The past two years have been characterized by an important number of elections in some of the world’s largest and most populous countries: Mexico, Nigeria, the United States, Russia, and smaller countries like Paraguay.
With this high volume of local and national elections in a compressed period, there is substantial evidence of the significant role that digital technologies–mainly social media platforms–play in shaping how candidates, political parties, and citizens engage with and contest elections. Thus, media outlets, civil society organizations, policy-makers, and international organizations have voiced growing concerns about election integrity for quite some time due to misinformation, disinformation, and increasingly, electoral manipulation from foreign actors.
Such concerns reached a new peak at the beginning of December when, in a shocking move, the Romanian Supreme Court annulled the Presidential election, citing national security concerns and alleged Russian meddling via TikTok. This attention to the sensitive nature of digital platforms was also visible in the last G20 meeting held in Rio de Janeiro, where the member states’ leaders underscored in their final declaration how digital platforms have reshaped the digital ecosystem and online interactions by amplifying information dissemination and facilitating communications between different geographical boundaries. However, such an optimistic view is tempered by worries about the scale of online harms in various forms and a demand for platforms’ transparency and responsibility to foster a better, healthier information ecosystem.
Thus, it is evident, even reasonable, that policymakers at the national and international levels are concerned about maintaining trust in online environments for election purposes and beyond, including issues like public health and the growing anti-vaccination movement.
Thus, it is evident, even reasonable, that policymakers at the national and international levels are concerned about maintaining trust in online environments for election purposes and beyond, including issues like public health and the growing anti-vaccination movement. Thus, information integrity has emerged as the United Nations (UN) proposal to tackle the topic. While there is no universal definition of the term, in its Policy Brief 8 on Information Integrity on Digital Platforms, the UN proposes that it refers to the accuracy, consistency, and reliability of information. It also acknowledges that such integrity is threatened by disinformation, misinformation, and hate speech. From there, other organizations and UN agencies like the OECD and UNDP have followed suit in adopting the term and facilitating processes to implement information integrity policies across different member states.
It is very important to adopt a critical lens towards standardized global efforts and terminologies that seek to tackle disinformation, misinformation, and hate speech in digital platforms that often rely on technological solutions.
It is very important to adopt a critical lens towards standardized global efforts and terminologies that seek to tackle disinformation, misinformation, and hate speech in digital platforms that often rely on technological solutions. While it is true that these problematic situations occur in global digital platforms, the contextual and institutional realities in which they manifest are vital. These realities must be factored in when developing a balanced approach that tackles the problem and respects fundamental rights such as privacy, access to information, and freedom of expression. As researcher Nina Santos argues “The integrity of information cannot be considered outside the political and social context in which it takes shape”.
The Importance of Context in Peripheral Countries
Regardless of the lack of a universal definition of information integrity, there is agreement that multiple stakeholders have a role in ensuring it. The United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity outline five principles to tackle the phenomenon to guide multi-stakeholder action for a healthier information ecosystem. The Policy Brief No. 8 principles address the role and duties of member states, digital platforms, and other stakeholders.
If not, due to the lack of a more nuanced approach and recognition of these disparities, efforts may be limited by generic assumptions of how information integrity is understood and enforced across different countries.
However, while the challenges in fostering an information integrity environment are varied, it is crucial to acknowledge existing inequalities in interactions amongst global and local stakeholders across jurisdictions. If not, due to the lack of a more nuanced approach and recognition of these disparities, efforts may be limited by generic assumptions of how information integrity is understood and enforced across different countries. Analyzing the complexities that emerge at the intersection of elections and digital technologies in a small country like Paraguay is particularly valuable. This is also because, even within Global Majority countries, peripheries exist with deep inequalities and historical regional disparities that directly impact the ability of certain countries to engage effectively with digital platforms vis-à-vis others. It is also essential to move beyond merely technological interventions focused on algorithmic transparency and other interventions associated with solutions to hate speech or disinformation on digital platforms. While important, such measures are ineffective in complex Global Majority contexts where deep social problems extend far beyond digital interfaces.
1. Lack of trust in electoral authorities and obstruction of independent control of the state’s actions
Paraguay is currently experiencing a significant contraction of the democratic space, disproportionately affecting civil society’s ability to operate freely. Such ability is undermined by various means through the compromised cybersecurity of human rights defenders, threatened by both criminals and state surveillance in the form of social media monitoring and data extraction. There has also been an increase in the deployment of facial recognition technology in the public space for mass surveillance.
