Coping with the digital shake-up - Media and Content: A Decade of Change European Dialogue on Internet Governance 2008 2020 - EuroDIG
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
European Dialogue on Internet Governance 2008 – 2020 Media and Content: A Decade of Change Coping with the digital shake-up Yrjö Länsipuro
European Dialogue on Internet Governance 2008 – 2020 Media and Content: A Decade of Change Coping with the digital shake-up Yrjö Länsipuro
About EuroDIG Launched in 2008, EuroDIG, the European Di- to develop, in a bottom-up fashion, a dynamic alogue on Internet Governance, is a unique agenda that explores the pressing issues sur- annual event that brings together Internet rounding how we develop, use, regulate and stakeholders from throughout Europe (and govern the Internet. EuroDIG participants beyond), and from across the spectrum of gov- come away with broader, more informed per- ernment, industry, civil society, academia and spectives on these issues and new partners in the technical community. Stakeholders and responding to the challenges of the informa- participants work over the course of each year tion society.
Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Content Content Foreword: A decade of discussion on media issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Strasbourg 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Geneva 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Madrid 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Belgrade 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Stockholm 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Lisbon 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Berlin 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Sofia 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Brussels 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Tallinn 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Tbilisi 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The Hague 2019. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Virtual 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Foreword: A decade of discussion on media issues
Foreword: A decade of discussion on media issues
Noel Curran – Director General,
European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
Thank you EuroDIG for producing this excel- ernance for the benefit of all Europe’s citi-
lent report and giving us the opportunity to re- zens.
flect on the past ten years. We have achieved a Over the past ten years global platforms
lot together and we look forward to continued grew and increased their power enormously.
collaboration with you, because together we Although their influence has been hugely pos-
can achieve so much more. itive across societies all around the world, it is
When we set out on this journey we couldn’t increasingly negative, inflicting lasting dam-
predict how the internet would develop. How- age on our societies. EuroDIG’s second confer-
ever, we were convinced that only through ence, hosted by the EBU, already recognised
collaboration and multi-stakeholder dialogue that access to content and the quality and di-
could we ensure that free and independent versity of content were crucial. It was agreed
media and reliable news and information that a working group should consider how to
were not completely sidelined by global me- protect unrestricted user access to online con-
dia interests, or governments seeking to limit tent, applications and services.
freedom of expression. Sharing this joint Back in 2009, we had yet to imagine just
purpose, we worked to ensure internet gov- how powerful the algorithms deployed by tech
6Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Foreword: A decade of discussion on media issues
giants could become. Global online platforms fluence public opinion. On the one hand plat-
have evolved from distributors to powerful forms need to step up their game on illegal
gatekeepers, disrupting the way European and harmful content online, while in parallel
content is displayed, attributed and remuner- safeguards are needed against platforms tak-
ated. This cannot continue. EU moves to de- ing down legitimate content from media
velop regulation to commit platform opera- providers without warning or explanation.
tors to transparency and accountability are This is key to maintain trust in the media.
most welcome. Without such rules, future gen- The EBU is proud to have worked with
erations will be unable to find and have access EuroDIG to highlight the importance of media
to trusted content and plurality of views. pluralism, quality content and independent
We commend the European Commission journalism. As reflected in the report, EuroDIG
for its commitment to taking a rigorous ap- has always made it clear that these issues
proach to platforms with the Digital Services should not be abandoned, allowing market
Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). forces and the interests of new players unfet-
But the devil will be in the detail. The Act will tered domination of the media landscape.
have a heavily debated journey through the We share the belief that high quality trust-
legislative process and coming up with effec- ed news and information fosters democracy
tive rules will take time. and enables citizens to make informed choices
We must all keep a strong focus on advocat- and actively participate in society. Disinforma-
ing for sustainable and healthy public service tion undermines trust, spreads fear and di-
media. We have to ensure that the dominance vides communities. As pointed out in the re-
of global platforms does not restrict con- port, the COVID-19 pandemic highlights this
sumers’ access to the very content they most issue: faced with a deluge of misinformation
trust, value and rely on. News offered by pub- citizens either believe nothing or believe any-
lic service media is consistently ranked among thing. Neither will help resolve the crisis. It is
the most valued. And we’ve seen the impor- clear that global platform operators have a
tance of that this year with the reach of their major role to play. Ensuring better access will
evening news bulletins increasing by 2.5 times help tackle disinformation. By giving visibility
during the peak days of the coronavirus crisis. to diverse media on platforms, particularly
In addition, we must ensure the platforms’ media of general public interest, citizens will
responsibility is in line with their ability to in- be better informed.
7Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Foreword: A decade of discussion on media issues
Down through the years EuroDIG has al- stakeholder collaboration and a great part-
ways said that Europe needs a fair and trans- nership with EuroDIG. This, I am confident, will
parent online environment if we are to protect help us achieve our common goal of commit-
its digital sovereignty and ensure future gener- ting global online platforms to transparency
ations can continue to enjoy access to trusted and accountability, so the next generation can
news and information and a rich plurality of continue to benefit from strong and diverse
views. media that upholds our common values and
Over the past ten years we have estab- empowers our citizens.
