Content-related resources

Additional resources include:

• Beginners Guide to VPNs (Lifehacker)

• Choosing the best VPN (Cloudflare)

• Conferencing technology platform review (DiploFoundation)

• Country Legal Framework Resource (Global Network Initiative)

• EU Cybersecurity Strategy (European Commission)

• Fact Sheet: How Encryption Can Protect Journalists and the Free Press (CPJ/ISOC)

• How journalists can work from home securely (Free Press Foundation)

• How to Choose a VPN (Lifehacker)

• HTTPS Everywhere (EFF)

• Internet Censorship 2020: A Global Map of Internet Restrictions (Comparitech)

• LetsEncrypt.org

• Psiphon (VPN)

• Physical, emotional and digital protection while using home as office (Front Line Defenders)

• Remote Work and Personal Safety (TOR)

• World Map of Encryption (Global Partners Digital)

• Zoombombing prevention & resources guide (GFMD)

Digital media literacy

• Bad News game (Drog)

• Factitious game (American University)

• Fake news: Is media literacy the answer? (ECPMF)

Data protection, jurisdiction, and intermediary liability

When a government submits a request to access data, such as for a criminal investigation, the task falls to the organization hosting the content to release it. Yet, what happens if information that is deemed important was written by an agency that is legally registered in, say, country A, hosts their website in county B, but published the story in country C? Legal jurisdiction across borders is already complicated, yet the global nature of the Internet only exacerbates its complexity. Furthermore, the promise of the Internet as a vibrant place for discussion and information sharing has been upheld thanks to the concept of intermediary liability.

It refers to legal protections that enable Internet service providers (ISPs), digital media platforms, and others to support expression without being directly responsible for the material stored on or moving across their networks. Without them, services would be much less willing to accept user-generated content for fear of potential civil and/or criminal liability. With increasing requests to access data by governments, it is key that the journalism support and media development community understands the myriad legal frameworks as well as their rights when it comes to cooperating with law enforcement agencies – particularly with regards to issues surrounding press freedom, freedom of expression, and journalists’ safety.

Recommended resources:

• Big Data, Not Big Brother: New Data Protection Laws and the Implications for Independent Media Around the World (CIMA)

• Content and Jurisdiction: Operational approaches (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network)

• Country Legal Framework Resource (CLFR) (Global Network Initiative)

• CYRILLA – open database of digital rights law from around the world

• Data and Jurisdiction: Operational approaches (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network)

• Domains and Jurisdiction: Operational approaches (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network)

• Empirical evidence of “over-removal” by Internet companies under intermediary liability laws (Daphne Keller, CIS at Stanford Law)

• Glossary of Platform Law and Policy Terms (DCPR)

• IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility (DCPR)

• Intermediary Liability (Center for Democracy and Technology)

• Intermediary Liability and Content Regulation (Global Network Initiative)

• Intermediary liability in Africa (Association of Progressive Communications)

• Internet and Jurisdiction Global Status Report 2019 (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network)

• Jurisdictional Assertions and Limits (Global Network Initiative)

• Manilla Principles on Intermediary Liability (link)

• Platform value(s): A multidimensional framework for online responsibility (DCPR)

• Policy Brief For Public and Private Decision-Makers Helps Determine the Geographic Scope of Content Restrictions (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network)

• Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human Rights (DCPR)

• Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation (link)

• Terms of Service; Didn’t Read (ToSDR)

• Who Has Your Back? Government Data Requests 2017 (Electronic Frontier Foundation)

• World Intermediary Liability Map (Stanford Law School)

GDPR

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a law on data protection and privacy that applies to all individuals within the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA), including both citizens and residents. It aims to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU. Passed in 2016, GDPR went into effect on 25 May 2018, and brought with it a host of new measures that empower citizens and residents with control over their personal data, and it also addresses the export of personal data outside the EU.

GDPR has set a standard internationally for the kinds of protections and rights it enables for citizens, and mandates that private sector companies and other entities operating within the EU provide data protection services, even if their headquarters are outside of the EU (referred to as extraterritorial applicability). If an organization or company fails to comply with GDPR rules, they can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 Million (whichever is greater).

