Although much is happening in digital developments globally, civil society is having a hard time achieving a distinctive and perceptible impact. This includes the goal of regaining some degree of ‘information integrity’ that can counter the highly toxic information and media ecosystem, enabled by digital platforms, that is poisoning public debate and undermining even the limited democracies we have.
Part of the problem is that so few avenues of influence are available, particularly at global and regional levels. Civil society is trapped, you could say, in traditional modes of engagement–lobbying the system, responding to calls for input, attending events, writing up alternative proposals–and largely getting ignored. Of course, these are vital activities. But, the digital platforms and corporate lobbyists always appear to be several steps ahead, setting the agenda and, with limitless budgets, busy in the back rooms everywhere. Whereas, civil society plays catch up, often just trying to undo some of the damage. And the problem runs deep, even in richer countries: a senior OECD official candidly admitted to me recently that many member states would love to do something about the power of these platforms but they are, essentially, afraid of them—afraid they might pull their services and apply pressure on politicians and entire countries. Thus, the major actors, at any level, suffer from a form of paralysis.
The algorithms used by social media in their headlong pursuit of profit, combined with monopoly control by a handful of platform corporations, in effect, act as gatekeepers into the digital information ecosphere.
At this point, everyone, even governments, can agree on a couple of key aggravating factors. The algorithms used by social media in their headlong pursuit of profit, combined with monopoly control by a handful of platform corporations, in effect, act as gatekeepers into the digital information ecosphere. Many proposed solutions skirt around the core problems: more oversight of, and by, these companies (some are moving in the opposite direction, seeing no sanctions to stop them), improved digital media literacy, etc. These might be useful, but they are not enough to shift the direction of these juggernauts. Even as the elephant remains solidly squatting in the room, and the platforms can still do what they like, awareness is growing among all actors that the challenges to our information ecosystem cannot be solved by piecemeal actions; the problem is now being seen as systemic in nature, and ‘systemic change’ is the only way forward.
A starting point, perhaps, is to discredit the digital platforms’ claim that they alone have the resources and knowledge needed to manage the digital information environment.
So what can be done? A starting point, perhaps, is to discredit the digital platforms’ claim that they alone have the resources and knowledge needed to manage the digital information environment. For instance, how AI development must rely on huge data centers, immense processing power; and vast volumes of content that only they can muster; or how only their social media–Facebook, TikTok, X–has the thousands of technicians and computing power needed to run these platforms. Debunking these arguments and demonstrating that in practice, totally different, more democratic, and participative systems could actually work on a small scale and with limited resources, might reinforce and be reinforced by the traditional approaches to bringing about change.
A systemic approach is being pursued by a recently formed Working Group, called i3MD (Information Integrity, Interoperability, and Media Diversity). This has convened a group with progressive credentials and, more importantly, all the skills and knowledge needed to imagine and build a media environment– techies, lawyers and regulators, business builders, media practitioners, and human rights activists. They have come together to design something better; not to start from scratch but rather to figure out how to move from where we are now, to where we want to be, with a relatively modest amount of effort. The intention is not to take down the digital platforms (much as some of us might like to) or even to create a parallel information ecosystem. Rather the goal is to demonstrate that–with the right legislation, regulation, technical innovation, and business development–they can be cracked open and forced into a fully interoperable space. Furthermore, this space can be populated by a wide range of intermediary actors, non-profit and otherwise, designed to enable and curate an information and media environment driven from the bottom up and in pursuit of public interest goals. And to demonstrate that relatively modest resources achieve this. This space is one that would give control to people and communities about the information they want to access and create.
i3MD is beginning to design and test this systemic approach in a real-world situation–or as close as possible to one–across a number of key dimensions.
First is to fully understand the systemic nature of the crisis itself, and hence also of the potential solutions. This is the most straightforward area of work, as the evidence mounts from many directions of how damaging and ultimately unsustainable the current information ecosystem dynamics are. This is about corralling and building evidence-based arguments on the need for systemic change and for a new core dynamic to be introduced into the ecosystem; while demonstrating that the current solutions, while welcome, are ultimately not going to achieve the changes needed.
Second are the technological aspects, which are multi-layered and highly complex—though not as complex as the digital platforms would have us believe. The goal is clear: to define and design the technical requirement of this mandatory fully interoperable space, in which users can select, simply and meaningfully, the kind of information they want to access and provide. The questions being explored are:
- How can full content and user interoperability (‘radical interoperability’ is the term we use) of the media and information eco-system be achieved, including the current digital platforms?
- What are the best technologies and approaches to enabling the ‘intermediary’ entities to secure access to, compile, and curate content from the entire ecosystem of providers? While at the same time developing user-end interfaces that allow people and communities of users to decide the kind of content they want and the information that they are willing to hand over.