lished a solid foundation, effective multi-
8Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Introduction
Introduction
Yrjö Länsipuro – Subject Matter Expert for media and
content
The thirteen years of the European Dialogue dwarfed yesterday’s industrial giants. Social
on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) cover a networks have given hundreds of millions of
transformative period in the development of people the feel of living in a global village. At
the Internet. Quantitative growth figures were the same time, however, unintended conse-
not as impressive as before 2008, when a cor- quences reared their ugly head and the Inter-
responding time period had seen the expan- net became a more dangerous place. The hype
sion of the Internet user base from a few cooled off and disillusionment set in as oppor-
dozens of millions to 1.4 billion. In relative tunities began to look like challenges, and
terms, its further growth to about 4 billion hopes turned into fears. Information society
users in 2020 was more modest, although it enthusiasts had to concede that “the future
crossed the half-way mark towards covering ain’t what it used to be” but there is no turning
all mankind. But perhaps more important than back. Whatever the Internet has become and
sheer numbers, the impact of the Internet rev- whatever it will develop into, the world cannot
olution truly changed the world during the lat- exist without it. What used to be nice to have
ter period. The Internet-based economy is now a must-have despite the downsides and
reached spectacular heights, and its paragons risks.
9Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Introduction
The media sector was one of the first indus- the EuroDIG process since its beginning, so
tries to be shaken by the winds of change this is a report by a participant observer, not a
whipped up by the Internet at the turn of the neutral outsider.
millennium. During the second decade, it was The choice of topics and sub-topics within
hit by a perfect storm and the statistics bear the media and content category reflected pro-
witness to turmoil and transformation. Audi- posals received from the European Internet
ences, advertising revenues, resources and so- community in response to the annual requests
cietal influence shifted from the “old” to for themes. Typically, a few dozen proposals
“new” media. Journalism as a profession was every year would relate to media and content.
left struggling and tens of thousands of its These were assessed and adopted at planning
practitioners were rendered unemployed. meetings convened by EuroDIG’s Secretariat
Content was still king but now it was created with the participation of experts in the rele-
by individual users (or murky operatives pos- vant fields, as proposals for plenaries, work-
ing as such) and social media platforms be- shops or other types of sessions, each planned
came kingdoms and soon empires. New words and managed by an organising team. This
and phrases such as post-truth, fake news, al- process is an organic part of EuroDIG which
ternative facts and information pollution ap- makes it much more than simply an annual
peared in languages, editorials and in speech- conference.
es at Internet-related conferences, including Over the years proposals for the EuroDIG
EuroDIG. programme’s media and content segment
How did the succession of annual EuroDIG have fallen roughly into three main baskets.
sessions from 2008 to 2020 reflect these devel- The first basket covered the highlights of
opments? Were they seen in the rear-view mir- the transition from analogue to digital, from
ror only, or was there an attempt to anticipate traditional mass media to personalised, user-
what was ahead, around the next corner? chosen and largely user-generated content,
After reviewing the various annual EuroDIG produced and delivered in a myriad of differ-
Messages, recordings and transcripts of its ses- ent ways and mostly free of geographic or reg-
sions, and my personal recollections and notes, ulatory constraints. This revolution was first
I have endeavoured to trace how EuroDIG has viewed with a generally benevolent curiosity.
dealt with topics related to media and content The opportunity to receive immediate digital
year by year. I have been heavily involved in feedback from readers, listeners and viewers,
10Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Introduction
instead of in the past as letters to the editor or sues, closely related to the previous one. This
phone-ins to the radio and television stations, last line of defence for ordinary Internet users
was sincerely welcomed by established media was seen as increasingly urgent and impor-
actors. However, the consolidation of new me- tant, especially as disinformation started to
dia into large global platforms and their inex- spread throughout social media networks.
orable growth into dominance soon raised A third basket of frequently raised issues re-
concerns about the sustainability of tradition- lated to copyright. Its traditional forms were
al media business models. What had been felt by many to be out of place – “copywrong”
thought to be just the tail of the established – in the Internet world. Discussions continued
media would soon be wagging the entire dog. year after year, in parallel with the process of
The need for improvements in digital media copyright reform in the European Union.
literacy was a second perennial category of is-
11Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Strasbourg 2008 / Geneva 2009
Strasbourg 2008
The inaugural EuroDIG annual multi-stake- tially from the perspective of security, in the
holder forum was held in Strasbourg on 20 – Strasbourg outcome, the “EuroDIG Mes-
21 October 2008. It was organised – or per- sages.” Under the heading “Security, privacy
haps we might say improvised given the short and openness”, Internet users were reminded
notice – just five months after the idea of a about the need “to be more aware of the op-
multi-stakeholder European Internet forum portunities and risks of their online expres-
was born. It adopted, with some modifica- sion and communication”. The treatment of
tions, the original programme template of the personal information by social networking
UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) estab- sites was considered to be a common issue of
lished in 2006 which had not treated media concern, especially with regard to young peo-
and content issues as a separate topic. How- ple.
ever, they were touched upon, albeit tangen-
Geneva 2009
Hosted by the European Broadcasting Union sues from a user perspective” (Plenary 2).
(EBU) in Geneva, EuroDIG’s second annual There was also a workshop on “Effective me-
meeting (14 – 15 September 2009) devoted a dia literacy for the end user” (Workshop 5)
lot more attention to media and content is- and one with the forward-looking theme of the
sues. There were two plenary sessions with “Internet of 2020 – future services, future
slightly overlapping topics: “Access to con- challenges” (Workshop 6) which included an
tent online: regulation, business models, extensive discussion on the future of social
quality and freedom of expression” (Plenary media.
1) and “Online social media – governance is-
12Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Geneva 2009
Plenary 1 focused on the following ques- The EBU and relevant stakeholders were
tions: asked to work on the concept of quality con-
• How did user-generated content influence tent: what it means, and how to produce and
the diversity and quality of information diffuse it.
and content?
