > There have been layoffs across Vox Media, *Vice*, and *BuzzFeed* (and dubious talk of an [emergency merger](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/business/media/buzzfeed-jonah-peretti-mergers.html)). *Mic*, once valued at $100 million, [fired](https://www.recode.net/2018/11/29/18117787/mic-layoffs-staff-bustle-facebook) most of its staff and sold for $5 million. Verizon took a nearly $5 billion write-down on its digital media unit, which includes AOL and Yahoo. Reuters announced plans to lay off more than 3,000 people in the next two years. The disease seems widespread, affecting venture-capital darlings and legacy brands, [flattening local news](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/crazygenius-who-killed-local-news/570160/) while punishing international wires. Almost no one is safe, and almost [everyone is for sale](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/a-generation-of-digital-media-darlings-prepares-for-a-frigid-winter). It’s tempting to think that this is the inevitable end game of Google and Facebook’s duopoly. The two companies already receive more than half of all the dollars spent on digital advertising, and they [commanded](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/technology/google-facebook-dominance-hurts-ad-tech-firms-speeding-consolidation.html) 90 percent of the growth in digital ad sales last year. But what’s happening in media right now is more complex. We’re seeing the convergence of four trends. ## Targeted advertising is ruining the Internet and breaking the world (Nathalie Maréchal – [Motherboard](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xwjden/targeted-advertising-is-ruining-the-internet-and-breaking-the-world)) > In his testimony to the US Senate last spring, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg emphasized that his company doesn’t sell user data, as if to reassure policymakers and the public. But the reality—that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other social media companies sell access to our attention—is just as concerning. Actual user information may not change hands, but the advertising business model drives company decision making in ways that are ultimately toxic to society. As sociologist Zeynep Tufekci put it in her 2017 TED talk, “[we’re building a dystopia just to make people click on ads](https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads).” ## Restoring competition in ”winner-took-all” digital platform markets ([UNCTAD](https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=2279)) > Digital platforms are at the centre of the global economy and daily lives of consumers.A handful of these platforms have become dominant in specific markets without facing meaningful competition. They include Amazon as a marketplace, Facebook in social networking, Google in search engines and Apple and Google in application stores. > > Digital platforms rely on big data and are characterized as multisided markets with economies of scale, network effects and winner-takes-all features. These firms offer their products for “free” on one side of the market and earn revenues from online advertising and selling user data on the other side of the market. ## Public investments for global news (Victor Pickard – [Centre for International Governance Innovation](https://www.cigionline.org/articles/public-investments-global-news)) Commercial journalism is failing in many countries around the world.[1](https://www.cigionline.org/articles/public-investments-global-news/#footnote1) Numerous factors contribute to this crisis, but at its root lies a “systemic market failure” in which for-profit news institutions, in particular those that depend on advertising revenue, are increasingly unviable. Symptomatic of this broader decline, traditional news organizations’ cost-cutting measures are depriving international news operations of the considerable resources they need to survive. In recognition of this systemic failure, a healthy global civil society requires structural alternatives — specifically, non-market models — to support adequate levels of journalism. In particular, we need a large global trust fund to finance international investigative reporting. Given their role in hastening the decline of journalism and proliferating misinformation, platform monopolies should contribute to this fund to offset social harms. While setting up such a fund will be novel in many respects, there are models and policy instruments we can use to imagine how it could support the public service journalism that the market no longer sustains. ## Public infrastructure isn’t just bridges and water mains: Here’s an argument for extending the concept to digital spaces (Joshua Benton – [NeimanLab](https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/01/public-infrastructure-isnt-just-bridges-and-water-mains-heres-an-argument-for-extending-the-concept-to-digital-spaces/)) > “Our solutions cannot be limited to asking these platforms to do a better job of meeting their civic obligations — we need to consider what technologies we want and need for digital media to have a productive role in democratic societies.” ## News media needs to convince readers to open their wallets. Consolidation has not helped (Elizabeth Hansen and Elizabeth Anne Watkins – [Columbia Journalism Review](https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/newsroom-consolidation-product.php)) > Getting the editorial, business, and product teams of a news organization to work together is difficult for any publisher. But our data suggest that the uphill battle is particularly steep for legacy publishers, many of which have made decisions to centralize their product and analytics teams in ways that don’t serve the cause of reader-driven revenue. Those teams would be better able to help newsrooms attract paying readers if they were instead working much closer to the reporters, editors, and communities their newsrooms serve. > > To highlight this, we offer insights from two ongoing studies. The first is an offshoot of [the Tow Platform Press study](https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/the-platform-press-at-the-heart-of-journalism.php/), in which we are tracking workplace changes in mainstream digital and legacy newsrooms as they navigate third-party distribution platforms. That study began in January 2018 with 23 interviews across six newsrooms. The second is [the Single Subject News study](https://medium.com/single-subject-news-project/welcome-to-the-single-subject-news-projects-blog-cb6fbcaed2eb) at the [Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics, and Public Policy](https://shorensteincenter.org/). That study is an 18-month investigation into the audience development work of nine topically focused, digital newsrooms. ## Media Viability: 6 strategies for success ([MDIF / DW Akademie](https://www.dw.com/en/media-viability-6-strategies-for-success/a-48851981)) *Media Development Investment Fund (*[*MDIF*](https://www.mdif.org/)*) gives financial and technical assistance to more than 100 media companies in 40 countries. In this guest post, MDIF’s Valer Kot and Peter Whitehead share insights from their experiences and from a media viability survey that looked at media organizations across the globe. Valer Kot is Senior Media Advisor at MDIF, Peter Whitehead is Director of Communications.* What is the biggest threat to independent media? Physical violence? Jailing? Local oligarchs capturing ownership? Though all are important and happen with worrying regularity, according to the media companies we work with the answer is something else. When asked to prioritise threats to their existence, our clients gave a clear, but less eye-catching, answer: Economics. ## It’s time to reboot the startup economy (Tim Wu – [OneZero](https://onezero.medium.com/its-time-to-reboot-the-startup-economy-822d65f9a19)) The new laws and antitrust actions that would resurrect American innovation. ## It’s not that we’ve failed to rein in Facebook and Google. We’ve not even tried (Shoshana Zuboff – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/02/facebook-google-data-change-our-behaviour-democracy#comments)) > In a BBC interview last week, Facebook’s vice-president, [Nick Clegg](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48740231), surprised viewers by calling for new “rules of the road” on privacy, data collection and other company practices that have attracted heavy criticism during the past year. “It’s not for private companies … to come up with those rules,” he insisted. “It is for democratic politicians in the democratic world to do so.” > > Facebook’s response would be to adopt a “mature role”, not “shunning” but “advocating” the new rules. For a company that has fiercely resisted new laws, Clegg’s message aimed to persuade us that the page had turned. Yet his remarks sounded like Newspeak, as if to obscure ugly facts. ## Internet economics is a thing, and we need to take note (Geoff Huston – [RIPE Labs](https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/internet-economics-is-a-thing-and-we-need-to-take-note)) > In this article I talk about consolidation, the fact that more and more data traffic goes ‘dark’ and the importance of open measurement platforms and open data sets. We need public measurements that are impartial, accurate, comprehensive and of course unbiased as an essential precondition for the fair and effective operation of markets. ## How to evaluate commercial revenue as a sustainability strategy for investigative media organisations ([GIJN](https://gijn.org/how-to-evaluate-commercial-revenue-as-a-sustainability-strategy-for-investigative-media-organizations)) > Nonprofit investigative journalism organizations are increasingly borrowing strategies from larger commercial publishers to supplement their grant funding and to extend their impact. While membership and subscription strategies are focused on your consumers, commercial revenue strategies mean making deals with other institutions. > > There are three broad categories of commercial revenue strategies, each defined by what is being sold. > > 1. **Advertising:** Selling marketers and advertising agencies access to your audience. > 2. **Syndication:** Selling other publishers access to your reporting or other internal data/information. > 3. **Services:** Selling other companies or institutions access to your skills or expertise. ## How can competition law help to secure freedom of expression on social media? ([ARTICLE 19](https://www.article19.org/resources/how-can-competition-law-help-to-secure-freedom-of-expression-on-social-media/)) > Facebook, Twitter and Google are now the most prominent fora for individuals to exercise their right to freedom of expression. People around the world rely on these platforms not only for sharing their opinions and views with others, but also as a major source of information about politics and current affairs. > > Individuals’ freedom of expression and right to information, however, is currently under