OUR PARTNERS
Menu
No single entity can resolve the myriad of information integrity challenges present in an election, and certainly not an EMB alone. There are a wide variety of organizations whose work is related to the health of the information landscape and a growing community of actors who are actively working to defend information integrity.
An effective programme of work requires a multi-stakeholder approach and the ability to creatively craft solutions. There are choices and actions that can be taken by the various actors in an election process, including: citizens, civil society, State authorities, private sector platforms, traditional media and perhaps most importantly, political figures. Together, they can build a strong information ecosystem to aid peaceful and credible elections. Coordination and partnerships are critical to the effectiveness of collective efforts. While, as of yet, there are few proven models that have been deployed at a country level, general principles and approaches can aid in this goal of collaborative success.
Supporting the in-country design of coordination structures and the establishment of partnerships can have an outsized impact upon the capabilities of actors working to defend information integrity. These may be election-specific, however they are likely best designed within a broader framework of longitudinal concerns. The coordination structure’s design will depend on the specific environment and the types of organizations in the field. Also, the existing, broader coordination mechanisms in place may guide appropriate practice.
There are a number of goals that can be worked towards:
There are several concerns, however, and risks that need to be mitigated. One of the mitigation options and means for more effective collaboration is to have different, potentially overlapping, groupings, depending on the goal, be they:
Social media councils
A particular structure of coordination that has been proposed in a number of fora are social media councils. They describe a body that provides multi-stakeholder grouping to provide oversight of content-moderation decisions on social media. They would act to provide accountability and promote the application of international human rights standards, using voluntary compliance approaches.
In many cases, these groupings may form organically; in other cases, it may take a coordination figure to organize them. If an organizer is required, it would typically be one that is seen as neutral and trusted by various actors.
The design and management of appropriate coordination structures will vary between contexts. A key consideration should be to ensure diversity in participation, both with regards to the types of information integrity actors, but also the political and social elements of the country-context.
Youth organizations or youth-led organizations are likely to play an outsized role in this area given that they are more likely to be involved in the technology-work.
Once again, appropriate inclusion within the bodies is important. However, steering the work of the collective to consider gender-related priorities also is.
In the first instance, it is wise to ensure participants are comfortable with their work undergoing external communication. However, much of the work may benefit from public communication and the pressure that this introduces, especially advocacy tasks.
Social Media Councils: From Concept to Reality
Stanford’s Global Digital Policy Incubator (GDPi) , ARTICLE 19, and David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, convened an international working meeting to discuss a solution to address the challenges posed by online content moderation: the creation of multistakeholder, social media councils (SMCs). Our report, “Social Media Councils: From Concept to Reality,” explores the outcomes of this meeting and discusses the next steps for social media councils.
Indonesia, CekFakta
In Indonesia, during the 2018–2019 elections, nonprofit-led initiatives included MAFINDO’s operation of a fact-checking ‘Hoax Crisis Center’ to debunk social media hoaxes. In 2019, MAFINDO and 24 news organizations similarly operated CekFakta.com with funding from Google News to correct hoaxes and false candidate statements. These partners also developed fact-checking tools for public use, including a phone application that gave provincial government offices the opportunity to correct false stories in real-time, as users reported them. (Fanny Potkin and Agustinus Beo de Costa, “Fact-checkers vs. hoax peddlers: a fake news battle ahead of Indonesia’s election,” Reuters, August 10, 2019).
Georgia, No to Phobia!
The civil society platform No to Phobia! was established by 13 non-governmental organizations on 7 May 2014 to enable a close cooperation of non-governmental organizations towards eliminating expressions of all forms of discrimination and hate speech in Georgian politics and media. The platform has the following goals:
UNESCO, Social Media 4 Peace
The overall objective of the Social Media 4 Peace UNESCO project funded by the European Commission Foreign Policy Instrument is to strengthen the resilience of societies to potentially harmful content spread online, in particular hate speech inciting violence while protecting freedom of expression and enhancing the promotion of peace through digital technologies, notably social media. The project covers 4 pilot countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Columbia, Indonesia and Kenya and aims, amongst other objectives to:
South Africa, Real411
In South Africa, Real411 provides a platform for the public to report digital harms including disinformation. This ensures that online content is assessed and addressed in an independent, open, transparent and accountable manner within our laws and constitutional rights. Special attention is given to topics such as COVID-19 and during Election periods to complaints about elections.
Real411 is a platform developed and maintained by Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) in partnership with a range of key stakeholders which currently include, SANEF and the Press Council and the IABSA. According to their website, the aim is to add additional key stakeholders, including Chapter 9 bodies, Government, and social media platforms.
Brazil, the Electoral Justice Permanent Program on Countering Disinformation
In Brazil, The Electoral Justice Permanent Program on Countering Disinformation represents the continuity and improvement of the efforts of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) to reduce the harmful effects of disinformation towards the Electoral Court and its members, the electronic voting system, the electoral process in its different phases and the participants involved. Thereby, disinformation content aimed at pre-candidates, candidates, political parties, coalitions and federations is excluded from its scope, except when the information conveyed has the ability to negatively affect the integrity, credibility and legitimacy of the electoral process.
The creation of the Program was meant to be systemic, multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral. A “network” model of organization and operation was chosen, based on the involvement of the Electoral Justice bodies and the formation of strategic partnerships with multiple participants. Activities included a course on disinformation in the form of 30 tweets and an alert system whereby citizens could report on Violence Against Women in Elections as well as Disinformation.
For more informations contact : [email protected]
follow us on Twitter