DOCSLIB.ORG

Free for All? Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Free for All? Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age HOUSE OF LORDS Communications and Digital Committee 1st Report of Session 2021–22 Free for all? Freedom of expression in the digital age Ordered to be printed 20 July 2021 and published 22 July 2021 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords HL Paper 54 Communications and Digital Committee The Communications and Digital Committee is appointed by the House of Lords in each session “to consider the media, digital and the creative industries and highlight areas of concern to Parliament and the public”. Membership The Members of the Communications and Digital Committee are: Baroness Bull Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Baroness Buscombe Lord Lipsey Viscount Colville of Culross Baroness Rebuck Baroness Featherstone Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Chair) Lord Vaizey of Didcot Baroness Grender The Lord Bishop of Worcester Declaration of interests See Appendix 1. A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests: https://members.parliament.uk/members/lords/interests/register-of-lords-interests/ Publications All publications of the Committee are available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/170/communications-and-digital-committee/ publications/ Parliament Live Live coverage of debates and public sessions of the Committee’s meetings are available at: http://www.parliamentlive.tv Further information Further information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance to witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords Committee staff The staff who worked on this inquiry were Alasdair Love (Clerk), Theo Demolder (Policy Analyst) and Rita Cohen (Committee Operations Officer). Contact details All correspondence should be addressed to the Communications and Digital Committee, Committee Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW. Telephone 020 7219 6076. Email [email protected] Twitter You can follow the Committee on Twitter: @LordsCommsCom. CONTENTS Page Summary 3 Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Table 1: Average minutes per day spent by UK users on websites owned by these companies/publishers 5 Figure 1: Percentage of UK adults who have used social media or video sharing platforms, 2011–20 6 Box 1: Draft Online Safety Bill 7 Box 2: Theories of freedom of expression 8 Chapter 2: Regulating content 12 Moderation by platforms 12 Table 2: Prevalence of harm by age and gender (%) 12 Table 3: Prevalence of harm by age (%) 13 Table 4: Ofcom data on prevalence of harm (%) 13 Proposed safety duties 22 Illegal content 25 Box 3: Relevant criminal offences 25 Protecting children 32 Figure 2: Social media usage by age 33 Box 4: Protections for children in the draft Online Safety Bill 34 ‘Legal but harmful’ content 36 Box 5: Facebook Oversight Board 41 Journalistic content 43 Censorship abroad 45 Chapter 3: Empowering users 48 Platform design 48 Encouraging civility 48 Education 57 Figure 3: UK Digital Civility Index 58 Box 6: The draft Online Safety Bill and media literacy 63 Chapter 4: Promoting choice 64 Figure 4: Social media platforms’ reach in the UK, July 2015 to February 2020 64 Figure 5: Shares of supply by user time spent on social media, July 2015 to February 2020 65 Social media 68 Search engines 71 Draft Online Safety Bill 72 News organisations 75 Online advertising 75 Figure 6: Intermediation in the online advertising market 76 Mandatory bargaining 77 Figure 7: Publishers’ share of visibility of articles about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, 1 March to 11 March 2021 79 Figure 8: Publishers’ share of visibility of articles about Piers Morgan, 1 March to 11 March 2021 80 Summary of conclusions and recommendations 81 Appendix 1: List of Members and declarations of interests 88 Appendix 2: List of witnesses 90 Appendix 3: Call for Evidence 97 Appendix 4: 10 principles for regulation 101 Appendix 5: Draft Online Safety Bill correspondence with Ministers 102 Appendix 6: Communications and Digital Committee engagement events 110 Evidence is published online at https://committees.parliament.uk/work/745/ freedom-of-expression-online/publications/ and available for inspection at the Parliamentary Archives (020 7219 3074). Q in footnotes refers to a question in oral evidence. Free for all? Freedom of EXpressioN IN the digital age 3 SUMMARY The right to speak one’s mind is a hallmark of free societies. Many people across the world are still deprived of that right, but in the UK it has long been treasured. However, it is not an unfettered right. Civilised societies have legal safeguards to protect those who may be vulnerable. One person’s abuse of their right to freedom of expression can have a chilling effect on others, leaving them less able to express themselves freely. The internet—and particularly social media—provides citizens with an unprecedented ability to share their views. We welcome this and seek to strengthen freedom of expression online. However, the digital public square has been monopolised by a small number of private companies, which are often based outside the UK and whose primary aim is to profit from their users’ data. They are free to ban or censor whoever and whatever they wish, as well as to design their platforms to encourage and amplify certain types of content over others. Too often they are guided by concern for their commercial and political interests rather than the rights and wellbeing of their users. The benefits of freedom of expression must not be curtailed by these companies, whether by their actions or their failures to act. In recent years, the harms users can suffer online have received growing attention. We support the Government’s proposal that, through the draft Online Safety Bill, platforms should be obliged to remove illegal content. Ofcom should hold them to strict timeframes where content is clearly illegal. We also support the Government’s intention to protect children