threat from these platforms. The platforms have a huge role in deciding what people post, see and share online, through the systems they use to moderate and remove user-produced content on different grounds. These systems, under the standardized Terms or Services (ToS), include grounds aimed at tackling hate speech, misinformation and terrorism, but can also be focused on placating political requirements, or boosting commercial confidence in the platforms. ## Global journalism is fighting for international development funding but shouldn’t need to. Especially now. (Rieneke Van Santen – [Medium](https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/global-journalism-is-fighting-for-international-development-funding-but-shouldnt-need-to-96f75e632f59)) > As governments struggle in response to COVID-19, long-term investments in global media are needed to keep people safe and newsrooms healthy. Journalism is in a rough place. As the world relies more heavily on independent fact-based health information due to the pandemic, journalists everywhere are under increased pressure and in the line of fire, and not just figuratively speaking. > > Global independent media find themselves in the vulnerable position of waiting for governments and donors to decide on their future funding as they adapt to the COVID-19 crisis. ## Foundation grants have strings attached, and nonprofit journalists sometimes don’t like being told what to do by them (Laura Hazard Owen and Joshua Benton – [NiemanLab](https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/01/foundation-grants-have-strings-attached-and-nonprofit-journalists-sometimes-dont-like-being-told-what-to-do-by-them/)) Foundation grants have strings attached, and nonprofit journalists sometimes don’t like being told what to do by them. But comparing grant money to advertisers trying to sway coverage seems a bit much. ## Facebook just dealt another potentially lethal blow to local journalism ([CNN Business](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/29/perspectives/facebook-news-local/index.html)) > After years of losing advertisers and readers to the social media platform, the larger publishing industry is undoubtedly excited to be getting paid for its content. Plus, they will finally have access to Facebook's two billion users and steady revenue. But there will likely be some major collateral damage as a result of this deal: The likely obliteration of local news. > News aggregation seems to be all the rage right now. Last week, CNN [announced](https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?u=47c9040f6ff957a59bd88396e\&id=fdd0b59e42) it would launch a digital news service to compete with Facebook and Apple News, and pay news organizations to carry their content. A few months ago, News Corp. [announced](https://mailchi.mp/cnn/rs-aug-22-2019) a similar product called Knewz. ## Facebook and Google should pay for the news they use (Courtney C. Radsch – [Thomson Reuters Foundation](https://news.trust.org/item/20210129143656-ok269/)) A proposed law in Australia would force Facebook and Google to pay for the news they use to improve their feeds and search results ## Disinformation sites generate over $200 million: study ([DW Akademie](https://www.dw.com/en/disinformation-sites-generate-over-200-million-study/a-50537297)) > Ad revenue has effectively sustained websites flagged as disinformation sources with millions of dollars, according to a study. Despite talk of regulation, experts told DW the issue needs a "whole-of-industry solution." ## Digital platforms, regulation, and media sustainability: A lesson for Europe from Down Under ([GFMD](https://gfmd.info/digital-platforms-regulation-and-media-sustainability-a-lesson-for-europe-from-down-under/)) > The EC is [not alone](https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/a-guide-to-anti-misinformation-actions-around-the-world/) in its efforts to address the rise of online disinformation and misinformation campaigns. Countering propaganda has long been part of a government’s mandate, yet the open, fast-paced nature of social media presents new obstacles in this years-long struggle against untruthful information. Indeed, given the reality of today’s online environment and what it means for conveying accurate, high-quality information, it is important to address underlying mechanisms that have enabled the manipulation of online information spaces in the first place. By also addressing how information is created and disseminated from a market viewpoint, not simply a content viewpoint, it paints a more holistic picture of the challenges faced in keeping a citizenry informed. > > A positive example of this holistic view was recently presented by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which [published](https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry/preliminary-report) a comprehensive preliminary report on their Digital Platforms Inquiry as a result of a year-long open consultation process. This landmark document is meant to consider the wider impact of digital platforms on society. It also addresses key concerns about the role global digital platforms play in the supply of news and journalism in Australia, “what responsibility they should hold as gateways to information and business, and the extent to which they should be accountable for their influence.” Ultimately, the report stressed that digitalisation and the increase in online sources of news and media content highlight how the current sector-specific approach to media regulation is inadequate ## Competition rules could protect human rights on social media platforms (Maria Luisa Stasi – [OpenGlobalRights](https://www.openglobalrights.org/competition-rules-could-protect-human-rights-on-social-media-platforms/)) > Social media platforms are abusing their dominant position and exploiting users with terms of service that fail to protect their human rights. Competition rules could help fix the problem. ## Can Independent Journalism Thrive under Paywalls? (Prateek Sibal – [Economic and Political Weekly](https://www.epw.in/engage/article/can-independent-journalism-thrive-under)) > Paywalls divide the public sphere by exacerbating information inequalities and thwarting a common understanding of what constitutes a public good, thereby hurting democracy. ## “Big tech is watching you. Who’s watching big tech?” The Markup is finally ready for liftoff (Sarah Scire – [NiemanLab](https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/02/big-tech-is-watching-you-whos-watching-big-tech-the-markup-is-finally-ready-for-liftoff)) > After a false start, the unconventional team of algorithm investigators is ready to dive deep. “I’ve heard that we are tying our hands behind our backs, but there must be a way to engage an audience without subjecting readers to a surveillance ecosystem.” ## Australia is making Google and Facebook pay for news: what difference will the code make? (Amanda Meade – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/09/australia-is-making-google-and-facebook-pay-for-news-what-difference-will-the-code-make)) > The Australian government [tabled world-first media legislation](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/08/abc-can-keep-google-and-facebook-payments-for-news-coalition-says) in parliament on Wednesday that will force Google and Facebook to negotiate a fair payment with news organisations for using their content in Facebook’s newsfeed and Google’s search. > > The Australian law is separate to a recent deal [Facebook](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook) made to [pay mainstream UK news outlets](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/01/facebook-to-pay-uk-media-millions-to-licence-news-stories) millions of pounds a year to license their articles, but has a similar motivation. The social network signed the deals as it faces the threat of a government crackdown over its dominance of online advertising. ## American journalism is dying. Its survival requires public funds (Victor Pickard – [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/19/american-journalism-press-publishing-mcclatchy)) > Maintaining public media infrastructure should be non-negotiable for a democratic society. ## Advertising is the Internet’s original sin ([The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/)) > [Ron Carlson’s](http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=5395) short story [“What We Wanted To Do”](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/61/transcript) takes the form of an apology from a villager who failed to protect his comrades from marauding Visigoths. It begins: > > > What we wanted to do was spill boiling oil onto the heads of our enemies as they attempted to bang down the gates of our village. But as everyone now knows, we had some problems, primarily technical problems, that prevented us from doing what we wanted to do the way we had hoped to do it. What we’re asking for today is another chance. > > There’s little suspense in the story—the disastrous outcome is obvious from the first paragraph—but it works because of the poignancy of the apology. All of us have screwed up situations in our lives so badly that we’ve been forced to explain our actions by reminding everyone of our good intentions. *It’s obvious now that what we did was a fiasco, so let me remind you that what we* wanted *to do was something brave and noble.