• How would future business models look Plenary 2 focused on freedom of expression
with regard to quality, information and from to the user’s point of view, including the
content? right of reply and other means of redress. The
• What would be the role of public service session covered a wide range of emerging crit-
information, content and media in the on- ical issues including the following.
line environment? The participants tried to identify who was a
• How should media and online content reg- typical user of social media and to understand
ulation develop in order to serve users’ de- his/her needs, desires and online behaviour.
mands? There was a call for interactive and creative
• From a user perspective, what online infor- opportunities for users.
mation and content would in future have Relevant social phenomena were also ex-
to be paid for and what would be free? amined. The feeling of a safe community or
“bubble” of friends was considered to be ad-
These were all excellent questions but per- dictive, especially for young people who as a
haps understandably there were no definitive consequence willingly concede their rights to
answers. Participants did agree at least that privacy in exchange for inclusion.
Internet users should be able to access the Media literacy was underlined as an impor-
content of their choice, in line with Article 10 tant – but not the only – response to the chal-
of the European Convention on Human Rights lenge of online social networks. The need for
relating to freedom of expression. It was also concerted efforts to improve formal and infor-
suggested that a multistakeholder working mal education in this respect was recognised.
group should be established under the aus- The responsibilities of providers of services
pices of the Council of Europe to prepare guid- and technologies were also considered. The
ance on protecting and fostering unrestricted business models behind the provision of their
user access to online content, applications apparently “free” services were examined and
and services. compared with the self-regulatory privacy
13Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Geneva 2009
policies that these companies claimed to fol- concerned improving teacher training, creat-
low. ing synergies between formal and informal ed-
The importance of quality content and ucation, and developing a human rights-based
services, and the relationship of trust between European model of digital literacy.
providers and users was emphasised.
The need for terms and conditions offered Workshop 6 concluded its vision of the Inter-
by social network providers to be made clear- net in 2020 with the following auspicious pre-
er, simpler and more transparent was stressed. diction:
It was agreed that possible sanctions (e.g. the “Social networks will likely gain in impor-
cutting of access to services) would need to be tance. Facebook-style networks may develop
proportional to the infractions, and respect towards virtual “facerooms” where “friends
the human rights of users. meet and spend time together” thereby adding
It was also suggested that the major social pressure on legislation and rules to become
networks should engage in Internet gover- more technology-neutral and modern. Twit-
nance discussions. ter-like services could become more promi-
nent. Peer-filtering and peer-reviewing could
Workshop 5 took issue with the need for effec- become more important. A stable legal frame-
tive media literacy for the end-user and fo- work which addresses human rights, such as
cused on identifying relevant media education the right to privacy, should be implemented in
initiatives in Europe. The discussion in the order in particular to avoid or reduce the risk
workshop revealed gaps in media education of civil society losing confidence in new tech-
and agreed there was a need for a new set of nological possibilities.”
information skills. The most salient takeaways
14Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Madrid 2010
Madrid 2010
At the third EuroDIG in Madrid (29 – 30 April for copyright infringements and new sanctions
2010), media and content issues were the top- were being used such as cutting off access to
ic of Plenary 1: “Online content policies in the Internet.
Europe – where are we going?” and were With regard to the blocking of Internet con-
touched upon during two workshops: Work- tent, reference was made to contemporary
shop 3: “Internet as a platform for innova- legislative initiatives to block child pornogra-
tion and development of new business mod- phy websites and to tackling the problem at
els” and Workshop 5: “Children and social the source by taking down websites. It was
media – opportunities and risks, rules and noted that procedural safeguards and mini-
responsibilities”. mum requirements when applying blocking
mechanisms were being developed.
The first part of Plenary 1 dealt with questions It was pointed out that a common policy
of liability, i.e. who was responsible for what on direction exists in Europe. The EU Directive
the Internet. The second part covered the issue 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce set out
of blocking content by the Internet industry. rules for the liability of providers of informa-
The following questions were asked: What tion society services. With regard to users’ lia-
direction was European content policy head- bility for their online activity, no common
ing in? Was there a common direction? Was it rules exist, however.
on the right track, and if not, what should be On the question of blocking, it was apparent
changed and how? that a variety of national level practices exist-
Judging from the discussion, the liability of ed, ranging from a “no blocking at all” policy
Internet service providers (ISPs) seemed to to quite drastic measures to remove online
have a stable legal framework. However, de- content.
termining whether or not they had “actual Turning to the question of whether Europe
knowledge” of illegal content made matters was on the right track, the workshop noted
more complicated. that there was no clear common or holistic
It was pointed out that users were increas- strategy that could be identified in the two spe-
ingly held liable for their online activities, e.g. cific areas of liability and blocking. A crucial
15Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Madrid 2010
question was that it had become increasingly ensured in relation to the freedom to receive
unclear – in particular with regard to user-gen- and impart information.
erated content – what “actual knowledge of il-
legal activity or information” meant which Many of the innovations and new business
could lead to the liability of the service pro- models discussed in Workshop 3 related to
vider. Some workshop participants claimed online content. The digitalisation of cultural
that the courts – not the service providers – and heritage content was generally support-
should decide upon the legality of the content. ed. The challenge was how to develop sustain-
Some were afraid that increasing the liability able business models where creators were re-
of service providers could lead to over-cau- munerated and a return on investment was
tious behaviour which would be in conflict assured. Specific points and proposals made
with the freedom of expression of users. Sev- during the workshop debate included:
eral interventions questioned the proportion- • European legislation should be har-
ality of sanctions for illegal online activities. monised, suppressing territorial bound-
With regard to blocking, a number of partic- aries and obstacles such as licensing rights
ipants questioned the practice in general, re- at the national or regional level.
