[ad_1]
Like the US prepares for next year’s mid-term elections and as this foreign and domestic online misinformation and propaganda comes along, it is essential to develop reasonable social and legal protections groups likely to target digital spin campaigns. While the timing is right, we need to create a renewed model of democratic governance on the Internet so that we can protect the many people affected by ongoing problems in space.
In the last two years Propaganda Research Laboratory At the UT Center for Media Engagement, he has been exploring ways for various global producers of social media-based propaganda efforts to focus their strategies. One of the key findings of the U.S. lab has been that these individuals — political parties, domestic and foreign governments, political advisory firms, and PR groups — often work with a combination of private platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram and are more open. Like Facebook and YouTube, in offers to manipulate minority voting blocks in certain regions or cities. For example, they pay special attention when they spread political misinformation immigrant and diaspora communities In Florida, North Carolina and other swing states.
Although some of this content comes from U.S. groups that expect a vote in favor of a candidate, it has achieved a large share dark origin and less than clear intentions. It is not uncommon, for example, to encounter content provided or provided by users in China, Venezuela, Russia, or India, some of which are characterized by government manipulation campaigns organized in those countries.
It may not be surprising considering what we know about authoritarianism today offers from foreign entities To influence the political affairs of the United States and many other countries around the world. Both China and Russia continue to work to control the experiences of Big Tech and, consequently, their populations on the Internet. And the truth is that our lab has collected evidence of campaigns aimed at people with U.S. heritage — especially first- or second-generation immigrants — with sophisticated digital propaganda campaigns with similar efforts outside of Beijing. We’ve seen suspicious social media profiles (thousands of them Twitter later delete. In our interviews and digital research on the 2020 US presidential election, we found people of Arab, Colombian, Brazilian and Indian descent focused on similar efforts. We also spoke to propagandists who were open about their efforts to manipulate large groups of immigrants, the diaspora, and minorities, to say that they falsely believed that Joe Biden was a socialist and therefore should not side with him.
Impact of control by China, Russia or other authoritarian regimes through their “country” internet it is widespread that the emergence of propaganda campaigns by these regimes obviously affects them beyond the borders of a nation-state. These efforts have an impact on communities that are linked to those countries that live elsewhere — including the U.S. — and on countries that seek guidance on how to manage (dominate) their digital information ecosystems from these anti-democratic superpowers.
Russia, China and other authoritarian states are making progress with segmented versions of the internet, based on autocratic principles, surveillance and oppression of freedom of expression and the rights of individuals. These control campaigns are poured into other information spaces around the world. For example, GLOBSEC has found research from the Slovak thinktank The influence of the Kremlin In the digital ecosystems of several EU Member States. They argue that both passive and active information machinations in Russia have an impact on public perceptions of governance and ultimately weaken European democracy.
However, even democratic countries have not dominated in their efforts to vote for and control the Internet. After years of fooling around, the tech-savvy sector could and should regulated itself, which ended with the Capitol insurgency driven by social media, is being questioned by global political leaders and other actors about what a more democratic human rights-oriented internet should look like.
If the road administration wants to get out of its way renewed commitment with regard to transatlantic cooperation, the management of the digital framework should take center stage. As autocratic states develop and cement their influence, democracies need to step back and move quickly. The EU, on the other hand, has focused its efforts on protecting the individual privacy rights and the fight against it misinformation and hate speech online, the task is far from over. Like efforts like legislation Digital Services Act and rules according to artificial intelligence, neither the EU nor the US can go it alone. Democracies thrive in strong alliances and run the risk of falling without them.
We need a renewed model for democratic governance on the Internet. It is an unprecedented commitment because our societies have no equal legal or political experience can be used effectively as a template for digital efforts. For example, the phenomena created by the digital revolution call into question the understanding of the rights of individuals and the XXI. They force us to redefine the equivalent adaptation of the century. Does it mean freedom of expression automatic access to audiences that take hundreds of thousands of users? What about users who may be particularly vulnerable to manipulation or harassment? Are we protecting the right to privacy online enough? Is it certainly a space where many organizations follow movements that they follow freely? Determining the answers to these and other in-depth questions will not be easy, especially since finding them requires collaboration between often conflicting actors: citizens / users, civil servants, civil society groups, academics, and especially the technology sector.
[ad_2]
Source link
