Hardly a day goes by without some new allegation that social media are undermining democracy. Actors across the political spectrum are exploiting digital technologies to spread disinformation and fuel polarization.
While “fake news” and hate speech are nothing new, the digital age has provided, if unwittingly, an environment conducive to both. The potential of new technologies to improve the human condition is beyond question, but the risks they pose to democracy are now increasingly apparent.
Tech companies, governments and citizens alike are grasping for solutions to a set of connected challenges. How do we deal with rapid online communication that makes well-timed disinformation easy to disseminate and difficult to rebut? How does the desire to create watchable content, which is often based on emotion and sensation rather than evidence, fit with reasoned democratic debate?
How do we identify the real sources of information when the Internet’s anonymity hides the origin of a post? Moreover, given the reach and market dominance of Google and Facebook, are we, and by extension our political views and debates, captives of their algorithms?
In one of his last initiatives before he passed away in August last year, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan convened a Commission on Elections and Democracy in the Digital Age, which was launched earlier this month at Stanford University.
In particular, Annan wanted to sound the alarm on behalf of countries that have few, if any, means to defend themselves against these 21st-century threats to the integrity of elections. And, because these problems could affect almost any country, he fervently believed that a global perspective was crucial for tackling them.
As the commission, which comprises experts from the worlds of tech and politics, prepares to start its work, four challenges loom large.
The first is the rise of an election interference industry. Just as we study the 2016 US presidential election for lessons on how to prevent interference, others look to that campaign for insights into electoral manipulation.
Commercial consulting groups already appeal to potential clients with ideas about how social media, fake news and microtargeting can be effective in swaying elections. Furthermore, this new industry will be bipartisan, if recent allegations of social media manipulation and fake news in last year’s Alabama Senate election are any guide.
The danger to democracy worldwide can hardly be overstated. If election outcomes in a country as powerful and technologically advanced as the US potentially can be influenced, how will other countries fare?
Another emerging challenge comes from increasingly popular “home assistants.” Online information monopolies already have the power to determine what much of a country’s population sees and believes. And as home assistants such as Google Home, Alexa and Siri become more commonplace, users will soon get single-answer responses to queries, instead of multiple suggestions.
Such ultra-curation will diminish our search activity, investigation and discourse, giving a few companies and algorithms even greater power to shape what we know and believe.
The third threat is the emergence of fake video material — the so-called deepfakes. These use artificial intelligence and image synthesis to create video images that are indistinguishable from authentic footage.
Imagine, for example, the speed at which manufactured footage of the Iranian president telling his military chiefs to prepare an invasion of Israel would spread around the Internet. As deepfakes become widespread, overall trust in video will decline.
Moerover, as the real and virtual worlds continue blending into each other, we may lose confidence in our ability to determine what is real and what is not in democratic politics.
Last are encrypted peer-to-peer platforms. WhatsApp, with more than 1.5 billion monthly active users in 180 countries, has been used to spread rumors and stoke violence in Brazil, Mexico and India in the same way that Facebook was used to stir up communal violence in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Bangladesh.
True, the anonymity and encryption offered by WhatsApp are potent protections for citizens fighting for their democratic rights under murderous authoritarian regimes, but these same features make it difficult to identify the sources of rumors, hatred and incitement to violence, and therefore hard to gauge the extent to which WhatsApp is used to manipulate elections.
This year, there will be more than 80 presidential, general and parliamentary elections around the world. Managing and containing these threats are an urgent priority for democrats everywhere.
Laura Chinchilla, a former president of Costa Rica, chairs the Kofi Annan Commission on Elections and Democracy in the Digital Age.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry