PDF-ის ჩამოტვირთვა
ონლაინ დეზინფორმაციის გავლენა ციფრულ საზოგადოებაზე მყიფე დემოკრატიის ქვეყანაში
ნინა შენგელია
27/05/2022
Internet is part of our daily lives and we live in a digitalized world. Social Media usage has increased rapidly during the outbreak of Covid 19 in 2019, as due to imposed lockdowns, users started spending more time online. Social media is plagued with content containing disinformation, misinformation and hate speech. In the first half of 2020, Facebook has removed 3.3 billion pieces of fake or misleading content. “Disinformation” and “Hate Speech” are the most contested categories on social media as is difficult to agree on a universal definition of these terms. This article discusses problems faced by fragile and unconsolidated democracies on social media and how human rights are often violated at the expense of protection afforded to online free speech. Georgia has been selected as a case country because it has a deeply polarised society which is further ruptured by disinformation circulating on social media. The Article analyses online disinformation data from Georgia, where Facebook is actively used by more than 75% of the adult population, discusses types of disinformation fed to digital society and how it poses a threat to internet users’ human rights. Furthermore, the Article also analyzes the regulatory framework in place at the transnational level to combat disinformation as well as self-regulatory mechanisms adopted by social media platforms on the example of Facebook’s Oversight Board. In the end, the article identifies media literacy as the key instrument in battling online disinformation in Georgia.
PDF-ის ჩამოტვირთვა
დეზინფორმაცია და პროფესიული ფაქტების შემოწმება: პრაქტიკოსის შეხედულება
ჯოვანი ზანი
22/12/2021
In the current debate on disinformation, fact-checkers are similar to first-line responders. Their experience is a useful point of view that can inform further research and policy choices. Building on many years of fact-checking work in the Italian projects Pagella Politica and Facta.news, some observations will be introduced. First, a fundamental division between different kinds of fact-checking needs will be clarified. Secondly, some practical “laws” in the everyday approach to disinformation will be presented and discussed, ranging from the limited influence of a large number of disinformation narratives to the key role of superspreaders and the small observable role of foreign actors.
PDF-ის ჩამოტვირთვა
დეზინფორმაცია და დანაშაული საქართველოში: შეგვიძლია თუ არა მისი კრიმინალიზაცია?
უშანგი ბახტაძე
22/12/2021
The impetus of this paper is to explore disinformation, crime and criminalisation in the context of new media and critically evaluate the statement whether criminalising media or people who deliberately spread false information is logical response to this problem. In doing so, the paper firstly, tries to define what is disinformation, then it explores the process of criminalisation, describes the harm principle and conceptualises the types of harms. Paper then analysis challenges for defining crime in the era of new media, then it explores the value of free speech and finally, infers that criminalisation of disinformation is extreme act from the state, it usually causes only remote harms and therefore, criminalising disinformation shall be resisted.
PDF-ის ჩამოტვირთვა
სოციალურ მედიაში გამოხატვის თავისუფლება საქართველოში – ონლაინ რეგულაციის აუცილებლობა
სერგი ჯორბენაძე
22/12/2021
The article discusses challenges existing that stem from the use of social media in Georgia and what are the legal mechanisms that can be put in place to address these challenges. Lack of case law in Georgian courts, leaves Georgian users in a vulnerable state. Georgian users of social media feel unprotected when it comes to violation of their basic human rights. These human right violations have become very challenging for all countries but especially for fragile democracies like Georgia where majority of the population are active users of social media platforms (mainly Facebook). It is important that some sort of mechanism similar to the “Dispute Resolution Body” is put in place that would protect rights of users of social media in Georgia.
PDF-ის ჩამოტვირთვა
ნუ ისვრით შეტყობინებას: ბრაზილიაში დეზინფორმაციის რეგულირება კონტენტის მიღმა
კლარა იგლესიას კელერ
22/12/2021
This paper analyses regulatory strategies towards disinformation in order to demonstrate the importance of policies that do not encompass speech regulation, but rather target the handling of data and structural regulation. Building on social and communications sciences findings, it sets some premises for the disinformation regulation debate. This includes the paradox faced by regulators referring to liberal democracies’ duty to ensure citizens’ right to freedom of expression and at the same time countermeasure online speech abuses. After analysing and classifying regulatory strategies proposed and implemented in different national contexts, it proposes that statutory regulation should not focus on regulating content or nailing concepts of disinformation, but direct efforts at regulating data and digital platforms’ business models. Finally, the paper will present and extract key learning from the Brazilian experience, where disinformation campaigns led by the 2018 presidential elections fueled a regulatory debate that gained momentum in 2020 when the country started discussing a new regulatory framework for digital platforms.
PDF-ის ჩამოტვირთვა
ონლაინ დეზინფორმაციის რეგულირება: რეაგირება ციფრულ პრობლემებზე თუ უკეთესი ინტერნეტის შექმნა?
ეილინ კულოტი
22/12/2021
Focusing on the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, this paper argues that European debates about regulating online disinformation need to be set against a broader perspective on regulating the digital environment as a public infrastructure. Occupying the grey area of legal but “harmful” content, disinformation is difficult to define, poorly understood, always evolving, and entangled in the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Self-regulatory mechanisms to increase the accountability of digital platforms, such as the EU Code, have repeatedly failed to address these core issues. Moreover, there is little evidence to suggest that the co-regulatory framework envisaged by the EU’s Digital Services Act will improve this situation. After reviewing these failures and weaknesses, this paper will suggest that policymakers can achieve better civic and democratic outcomes by focusing - not on a minority of large platforms and the content they host - but on regulating the digital environment as a public infrastructure through, for example, robust competition, data portability, and interoperability rules. Such actions have the potential to break the dominance of Big Tech while incentivising better and new services for citizens.