ferring to other methods of combating illegal • Stop the “old” Europe from being “old”: if
activities at the source of the problem. Some opportunities are to be created for Euro-
argued that in the vast majority of cases, take- pean companies, it must be possible to
down could be achieved within hours, even in promote projects for global markets.
cross-border cases. In addition, practical prob- • Access to online content should be made
lems, such as the efficiency of blocking and possible from any country or territory if
the probability of “over-blocking,” needed to national IP-based access restrictions were
be taken into consideration. Participants who lifted. A space or platform should be creat-
were in favour of blocking mechanisms re- ed to promote dialogue and cooperation
ferred to them as “a second best solution”: agreements between the different national
While taking down the content and hunting stakeholders.
down the criminals should be the priority, • New business models should explore and
blocking had proven to be fast and effective. develop “mash-up” digital derivative
There was general agreement that the propor- works (in contrast with the direct transla-
tionality of any blocking measure should be tion of analogue content in the digital
16Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Madrid 2010 / Belgrade 2011
world), and conclude agreements between • It was often the case that the same young
content creators, telco operators and con- people are susceptible to harm online as
tent aggregators in order to share revenue. offline.
• It was also argued by some participants
Workshop 5 considered the opportunities and that an excessively protective approach to
risks in children’s use of social media, and dis- children’s use of the Internet can be count-
cussed what kind of rules would be needed er-productive.
and who should impose them. The following
conclusions were drawn: In conclusion, the workshop proposed that
• The inclusion of the voice of children and media literacy should be one of the priority is-
young people was considered to be benefi- sues of Internet governance, and that parents
cial in influencing public discourse. and teachers needed support in addressing
• It was seen as a risk that many parents this need.
were not capable of teaching their children
how to use the Internet safely.
Belgrade 2011
By the time EuroDIG held its fourth meeting in countries, digital statecraft was elevated to
Belgrade (30 – 31 May 2011), the Internet had the forefront of diplomacy.
acquired a new role on the world stage, ap-
plauded by many, detested by others. Unhin- The title of the second part of the opening ses-
dered by national or physical borders, the In- sion – “Internet for democracy. Tool, or
ternet was seen as carrying the message of trap, or what?” – reflected the heady atmos-
human rights and liberal democracy, helping phere of the Arab Spring and other manifesta-
to topple political tyrants of both the left and tions of the Internet’s revolutionary potential
the right of the political spectrum. In some while also warning that the new tools of the
17Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Belgrade 2011
Internet age were available to the enemies of some governments had become more sophis-
democracy too. ticated in resorting to these methods, it was
Similarly, several other EuroDIG sessions emphasised that such behavior was not con-
addressed wider social and economic themes. sistent with European standards and princi-
Plenary 3 discussed “New media, freedoms ples, and was therefore unacceptable. Solu-
and responsibilities” and Workshop 5 fo- tions must reflect European standards and
cused on “Freedom of expression and hate principles, as well as the plurality of European
speech”. The theme of Workshop 6 was “Dig- societies. Restricting rights and freedoms
ital literacy towards economic and social could not be the answer to public problems
development” and Workshop 7 addressed like malicious content. The way forward was
the challenge of “Cybercrime and social net- rather to address these issues in society. A free
working sites – a new threat?”. society should retain a free Internet.
During the debate in the opening session it
In his video keynote speech at the opening was argued that the Internet was a valuable
session, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Af- tool for helping countries and societies in tran-
fairs, Carl Bildt, delivered a strong plea for Eu- sition to promote democratisation. The role of
ropeans to put the freedom of the Internet first law enforcement had to be reconsidered so
and not to over-regulate, as seemed to be hap- that principles like openness were not endan-
pening even in democratic societies: “Our em- gered and abused for security reasons. De-
phasis should be on the freedom issues of the bates on this issue needed to include all stake-
net. There are other voices in the world that holders and parties.
are pressing in a different direction. We should Youth representatives underlined that the
be on our guard against those particular ten- Internet was not just about the benefits prom-
dencies. And I believe we need to develop as ised by new technology, but about what peo-
unified and as strong European voice on these ple used it for – this could be good or bad. New
issues as we can.” options like e-voting systems might be useful
Carl Bildt also pointed out that the Internet tools but first of all more effective public par-
paved the way for freedom of information and ticipation in democracy must be promoted
made it much harder for dictatorships and au- and achieved.
thoritarian regimes to control it. Blocking and Discussions pointed out the need for more
filtering of content should be avoided. While public awareness of the positive and negative
18Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Belgrade 2011
aspects of social networks, particularly the pri- sumers to decide on trust in media content. A
vacy implications and potential for interfer- new Council of Europe proposed recommen-
ence. dation on a new notion of media was discussed
as a way forward in identifying and distin-
Taking note of significant changes in the me- guishing the graduated freedoms and respon-
dia landscape, including the dissemination, sibilities for the emerging media and interme-
exchange and personalisation of information, diaries.
