Articles for tag: Desinformationdisaster reliefearthquakeErdoğan, Recep TayyipInternet shutdownSoziale MedienTürkei

Shutting Down the Internet to Shut Down Criticism

In the aftermath of the devastating earthquakes which hit southwestern Turkey, internet connectivity had enabled civil society to provide additional on- and off-site assistance. However, the use of social media is not seen as innocent by Turkish authorities. Immediately after the earthquakes, authorities started to use legal instruments to silence the use of social media platforms even at the expense of utilizing its benefits during catastrophic times.

Ризик тунельного бачення у боротьбі з російською дезінформацією

Протиставлення кінетичної війни, яка розпочалася після повномасштабного вторгнення Росії в Україну 24 лютого 2022 року, та зіткнень у цифровому просторі показує, що обидві арени війни мали різні наслідки для країн-членів НАТО та ЄС. Якщо західні держави змогли значною мірою утриматися від фізичних бойових дій, обмеживши свою участь наданням зброї та військових матеріалів українським силам, то в цифровій сфері таке утримання виявилося неможливим.

The Risk of Tunnel Vision in Targeting Russian Disinformation

Contrasting the kinetic warfare that broke out after Russia’s full-fledged invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 with confrontations in the digital space shows that both war arenas came with different implications for NATO and EU member states. While Western powers were able to largely abstain from physical hostilities, limiting their involvement to providing weapons and military material to Ukrainian forces, in the digital sphere such abstention was not possible.

Schutz vor Verletzung von Persönlichkeitsrechten und „Desinformation“ in sozialen Medien unter Bedingungen der politischen Polarisierung

Für den Schutz vor Persönlichkeitsverletzungen in Medien wie Twitter und Facebook gilt im Wesentlichen und kaum verändert das auf den Schutz des Individuums eingestellte Äußerungsrecht, wie es seit vielen Jahrzehnten besteht. Das deutsche NetzDG und der europäische Digital Services Act (DSA) ergänzen dies um eine quantitative kollektive Dimension: Für den Schutz gegen die große Zahl der rechtswidrigen Äußerungen im Internet wird eine Art Rasenmäher-Prinzip entwickelt, das vor allem schnelle Löschungen durch Provider erzwingen soll. Dies ist nicht der richtige Ansatz.

Silenced, Chilled, and Jailed

As Turkey is in the process of getting ready for the general and presidential elections of June 2023, a recent legal reform has created much concern regarding freedom of expression and increased threat of online censorship in the country. Citizens have called the amendment a ‘censorship law’, while some prominent civil society organizations have voiced their concern about the law creating avenues for a dystopian crackdown when the elections are just around the corner.

The EU’s regulatory push against disinformation

Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s surprise bid to buy Twitter questions the wisdom of the current EU efforts to combat the spread of disinformation, which has relied to a large extend on platforms’ voluntary cooperation. Whether successful or not, it raises serious questions on EU disinformation policy’s reliance on platforms’ discretion to moderate this category of speech. It is likely to put pressure on the carefully constructed web of self- and co-regulatory measures and legislation the European Commission has spun to counter the spread of disinformation.

The War in Ukraine, Fake News, and the Digital Epistemic Divide

The ongoing war in Ukraine sheds light on crucial challenges of our digital media landscape. The social media-driven “(mis)information wars” surrounding the Russian invasion expose a growing epistemic divide running through liberal democracies. The regulatory focus on truth, with measures like fact-checking, serves little to cure the larger problems behind this. We should rather use the power of the law to devise new modes of intelligent speech regulation mimicking the functions formerly played by the centralized set-up of communication conditions.

The EU’s “Ban” of RT and Sputnik

Denouncing Russian authorities‘ “muzzling“ of independent media and reiterating its support for media freedom and pluralism, the European Union banned two Russian media outlets in March 2022. This apparent contradiction between a statement of principle and concrete action can be resolved. While the ban can be legally justified as a measure designed to suppress “propaganda for war”, European institutions should not try to justify it by pointing to these outlets’ track record of “disinformation” or simply “propaganda”. To address legitimate questions of double standards that will come up in the wake of the inevitable whataboutism, it should be stressed that the Union’s measures differ decisively from any authoritarian censorship by virtue of the Union’s character as a community of law.

It’s Not Propaganda If It’s True

The first casualty of war is the truth. Putin’s reasons for the invasion, like his claims of genocide in Donbas, are abstruse and lack any basis in reality. Rather than addressing the West, this national propaganda is meant to convince the Russian people of the necessity of war. Is there a possibility to correct misinformation by communicating directly to the Russian people in Russian?

In Singapore’s war on fake news, the Constitution is not an obstacle

Singapore’s highest court has decided the first case under the city state’s controversial Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act. The whopping 154-page judgment finds key elements of the Act constitutional and establishes a test to determine the lawfulness of governmental correction notices. It also illustrates how the government’s insistence on factual accuracy pushes the courts to almost absurdly meticulous assessments, while being barred from asking the most significant questions.