The immediate goal for i3MD, is to produce a user-friendly technical ‘sandbox’–an actual fully working model, complete with protocols–demonstrating its technical feasibility and what it will look like to the user. This will include potential selection criteria for users in terms of content, a range of intermediary offerings and how they can be tailored for use, and a window into mainstream social media but now selectively curated to the user’s interests. It will also demonstrate how new public-interest content providers can be fed into the system, with strong visibility for users. Enabling such new providers is an essential component of this ecosystem.
Third is the legislative, regulatory, and fiscal components of a solution. The European Union’s Digital Markets Act and the proposed Access Act in the US are moving in the direction of mandated interoperability. However, significant additional work is needed, as these tend to address current urgent problems as distinct from aiming to enable the emergence of a new media and information ecosystem. Alongside competition and anti-trust law, fiscal measures can also be deployed to support diversity in the emerging ecosystem. The goal of the Working Group with this component is to secure the interest of specific countries that recognize that stronger action is needed and are willing to explore new legislative and regulatory ideas at that level.
The fourth area, in some ways, is the trickiest: designing sustainable business models that can underwrite the range of actors needed to create a genuinely plural and diverse digital information ecosystem.
The fourth area, in some ways, is the trickiest: designing sustainable business models that can underwrite the range of actors needed to create a genuinely plural and diverse digital information ecosystem. In particular, new actors, including the intermediary information curators and a range of new bottom-up, community and public-interest content producers must emerge. Certainly, public funding will be required to enable these, especially those from the ground up, to develop further and thrive. Public financing mechanisms have been implemented in many places in recent years, also helping mainstream media to migrate into digital territory, especially as the advertising revenues have been sucked up by the platforms. These mechanisms will no doubt have to grow; including the possibility of multilateral funding mechanisms with a specific focus on the Global South.
Thus, mechanisms are needed to redistribute revenues within the ecosystem, possibly using micro-payments as a means of cross-subsidy. Since data is a key value, it is also essential to redistribute–based on criteria to determine users’ ‘contributed value’–access to, or interaction with, personal and group data.
However, structural solutions are also needed that can draw on the basic economic dynamics of the digital sector. ‘Digital value’, for instance, often actually consists of data-driven, intelligent, precision-targeted services— such as targeted medicine or education. A sustainable model can take advantage of such potential ‘digital value’. Thus, mechanisms are needed to redistribute revenues within the ecosystem, possibly using micro-payments as a means of cross-subsidy. Since data is a key value, it is also essential to redistribute–based on criteria to determine users’ ‘contributed value’–access to, or interaction with, personal and group data. This must be done to the highest privacy and security standards, and to be in the user’s best interests. This is facilitated by growing possibilities of retaining data–even AI–at the edges, close to the users and under their control or that of their agents. Service providers can be enabled to interact with such closeted data in ‘Confidential Clean Rooms’, with predefined and transparent parameters, though they would be unable to remove the data or harm the users in any way.
Combined, the above are designed to demonstrate–in technically, economically, and politically practical terms–the feasibility and desirability of bringing about a scenario such as the following:
A variety of intermediaries can access the dominant platforms’ content and their users, and be able to provide alternative, additional, innovative, or better services to these users–for example offering recommender systems–optimized for different outcomes for different content. Users and communities could select those that match their needs and interests, based on their specific thematic interests, optimization models, data protection settings, transparency, or other features. The business models adopted by these players could be different, too. In this scenario, users of a specific social media platform could:
(i) remain on the platform where all relevant contacts are and, therefore keep gaining from network effects,
(ii) decide which services they want to use and easily change to other providers; in other words, they can be the masters of their own online experience and build their social media à la carte.
The diversity of players and business models will create ‘circuit-breakers’ for many information threats, such as disinformation or propaganda.
At an individual level, users will have more choice and more agency in building their information diet. They will be exposed to a variety of content and configure their ‘own matrices of truths’. At the community level, no player will have the power to influence or manipulate the information flow. The diversity of players and business models will create ‘circuit-breakers’ for many information threats, such as disinformation or propaganda. Media will become less dependent on a single player or business model. Individuals, groups, and communities will have much-improved access to the means to develop their own content and to host it on a digital platform, with ensured means to achieve visibility who share their – public-interest drive – goals.
The i3MD Working Group believes that developing this combination of concepts, evidence, and practical demonstrators and models can help civil society steal a march on the digital platforms’ lobby monolith, to go beyond reacting to problems and instead present persuasive solutions. Alongside the traditional lobbying and mobilizing, it would also enable civil society, including in the Global South, to build wider solution-based collaboration with governments and multi-lateral organizations.