Moreover, the ongoing digitization of public policy and governance, without incorporating human rights impact assessments as part of the policy design process, undermines civil society’s capacity to oversee the state and political parties.
Moreover, the ongoing digitization of public policy and governance, without incorporating human rights impact assessments as part of the policy design process, undermines civil society’s capacity to oversee the state and political parties. Some policies effectively amount to direct censorship. For instance, the current transparency portal offered by the electoral authority to monitor political candidates’ spending is blocked in certain countries due to a firewall, with no reasonable explanation for a measure that seriously limits the ability of researchers and citizens to access this information from abroad. Additionally, specific changes to the access of information portals have now been mandated for citizens, requiring them to link their digital identities with their requests for information. This development poses significant risks to individuals and civil society organizations seeking to obtain sensitive public information anonymously. Such transparency requirements could endanger those requesting information that may implicate public officials in corruption or other illicit activities, as their identities could be exposed in the process.
Lastly, broader electoral policies, such as the implementation of electronic voting machines and a lack of the ability to audit such systems by independent third parties, led to significant protests after the announcement of the winner in the 2023 Presidential elections. These protests happened online and offline, creating unprecedented challenges to the stability of the electoral process. The situation was only resolved via direct repression in the streets, with the electoral authority failing to provide sufficient explanations regarding citizens’ demands for transparency about the electronic system.
2. Lack of communication between electoral authorities and digital platforms
While the country has a legal framework that recognizes the role of electoral advertisement via social media, in practice, necessary accountability instruments are not in place, limiting the ability of the electoral authority to ensure political actors’ compliance with the rule of law on social media platforms during electoral periods. This reality takes on a different dimension when thinking about the increasing influence of drug trafficking and organized crime sectors in the Paraguayan political arena, with the advertising companies linked to these sectors investing in political campaigns.
While the country has a legal framework that recognizes the role of electoral advertisement via social media, in practice, necessary accountability instruments are not in place, limiting the ability of the electoral authority to ensure political actors’ compliance with the rule of law on social media platforms during electoral periods.
This situation is coupled with a problematic scenario where, on the one hand, you have significant sums of money spent on social media advertising from accounts involved in targeted disinformation campaigns against opposition candidates as well as civil society organizations, while on the other hand, there is a disregard for the electoral advertising ban period due to the electoral authority’s lack of control capacity. Candidates post advertisements even on election day, which is prohibited by current electoral law. This is further complicated by significant discrepancies between candidates’ publicity declared expenditure to the electoral authority and what the Meta Ads Library publicly disclosed, with journalists’ research revealing such disparities linked even to the current elected President.
It is worth noting that since the last presidential elections, the electoral authority and Meta have been in discussion regarding a potential agreement during election times to tackle disinformation. But with little public information about the actual content and scope of the agreement.
3. Lack of personal data protection law
Paraguay is still one of the few countries in the region without a personal data protection law that is in line with international standards and adequate for the current digital era. This directly affects citizens and human rights defenders’ personal data protection and digital security. This situation effectively gives a blank check to political campaigns to micro-target different audiences, jeopardizing equity, transparency, and access to objective information during electoral periods. In contexts like the Paraguayan one, where most of the population predominantly uses Facebook and WhatsApp due to zero-rating policies from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), these practices acquire a different magnitude and impact on citizens’ rights and the overall election information integrity space.
Moving Forward
The aforementioned challenges evidence a complex reality combining institutional precarity, lack of attention from global platforms to the local realities in peripheral countries, weak rule of law and due process, and an outdated legal framework. Understanding these realities is crucial for creating a more trustworthy digital environment that enables an honest diagnosis and allows for fit-for-purpose and evidence-based policy-making. Policy-making that tackles the current issue of lack of trust in digital environments while balancing public access to information, freedom of expression, and the prevention of censorship.
To achieve this, the multi-stakeholder model’s strength must be a key part of the solution and protected at all costs. However, due to the rise of authoritarian regimes across the globe, including in Paraguay, key actors within this model, particularly civil society organizations, are in jeopardy. Thus, any guidance or document pushing for an information integrity agenda across countries must demand an unfettered compromise to the rule of law and that states refrain from authoritarian strategies that silence independent groups whose mission is to balance state and corporate powers.
Crucially, digital platforms must commit to transparency, regardless of countries’ geopolitical and economic relevance within global peripheries. Platforms must provide the same standards of protection, investment, and access to information globally as they do in advanced economies, even in nations that lack adequate privacy, data protection, and access safeguards. This approach is essential for transitioning to a more equitable digital future where everyone has the same protections and rights.