* ## A long, slow slog, with no one coming to the rescue (Rasmus Kleis Nielsen – [Nieman Lab](http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-long-slow-slog-with-no-one-coming-to-the-rescue/)) > 2019 will be another terrible year for the business of news, and journalists will have to face the harsh reality that no one will come to their rescue — not benign billionaires, not platform companies, and not policymakers. ## A digital declaration: On big data as surveillance capitalism (Shoshana Zuboff – [Frankfurter Allgemeine](https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/the-digital-debate/shoshan-zuboff-on-big-data-as-surveillance-capitalism-13152525.html)) > In the cove below our window a pair of loons returns each spring from their distant travels. For many months we are lulled to sleep by their cries of homecoming, renewal, and protection. Green turtles hatch on the beach and go down to the sea where they travel thousands of miles for a decade or two before they retrace the path to that patch of beach and lay their eggs. > > This theme of “nostos”, finding home, is at the root of all things human too. We yearn for the place in which life has been known to flourish. Humans can choose the form of home , but it is always where we know and where we are known; where we love and are beloved. Home is voice and sanctuary— part freedom, part solace. ## 5 Business Models for Local News to Watch in 2020 ([GIJN](https://gijn.org/2020/01/27/5-business-models-for-local-news-to-watch-in-2020)) > he search for new financial models to support quality journalism is taking a decidedly local turn in the United States. Small-city US papers are failing in droves as analysts warn about growing regions of “news deserts” — communities without dependable sources of local and regional news. > > ([Editor](https://gijn.org/2020/01/27/5-business-models-for-local-news-to-watch-in-2020/)'s note) ## Media Sustainability and Digital Markets The sustainability and economic viability of journalism and news media is one of – if not *the –* most critical issues currently facing the sector. Yet, global debates raging in legislatures and policy circles often overlook or minimise their attention to the news, journalism, and information ecosystems, and the implications of digital platforms’ market power on access and the availability of quality news content online. This includes the wider impact that the digital economy and platforms have on society. Any serious effort to address the myriad problems plaguing digital platforms must also address the challenges faced by news media. In other words, content-related issues must also be seen within the wider context of market-related challenges, while clearly distinguishing content regulation from market regulation vis-a-vis platforms. In order to foster a pluralistic media ecosystem that detects disinformation and produces high-quality, fact-based news, media sustainability must be considered a significant priority. As more of our lives and subsequent outcomes of our decision-making are transformed into data, the uninhibited and opaque collection, use, and trade of personal data by several companies has created virtual (data) monopolies and bottlenecks to efficient and freely functioning digital marketplaces. Moreover, barriers to entry for new, innovative services are constantly rising, while the space for public services, including public service journalism, is rapidly shrinking. Multibillion-dollar technology companies compete directly with media companies for the attention, loyalty, and engagement of users, as well as for the wallets of every advertising company that used to help support the business model of journalism. Therefore, discussions about media sustainability in the digital age must address market-related issues, the role of major platforms, and myriad other issues related to business models, advertising, and funding high-quality journalism. GFMD is addressing this within the Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media ([DC-sustainability](https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-the-sustainability-of-journalism-and-news-media-dc-sustainability)), a GFMD-led, multi-stakeholder initiative within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), our Internet Governance Working Group, as well as through our advocacy efforts (e.g., our [issue paper](https://bit.ly/IssuePaperV4), and our [blog post](https://gfmd.info/digital-platforms-regulation-and-media-sustainability-a-lesson-for-europe-from-down-under/) titled, “Digital platforms, regulation, and media sustainability: A lesson for Europe from Down Under”). ## Threats to Media Sustainability and Freedom of Expression in the Digital Era Written by GFMD, [this post](https://medium.com/global-network-initiative-collection/threats-to-media-sustainability-and-freedom-of-expression-in-the-digital-era-by-michael-j-41fab4d8664a) was written for the Global Network Initiative (GNI) blog ahead of World Press Freedom Day 2020. # Research, handbooks & reports ## New North-South Issues in the Digital Economy ([CETRI](https://www.cetri.be/New-North-South-issues-in-the?lang=fr)) > The production, development and dissemination of digital technologies are raising concerns - political, economic, and environmental - that are increasingly being debated. However, their consequences on North-South relations are still too often ignored. Yet they run the risk of deepening inequalities, while creating new forms of dependence and exploitation. ## More than money: Rethinking media viability in the digital age ([DW Akademie](https://www.dw.com/downloads/47825755/dwa-discussion-paper-media-viabilityweb.pdf)) This paper presents a new model for Media Viability at a time when media outlets face enormous difficulties delivering quality reporting while staying financially afloat. Many of these challenges come in the wake of the digital transformation, which has disrupted busi-ness models and changed media consumption habits. We argue that what is needed is a broader view of Media Viability, one that looks beyond the money. Our model looks at five dimensions—economics, politics, content, technology, and the community—and three levels: media organizations, networks, and the overall framework. This allows for the development of more effective Media Viability strategies and projects. ## Money, money, money: Taxing tech may be key to the survival of journalism ([Ethical Journalism Network](https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/money-taxing-tech-survival-journalism)) > The EJN has begun to work on ways in which media can improve their performance. Our [ethical media audits](https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/media-standards-model-auditing-transparency-good-governance-ethics-journalism) provide a route map towards good governance in the digital age and our promotion of core values and standards to combat hate-speech give a flavour of the editorial culture that must prevail if independent journalism is to get access to the new forms of funding. ## Media Development Indicators ([UNESCO](https://en.unesco.org/programme/ipdc/initiatives/mdis)) In accordance with its standard-setting role, [IPDC](http://en.unesco.org/programme/ipdc) has developed a comprehensive set of Media Development Indicators (MDIs) aimed at enabling the assessment of media landscapes at national level. These indicators, that cover all aspects of media development, are currently being applied in various countries worldwide to identify their specific needs in view of guiding the formulation of media-related policies and improving the targeting of media development efforts. ## La convergencia de medios, telecomunicaciones e Internet en la perspectiva de la competencia: Hacia un enfoque multicomprensivo ([UNESCO Montevideo](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370195)) > After consulting Latin American regulators in the area of defense of competition, specialists in the region in the field and presenting an updated state of the art of the debate about the relevance of economic competition approaches to seek clear answers for the new problems of a convergent environment in communications, the document makes recommendations with the aim of improving the design of public policies both in the field of information and communication services, and in those that serve economic competition, harmonizing fields and disciplines that were not conceived in an articulated way.In this context, the policy paper is proposed as an input for public policies and a contribution to optimize the understanding of current phenomena with deep repercussions in the culture, information and com-munication of societies and individuals. ## It’s Not Just the Content, It’s the Business Model: Democracy’s Online Speech Challenge ([Ranking Digital Rights](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/its-not-just-content-its-business-model/)) > This report, the first in a two-part series, articulates the connection between surveillance-based business models and the health of democracy. Drawing from Ranking Digital Rights’s extensive research on corporate policies and digital rights, we examine two overarching types of algorithms, give examples of how these technologies are used both to propagate and prohibit different forms of online speech (including targeted ads), and show how they can cause or catalyze social harm, particularly in the context of the 2020 U.S. election. We also highlight what we don’t know about these systems, and call on companies to be much more transparent about how they work. > > (abstract) ## Inside the chaos of brand safety technology ([Branded](https://branded.substack.com/p/inside-the-chaos-of-brand-safety?r=3aqd4\&utm_campaign=post\&utm_medium=web\&utm_source=copy)) > Every day, a handful of tech companies decide how billions of advertising dollars will be spent on the web. We don’t see these decisions take place, but brand safety algorithms scan every page and every piece of content we look at to decide whether it’s “safe” before serving an ad. > > These millions of little verdicts add up. They determine who on the web gets monetized — and who gets blocked. > > It’s a big responsibility, and it appears, one they do not take seriously. While brand safety tech companies have been extremely secretive about how it all works, it turns out they have also been unwittingly sharing their own proprietary data all this time. ## Inflection Point: Impact, Threats, and Sustainability – A study of Latin American digital media entrepreneurs ([SembraMedia](http://data.sembramedia.org/) – PDFs: [EN](http://data.sembramedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Inflection-Point-SembraMedia-eng-7-20.pdf), [ES](http://data.sembramedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Punto-de-Inflexion-SembraMedia-span-7-24.pdf), [PT](http://data.sembramedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Ponto-de-Inflexao-SembraMedia-port-7-20.pdf)) > This report is aimed at helping the founders of digital media startups better understand the trends, threats, and best practices that affect them. It is also designed to help investors, foundations, and journalism organizations to appreciate the value, vulner-ability, and impact of this fast-growing media ecosystem. Although we cannot share their pro-prietary data, we’ve included our top-level find-ings in this report. ## How Big Is the Reporting Gap? To save journalism, we must understand what we’ve lost — and what’s worth saving ([Free Press](https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/2020-06/free_press_reporting_gap_analysis_report.pdf)) > The newspaper industry, policymakers and advocates for quality journalism must acknowledge that the internet’s ability to lower entry barriers for content production and distribution renders the old newspaper commercial-business model inoperable. We can lament the changes brought by the move of information (and ad revenues) online, but that won’t change the fact that newspapers no longer have a near- monopoly on the production and distribution of daily-updated local news and information. ## Holding Platforms Accountable: Online Speech in the Age of Algorithms ([Open Technology Institute/New America](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/report-series-content-shaping-modern-era/)) Internet platforms are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence and machine-learning tools in order to shape the content we see and engage with online. However, there is often a lack of transparency around how these automated tools are leveraged. This raises questions regarding how