GDPR codifies certain policies and privacy standards into law, such as but not limited to:

• The need for clear consent and easily accessible terms and conditions.

• Notification of privacy breaches or when data has been compromised.

• The right of consumers (data subjects) to access and download their personal data, free of charge.

• The right to data erasure (also known as the right to be forgotten).

• Data portability, which is the right for a consumer to freely transfer their data from one service to another without penalty.

• The right to privacy by design, which refers to creating and designing services handling personal data that incorporate privacy principles and provide safeguards to protect data.

Additional resources:

• Two Years Under the EU GDPR: An Implementation Progress Report (Access Now)

Internet shutdowns and network disruptions

Network disruptions refer to any action taken to limit the ability of a user to access part of the Internet. For example, this can include blocking social media websites during an election, restrictions on over-the-top (OTT) providers like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, blocking content on grounds that it will disturb public order, or even simply the slowing of Internet speeds. More specifically, Internet shutdowns occur when a government or an Internet service provider (ISP) mandates that access to the Internet be completely blocked, often to stymie political dissent and opposition, or to quell social unrest.

Access Now recorded more than 116 Internet shutdowns across at least 30 countries from the period between January 2016 and September 2017, and the number of Internet shutdowns continues to increase, often citing dubious reasons. Whether it involves blocking access at a technical level or by even physically cutting the cables that deliver the Internet, Internet shutdowns stifle free expression, cut off access to information, and costs at least US$2.4 billion in lost gross domestic product (GDP) globally. For more information, see:

• #KeepItOn campaign (AccessNow)

• Country Legal Frameworks Resource (GNI)

• Dialling in the Law: A comparative assessment of jurisprudence on Internet shutdowns (APC / Cyrilla)

• Freedom Online Coalition Joint Statement on State Sponsored Network Disruptions (FOC)

• Internet Shutdowns (APC)

• Internet Shutdowns: An Internet Society Public Policy Briefing (ISOC)

• Internet shutdowns: The “new normal” in government repression? (openDemocracy)

• Internet shutdowns cost countries $2.4 billion last year (Brookings)

• Internet Society Perspectives on Internet Content Blocking: An Overview (ISOC)

• ISOC Insights: Internet Shutdowns (ISOC)

• Navitating Litigation during Internet Shutdowns in Southern Africa (MISA Zimbabwe / Southern Africa Litigation Centre)

• Netblocks: Mapping Internet freedom (observatory)

• Network disruptions (Global Network Initiative)

• Of Blackouts and Bandhs: The Strategy and Structure of Disconnected Protest in India (Jan Rydzak)

• The Rise of Internet Throttling: A Hidden Threat to Media Development (CIMA)

Media sustainability and digital markets

Research and reports

• Pay Models for Online News in the US and Europe: 2019 Update (Reuters Institute)

• Platforms and Publishers: The End of an Era (Columbia Journalism Review / Tow Center)

• Platform regulations: How platforms are regulated and how they regulate us (DCPR)

• Recipient Perceptions of Media Development Assistance: A GFMD Study (Statement | Study)

• Regulating the new information intermediaries as gatekeepers of information diversity (University of Amsterdam)

• Reinventing Local TV News: Innovative Storytelling Practices to Engage New Audiences (Shorenstein Center)

• Restoring Competition in “Winner-Took-All” Digital Platform Markets (UNCTAD)

• Saving Journalism: A Vision for the Post-Covid World (Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung)

• Setting Rules for 2.7 Billion. A (First) Look into Facebook’s Norm-Making System: Results of a Pilot Study (Hans-Bredow-Institut)

• Small is Beautiful – New Business Models for Digital Media: A Case Study (Shorenstein Center)

• Social media gatekeeping: An analysis of the gatekeeping influence of newspapers’ public Facebook pages (New Media and Society)

