As WACC and other civil society organizations have pointed out, communication rights are conspicuous by their absence from the 17 SDGs adopted by UN members states in 2015. Recently, a case was made for the missing SDG 18 Communication for All in a two-volume book edited and authored by development communication academics and practitioners from around the world.

Article 19 focused on SDG 16 “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. As the most explicit mention of communication as a force underlying genuine social progress, Target 16.10 proposes to “ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.”

Article 19’s report, Sustainable Development Goals: On or off track? Assessing the progress through freedom of expression and information, indicates that nations still have a long way to go to meet SDG 16.10 – let alone all the others. Serious gaps and weaknesses are identified in the ways States’ monitor their progress in meeting the goal. In other words, they don’t really know what’s going on.

The report cites an increase in the killing of journalists, a lack of data on the complexity of attacks against journalists, no assessment of the type of access to information legislation proposed, its quality (or whether the legislation is adopted), and little attention to mainstreaming freedom of expression and access to information throughout the SDGs.

This is precisely the argument for a dynamic and crosscutting SDG 18 – Communication for All – since little can be achieved without equitable and affordable access to communication technologies and platforms, media pluralism, and media diversity.

The world is running out of time. Seven years remain before the culmination of Agenda 2030 – the umbrella term for achieving the 17 SDGs. That Agenda can only be realised with the full implementation of communication rights (not just freedom of expression and information) plus long-term adequate financing (especially addressing how low- and middle-income countries can generate sufficient resources), plus political will that translates aspirations into actions.

Poverty, climate change, and migration are today’s urgent and interrelated challenges. But without the direct involvement of the world’s 8.1 billion people through accessible and affordable communication, independent and fair-minded media, and a voice that is heard at the tables that matter, the SDGs will be derailed.

Photo: Girls and women participating in the Free/Dem program run by WACC partner Ideosync Media Combine in New Delhi, India, learn to use digital tools like mobile phones to speak out on issues that impact their day-to-day lives. Credit: Ideosync Media Combine.

There are undoubtedly many instances of positive and exciting changes taking place. Unfortunately, the overall picture is dispiriting. Studies show that organisations like WACC, which advocate for and defend people’s right to communicate, still have much to do.

Published on 2 December 2019, Article 19’s Global Expression Report 2018/2019 summarises major developments – both positive and negative – in freedom of expression around the world. The report is a barometer of national contexts that collectively point to failures of oversight and emerging trends.

Based on qualitative data from 161 countries covering 2018, together with a backward glance from 2019, the report details the factors that contribute to the health (or otherwise) of freedom of expression globally. Its conclusion:

“Too many countries are encouraging a downward trend in the rights of their own people. The data translates into a bald fact, that three of every four people on the planet are experiencing a deteriorating environment for freedom of expression… We see that tactics aimed at suppression are multiform, and while old strategies remain effective (such as silencing of journalists), new tactics are added to the armoury every year.”

The report’s introduction is titled “Expression breathes life and legitimacy back into our governments”, underlining the symbiotic relationship between good governance and good citizenship. It says, “Legal threats to freedom of expression continue – from broad and ambiguous national security laws to laws that unduly limit online expression, as well as new frameworks that delegate blocking and removal to online platforms, which often do so without transparency or accountability.”

Of particular concern are digital media and digital platforms, where the use of algorithms to monitor content has led to “a huge volume of people and communities affected by inaccurate and unjust content removals. In particular, voices of difference and dissent are being silenced online; human rights defenders, LGBTQ+ communities, and political opposition groups across the world have had their content removed and accounts deleted.”

Urgent work is being done on the ethics of the digital transformation of society and on securing a positive role for civil society organisations in the expansion and regulation of digital communication technologies. To begin with, as Article 19’s Executive Director Thomas Hughes concludes, “Our best path forward is a public debate – held everywhere from the street to the judiciary – which both feeds into and demands accountability from our democratic structures.”

Photo above: Trismegist san/Shutterstock

Article 19 argues:

“In today’s world, dominant tech companies hold a considerable degree of control over what their users see or hear on a daily basis. Current practices of content moderation on social media offer very little in terms of transparency and virtually no remedy to individual users. The impact that content moderation and distribution (in other words, the composition of users’ feeds and the accessibility and visibility of content on social media) has on the public sphere is not yet fully understood, but legitimate concerns have been expressed, especially in relation to platforms that operate at such a level of market dominance that they can exert decisive influence on public debates.”

Article 19 is proposing an open, transparent, accountable and participatory forum to address content moderation issues on social media platforms based on international standards on human rights. The model relies on:

“A voluntary approach to the oversight of content moderation: participants (social media platforms and all stakeholders) sign up to a mechanism that does not create legal obligations. Its strength and efficiency rely on voluntary compliance by platforms, whose commitment, when signing up, will be to respect and execute the SMC’s decisions (or recommendations) in good faith.”

By adopting a self-regulatory/multi-stakeholder approach, Article 19 is counting on the SMCs:

• Being independent from government, commercial and special interests;
• Being established via a fully consultative and inclusive process;
• Democratic and transparent in their selection of members and decision-making;
• Being broadly representative: it is important that the composition of the self-regulatory body include representatives of the diversity of society;
• Having a robust complaint mechanism and clear procedural rules to determine if standards were breached in individual cases, and have the power to impose only moral sanctions;
• Working in the public interest: being transparent and accountable to the public.

The consultation document can be found here. The proposal is clear and insightful. Yet, one wonders if voluntary compliance will be sufficient to address issues of personal and data privacy, harmful content, and online hate speech – especially as this particular watchdog will have few regulatory teeth and will need long-term sufficient and sustainable funding. It’s not clear who will foot the bill.