from harm, although the draft Bill is inadequate in this respect–particularly in relation to pornographic websites. Nor are we convinced that the draft Bill sufficiently protects vulnerable adults. These duties should be complemented by an increase in resources for the police to allow them effectively to enforce the law, including on harassment, death threats, incitement, stirring up hatred, and extreme pornography. Platforms should contribute to this increase in resources. The Government also proposes to introduce duties in relation to content which is legal but may be harmful to adults. This is not the right approach. If the Government believes that a type of content is sufficiently harmful, it should be criminalised. For example, we would expect this to include any of the vile racist abuse directed at members of the England football team which is not already illegal. It has no place in our society. The full force of the law must be brought down on the perpetrators urgently. Content which is legal but some may find objectionable should instead be addressed through regulation of the design of platforms, digital citizenship education, and competition regulation. This approach would be more effective, as well as better protecting freedom of expression. Social media platforms do not simply provide users with a neutral means of communicating with one another. The way they are designed shapes what users see, what they say, and how they interact. Platforms’ business models drive them to design services to maximise the time users spend on them, even if this means encouraging their worst instincts. This includes incentivising the posting of outrageous content, content whose reach is then amplified by platforms’ algorithms. The Online Safety Bill should include a robust duty to ensure that powerful platforms make responsible design choices and put users in control 4 Free for all? Freedom of EXpressioN IN the digital age of what content they are shown by giving them an accessible and easy-to-use toolkit of settings, including through third-party applications. Design changes must be complemented by digital citizenship education—both through schools and public information campaigns—to make clear the moral duties to others which come with the right to express oneself freely online and the consequences which the abuse of that right can have, as well as the dangers of retreating into social media echo chambers. Ultimately, people must be given a real choice about the platforms they use. The dominance of companies such as Facebook and Google is such that they have little incentive to put their users’ interests first, as users have little choice to go elsewhere. They have become like utilities. Tougher competition regulation is long overdue. The Government must urgently give the Digital Markets Unit the powers it needs to end the stranglehold of the big technology companies. The rights and preferences of individual people must be at the heart of a new, joined-up regulatory approach, bringing together competition policy, data, design, law enforcement, and the protection of children. The UK has an opportunity to lead the world and set a standard to which fellow democracies can aspire. We must get this right. Free for all? Freedom of expression in the digital age CHapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1. Freedom of expression is the right to express and receive opinions, ideas and information. It is central to our democracy. Accompanying this right are responsibilities held by the Government, by media and technology intermediaries, and by citizens. It is subject to legal limits, such as in the Defamation Act 2013, the Public Order Act 1986, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Terrorism Act 2006.1 2. Debates and exchanges of information increasingly take place online. Social media platforms in particular have allowed people to publish and share their views with large audiences in a way not previously possible. However, the design of these platforms shapes what is said and what is seen.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Kind of Digital Citizen? a Reflection on Educating for Digital Democracy
    Running head: WHAT KIND OF DIGITAL CITIZEN 1 What Kind of Digital Citizen? A Reflection on Educating for Digital Democracy Ashley Ireland Dann University of California, Los Angeles October 1, 2018 WHAT KIND OF DIGITAL CITIZEN? 2 In order to best prepare a democratic citizenry, one must closely examine the education students are receiving. Educators must ask themselves, what kind of citizen are we helping to create? As the world becomes increasingly digital, one must also examine how students are being prepared to be digital citizens. The following reflection on digital democracy will draw connections between the practices of educating a democratic citizenry and the current deficits of digital citizenship education. It will seek to inspire those teaching digital citizenship to expand their narrow lens in order to create a more participatory and analytic digital citizen. In What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating Democracy, Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne identify three categories of citizenship. The authors describe: personally responsible citizens, participatory citizens, and justice oriented citizens. Arguably the lowest level of citizenship, personally responsible citizens are only concerned and engaged at the individual level. Personally responsible citizens are described as hardworking, honest, and moral. They might demonstrate citizenship by, “picking up litter, giving blood, recycling, obeying laws, and staying out of debt” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 39). In contrast, a participatory citizen is a more collaborative and active member of society. Participatory citizens “engage in collective, community-based efforts” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 39); they readily participate in government and community organizations. The last category of citizenship is justice-oriented.