algorithmic tools impact user expression, how platforms safeguard user rights, and how these companies can be held accountable for their practices. This project at New America’s Open Technology Institute seeks to explore how internet platforms use automated tools in four key areas, and how companies, policymakers, civil society, and researchers can promote greater fairness, accountability, and transparency around algorithmic decision-making. ## Guide to audience revenue and engagement ([Tow Center](https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/guide-to-audience-revenue-and-engagement.php)) > This report is intended to aid staff from news organizations and media entrepreneurs who wish to grow their revenue by deepening interactions with their audiences. It’s based on hundreds of conversations and interviews with journalists, managers, and members themselves, including newsroom fieldwork and observation, as well as focus groups with supporters of news sites. We use these findings to share strategic and tactical considerations for building audience revenue programs. We also share detailed examples of ways that news organizations around the world are experimenting with new approaches to raising funds and supporting myriad forms of audience participation. ## Google, the media patron: How the digital giant woos journalism ([Otto Brenner Foundation](https://www.otto-brenner-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_data/stiftung/02_Wissenschaftsportal/02_Infoseiten/AH103/AH103_Google_Executive_Summary_ENG.pdf)) > The study describes how Google has funnelled more than 200 million euro in cash gifts to European media since 2013, while at the same time the company has resisted po-litical efforts in Europe to force it to share advertising revenue with ailing publishing houses. Google’s first fund was created in France in 2013 to appease publishers call-ing for a “Google tax” on digital advertising. This provided a template for the future, as the study’s analysis of the origins of the Google News Initiative shows. The study de-scribes how Google’s attention and gifts have transformed the relationship between the Silicon Valley company and German publishing houses. Findings are based on anonymised interviews with 25 German media executives and journalists covering dig-ital media, a data analysis of 645 projects funded by Google’s Digital News Initiative (DNI) in Europe between 2015 and 2019, as well as a survey on the use of Google tools among German media houses. The research is flanked by an interview with two key figures in Google’s European news division and supported by an in-depth analysis of source material on origins of Google’s journalism initiative. ## Google Benefits from News Content ([News Media Alliance](http://www.newsmediaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Google-Benefit-from-News-Content.pdf)) > The following study analyzeshow Google uses and benefits from news. The main components of the study are: a qualitative overview of Google’s usage of news content, an analysis of news content on Google Search, and an estimate of revenue Google receives from news ## Global Media Philanthropy: What Funders Need to Know About Data, Trends, and Pressing Issues Facing the Field ([Media Impact Funders](https://mediaimpactfunders.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Gates-Report-Final-3-26-19.pdf)) > It is imperative that the philanthropic community collectively seek to better understand how the media funding landscape is being shaped by a variety of actors and stakeholders around the world. Improving the mechanisms for capturing and analyzing global media funding trends is not only relevant for foundations focused on traditional media issues such as freedom of expression and journalism support, but also for donors working on healthcare, economic security, environmental issues and human rights. As the reach of media extends, it impacts all issues and areas of philanthropic giving.With support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Media Impact Funders has been researching worldwide trends, challenges and opportunities for media funding. The research in this report draws on a variety of sources: data from the media data map through 2015, results from a survey of leading organizations engaged in funding media-related projects around the world, analyses of existing literature and reports, and insights offered by experts across a range of media funding issues. ## Global Expression Report 2018/19: Monday and the Media ([ARTICLE 19](https://www.article19.org/reader/global-expression-report-2018-19/global-analysis/global-analysis-2/media/money-and-the-media/)) > A favourable economic environment is key for both the exercise of media freedom and a diverse media landscape. However, media are under serious economic pressure and challenges, including loss of audience share (to social media) and losses in advertising revenue. ## Getting to the Source of Infodemics: It’s the Business Model ([Ranking Digital Rights](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/getting-to-the-source-of-infodemics-its-the-business-model/)) > We offer some thoughts about how civil society stakeholders, including researchers, journalists, and advocacy and grassroots organizations, are critical to addressing accountability gaps, especially in the absence of effective regulation and oversight. We also explain why companies must proactively engage with civil society as a part of their efforts to mitigate the negative social impacts of their business models. ## Funding the News: Foundations and Nonprofit Media ([Shorenstein Center](https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NisbetWihbeyetal2018_FundingtheNews_ShorensteinCenter_June18.pdf)) > Several funding categories we assessed were not of primary interest to our study but represented activities or initiatives intended to enhance the field of journalism and its public understanding. These other categories of grants reflect the tough choices that funders face, as prioritizing one of these areas, even if to improve the practice and reach of journalism in society, may take away from direct support for news production. ## Funding Journalism, Finding Innovation: Success Stories and Ideas for Creative, Sustainable Partnerships ([Shorenstein Center](https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Journalism-Funders-Case-Studies.pdf)) > Here at Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center, we’re focused on the nexus of media, politics and public policy. As such, we have an unwavering commitment to advancing journalism both as a trade and national resource. To address these issues and challenges in the space, we have collaborated with Media Impact Funders—a network of funders who support media and technology in the public interest—to produce this resource, which serves to highlight innovative funding methods in journalism. We couldn’t be prouder to team up with such an important organization as MIF. The work they’re doing to promote journalism across the country is absolutely critical, and they have been—and continue to be—a tremendous partner to Shorenstein.While this guide shows only a small sampling of how funders and publishers are working together to financially sustain the fourth estate, we hope that it nonetheless serves as a starting point for your own work by providing solid examples of groundbreaking funding efforts—ones that are both pioneering and effective. ## From start to success: A handbook for digital media entrepreneurs ([DW Akademie](https://www.dw.com/en/from-start-to-success-new-handbook-to-support-startups-striving-for-media-viability/a-54856371)) > The handbook presents a three-step approach: the start phase, growth phase and the media viability phase. It highlights an approach that focuses not only on revenue streams — an area that many startups put too much emphasis on — but aspects of the business such as human resources and audience engagement, which are crucial for achieving media viability. > > Each chapter of the handbook explores one of the three steps in depth. In the first chapter, we hear from six startups in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). They share their experiences of turning an idea into a reality and share the knowledge they learned during the start phase focusing on revenue streams, audience engagement, collaboration and donors' motives. > > In chapter two, seven startups from the Asia region dive into structure and growth. There is a particular focus on diversifying revenue streams, staffing and internal organization, identifying a core mission and capitalizing on your strengths. > > Chapter three features eight startups from Latin American countries who impart their knowledge on sustaining the success they have achieved. It rounds up the important lessons that digital media entrepreneurs should carry with them at all times. Community building, producing a quality product and involving the whole team in decision making processes are key. ## Friend and Foe: The Platform Press at the Heart of Journalism ([Tow Center/CJR](https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/the-platform-press-at-the-heart-of-journalism.php)) > The relationship between technology platforms and news publishers has endured a fraught 18 months. Even so, the external forces of civic and regulatory pressure are hastening a convergence between the two at an accelerated rate beyond what we saw when we published our first report from this study, “[The Platform Press: How Silicon Valley Reengineered Journalism](https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/platform-press-how-silicon-valley-reengineered-journalism.php#executive-summary),” in March 2017. Journalism has played a critical part in pushing for accountability into the practices of companies such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter, yet newsrooms are increasingly oriented toward understanding and leveraging platforms as part of finding a sustainable future. > > In the latest phase of our multi-year research into the relationship between platforms and publishers, we found that despite negative rhetoric and sentiment in newsrooms toward technology companies, there is a rapid and ongoing merging in the functions of publishers and platforms, and an often surprisingly high level of involvement from platform companies in influencing news production. ## Freedom and Accountability A Transatlantic Framework for Moderating Speech Online ([Annenberg Public Policy Center, UPenn](https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/feature/transatlantic-working-group-freedom-and-accountability/)) > Over the three multiday sessions during a yearlong journey together, the views of many members evolved as we set our course during a rocky period for tech/government relations in Europe and North America. Conducting our sessions under the Chatham House Rule fostered trust that facilitated candid and productive debate. We did not seek unanimity on every conclusion or recommendation, recognizing that diverse perspectives could not always be reconciled. This final report of the Transatlantic Working Group reflects views expressed during our discussions and charts a path forward. ## Framing Brief on Content Moderation Challenges in time of COVID-19 ([Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network](https://www.internetjurisdiction.net/news/i-jpn-secretariat-issues-framing-brief-on-content-moderation-challenges-in-time-of-covid-19)) > The I\&JPN Secretariat [Framing Brief](https://www.internetjurisdiction.net/uploads/pdfs/Internet-Jurisdiction-Policy-Network-20-104-Content-Moderation-COVID-19.pdf) aims to help actors analyse the complex policy issues surrounding content moderation in relation to COVID-19. The document includes a set of **framing questions** all actors can use to analyze content moderation in this exceptional context and evaluate the impact. The COVID-19 crisis sheds a new light on the role of internet intermediaries as information service providers and commerce platforms. Major internet platforms have become important information sources and many have announced that due to the inability of their moderators to access the necessary tools from home, they will need to rely more on AI moderation tools. Online marketplaces and e-commerce infrastructure platforms are also facing a proliferation of fake cures and profiteering.