91�鶹������Ʒ����

The benefits of digital technology to society are well documented and numerous. They go beyond giving a voice to the voiceless and serving as a vital lifeline of people’s access to information and engagement in sustainable development. The benefits of technology include enabling information processing and verification, research, people's access to education, better health, clean water, agriculture, cleaner environment, more fair and transparent democratic processes, the preservation of information and knowledge, more interaction with people from other cultures and thus increase in social interaction, tolerance and mutual respect, and creating new jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities. The list goes on. We have seen how the technology kept societies going during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The more recent developments of Artificial lntelligence (Al) and Blockchain technologies hold much potential for sustainable development and economic development because of the new, effcient, stable, and more powerful ways that allow for the storing, processing, managing, and protection of data and information for decision-making (see Module 11 for more information about Al). ln parallel to these benefits, there are also harms. Dependence on technology means dependence on the institutions whose curation of expression can unduly limit content - or enable expression that abuses rights such as the rights to dignity or public health. This dependence can frequently expose users to privacy invasion and attempted manipulation through data-driven targeting.

The growth, infuence, and dependence of people on social media for news and information in general is evident today. There is also the rise in misinformation that some attribute to a lack of care by companies and the use of algorithms that fuel the prominence of such content, as well as to expansion of such social media, and to the lack of MIL competencies among users.

Finally, among many other developments, there is much debate about competition between traditional media and digital communications companies for advertising revenues. Some are calling for the regulation of these latter companies in the same way that media are regulated. For example, media companies are legally liable for defamatory content, yet the digital communications or Internet companies say they are platforms, not publishers, and that the actual person doing the defamation should be liable, not them. One consequence is that they do not have a legal incentive to prevent the same material from being circulated, unless ordered to take action by court. This is a complex issue; meanwhile, there are also calls for the lnternet companies to be more tightly regulated in terms of their extraction and use of data as it affects privacy issues. Others say that these companies have become too powerful and interlinked, and want to see conglomerates broken up through regulation. A further case is made for companies to be regulated for transparency - thereby affording more evidence- based governance of these entities; for better consumer rights protection and due process such as having to provide effective opportunities to appeal against corporate decisions; and for inter-operability between different entities to enable individuals to have more choice rather than being “held hostage” with their personal data and contacts being restricted to a “walled garden”. This means that there is not the portability of data (unlike where regulation has enabled one’s cell phone number to be portable across different companies). Some lobbies seek more effective taxation of the digital communications companies, and also regulation that requires these entities to compensate media institutions for content that appears on the digital services and helps to make money for the platforms.

Taken together, these different regulatory possibilities have varying implications for the freedom of information, freedom of expression, the circulation of news, and corporate ethics (See the UNESCO resource, ).

In considering these issues, the training facilitator may choose from the approaches and activities outlines below.

How journalists expose the inadequacies or failures of digital companies to address hate speech and misinformation could be one example. The suggested activities below illustrate the point.

• Consider the role of media and digital communications companies in various aspects of social life such as gender equality, peace, health, environmental issues, education, and the sustainable development goals in general. Investigate and discuss the pros and cons. See Modules 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, and 14 for more on these topics and other suggested activities.
• Consider using the below UNESCO markers to classify the contribution of activities to gender equality. These can be a useful and relevant tool when assessing the extent to which policies, activities, and programmes in general, including in the fields of media and digital communications, address or tackle gender equality issues:
  • Gender-blind: Not acknowledging nor addressing the existing differences and inequalities between women and men (is gender-unaware).
  • Gender-sensitive: Activities that identify and acknowledge differences and inequalities between women and men, and highlight these as requiring attention.
  • Gender-responsive: Activities that identify and acknowledge differences and inequalities between women and men and articulate policies and initiatives which address the different needs, aspirations, capacities and contributions of women and men
  • Gender-transformative: Activities, policies and initiatives that challenge the root causes of existing and biased/discriminatory policies, practices, programmes and affect change for the betterment of life for all - .

Discuss these concepts and how they are related. Organize group work where each group is asked to identify and select a piece of news. Guide the groups to assess the extent to which and why the content may be classified as gender-blind, gender- sensitive, gender-responsive, or gender-transformative.