    [Show full text]
  • Guardian News & Media
    Response to Ofcom consultations on the BBC’s commercial activities and assessing the impact of the BBC’s public service activities About Guardian News & Media Guardian Media Group (GMG), a leading commercial media organisation, is the owner of Guardian News & Media (GNM) which publishes theguardian.com and the Guardian and Observer newspapers. Wholly owned by The Scott Trust Ltd, which exists to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity, GMG is one of the few British-owned newspaper companies and is one of Britain's most successful global digital businesses, with operations in the USA and Australia and a rapidly growing audience around the world. As well as being a leading national quality newspapers, the Guardian and The Observer have championed a highly distinctive, open approach to publishing on the web and have sought global audience growth as a priority. A key consequence of this approach has been a huge growth in global readership, as theguardian.com has grown to become one of the world’s leading quality English language newspaper website in the world, with over 156 million monthly unique browsers. From its roots as a regional news brand, the Guardian now flies the flag for Britain and its media industry on the global stage. Introduction GMG is a strong supporter of the BBC, its core values of public service and its contribution to British public life. GMG supports the fundamentals of the BBC in its current form and a universal service funded through a universal levy, at least for the period covered by the next BBC Charter.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Citizenship Curriculum
    Teaching Digital Citizens in Today's World: Research and Insights Behind the Common Sense Digital Citizenship Curriculum Credits Authors: Carrie James, Ph.D., Project Zero Emily Weinstein, Ed.D., Project Zero Kelly Mendoza, Ph.D., Common Sense Education Copy editor: Jen Robb Designers: Elena Beroeva Suggested citation: James, C., Weinstein, E., & Mendoza, K. (2021). Teaching digital citizens in today's world: Research and insights behind the Common Sense K–12 Digital Citizenship Curriculum. (Version 2). San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. This is an updated version of the original report published in 2019. Common Sense Education and Project Zero are grateful for the generous support provided for the work described in this report from the Bezos Family Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Niagara Cares, and Susan Crown Exchange. © 2021 Common Sense Media. All rights reserved. www.commonsense.org/education 1 Table of Contents A Letter from Our Founder . 3 The Digital Landscape by the Numbers . 4 Introduction . 5 Children and Digital Media: An Overview . 6 Children, age 0 to 8 . 6 Tweens and Teens, age 8 to 18 . 7 Our Approach to the Digital Citizenship Curriculum . 11 What Is Digital Citizenship? . .12 About the Digital Citizenship Curriculum . 14 Our Guiding Theory: A Skills and Dispositions Approach . .15 Five Core Dispositions of Digital Citizenship . 16 Cornerstones of the Curriculum . 17 Rings of Responsibility . 17 Digital Life Dilemmas . 18 Repetition and Routines . 20 Poems, chants, and songs (elementary school) . 20 Thinking Routines . 21 1. Digital Habits Check-Up . 21 2. Feelings and Options . .23 3. Take a Stand . 24 A Look Inside the Curriculum: Six Topics .