\ > \ > The pandemic brings to the fore some important and concrete issues in direct relation to the work of the stakeholders in the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network. Building on interactions with Members of the [Content & Jurisdiction Program Contact Group](https://www.internetjurisdiction.net/news/contact-groups-formed-to-implement-the-berlin-roadmap), the I\&JPN Secretariat has developed a Framing Brief on Content Moderation Challenges in time of COVID-19.\ > \ > Several years of experience facilitating policy discussions among public, private and civil society actors in the I\&JPN’s three [Programs](https://www.internetjurisdiction.net/work), demonstrate the importance of **common framing questions** to properly address an issue, design policy solutions and evaluate their impact. ## Firming Up Democracy’s Soft Underbelly: Authoritarian Influence and Media Vulnerability ([NED](https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Firming-Up-Democracys-Soft-Underbelly-Authoritarian-Influence-and-Media-Vulnerability-Lucas.pdf)) > Over the past decade, Russia, China, and other authoritarian regimes have invested tens of billions of dollars in media enterprises and information initiatives to manipulate, distort, and censor the global information environment. While the perpetrators may have different goals or motives, they often adopt the same tactic: buy what you can—and befuddle the rest. ## Facebook Friends? The Impact of Facebook’s News Feed Algorithm Changes on Nonprofit Publishers ([Shorenstein Center](https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018.Facebook_Friends.pdf)) > In 2006, Facebook created a new product that would profoundly alter thenews-consuming habits of many, shift how news organizations thought aboutdistributing digital content, and even influence the course of elections andmodern democracy. The company introduced the “News Feed,” as a centralplace where a user could see all the changes that had happened on the socialnetwork while they had been away (Sanghvi 2006). It began with updatessuch as who had become friends with whom, which groups users had joined,or (always popular with college students) who had changed their relation-ship status. As Slate’s senior technology reporter Will Oremus put it, theNews Feed was “a hub for updates about your friends’ activities on the site”(Oremus 2016). > > (Intro) ## Essential Platforms ([Stanford Technology Law Review](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3703361)) > Digital platforms are the railroads of the modern era. In the early twentieth century, a vast railroad network stretched from coast to coast, forming the backbone of commerce in the United States. Bridges and tunnels were essential to reach certain destinations and, sometimes, entire regions. Control over these bottlenecks in railroad networks enabled gatekeeping monopolists to exclude competitors from crucial markets. In response, the Supreme Court imposed a novel remedy by granting competitors access to this critical infrastructure under the Sherman Act—an approach known as the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine. > > Today, digital platforms serve as essential facilities for the digital economy—a sector that is omnipresent in modern life. Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and others control the bottlenecks of the internet and provide services to end-consumers through that infrastructure—in direct competition with independent businesses. Platforms leverage their exclusive control over search engines, e-commerce platforms, and app-stores to exclude rivals from markets for digital content, goods, and services thereby harming consumers and stifling innovation. A promising remedy is to grant competitors fair and equal access to these essential digital platforms. Yet the essential facilities doctrine has fallen prey to excessive judicial trust in self-correcting markets and the ensuing curtailment of antitrust enforcement. > > It is high time to revive, renew, and expand the essential facilities doctrine in the digital economy. As with railroads, the doctrine can once again open mar-kets while preserving network-based efficiencies. Economic insights into the optimal design of intellectual property rights provide valuable lessons for structuring an essential facilities doctrine for the digital age: creating and protecting monopolies, via exclusive rights or otherwise, can incentivize innovation. However, any monopoly must be limited in scope and duration to ensure competition. Building on these notions from IP, I suggest a two-tiered remedy: At its first level, regulators and courts must bar platforms from discriminating and self-preferencing. At its second level, after an appropriate amortization period, anti-trust enforcers must upend platform-monopolies entirely, by forcing interoperability between platforms. Overall, this renewed version of a judicial doctrine from the early twentieth century will strengthen competition and spur innovation in the digital markets that have come to define modern commerce. > > (Abstract) ## Digital Trade Rules: A disastrous new constitution for the global economy written by and for Big Tech ([Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung](https://www.rosalux.eu/en/article/1742.digital-trade-rules.html)) > The largest corporations in the history of the world – Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft – are seeking to use ‘trade’ rules to rig the rules of the global (digital) economy to enable them to collect more data, exercise more control over our lives and their workers, and amass ever more profit. More than 80 members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are currently negotiating a new agreement on digital trade based on these proposals. This paper seeks to explain how these corporations operate in order to achieve their goals; what the potential impacts of the rules would be on workers, citizens, communities, developing countries, public services, safety and security, and democracy itself; what the alternatives are; and what we can do to stop this mass corporate takeover. > > This paper was written towards the end of 2019. Today, in 2020, the world seems a different place, as we collectively experience the coronavirus crisis and new awareness about issues of racism and policy brutality. The crises have brought about new, and highlighted existing, urgent problems – often exacerbated by Big Tech’s iron grip on our economic and social lives. ## Digital journalism & new business models: An overview of the business models and financing of news media and digital newsroom structures ([EJF](https://europeanjournalists.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/EFJ-Report-Digital-Journalism-and-New-Business-Models-02-2019-light-1.pdf)) > The weakened sustainability has also lead to a growing concentration of media ownership and has resulted in a less diverse news environment. How can journalists’ organisations support and enable their members and freelances with regard to aspects such as author’ rights, decent working conditions and fair remuneration? How can they still organise a virtual workforce or digital nomads – collectively? In solidarity? And – are they able and willing to manage the change? Those are the big challenges and the real threats that a short paper cannot investigate in full depth – and in a broad and diverse European context. Thus, it concentrates on questions journalists’ organisations – unions and associations – should be able to understand and answer. This paper examines some basic principles and promising models for financing quality journalism in general – and briefly describes alternative business models that work ## Digital Economy Report 2019 – Value Creation and Capture: Implications for Developing Countries **(**[**UNCTAD**](https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/der2019_en.pdf)**)** > The Digital Economy Report (DER) (formerly known as the Information Economy Report) this year examines the scope for value creation and capture in the digital economy by developing countries. It gives special attention to opportunities for these countries to take advantage of the data-driven economy as producers and innovators – but also to the constraints they face – notably with regard to digital data and digital platforms. This topic is timely, as only a decade remains for achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Digital disruptions have already led to the creation of enormous wealth in record time, but this is highly concentrated in a small number of countries, companies and individuals. Meanwhile, digitalization has also given rise to fundamental challenges for policymakers in countries at all levels of development. Harnessing its potential for the many, and not just the few, requires creative thinking and policy experimentation. And it calls for greater global cooperation to avoid widening the income gap. ## Digital diplomacy: Technology governance for developing countries (Pathways for Prosperity Commission – [summary](https://pathwayscommission.bsg.ox.ac.uk/digital-diplomacy) | [PDF](https://pathwayscommission.