Global democracies need to line up to fight misunderstandings
As the United States In the run-up to next year’s midterm elections, and the accompanying increase in the amount of foreign and domestic online information and propaganda, it is important to develop sensible social and legal safeguards for groups targeted by digital spin campaigns. Are While the timing is right, we must develop a renewed blueprint for democratic Internet governance so that we can protect the various ranks of people affected by the ongoing turmoil in space.
For the past two years, the Propaganda Research Lab at the Center for Media Engagement in UT Austin has been studying the ways in which various global producers of social media-based propaganda efforts focus their strategies. A key finding of the lab in the United States is that these individuals – working for political parties, domestic and foreign governments, political consulting firms, and PR groups – often use a mix of private platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram. And more openly manipulate minority voting blocks in specific areas or cities, such as Facebook, Facebook and YouTube. For example, we have noticed that they focus on spreading political discontent among immigrant and resident parties in Florida, North Carolina, and other swing states.
While some of these content groups are hoping to vote for a candidate, much of it is less than real and clear intent. For example, meeting content from consumers in China, Venezuela, Russia, or India seems to be not uncommon, and in some of these countries organized government manipulation campaigns. There are symbols.
It may be surprising to consider what we now know about the bids of non-state actors to influence the political affairs of the United States and around the world. Both China and Russia are working to control big tech, and so are their population’s experiences with the Internet. And, indeed, our lab has gathered evidence of campaigns in which Americans of Chinese heritage, especially first-generation or second-generation immigrants, have been exposed to sophisticated digital propaganda with similar efforts outside of Beijing. Campaigns have been targeted. Suspected social media profiles (of which thousands later deleted Twitter) have taken over anti-American and anti-democratic rhetoric in the wake of the assassination of Hong Kong’s George Floyd, the Capital Uprising. Protests, and other important events. In our interviews and digital field research on the 2020 US presidential election, we encountered people of Arab, Colombian, Brazilian and Indian descent, targeted by similar efforts. We also spoke to propagandists who were open about their efforts to unite wider immigrants, the United Nations and minority groups, saying that Biden was a socialist and should not be sided with them. ۔
Although the effects of Chinese, Russian, or other dictatorial regimes controlling their “in-country” interventions have been widely reported, the appearance of the propaganda campaigns of these governments is clearly beyond the reach of a single state. These efforts affect communities that have relationships with countries including the United States. And for countries looking for undemocratic superpowers on how to manage (or dominate) their digital information ecosystem.
Russia, China and other dictatorial states are one step ahead with their divided versions of the Internet, based on authoritarian principles, surveillance, and freedom of expression and individual rights. These control campaigns are causing bloodshed in other parts of the world. For example, research by the Slovak think tank GLOSEC found the Kremlin’s influence in the digital ecosystems of several EU member states. His position is that both passive and active Russian information measures affect public perceptions of governance and, ultimately, undermine European democracy.
However, even democracies have failed to govern in their efforts to select and control the Internet. After years of good faith that the tech sector can regulate itself and that, which ended the capitalist uprising on social media, global policymakers and other stakeholders are now asking for a more democratic, more What should a human rights-based Internet look like? .
If the Biden administration wants to improve its new commitment to transatlantic cooperation, the management of the digital realm should take center stage. Because authoritarian states build their influence and democratic parties need to be accelerated. Although the European Union has led efforts to protect individual privacy rights and combat misinformation and hate speech, this work is not yet complete. Even when legislative efforts such as the Digital Services Act and regulations on artificial intelligence are enacted, neither the European Union nor the United States can afford it. Democracies thrive on strong alliances, and without them there is a danger of collapse.
We need a renewed blueprint for democratic Internet governance. This is an unprecedented move, as our societies do not have comparative legal or policy experience that can be effectively used as a template for digital endeavors. For example, the phenomena created by the digital revolution challenge our understanding of individual rights and force us to define their equal fit in the 21st century. Does freedom of expression mean automatic access to an audience of hundreds of thousands of users? What about consumers who are particularly vulnerable to harassment or harassment? Are we fully protecting the right to privacy online? Is this a place where many dubious organizations independently monitor our every move? The answers to these and other important questions will not be easy to explain, especially since their search requires collaboration between a number of conflicting stakeholders: citizens / consumers, government employees, civil society groups, academics, and The important thing is the tech sector.