• Special Delivery: How Internet Platforms Use Artificial Intelligence to Target and Deliver Ads (Open Technology Institute/New America)

• Spotlight: Rethinking digital ads (Mozilla’s Internet Health Report 2019)

• Stigler Committee on Digital Platforms: Final Report (Full report | Summary)

  • Committee for the Study of Digital Platforms: Media Subcommittee (Report)

  • Committee for the Study of Digital Platforms: Market Structure and Antitrust Subcommittee (Report)

• Streaming War Won: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the News – Searching for a way for streaming to save the news (and for the news to save streaming) (Shorenstein Center)

• Strengthening Consumer Protection and Competition in the Digital Economy (UNCTAD)

• Supporting Media at a Time of Crisis: Donors Explore New Strategies (CIMA)

• Surveillance Giants: How the Business Model of Google and Facebook Threatens Human Rights (Amnesty International)

• Taxes: tech giants’ head start over traditional media (WAN-IFRA)

• The Black Market for Social Media Manipulation (NATO StratCom COE)

• The Economic Costs of Keyword Blacklists for Online Publishers (University of Baltimore/Cheq)

  • See Cheq’s research library for more information on digital market research

• The Impact of Digital Platforms on News and Journalistic Content (Centre for Media Transition)

• The Market of Disinformation (Oxford Internet Institute)

• The Publisher’s Guide to eCommerce (WNiP)

• The Rise of Content Cartels: Urging transparency and accountability in industry-wide content removal decisions (Knight First Amendment Institute)

• The Separation of Platforms and Commerce (Columbia Law Review)

• The state of technology in global newsrooms 2019 (ICFJ)

• The Valorization of Surveillance: Towards a Political Economy of Facebook (Union for Democratic Communications)

• Tracking media development donor support: An update on 2016 funding levels (CIMA)

• Transparency Reporting Index (Access Now)

• Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets Final Report (U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee)

• Using Data Science Tools for Email Audience Analysis: A Research Guide (Shorenstein Center)

• VTDigger: A Rising Star in Nonprofit News (Shorenstein Center)

• Weaponizing the Digital Influence Machine: The Political Perils of Online Ad Tech (Data & Society)

• What Can Be Done? Digital Media Policy Options for Strengthening European Democracy (Reuters Institute)

• When content moderation hurts (Mozilla)

• Who Has Your Back? Censorship Edition 2019 (EFF)

• Why Google Dominates Advertising Markets (Stanford Technology Law Review)

Right to be Forgotten

• Access Now Position Paper: Understanding the “Right to be Forgotten” Globally

• Background: The Right to be Forgotten in National and Regional Contexts (IFLA)

• EU Data Protection Law: A “Right to be Forgotten?” (UK House of Lords)

• Europe’s top court backs Germany: Murderers have no right to be forgotten (European Centre for Press & Media Freedom – ECPMF)

• How the “Right to be Forgotten” Challenges Journalistic Principles (PDF)

• IFLA Statement on the Right to be Forgotten

• Information Not Found: The “Right to be Forgotten” as an Emerging Threat to Media Freedom in the Digital Age (CIMA)

• Media Online Archives: A Source for Historical Research or a Threat to Privacy? (Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka)

• Mission creep: The expanding scope of the “right to be forgotten” (CIMA)

• The Internet has become the external hard drive for our memories (Scientific American)

• The “Right to be Forgotten” and Search Engine Liability (Brussels Privacy Hub)

• The “Right to Be Forgotten” – Negotiating Public and Private Ordering in the European Union

• The “Right to be Forgotten” – Remembering Freedom of Expression (ARTICLE 19)

Legal resources:

• Communiqué by Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media on ruling of the European Union Court of Justice

• Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (2014)

• Internet: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

• P8_TA-PROV(2018)0204 – Media Pluralism and Media Freedom in the European Union (European Parliament)

• Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Roles and Responsibilities of Internet Intermediaries (Council of Europe)

• RTBF & GDPR

  • GDPR recitals: Your essential partners to understand and apply the GDPR

  • Right to erasure (ICO)