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/Digital_diplomacy.pdf)) > Current approaches to governing, managing, and regulating digital technology, such as they exist, are dominated by a small number of countries, and based on the priorities of developed nations. The business models and digital architectures designed by firms can have far-reaching impacts, and these are inherently shaped by the regulatory environment. Despite this, surprisingly little attention is paid to how poorer or resource-constrained countries should approach digital regulation – either within their own countries or as an increasingly pressing transnational issue.The Pathways for Prosperity Commission undertook a consultation with policymakers in developing countries to identify their key technology policy priorities, specifically in terms of international coordination.1Emerging governance mechanisms around the digital economy will be pivotal for those seeking to make the most of the opportunities on offer. However, to date, developing countries’ priorities have not been heard. Specifically, the consultation sought to identify what rules and policies to govern cross-border provision of digital services would help to ensure that all countries share in the gains of the data-driven global economy.For developing countries, governance and regulation for the new economy is a daunting task, but concerted international cooperation can help. As our analysis of the consultation reveals, international coordination presents an opportunity for developing countries to exercise their own voices and develop a governance model that works for them. ## Digital Deceit II: A Policy Agenda to Fight Disinformation on the Internet ([Shorenstein Center](https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Digital_Deceit_2_Final.pdf?x78124) on Media, Politics, and Public Policy) > The crisis for democracy posed by digital disinformation demands a new socialcontract for the internet rooted in transparency, privacy and competition. This isthe conclusion we have reached through careful study of the problem of digitaldisinformation and reflection on potential solutions. This study builds off our firstreport—Digital Deceit—which presents an analysis of how the structure andlogic of the tracking-and-targeting data economy undermines the integrity ofpolitical communications. In the intervening months, the situation has onlyworsened—confirming our earlier hypotheses—and underlined the need for arobust public policy agenda. > > Digital media platforms did not cause the fractured and irrational politics thatplague modern societies. But the economic logic of digital markets too oftenserves to compound social division by feeding pre-existing biases, affirming falsebeliefs, and fragmenting media audiences. The companies that control thismarket are among the most powerful and valuable the world has ever seen. Wecannot expect them to regulate themselves. As a democratic society, we mustintervene to steer the power and promise of technology to benefit the manyrather than the few. ## Digital Deceit: The Technologies Behind Precision Propaganda on the Internet ([Shorenstein Center](https://www.newamerica.org/public-interest-technology/policy-papers/digitaldeceit/) on Media, Politics, and Public Policy) > Machine learning algorithms are already integrated into targeted advertising platforms and complex data analytics. Stronger forms of AI will be available in the near term. These advances will greatly increase the potency of disinformation operations by enhancing the effectiveness of behavioral data tracking, audience segmentation, message targeting/testing, and systemic campaign management. > > Our paper concludes with a series of recommendations to guide corporate reform, consumer empowerment and new public policy development. Current efforts to promote transparency in the advertising ecosystem are important steps. But these are only the first moves in a long and difficult challenge. We offer a set of principles to guide the path forward as well as starting points for potential regulatory intervention. These include changes to election law, data privacy protections, and competition policy. The nature of this crisis in media and democracy requires an ambitious approach to reform from Silicon Valley C-Suites to Capitol Hill to the handsets of everyday internet users. The American political resilience has through the ages hinged on our implicit commitment that markets must take a backseat to democracy. ## Defending Independent Media: A Comprehensive Analysis of Aid Flows ([CIMA](https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/comprehensive-analysis-media-aid-flows/)) > When donors provide assistance to the media sector, they frequently back projects that aim to strengthen the media’s contribution to good governance in some way or another. This kind of funding is consistent with recent declarations made by the international community on the importance of protecting independent media for the sake of democracy and development. Yet, in the bigger picture, donors still only commit a tiny fraction to this sector and appear to be responding slowly, if at all, to the unique challenges of press freedom in the digital age. > > * Media assistance represented on average just .3 percent of total official development aid (ODA) between 2010 and 2015. > * Donor flows to media are small, but are holding steady. > * China is an increasingly active player in terms of global media aid flows, although its interventions are largely focused on developing infrastructure and take the form of loans rather than development grants. ## Data as a Contested Economic Resource: Framing the Issues ([SSRN](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3496281)) Big data, exploited by ever more powerful AI and machine-learning engines that extract previously unattainable information, is being monetized in various ways and is underpinning the market valuation of today’s most valuable corporations. This has made data-generated rents the principal bone of contention in today’s economy, alongside the negative externalities that the unregulated and undisciplined use of data are creating. In this note, I develop the case that the contest for the rents generated in the emerging data-driven economy will powerfully influence the social order within and international relations externally. Further, I argue that there is no good historical analogue for data as an essential capital asset and thus there is no good historical analogue for a regulatory framework to control the negative externalities to which it gives rise or to equitably share the benefits that it generates. Regulation won’t wait because the issues are pressing urgently on societies as the implicit social contracts that preserve political stability are rapidly eroding, setting the stage for disruptive political change. Hence, we are into a phase of experimenting with regulatory approaches while still working out the guiding principles. ## Confronting the Crisis in Independent Media: A Role for International Assistance ([CIMA](https://www.cima.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CIMA_Entry-Points-Report_web150ppi-1.pdf)) > This report describes how that may change as international donors devise way to provide greater support to the media sector. ## Competition issues in the digital economy ([UNCTD](https://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ciclpd54_en.pdf)) > Large technology companies have penetrated many aspects of people’s lifestyles, from shopping to social interaction. Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google have replaced oil and gas and telecommunications firms among the top 10 global companies based on marketcapitalization in 2018. Such digital platforms provide many benefits, but have also gained significant control ofconsumer data, which confers market power. This has raised not only competition-related concerns, but also concerns related to consumer protection and privacy. Many countries are studying the negative effects of the market power of these platforms and seeking ways to deal with the related challenges.This note focuses on the features specific to digital platforms and their implications for competition law and policy. It identifies the areas of competition law in which there is need for adaptation, to deal with negative outcomes that may arise from dominant digital platforms. The note presents some policy options for protecting and promoting competition in the digital economy. ## Committee for the Study of Digital Platforms: Market Structure and Antitrust Subcommittee ([University of Chicago](https://research.chicagobooth.edu/-/media/research/stigler/pdfs/market-structure-report.pdf?la=en\&hash=E08C7C9AA7367F2D612DE24F814074BA43CAED8C)) > The purpose of these preliminary reports is to identify what are the new challenges digital platforms pose to the economic and political structure of our countries. These reports also try to identify the set of possible tools that might address these challenges. Yet, there is potential disagreement among the members of the committees on which of these problems is most troubling, which tools might work best, whether some tools will work at all or even whether the damage they might produce is larger than the problem they are trying to fix. Not all committee members agree with all the findings or proposals contained in this report. The purpose of these preliminary reports, thus, is not to unanimously provide a perfect list of policy fixes but to identify conceptual problems and solutions and start an academic discussion from which robust policy recommendations can eventually be drafted. ## Challenges of Competition and Regulation in the Telecom Sector ([Economic and Political Weekly](https://macrofinance.nipfp.org.in/PDF/Parsheera2018_Regulation-in-the-Telecom-Sector.pdf)) > The telecommunications sector has come a long way from its perceived status as a natural monopoly to a competitive multiplayer industry. As competitive forces, both from within the telecom industry and the surrounding digital ecosystem, continue to redefine the sector’s dynamics, it creates new challenges for regulation and competition enforcement. Calling for fresh thinking on the respective roles of the sectoral regulator, the competition authority and the need for greater synergies between them, a model for voluntary cooperation between the authorities is suggested. ## Business Models for Local News: A Field Scan ([Shorenstein Center](https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/business-models-field-scan.pdf)) > It’s well understood that the traditional print advertising business model that onceenabled high-quality, local news is under extreme threat. Meanwhile, platforms such as Facebook and Google increasingly dominate how people access information, garneringthe majority of the digital advertising revenue that previously flowed to publishers. Mostsay that local journalism is in crisis. But maybe it’s also at a crossroads.On May 18, 2018, theShorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at theHarvard Kennedy School andThe Lenfest Institute for Journalism gathered industryleaders from news organizations, platforms, and philanthropic sectors to discuss prospects for finding and seeding new business models for local journalism—and howbest to support those working in communities across the country to facilitate change. ## Breaking up Big Tech: Separation of its Data, Cloud and Intelligence Layers ([IT