The documentary interviews independent researchers and technology experts from the US, Kenya, France, United Kingdom and Brazil who have studied or are trying to study the impact social media really have on behaviours and attitudes.

We think we know. There have been prominent cases that have looked at the impact social media have had on teenage suicides. Surveys of women journalists have highlighted that online violence has sometimes resulted in real world violence. Political disinformation campaigns seem to have contributed to the polarization of societies.

Screengrab from Mozilla’s “Unknown Influence” video

But how far this impact really goes – and what are the differences in different countries – is what researchers are trying to find out, and now seem to be increasingly blocked by the social media companies themselves. The documentary notes in particular the decreasing transparency of Facebook, and the disproportionate moderation resources it puts into its operation in the United States versus the rest of the world.

Brandon Silverman, former CEO of CrowdTangle, which was created to monitor social media and particularly Facebook, talks about how the company was bought by Facebook and gradually limited its scope, resulting in far less transparency in how Facebook works (an issue also covered by the New York Times “Inside Facebook’s Data Wars”).

The documentary highlights the need to fight for greater transparency by social media platforms. As Silverman says, “If you have intentionally built a platform that hosts a huge percentage of the world’s civic and political discourse, then you have the responsibility to make it as open as possible.”

Bridget Todd, of Ultraviolet, calls on us to rethink our role as social media “users”. As she says, “Social media platforms would be nothing without us, yet they are able to operate as if they don’t have to be accountable to us.”

Indeed, the need to be advocates for transparency means that we need to move from being passive users to agents of change.

Photo at top: screengrab from Mozilla’s “Unknown Influence” video

There is a long-standing dialogue about “objectivity”. If “objectivity” is seen as being neutral, many rightly point out that everyone, media included, has a bias. Understanding that bias is key to critically reading any news story.

On the other hand, especially in the current environment when many journalists and media agencies are experiencing charges of political bias that cast doubt on all their reporting, the line between factual reporting and advocacy seems more and more hazy and, therefore, perilous.

The goal of journalism is public information, transparency, accountability. These alone have an advocacy component, especially seen in investigative journalism.  But such journalism is neither judge nor jury.

To paraphrase one professional journalist, the role of news media is to present the information as fairly as possible and allow the reader to make the decision.

This still doesn’t signify the absence of a sense of justice or equality. Indeed, when WACC promotes gender-sensitive reporting, as GMMP coordinator Sarah Macharia has stated, “We are not asking journalists and editors in newsrooms to be gender equality activists; we are simply asking for professionalism from a gender perspective… I think many of the problems can be solved just by paying attention. Do the necessary work so you no longer need to rely on the same five men and their opinions. And stop using the same old sexist cliches when describing a woman.”

Good journalists develop networks, find experts to state their opinions and back up their statements with facts and data. They seek perspectives from different sides of the issue or responses to allegations with enough solid information that readers or viewers can assess for themselves.

Some journalists may indeed consider themselves activists on issues “out of the office” – from gender equality to racism to poverty to political preferences. But if issues come too close to the heart, one’s coverage might be dismissed too easily by detractors who point out your bias. Thus, asking another journalist to cover the story may give the coverage more weight and validation.

Perhaps the response to the question can a journalist be an activist? is that good journalism makes us all activists for justice and accountability.

 Photo by Joppe Spaa on Unsplash

To tackle these limitations, a coalition of civil society organisations, communication scholars and practitioners recently launched the Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto. It calls for safeguarding the existence, funding, and independence of Public Service Media as well as the creation of a Public Service Internet (PSI).

Many are familiar with threats to public service media worldwide and attacks on the kind of investigative journalism that spotlights government corruption and corporate malfeasance. Less well known is the role Big Tech has played in subverting democracy and the Internet – once held up as the great equalizer in terms of communication freedoms. As the Manifesto makes clear, the PSI would:

• Be led by democratic principles – while the contemporary Internet is dominated by monopolies and commerce.
• Be privacy-friendly and transparent – while the contemporary Internet is corrupted by surveillance.
• Engages, informs and supports the public – while the contemporary Internet misinforms and divides the public.
• Puts social needs first – while the contemporary Internet is driven by profit.

Data privacy would be a mantra of the PSI, which would provide role-model practices for fair data processing. PSI software and its contents would also be a common good, reusable for non-commercial purposes.

PSI platforms would be spaces where critical, independent journalists could post high-quality news and where creative professionals could post high-quality programmes that educate, inform, and entertain in formats appropriate to the digital age. In addition, PSI algorithms would be open source and transparent: algorithms “of the public, by the public, and for the public”.

A PSI will require sustainable funding based on several mechanisms such as licence fees, the Nordic model of tax-financed public services, and transnational agreements. This will be crucial to its long-term viability and independence.

Will we need a global body capable of overseeing a Public Service Internet? Most likely, but one that is independent of supranational political obstruction and that consults openly and regularly with civil society.

Ultimately, this is a matter of “design justice”. This is a concept that rethinks design processes to focus on people often marginalized by design, and uses collaborative, creative practices to address the deepest challenges that communities face. A PSI based on design justice would also reflect key principles of communication rights in the digital age: accessibility, affordability, and accountability. Bring it on!

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org) has responded to growing concerns with a statement (10 March 2020) urging “a balance between collective good and civil liberties.” The EFF statement says:

“Across the world, public health authorities are working to contain the spread of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019). In pursuit of this urgent and necessary task, many government agencies are collecting and analyzing personal information about large numbers of identifiable people, including their health, travel, and personal relationships. As our society struggles with how best to minimize the spread of this disease, we must carefully consider the way that ‘big data’ containment tools impact our digital liberties.”

The topic of digital privacy is not new. Digital technologies have been subject to scrutiny by civil society groups concerned at the intrusion by governments and corporate interests into private lives and at the potential misuse of personal data.

While noting that efforts by public health agencies and government entities to combat the spread of COVID-19 are warranted, the EFF says public policy must find a balance between collective good and civil liberties. “It is important, however, that any extraordinary measures used to manage a specific crisis must not become permanent fixtures in the landscape of government intrusions into daily life [or that they] to outlive their urgency.

The EFF calls for a firm commitment to the following principles:

• Privacy intrusions must be necessary and proportionate.
• Data collection based on science not bias.
• Expiration of data.
• Transparency of usage.
• Due Process.

In times of humanitarian and natural disasters, people and communities need effective and trustworthy means of communication. Community media and digital technologies can provide ways for people to stay in touch as well as vital information that can save lives.

David Kaye, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, is on record as saying, “Human rights – its vocabulary, its framework, its vision – provides a basis for restraining the worst intrusions and violations of the digital world, and promoting its best.”

In this respect, open and equitable access to the digital sphere as well as digital privacy are key elements of today’s communication rights in practice.

Photo above: XiXinXing/Shutterstock