    [Show full text]
  • Global Handbook on Hate Speech Laws Get
    REBUILDING THE BULWARK OF LIBERTY Tool GLOBAL HANDBOOK ON HATE SPEECH LAWS By Natalie Alkiviadou, Jacob Mchangama and Raghav Mendiratta GLOBAL HANDBOOK ON HATE SPEECH LAWS © Justitia and the authors, 2020 WHO WE ARE Founded in August 2014, Justitia is Denmark’s first judicial think tank. Justitia aims to promote the rule of law and fundamental human rights and freedom rights, both within Denmark and abroad, by educating and influencing policy experts, decision-makers, and the public. In so doing, Justitia offers legal insight and analysis on a range of contemporary issues. The Future of Free Speech is a collaboration between Copenhagen based judicial think tank Justitia, Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression and Aarhus University’s Department of Political Science. Free speech is the bulwark of liberty; without it, no free and democratic society has ever been established or thrived. Free expression has been the basis of unprecedented scientific, social and political progress that has benefitted individuals, communities, nations and humanity itself. Millions of people derive protection, knowledge and essential meaning from the right to challenge power, question orthodoxy, expose corruption and address oppression, bigotry and hatred. At the Future of Free Speech, we believe that a robust and resilient culture of free speech must be the foundation for the future of any free, democratic society. We believe that, even as rapid technological change brings new challenges and threats, free speech must continue to serve as an essential ideal and a fundamental right for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender or social standing.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Citizenship an Overview of the Nine Elements to Becoming a Good Citizen Dr
    Digital Citizenship An Overview of the Nine Elements to Becoming a Good Citizen Dr. Clara Bannister, PhD. Franklin Military Academy What Is Digital Citizenship? Digital citizenship can be defined as the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to technology use. http://www.digitalcitizenship.net/nine-elements.html Living in a Digital World https://vimeo.com/104309819 Let’s Watch a Brief Video Clip that Explains digital citizenship by Inctrl The Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship http://www.bing.com The Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship 1. Digital Access: full electronic participation in society. Technology users need to be aware that not everyone has the same opportunities when it comes to technology. Working toward equal digital rights and supporting electronic access is the starting point of Digital Citizenship. http://www.digitalcitizenship.net/nine-elements.html The Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship 2. Digital Commerce: electronic buying and selling of goods. Technology users need to understand that a large share of market economy is being done electronically. Legitimate and legal exchanges are occurring, but the buyer or seller needs to be aware of the issues associated with it. Users need to learn about how to be effective consumers in a new digital economy. http://www.digitalcitizenship.net/nine-elements.html The Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship 3. Digital Communication: electronic exchange of information. One of the significant changes within the digital revolution is a person’s ability to communicate with other people. In the 21st century, communication options have exploded to offer a wide variety of choices (e.g., e-mail, cellular phones, instant messaging).
    [Show full text]
  • E-Participation: a Quick Overview of Recent Qualitative Trends
    DESA Working Paper No. 163 ST/ESA/2020/DWP/163 JANUARY 2020 E-participation: a quick overview of recent qualitative trends Author: David Le Blanc ABSTRACT This paper briefly takes stock of two decades of e-participation initiatives based on a limited review of the academic literature. The purpose of the paper is to complement the results of the e-government Survey 2020. As such, the emphasis is on aspects that the e-government survey (based on analysis of e-government portals and on quantitative indicators) does not capture directly. Among those are the challenges faced by e-participation initiatives and key areas of attention for governments. The paper maps the field of e-par- ticipation and related activities, as well as its relationships with other governance concepts. Areas of recent development in terms of e-participation applications are briefly reviewed. The paper selectively highlights conclusions from the literature on different participation tools, as well as a list of key problematic areas for policy makers. The paper concludes that while e-participation platforms using new technologies have spread rapidly in developed countries in the first decade of the 2000s and in developing countries during the last 10 years, it is not clear that their multiplication has translated into broader or deeper citizen participation. Be- yond reasons related to technology access and digital skills, factors such as lack of understanding of citizens’ motivations to participate and the reluctance of public institutions to genuinely share agenda setting and decision-making power seem to play an important role in the observed limited progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Setting the Record Straighter on Shadow Banning
    Setting the Record Straighter on Shadow Banning Erwan Le Merrer, Benoˆıt Morgan, Gilles Tredan,´ Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, Irisa IRIT/ENSHEEIT LAAS/CNRS [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Shadow banning consists for an online social net- happens on the OSN side, collecting information about po- work in limiting the visibility of some of its users, without them tential issues is difficult. In this paper, we explore scientific being aware of it. Twitter declares that it does not use such approaches to shed light on Twitter’s alleged shadow banning a practice, sometimes arguing about the occurrence of “bugs” to justify restrictions on some users. This paper is the first to practice. Focusing on this OSN is crucial because of its central address the plausibility of shadow banning on a major online use as a public communication medium, and because potential platform, by adopting both a statistical and a graph topological shadow banning practices were recently commented. approach. Shadow banning and moderation techniques. shadow banning We first conduct an extensive data collection and analysis (SB or banning for short, also known as stealth banning [6]) campaign, gathering occurrences of visibility limitations on user profiles (we crawl more than 2:5 millions of them). In such is an online moderation technique used to ostracise undesired a black-box observation setup, we highlight the salient user user behaviors. In modern OSNs, shadow banning would refer profile features that may explain a banning practice (using to a wide range of techniques that artificially limit the visibility machine learning predictors).