for Change](https://datagovernance.org/files/research/Regulating_data__cloud_and_intelligence_-_Paper_9-21.pdf)) > igital economy paradigm must be understood in its significant discontinuities with the industrial age. Regulation of digital economy needs to focus on the central role of data and data-derived intelligence. Competition regulators either ignore these key factors, or simply take a superficial view. A relatively better understanding about them is developing in the somewhat distant realm of technology governance; with its new focus on data sharing, data infrastructures, cloud neutrality, open digital ecosystems, domestic AI competencies, and public interest AI. Technology governance, however, normally does not have the enforcement teeth of competition regulators.Bringing together these two governance or regulatory traditions – about competition and technology, the paper proposes a composite new regulatory framework for the digital economy. Digital ecosystems are presented as the key new structural feature of the digital economy, increasingly superseding IP firms led industrial value chains. The focus is then drawn on the effective economic governance of data, cloud computing and AI – the building blocks of these digital ecosystems. > > (Abstract) ## Beyond Fixing Facebook: How the multibillion-dollar business behind online advertising could reinvent public media, revitalize journalism, and strengthen democracy ([Free Press](https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/2019-02/Beyond-Fixing-Facebook-Final_0.pdf)) In this paper, Free Press measures the rise of the online-platform business model against the fall of independent news reporting and calls for an economic realignment that recognizes the vital role noncommercial journalism can play in a democracy ## Best Practices on Platforms’ Implementation of the Right to an Effective Remedy ([DCPR](https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/4905/1550)) > This document was based primarily on the analysis of the contractual agreementsthatInternet users are required to adhere toin order to become platform users. Platform operators typically detail in these agreements, broadly defined as “Terms of Service” (Tos),9the rules and mechanisms applicable to alternative dispute resolutionmechanisms. Moreover,analysts where asked toverify, to the extent possible,the concrete implementation of those mechanisms by simulating adispute in the platforms of choice. ## Are social media companies motivated to be good corporate citizens? Examination of the connection between corporate social responsibility and social media safety ([Telecommunications Policy](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308596118304178)) > This paper explores the connection between [corporate social responsibility](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/corporate-social-responsibility) and social media safety. By examining the legal framework governing social platforms in the United States and case studies of online harms, we explore whether current U.S. laws and company content moderation policies are effective in eliminating content (revenge porn and acts of terrorism) that is universally agreed to be harmful. Finally, the paper makes a number of suggestions for improvements in policy. > > (abstract) ## A Playbook for Launching a Local, Nonprofit News Outlet ([Shorenstein Center](https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Playbook-Local-Nonprofit-News.pdf)) > Each section of this playbook describes these steps in greater detail, addressing what the work is, why it’s important, and how you can get started. The approaches described in this playbook are not one-size-fits-all. While many fundamentals for building a successful venture will apply universally, every market and topic is different. Additionally, some subjects and geographies may simply lack sufficient audience interest to operatesustainably. The practices outlined in this playbook can help you identify your competitiveadvantages and create a business model that leverages them to build a healthy, sustainable news organization. ## A Landscape Study of Emerging Local News Models Across America ([Shorenstein Center](https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Legg-Local-News-Landscape-July-2019.pdf)) > Given the difficult economic reality and limited opportunities for capital, it seems nearly impossible for there to be innovation in the local market. This said, there are limited signs of progress.For the purpose of this landscape study, we have focused on two types of local news: digital startups in local news — both nonprofits and for-profits — along with the purchase of legacy newspapers and magazines by wealthy owners. ## A Human-Centric Digital Manifesto for Europe: How the Digital Transformation Can Serve the Public Interest ([OSF](https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/a-human-centric-digital-manifesto-for-europe)) > The digital revolution is radically changing every aspect of human life in the 21st century and it’s essential that regulators address the challenges this transformation brings. The new European Commission should look beyond digital single market issues, and focus on creating new rights-based policies and regulations based on freedom, democracy, equality, and rule of law to ensure that existing offline rights are protected online. ## 2019 Internet Society Global Internet Report: Consolidation in the Internet Economy ([ISOC](https://future.internetsociety.org/2019/)) > Consolidation is not a new phenomenon, but often a natural evolution as industries and markets mature. The Internet is changing. From the underlying infrastructure to the way users engage, it is evolving in many ways. ## Pay Models for Online News in the US and Europe: 2019 Update ([Reuters Institute](https://www.reutersagency.com/en/reuters-community/paying-for-online-news/)) > More consumers can be persuaded to pay for online news, but only if content is distinctive and the user experience is great. What precisely are consumers’ expectations? And, what dictates their propensity to spend on news? This report explores these questions, and reveals some surprising and promising observations such as: > > Younger people might be more prepared to pay for news, but which model(s) do they prefer? > > * Those who pay, do so for many reasons, including quality; brand, and convenience. > * Despite very little public awareness or sympathy for the funding problems of the news industry, there is interest in other business models. ## # Artificial Intelligence ## **Artificial Intelligence and algorithms** A significant challenge for the current and future viability of journalism and media organizations is the implications of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of things (IoT), “big data,” blockchain technologies, and more. Such technologies are already having profound implications on journalism, media, and access to information in general, as exemplified by how AI, big data, and bots were used in various democratic elections (such as by Cambridge Analytica) in 2016, 2017, and 2018 to influence the outcome by flooding voters with false or misleading information. New technologies such as AI are significantly shaping news and media production and dissemination, as well as challenging both the practice and value of journalists. Internet companies, social media platforms, and other are increasingly using AI, Internet bots, and various algorithms in content moderation and in ranking the order for personalized search results and social media news feeds, which is also presenting a new challenge to privacy and free expression. Moreover, the use of AI in content moderation on the Internet without human judgment or due process can have a negative impact on optimizing the role of media and journalism for fostering a robust, pluralistic public sphere and enhancing democratic debates. # Toolkits ## Cybersecurity, Encryption, and Digital Security Tools In the digital age, journalism safety must also include cybersecurity measures. As a result, myriad organisations have produced toolkits, resources, and guides for journalists and civil society organisations. These include: * Advocacy in Restricted Spaces: A Toolkit for Civil Society Organizations ([Lifeline](https://www.csolifeline.org/advocacy-toolkit)) – available in [Arabic](https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Lifeline_Advocacy_Toolkit_ARABIC.pdf), [English](https://freedomhou.se/advtoolkitpdf), [Español](https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Lifeline_Advocacy_Toolkit_SPANISH.pdf), [Français](https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Lifeline_Advocacy_Toolkit_FRENCH.pdf), and [Русский](https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Lifeline_Advocacy_Toolkit_RUSSIAN.pdf) * CPJ’s [Journalists’ Safety Guide](https://cpj.org/reports/2012/04/journalist-security-guide.php) and [Safety Kit](https://cpj.org/safety-kit/), which includes cybersecurity resources as well. CPJ also created a Digital Safety Kit in [English](https://cpj.org/2019/07/digital-safety-kit-journalists.php), [Español](https://cpj.org/es/2019/07/seguridad-digital-1.php), [Français](https://cpj.org/fr/2019/07/etat-de-preparation-de-base-securite-numerique.php?utm_medium=email\&utm_source=engagingnetworks\&utm_campaign=CPJ+Digital+Security+Guide+\(translations+in+Espa%F1ol,+Fran%E7ais,+and+%20CAA:89\)\&utm_content=CPJ+Digital+Security+Guide), and [Русский](https://cpj.org/ru/2019/07/post-121.php?utm_medium=email\&utm_source=engagingnetworks\&utm_campaign=CPJ+Digital+Security+Guide+\(translations+in+Espa%F1ol,+Fran%E7ais,+and+%20CAA:89\)\&utm_content=CPJ+Digital+Security+Guide) * Deutsche Welle (DW) Akademie’s [DigiSecurity Threat Check](https://akademie.dw.com/threatcheck/) – an online tool that helps you to identify potential online threats and develop policy recommendations to protect your organisation * Electronic Frontier Foundation ([EFF](https://ssd.eff.org/en)) – Surveillance Self-defense (SSD): Tips, tools, and how-to’s for safer online communications * [Frontline Defenders](https://securityinabox.org/en/) – Security-in-a-box: Digital security tools and tactics * Global Investigative Journalism Network ([GIJN](https://gijn.org/digital-security/)) – Digital security * Holistic Security Protocol for Human Rights Defenders ([Open Briefing](https://protocol.openbriefing.org/)) * Reporters Without Borders (RSF) – [Digital Security for Journalists](https://helpdesk.rsf.org/), a help desk featuring information on training, digital security guides, and FAQs/dangerous misconceptions * Tactical Technology Collective ([Tactical Tech](https://tacticaltech.org/projects/digital-security-and-privacy/)) – Digital security & privacy * Totem ([Free Press Unlimited and Greenhost](https://totem-project.org)) – offers free online courses in English, French, and Farsi that cover a wide array of digital security-related topics * [WAN-IFRA](https://blog.wan-ifra.org/2014/07/28/top-cybersecurity-tips-and-tools-for-journalists) – Top