Plenary 3 concluded that users’ media con-
sumption habits and behaviours were chang- Workshop 5 noted that it was difficult to re-
ing. There was a clear indication that the de- solve the issue of freedom of expression and
clining circulation of print media was due to its hate speech. Different national definitions of
being replaced by access to free and interac- hate speech were referred to in the context of
tive digital media, especially by younger users. internationally-accepted principles.
The feeling of communicating with the whole It was pointed out that the Budapest Con-
world was underlined as a unique feature of vention on Cybercrime drawn up by the Coun-
the new media. cil of Europe was open to signatories of non-
Trust in and the reliability of online content member states. The Council had launched
were considered to be key aspects of media in specific initiatives to promote restrictions on
the future, noting in particular the trade-off hate speech and tolerance education, with
between providing personal data to third par- greater emphasis on the latter. The role of ed-
ties and access to apparently “free” media ucation, rather than of legislation, was also
content. In this context, media literacy was highlighted, as was the importance of educat-
considered with regard to the verification of ing children from a much younger age.
sources as being trusted and reliable, consis- Attempts to make service providers and
tent with other professional media standards. other intermediaries responsible for prevent-
It was stressed that the regulation of media ing hate speech were seen as a disturbing de-
freedoms and responsibilities should be limit- velopment. The South-East Europe television
ed, flexible and proportionate, with particular news regional exchange, ERNO, was presented
regard for human rights. Some participants as an example of successful cooperation
questioned the need for new regulation and, among broadcasters in how to identify and ad-
as a corollary, placing the burden on con- dress the problem of hate speech.
19Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Belgrade 2011
Stakeholders discussing digital literacy in Tomorrow’s challenges lay within the in-
Workshop 6 discussed the continued exis- creased use of Internet technology and appli-
tence of the digital divide, firstly with regard to cations on mobile devices. How was society
access (infrastructure, technical equipment going to deal with the transparency aspects of
and devices and geographical differences); these applications and services?
and secondly regarding use by different groups
of people (children, youth, parents, teachers There was discussion in Workshop 7 about the
etc). legitimate collection, use and transfer by so-
The workshop focused on what should be cial media networks of aggregated personal
done to reduce these gaps, as well as address- data and their interception by third parties for
ing tomorrow’s challenges. The overall goal criminal purposes. Identity theft as a crime
was to make everyone literate online, able to was discussed with regard to the application
act independently and to make informed of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.
choices and decisions. Reclaiming one’s personal identity, in par-
The issue of access was highly important ticular the ability of users to complain or seek
and linked to social inclusion. One solution for redress across borders (within the EU and be-
capacity building in Europe had been to estab- yond) was underlined. The provision of hot-
lish “telecentres” as service providers for peo- lines and more effective dialogue with the
ple to access computers and the Internet. providers of social networks were also re-
Regarding Internet use, it was agreed that ferred to.
youth organisations should be incentivised to There was also discussion about the lack of
offer more opportunities for young people. awareness of users – including children and
Peer-to-peer learning programmes needed to their parents – and the need to empower them
be extended (e.g. parents-parents, teachers- with regard to the configuration of their priva-
teachers, young people). School curricula cy settings to protect their personal security
needed to be redesigned in order to empower and data. The “right to be forgotten” on social
children and young people; minimum e-liter- networks was also discussed as a means to
acy standards needed to be defined and empower users in managing their online iden-
agreed. tities.
20Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Stockholm 2012
Stockholm 2012
The fifth EuroDIG meeting in Stockholm (14 – media ecosystem change?” which sought to
15 June 2012) bore the mark of Sweden’s answer three questions. Firstly, how tradi-
strong commitment to the freedom and open- tional media would cope in the new world.
ness of the Internet. This was against the back- Secondly, how content would be accessed
drop of actions by the U.S.A. during the previ- and whether the Internet would remain
ous year to strengthen the extraterritorial “free.” And thirdly, how journalism would
reach of their copyright regime (SOPA, PIPA, need to adapt and change in the world of new
ACTA etc. ...). media.
On the first topic, the panelists (who were
The key message of Plenary 1 on “Intellectual mostly Swedish) saw the coexistence of tradi-
property rights in the digital environment” tional and new media in a positive light. It was
was its conclusion that “intellectual property valued as an interactive relationship from
rights and the right to freedom of expression which the former derived benefits in terms of
and access to information regardless of fron- crowdsourcing and feedback. Another feature
tiers in the digital environment, cannot be re- of the new landscape was that politicians and
solved solely by traditional approaches, laws, businesses could use social media to bypass
rules and regulations, nor by individual stake- traditional media – for example tweeting
holders such as governments. There was a statements instead of holding a press confer-
need to explore new ways of reconciling the ence.
interests of rights-holders and users, especial- When it came to access to and distribution
ly young people, who wanted to share infor- of the media, old and new technologies com-
mation and content in a lawful manner. Open peted in developing their business models,
access and the public interest were key con- even clashing occasionally. However, there
cerns in this respect. was consensus agreement that markets would
resolve the situation and that no new regula-
The only session directly related to the media tion was needed.
was Workshop 6 on “Digital broadcast merg- As to what would happen to journalism and
ing with Internet services – How will the its practitioners, journalists were getting new
21Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Stockholm 2012 / Lisbon 2013
tools and needed to master them. They were Even though the student said it was totally
also seen in new roles as moderators or refer- against what he had learned at the journalism
ees of social media. A journalism student par- school, he also expressed the hope of less sen-
ticipating in the workshop expressed it this sationalism in the future: “We write headlines
way: “The role of a journalist, as I see it in the that generate clicks. I think that in the future,
future, is that you have to be someone that we have to take a step back. I hear from friends
you can trust. From information that is pub- that, oh, you are going to be a journalist. Oh,
lished by journalists, you should know that you just write that stuff that clicks. Lucky for us
you have both sides of a story, maybe three we have wiki leaks that do the job. That’s how
sides of a story.” my generation looks at journalists ...”