    [Show full text]
  • Big Data for Improved Health Outcomes — Second Edition — Arjun Panesar Machine Learning and AI for Healthcare Big Data for Improved Health Outcomes Second Edition
    Machine Learning and AI for Healthcare Big Data for Improved Health Outcomes — Second Edition — Arjun Panesar Machine Learning and AI for Healthcare Big Data for Improved Health Outcomes Second Edition Arjun Panesar Machine Learning and AI for Healthcare Arjun Panesar Coventry, UK ISBN-13 (pbk): 978-1-4842-6536-9 ISBN-13 (electronic): 978-1-4842-6537-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6537-6 Copyright © 2021 by Arjun Panesar This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Trademarked names, logos, and images may appear in this book. Rather than use a trademark symbol with every occurrence of a trademarked name, logo, or image we use the names, logos, and images only in an editorial fashion and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Twitter Users' Behavior Before and After Contact By
    Analyzing Twitter Users’ Behavior Before and After Contact by Russia’s Internet Research Agency UPASANA DUTTA, RHETT HANSCOM, JASON SHUO ZHANG, RICHARD HAN, TAMARA 90 LEHMAN, QIN LV, SHIVAKANT MISHRA, University of Colorado Boulder, USA Social media platforms have been exploited to conduct election interference in recent years. In particular, the Russian-backed Internet Research Agency (IRA) has been identified as a key source of misinformation spread on Twitter prior to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The goal of this research is to understand whether general Twitter users changed their behavior in the year following first contact from an IRA account. We compare the before and after behavior of contacted users to determine whether there were differences in their mean tweet count, the sentiment of their tweets, and the frequency and sentiment of tweets mentioning @realDonaldTrump or @HillaryClinton. Our results indicate that users overall exhibited statistically significant changes in behavior across most of these metrics, and that those users that engaged with the IRA generally showed greater changes in behavior. CCS Concepts: • Applied computing ! Law, social and behavioral sciences; • Human-centered com- puting ! Collaborative and social computing. Additional Key Words and Phrases: Internet Research Agency; IRA; Twitter; Trump; democracy ACM Reference Format: Upasana Dutta, Rhett Hanscom, Jason Shuo Zhang, Richard Han, Tamara Lehman, Qin Lv, Shivakant Mishra. 2021. Analyzing Twitter Users’ Behavior Before and After Contact by Russia’s Internet Research Agency. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 90 (April 2021), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449164 INTRODUCTION For many years, the growth of online social media has been seen as a tool used to bring people together across borders and time-zones.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures Mandates
    Expanding or diluting Human Rights? The proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures mandates Article Published Version Freedman, R. and Mchangama, J. (2016) Expanding or diluting Human Rights? The proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures mandates. Human Rights Quarterly, 38 (1). pp. 164-193. ISSN 1085-794X doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2016.0012 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/66578/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Published version at: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/609306 To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2016.0012 Publisher: The John Hopkins University Press All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online ([SDQGLQJRU'LOXWLQJ+XPDQ5LJKWV"7KH3UROLIHUDWLRQRI8QLWHG1DWLRQV 6SHFLDO3URFHGXUHV0DQGDWHV 5RVD)UHHGPDQ-DFRE0FKDQJDPD +XPDQ5LJKWV4XDUWHUO\9ROXPH1XPEHU)HEUXDU\SS $UWLFOH 3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV '2,KUT )RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH Access provided by University of Reading (11 Oct 2016 10:18 GMT) HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Expanding or Diluting Human Rights?: The Proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures Mandates Rosa Freedman* & Jacob Mchangama** ABSTRACT The United Nations Special Procedures system was described by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as “the crown jewel” of the UN Human Rights Machinery. Yet, in recent years, the system has expanded rapidly, driven by states creating new mandates frequently on topics not traditionally viewed as human rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Responsibility 2 Fly Five