cybersecurity tips and tools for journalists * [We Live Security](https://www.welivesecurity.com/2017/11/21/cybersecurity-journalists-news-medi/) – Cybersecurity for journalists and the news media # Networks ## #YouTubeRegrets ([Mozilla Foundation](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/youtube-regrets/)) ## The [Markup](https://themarkup.org/) The Markup is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates how powerful institutions are using technology to change our society. They are a new kind of media organization, staffed with an unparalleled roster of quantitative journalists who pursue meaningful, data-driven investigations. ## [AlgorithmWatch](https://algorithmwatch.org/en/) AlgorithmWatch is a non-profit research and advocacy organization that is committed to watch, unpack and analyze automated decision-making (ADM) systems and their impact on society. # Academic Studies This resource section has leant heavily on the "Platform companies and news media" section of the reading list curated by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. ## The Council of Europe’s expert committee on human rights dimensions of automated data processing and different forms of artificial intelligence ([MSI-AUT](https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/msi-aut)) Under the supervision of the CDMSI, drawing upon the existing Council of Europe standards and the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the MSI-AUT will prepare follow up with a view to the preparation of a possible standard setting instrument on the basis of the study on the human rights dimensions of automated data processing techniques (in particular algorithms and possible regulatory implications). MSI-AUT will also study the development and use of new digital technologies and services, including different forms of artificial intelligence, as they may impact peoples’ enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms in the digital age – with a view to give guidance for future standard-setting in this field. Furthermore, MSI-AUT will study the impact of civil and administrative defamation laws and their relation to the criminal provisions on defamation, as well as jurisdictional challenges in the application of those laws in the international digital environment. ## Rising Through the Ranks: How Algorithms Rank and Curate Content in Search Results and on News Feeds ([Open Technology Institute/New America](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/rising-through-ranks/)) Internet platforms are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence and machine-learning tools in order to shape the content we see and engage with online. Algorithms have long been deployed to rank and curate search engine results. And thanks to advances over the last decade, these algorithms also play a growing role in shaping the content we see in news feeds. This report is the second in [a series of four reports](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/report-series-content-shaping-modern-era/) that will explore different issues regarding how automated tools are used by internet platforms to shape the content we see and influence how this content is delivered to us. The [first report](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/everything-moderation-analysis-how-internet-platforms-are-using-artificial-intelligence-moderate-user-generated-content/) in this series focused on how automated tools can be leveraged to moderate content online. This second report explores how internet platforms deploy algorithms to rank and curate content in search engine results and in news feeds. The following two reports will focus on how artificial intelligence is used to optimize the target and delivery of advertisements and the delivery of content recommendations to users based on their prior consumption of content. All four of these reports also seek to explore how internet platforms, policymakers, and researchers can better promote fairness, accountability, and transparency around these automated tools and decision-making practices. ## Artificial Intelligence & Human Rights: Opportunities & Risks ([Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society](https://cyber.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2018-09/2018-09_AIHumanRightsSmall.pdf?)) This report explores the human rights impacts of ar-tificial intelligence (“AI”) technologies. It highlights the risks that AI, algorithms, machine learning, and related technologies may pose to human rights, while also recognizing the opportunities these tech-nologies present to enhance the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”). The report draws heavily on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Busi-ness and Human Rights (“Guiding Principles”) to propose a framework for identifying, mitigating, and remedying the human rights risks posed by AI. ## [Isomorphism through Algorithms: Institutional Dependencies in the Case of Facebook (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718757253) #### Big Data & Society - ROBYN CAPLAN & DANAH BOYD Algorithms and data-driven technologies are increasingly being embraced by a variety of different sectors and institutions. This paper examines how algorithms and data-driven technologies, enacted by an organization like Facebook, can induce similarity across an industry. Using theories from organizational sociology and neoinstitutionalism, this paper traces the bureaucratic roots of Big Data and algorithms to examine the institutional dependencies that emerge and are mediated through data-driven and algorithmic logics. This type of analysis sheds light on how organizational contexts are embedded into algorithms, which can then become embedded within other organizational and individual practices. By investigating technical practices as organizational and bureaucratic, discussions about accountability and decision-making can be reframed. ## [Virtual Competition: The Promise and Perils of the Algorithm-Driven Economy (2016)](https://www.amazon.com/Virtual-Competition-Promise-Algorithm-Driven-Economy/dp/0674545478) #### Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press - Ariel Ezrachi & Maurice E. Stucke Shoppers with Internet access and a bargain-hunting impulse can find a universe of products at their fingertips. In this thought-provoking exposé, Ariel Ezrachi and Maurice Stucke invite us to take a harder look at today’s app-assisted paradise of digital shopping. While consumers reap many benefits from online purchasing, the sophisticated algorithms and data-crunching that make browsing so convenient are also changing the nature of market competition, and not always for the better. Computers colluding is one danger. Although long-standing laws prevent companies from fixing prices, data-driven algorithms can now quickly monitor competitors’ prices and adjust their own prices accordingly. So what is seemingly beneficial―increased price transparency―ironically can end up harming consumers. A second danger is behavioral discrimination. Here, companies track and profile consumers to get them to buy goods at the highest price they are willing to pay. The rise of super-platforms and their “frenemy” relationship with independent app developers raises a third danger. By controlling key platforms (such as the operating system of smartphones), data-driven monopolies dictate the flow of personal data and determine who gets to exploit potential buyers. # Policy Papers & Briefings ## Unboxing Artificial Intelligence: 10 steps to protect Human Rights ([Council of Europe](https://rm.coe.int/unboxing-artificial-intelligence-10-steps-to-protect-human-rights-reco/1680946e64)) The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on human rights is one of the most crucial factors that will define the period in which we live. AI-driven technology is entering more aspects of every individual’s life, from smart home appliances to social media applications, and it is increasingly being utilised by public authorities to evaluate people’s personality or skills, allocate resources, and otherwise make decisions that can have real and serious consequences for the human rights of individuals. As stressed by the Commissioner for Human Rights in a Human Rights Comment, finding the right balance between technological development and human rights protection is therefore an urgent matter. In accordance with the mandate of the Commissioner for Human Rights to promote the awareness of and effective observance and full enjoyment of human rights in Council of Europe member states as well as to provide advice and information on the protection of human rights (Articles 3 and 8 of Resolution (99) 50 of the Committee of Ministers), the Commissioner issues this 10-point Recommendation on AI and human rights. There is currently no agreed definition of “Artificial Intelligence”. However, for the purposes of this Recommendation, AI is used as an umbrella term to refer generally to a set of sciences, theories and techniques dedicated to improving the ability of machines to do things requiring intelligence. An AI system is a machine-based system that makes recommendations, predictions or decisions for a given set of objectives. It does so by: (i) utilising machine and/or human-based inputs to perceive real and/or virtual environments; (ii) abstracting such perceptions into models manually or automatically; and (iii) deriving outcomes from these models, whether by human or automated means, in the form of recommendations, predictions or decisions. ## Steering AI for Knowledge Societies: A ROAM Perspective ([UNESCO](https://en.unesco.org/system/files/unesco-steering_ai_for_knowledge_societies.pdf)) Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming the veiled decision-maker of our times. The diverse technical applica-tions loosely associated with this label drive more and more of our lives. They scan billions of web pages, digital trails and sensor-derived data within micro-seconds, using algorithms to prepare and produce significant decisions.AI and its constitutive elements of data, algorithms, hardware, connectivity and storage exponentially increase the power of Information and Communications Technology (ICT). This is a major opportunity for Sustainable Development, although risks also need to be addressed.It should be noted that the development of AI technology is part of the wider ecosystem of Internet and other advanced ICTs including big data, Internet of Things, blockchains, etc. To assess AI and other advanced ICTs’ benefits and challenges – particularly for communications and information – a useful approach is UNESCO’s Internet Universality ROAM principles. These principles urge that digital development be aligned with human Rights, Openness, Accessibility and Multi-stakeholder governance to guide the ensemble of values, norms, policies, regulations, codes and ethics that govern the development and use of AI. --- [Next Page](/llms-full.txt/1)