Lisbon 2013
In its media and content discussion, the sixth session agreed that while the answers to these
EuroDIG in Lisbon (20 – 21 June 2013) decided questions had been relatively uncomplicated
to follow the money trail: “Who makes money in the pre-digital world, the evolution of the
with content? Who should pay for content?” Internet had led to significant changes in
was the theme of Plenary 6. Related topics terms of production, distribution and access
“Culture, copyright and the future of access to content, thus making it more difficult to
to digital content in Europe” were the issues find straightforward answers. Technological
discussed in Workshop 2. “Cross-border hate changes had created disruptions in the con-
speech and defamation – living together on- tent-related business, led to an increase in the
line” was the theme of Workshop 8. quantity of available content, and created
new possibilities for users to access it.
Plenary 6 put the question quite bluntly: who When the concept of copyright was origi-
makes money with whose content, on whose nally introduced, its primary aim was to re-
terms? And who pays for this content? The ward writers and artists, while at the same
22Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Lisbon 2013
time allowing wider access to content and en- solutions for some of these challenges, one of
abling the progress of science. However, the them being the provision of free licences by
new realities of the online space have over- the Creative Commons initiative. Opposing
whelmed the copyright model and created views maintained that such solutions did not
challenges that need to be addressed in order address the situation of people who needed to
to ensure that the interests of all parties – no- support themselves from their creative activi-
tably the content producers, publishers and ties. The question, however, is whether to sup-
consumers – are taken into account and pro- port the current model or move towards
tected. something new.
For some participants, a suitable approach
Three main issues were raised in the plenary would be to have all stakeholders work on
discussion in relation to the existing copyright best practice recommendations which would
model: eventually form the basis of national or inter-
• The matter of choice: while there was a national legislation. This would help ensure
need to allow creators to have an econom- fairness throughout value chains. For effective
ic gain from their creative activities, it was solutions, collaborative approaches among all
necessary to take into account the fact stakeholders were needed in order to make
that there were creators who did not nec- such solutions effective.
essarily want to make money out of their Finally, a question was raised as to whether
content and they should be entitled to ex- the copyright debate followed traditional
ercise their choice; paths too narrowly and whether for example
• To what extent did the existing models al- the circulation of the content rather than the
low access to content, under what circum- content itself was the problem.
stances, and with what limitations and ex-
ceptions; Starting from the premise that ability to ac-
• To what extent did content creators really cess, share and re-use cultural content was in
benefit from the economic value of their the public interest, and that the current Euro-
content? pean copyright framework was not providing
the best support, Workshop 2 discussed
Some participants emphasised that there which issues would need to be addressed in
were alternatives to copyright which offered any reform of EU copyright law. The conclu-
23Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Lisbon 2013
sion was drawn that to be pioneers, it was nec- ger of cyberspace fragmenting as a result
essary to figure out how to create a copyright of for example techniques like ISP blocks
regime that encouraged innovation, with clear and Geo-IP filtering that rejected connec-
boundaries between commercial and non- tions coming to or from a geographic loca-
commercial use. tion and ISP blocks.
• Importance of transparency: companies
Workshop 8 discussed how to address hate were dealing with the definition and re-
speech and defamation in shared cross-border striction of free speech by prohibiting hate
online spaces where not only different nation- speech and defamation in their terms of
al laws but also different social values applied. service. Therefore, measures taken by
The questions raised in this workshop were: these entities – especially takedown pro-
• Were the current tools for handling cross- cedures – needed to be fully transparent
border hate speech and defamation effec- for users in order to ensure fairness.
tive? • The role of education in the prevention of
• Could national laws or terms of service hate speech and defamation was impor-
deal efficiently with cross-border online tant as demonstrated by the Council of Eu-
defamation and how do they interface? rope’s “No Hate Speech” youth campaign.
• Did we have the tools and frameworks to • Hotlines and safer Internet centres were
handle diversity in common cross-border the most commonly available tools for In-
online-spaces? ternet users in Europe to combat online
hate speech and defamation.
The discussion produced the following main • The importance of multi-stakeholder
conclusions: process: the problems of hate speech and
• Risk of fragmentation: the current piece- defamation must be addressed through
meal solutions in different national juris- open and inclusive dialogue in order to
dictions for tackling the problem of hate identify best practices and to avoid dispro-
speech and defamation created the dan- portionate policy and legal responses.
24Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Berlin 2014 / Sofia 2015
Berlin 2014
The seventh EuroDIG event was held in Berlin • The intended purpose and the current
(12 – 13 June 2014) under the perhaps omi- function of copyright laws needed to be re-
nous heading “Digital society at stake – Eu- considered.
rope and the future of the Internet” in the • Copyright laws permitted different usages
aftermath of Edward Snowden’s revelations online and offline. Considering the current
about instances of mass surveillance by the US digital reality, the same rights that apply
National Security Agency (NSA). Media and offline should also apply online.
content themes were not a major focus for the • Multi-stakeholder dialogue and collabora-
forum but the perennial topic of “Copyright tion to elaborate on new alternative copy-
in the digital age” continued to be debated in right regulation was generally encour-
Workshop 6 with the following contribution to aged.
the EuroDIG messages that year:
Sofia 2015
The eighth meeting of EuroDIG in Sofia (4 – 5 the media. We faced a proliferation of informa-
December 2015) assessed the progress of tion and media services. Young people rely
“Media in the digital age” in Plenary 1 and less on traditional media and more on new
“EU copyright reform” in Workshop 6. media, including social media. The customisa-
tion of information delivery had a narrowing
The outcomes of Plenary 1 were summarised effect which can allow global Internet compa-
by the rapporteur as follows: nies to become gatekeepers for users. This
There had been a massive transformation raised issues of quality, diversity and reliabili-
of the media ecosystem and how people use ty of information, as well as of trust. Partici-
25Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Sofia 2015
pants held diverging views about whether this 8. Do we need public service search engines
was raising or lowering the diversity and qual- or at least public service algorithms? Many
ity of media and journalism. The participants participants, including those from Eastern
also explored questions concerning diversity European countries, raised concerns about
and quality in media and journalism and high- alarming developments regarding media
lighted the following: freedom and the relations between their
1. Media regulation may need to be adapted governments and the media.
to the digital age as it does not necessarily
deliver media diversity and quality. The following messages from Workshop 6 in-
2. How do we ensure the diversity of informa- cluded a caveat that EuroDIG may not have a
tion in the digital age? What standards are sufficiently broad enough framework for Euro-
needed? pean copyright discussions:
3. Do we need more regulation of new media 1. Copyright covers a wide range of problems
and citizen journalism? for a large range of different actors. Sys-
4. How can we enhance the protection and tematic discussion on overall issues is diffi-
social responsibility of non-professional cult.
journalism? 2. Copyright is contentious and remains an
5. Is the title of a journalist being under- area where consensus between all stake-
mined by citizen journalism? holder groups is far away.
6. Can millions of Internet users communi- 3. EuroDIG may not be the best platform to
cate with each other in a meaningful way? discuss how to further engage a broader
7. Do we need a new concept of “public serv- public in the ongoing European debates.
ice journalism”?
26Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Brussels 2016
Brussels 2016
The ninth EuroDIG took place in Brussels (9 – cycling occupies space and pushes out
10 June 2016) when disruptive impacts of the other content.
Internet in the media and content sector were • Do we need gatekeepers back? Or should
analysed in Workshop 1: “Content is the some hierarchy be imposed on the infor-
king, revisited”. A technical reality check mation deluge? More information doesn’t
about regulating content was undertaken in lead to better informed people. Would
Workshop 3: “Technical basics everyone quality control be needed?
should know before discussing online con- • How to police hate speech? Media literacy
tent control”. training might help. But it should be made
with an open mind. Angry speech is not
The title of Workshop 1 was in reference to hate speech.
the 1996 essay by Bill Gates when he argued • Code of conduct for big platforms. Unity of
that “Content is where I expect much of the the net under U.S. law?
real money will be made on the Internet, just • Has the Internet been good for democra-
as it was in broadcasting.” The workshop re- cy? It has taken out the economic basis of
visited the essay to find out whether his quality journalism. Even if we like free con-
prediction had become reality and if yes, tent, there’s a price to pay.
did it still hold true after all the Internet-in- • Content will be produced and producers
duced transformations. The rapporteur out- should be paid, but the structures don’t
lined the main points of the discussion as necessarily remain the same.
follows:
• Who’s the king now: Platforms? Advertis- The messages of Workshop 3 were expressed
ing? Money? Soundbites? Or content, but in three concise sentences:
defined differently. Or down with the 1. A networked system is defined by open
king, long live the people? and scalable standards (e.g. with regard to
• Content can now be produced and distrib- the domain name system, IPv4, IPv6).
uted by “everybody” and recycled without 2. The Internet’s architecture renders block-
checking facts. Information inflated by re- ing of access technically infeasible.
27Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Brussels 2016 / Tallinn 2017
3. Content control necessarily entails com- forcement, and the rights of infrastructure
plex questions surrounding freedom of ex- providers to conduct business.
pression, the legitimate interest of law en-
Tallinn 2017
EuroDIG held its tenth meeting in Tallinn (6 – 7 The rapporteur for Plenary 2 summarised the
June 2017). As the Secretariat noted in the main points of discussion as follows:
summary report, there could not have been a • “Fake news” had become a kind of buzz-
better place to discuss the digital future and to word and it was important to define what
celebrate the 10th anniversary of EuroDIG than it was and what it was not. It was not sim-
in Estonia which is arguably the leading Euro- ply bad journalism or news reporting that
pean country in its use of new online technolo- one didn’t agree with. “Fake news” was in
gies and establishing new concepts such as fact not news but was information inten-
digital citizenship. tionally disseminated in order to spread
On a more sombre note, Estonia had also confusion in society, or to discredit
had first-hand experience of being targeted by democracy or solely for economic gain.
sustained and concentrated digital attacks, • So-called “fake news” had fed the polari-
both in terms of threats to cybersecurity and sation of societies and this in turn created
malicious content. Against this background more opportunities for disinformation. It
and in addition to other disturbing recent disrupted the status of truth, undermined
trends, Plenary 2 “The Internet in the post- the value of objectivity and the principles
truth era” assumed a particularly dark signif- of professional journalism. People who
icance. Workshop 7 meanwhile continued the had felt constrained by objectivity who
dialogue on copyright and discussed “The didn’t like and trust it, were emancipating
EU’s copyright reform proposal – which im- themselves now that they had the tools.