    DIGITAL RESPONSIBILITY 2 FLY FIVE In today’s interconnected and increas- ingly technological world, it’s highly likely that you and your students use technol- ogy in some capacity. Perhaps you’re still conducting class completely online be- cause of the pandemic, or maybe you’re back in person but found a new appre- ciation for facilitating online learning. As a generation that grew up in a world already fully enmeshed in Facebook and Instagram and with the 24-hour news cycle churning out stories day after day, your students are digital natives: indi- viduals who are familiar with computers and technology from an early age. In the U.S. alone, nearly 91 percent of school- aged children have access to smart technology, and as of December 2018, over four million U.S. households possessed a virtual reality device; by 2022, estimates predict there may be two billion augmented reality users worldwide (Google for Education, 2020). These numbers indicate not only the staggering amount of technology we use, but how it is becoming more embedded in our daily life. Whether you are an avid technology user, one who prefers to stay as off the grid as possible, or somewhere in between, the reality is that our digital, inter- connected society is here to stay. This means that no matter how you person- ally use technology, as an educator it is imperative to teach students about digital responsibility. FLY FIVE 3 What is Digital Responsibility? Digital responsibility refers to using technology in an appropriate, constructive way for oneself and others. It involves navigating a wide variety of ethical situations that relate to privacy, net neutrality, transparency, and “the digital divide,” among other challenges and situations (Sheykhjan, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Grænser for Europa. Eu Mellem Nationalisme Og Globalisering
    R A P P O R T S K E M A (til brug for aflæggelse af rapport for pulje C-bevillinger) Tilskudsmodtag er: FONDEN DE KØBENHAVNSKE FILMFESTIVALER / CPH:DOX Journalnr.: EUFC.2017-0109 Bevilget tilskud: 195.000 kr Projektets titel: GRÆNSER FOR EUROPA? EU MELLEM NATIONALISME OG GLOBALISERING Startdato: 1. marts 2018 Slutdato: 30. marts 2018 Som Danmarks største folkeoplysende kulturbegivenhed lancerede dokumentarfilmfestivalen CPH:DOX i marts 2018 et stort, landsdækkende oplysningsprojekt med fokus på EU’s fremtidige muligheder og udfordringer i krydsfeltet mellem globalisering og nationalisme. Projektet omfattede: - Debatarrangementer med danske og internationale politikere og tænkere - Dokumentarfilmvisninger i kulturhuse, biografer, biblioteker mv. i hele Danmark - Undervisningstiltag for tusinder af skole- og gymnasieelever Projektet forløb overordentligt succesfuldt. Vi havde et mål om afholdelse af minimum 75 arrangementer, men kom op på over 100 arrangementer, som for langt de flestes vedkommende trak fulde huse. Europas udfordringer med globalisering blev belyst gennem en lang række arrangementer, det samme gjaldt nationalisme - ligesom der naturligvis også var en lang række arrangementer, der knyttede direkte an til denne modstilling, fx filmene ‘EuroTrump’ om Geert Wilders, ‘Golden Dawn Girls’ om det græske parti Gyldent Daggry, 'The Other Side of Everything' om nationalisme på Balkan i dag, Our New President om forholdet mellem Europa og Rusland, fake news og truslen fra russiske 'trolde', 'Central Airport THF' om flygtningekrisens udfordring af Europa, den meget aktuelle 'Piazza Vittorio' om den stigende italienske modstand mod immigration, Foreigners Out om Østrigs højrefløj og mange, mange flere. Kort rapport om forløbet: Er aktivitetsmålene for projektet opnået? Anfør mål Aktivitetsmål: Afholdeldelse af 75 og beskriv opfyldelsen.
    [Show full text]