pacts on users’ fundamental rights?” The information landscape was not verti-
28Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Tallinn 2017
cal any more. When the “old media” tried current business models, with particular re-
to check and correct user-generated sto- gard to their incompatibility with new obli-
ries, they in turn were accused of spread- gations (e.g. content-filtering technologies).
ing “fake news.” • There was consensus that imposing filter-
• New norms were not needed; instead ex- ing obligations on intermediaries was a
isting ones should be implemented. Gov- bad step that should be opposed.
ernment regulation was not the way to • There was discussion about potential
solve the “fake news” problem, and could problems with automatic monitoring and
lead to the suppression of legitimate voic- whether this could affect other rights such
es. Instead, existing mechanisms of self- as human rights.
regulation and co-regulation should be • Reform proposals should address other
given a larger role; and new approaches rights such as freedom of panorama (the
should be discussed such as according right to take photos or videos of public
public trustee media status to platforms buildings and monuments without regard
which should become more accountable to the rights of their creators). This includ-
and transparent, e.g. about the standards ed the harmonisation of both non-com-
they applied in different countries. mercial and commercial uses.
• Enhancing media literacy education was • The so-called “copyfighters” prepared a
the most effective way of combating “fake position paper reflecting the views of
news” and should be taken to new heights. young people on modern copyright re-
Media literacy education should be seen as form. They identified seven key areas in
a political survival project for society, and need of reform including: territoriality,
a right for the individual, especially chil- geo-blocking, fair use, intermediaries,
dren. Skills and resources of journalists remix culture, education – open access
should also be enhanced. and ancillary rights of media publishers.
• There was broad consensus that Article 13
The messages from Workshop 7 identified of the draft directive was problematic; in
problems with the new EU copyright reform particular there was uncertainty and con-
proposals at that time: cern about cultural heritage.
• There were concerns about how technology • There was a general consensus against
revolutionised the commercial world and geoblocking. However, it should be al-
29Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Tallinn 2017 / Tbilisi 2018
lowed for promotional purposes by artists though it was recognised that this would
timed with the release of content locally. be very difficult.
• A fair use exception to existing copyright • The importance of educating users on
exceptions should be future-proofed al- copyright was underlined.
Tbilisi 2018
EuroDIG held its eleventh meeting in the capi- b) disinformation when false information
tal of Georgia, Tbilisi (5 – 6 June 2018). Ses- is knowingly shared in order to cause
sions relating to media and content included harm; and c) malinformation, when gen-
Plenary 2: “Information disorder: causes, uine information is shared deliberately in
risks and remedies”; Workshop 1: “Platform order to cause harm.
and data neutrality – Access to content” and • In order to find effective remedies, it was
Workshop 10: “Your freedom of expression necessary to be clear about why disinfor-
vs. mine – who’s in control”. mation is intentionally created, promoted
and amplified in the first place. Often it
Plenary 2 took forward the theme of so-called aimed to undermine and discredit democ-
“fake news” from the previous year in Tallinn, racy which can only thrive if people were
with the opportunity to take into account a able to make informed choices. Its methods
year of intense analysis and research by the were more indirect, ingenious and devious
Council of Europe and the European Union in than those of propaganda although both
particular. The key messages from the session may have the same ultimate objective.
were: • All stakeholder constituencies could each
• Information disorder was much more than play effective roles in countering disinfor-
the crude description of “fake news”. It in- mation. If governments used regulation as
cluded a) misinformation when false infor- a remedy, it should not be done in such a
mation is shared but no harm is intended; way as to undermine freedom of expres-
30Media and Content: A Decade of Change | Tbilisi 2018
sion. Before blocking non-acceptable con- gorithms. On the one hand, their goal was
tent, the social media platforms should be to optimise the user’s experience. Why
sure that they were directly tackling the should companies disclose algorithms if
cause of the problem, not merely the they were protected by intellectual proper-
symptoms. The established media – in- ty rights and if they allowed platforms to
cluding the public service media – should improve users’ experience? On the other
provide reliable information and fact- hand, when private companies have
checking based on ethical and profession- achieved such high levels of importance
al standards. The technical community and influence in society and economic ac-
should develop algorithms and AI-based tivity, they should have some degree of ac-
solutions that counter disinformation. Civil countability.
society should engage in producing narra- • Concepts of corporate social responsibility
tives that promote democratic values, ex- were now well-established in many coun-
pose the harmful impacts of disinforma- tries and this could be used as a model for
tion and counteract radicalisation. social media platforms in determining the
appropriate balance of private commercial
Workshop 1 discussed the growing role of so- interests and public responsibilities.
cial media platforms and considered their re-
sponsibilities. The participants concluded Workshop 10 also considered issues of re-
that: sponsibility and accountability, and its conclu-
• The debate around the neutrality of social sions included the following:
media platforms should go beyond Inter- • Greater transparency in how algorithms
net service providers, bearing in mind also were developed was needed and there
that the potentially different biases of on- should be a public debate on the ap-
line platforms could also lead to discrimi- proaches taken by private companies.
natory treatment of their users. The lack of • When discussing ways to tackle disinfor-
platform neutrality was particularly alarm- mation, it was necessary to assess the im-
ing due to their worldwide reach and mar- plications for both democracy and free-
ket dominance. dom of expression.
• There was a divergence of views on • Quality journalism was essential for main-
whether platforms should disclose their al- taining democracy.
31You can also read
