KUU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 75: Orientering om Nordisk Tænketank for Tech og Demokrati's afsluttende anbefalinger til politiske initiativer for at imødegå den stigende udfordring med tech-giganternes indflydelse på den demokratiske debat i Norden, fra kulturministeren

Kulturudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
KUU Alm.del Bilag 75
Offentligt

A Nordic approach to

democratic debate in

the age of Big Tech

Recommendations from the Nordic

Think Tank for Tech and Democracy

KUU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 75: Orientering om Nordisk Tænketank for Tech og Demokrati's afsluttende anbefalinger til politiske initiativer for at imødegå den stigende udfordring med tech-giganternes indflydelse på den demokratiske debat i Norden, fra kulturministeren

Content

Preface ............................................................................................................................................

Summary and recommendations ..............................................................................................

The Nordic democratic debate in the age of Big Tech ...........................................................

Vision and recommendations for Nordic democratic debate

in the age of Big Tech ..................................................................................................................

About the Nordic Think Tank for Tech and Democracy ........................................................

About this publication .................................................................................................................

This publication is also available online in a web-accessible

version at: pub.norden.org/nord2023-004

The big question is

no longer if we need more

democratic control with

Big Tech. The question is

how and how fast

TOBIAS BORNAKKE, CHAIR

Preface

The Nordic countries are exceptional.

We have incredible levels of trust in each other.

We have a strong tradition of open public debate,

where everyone can make themselves heard. We

fiercely believe in the freedom of speech. And we

have citizens who are generally well-informed and

well-equipped to participate in public debate.

This past year the Nordic Think Tank for Tech and

We have so much to celebrate and so much to

preserve.

While social media hold great democratic

potential, we have also, in recent years, seen how

platforms not only enable democratic debate

but also impact it negatively. The spread of

false information online, whether intentional or

not, threatens factual common ground. The use

of offensive language prevents some groups

in society from joining democratic debates.

And opaque algorithms have spurred political

polarisation.

We have all come to realize that increased

democratic control with Big Tech is a necessity for

democratic societies to thrive in the increasingly

digital 21st century. The big question is no longer

we need more democratic control with Big Tech.

The question is

how

and

how fast.

In this regard,

the Nordic countries should take the lead in

showing the way.

Tobias Bornakke

Chair of the Nordic Think Tank

for Tech and Democracy

Our recommendations are ambitious on behalf

of the Nordic region. As we need them to be.

Together we can move towards a future, where

digital technology fulfills its democratic potential.

Democracy have done just that. Great minds from

all over the Nordic region have joined forces and

put their combined efforts into coming up with

possible initiatives to address the most pressing

challenges to the Nordic democracies. Although

we come from varying backgrounds within

communities of research, media and art, we have

been remarkably united when it comes to the

urgency of this task. Because all of us have much

to preserve.

The Nordic countries, although remarkable in

terms of trust, democracy and welfare, are

also small countries with small languages and

economies. Measured against the powers of Big

Tech, each of us may not be considered worthy

opponents. But when we join forces, our political

voice echoes louder.

Summary and recommendations

Online platforms of Big Tech companies such as

Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter

have become integral democratic infrastructure.

They allow people to connect across the world,

new communities to arise and are a popular

source of information. In addition to all their

positive potential, however, online platforms and

their algorithmic functions may cause serious

harm to our democracies and public debate.

Hate speech online may lead certain groups in

society to withdraw from public debate, and

the spread of mis- and disinformation threatens

open, transparent and factual democratic debate

and can fuel polarisation. Content moderation is

known to be minimal in smaller languages such

as the Nordics

and thus emphasises a greater

need to focus on these problems, especially for

vulnerable groups such as children and youth.

However, since public scrutiny is often actively

counteracted by the platforms, most of the insight

we have into the workings of these platforms

is from leaks from former employees of the

companies.

With this background, the Nordic Think Tank

for Tech and Democracy proposes the following

Nordic recommendations to protect and

strengthen the democratic debate in the age of

Big Tech.

The Nordic countries share similar cultures and

long-standing democratic values that provide an

opportunity for strengthening our democracies

even when they take increasingly place online.

Our vision for the Nordics is to be a united tech-

democratic region, with thriving citizens and

open and informed public debate taking place

across different spaces. We want the Nordics to

have vigilant public oversight over democratic

infrastructure, building resilience to already strong

Nordic public spheres.

1A.

Establish a Nordic Centre for Tech and Democracy to support

the enforcement of European tech regulation, share experiences

and develop new policies.

2A.

Protect the well-being and safety of children and youth online

and push for more general control for citizens.

2B.

Establish an online hub for knowledge exchange on

digital literacy.

3A.

Support the volunteers who facilitate online communities where

democratic debate unfolds.

3B.

Promote the innovation and implementation of technology that

supports open digital public debate to create alternatives to

large online platforms.

4A.

Give public service media a strong digital mandate for

online presence, content creation and development of platforms for

democratic debate online.

4B.

Step up support for independent fact-checkers.

4C.

Push for better content moderation in the Nordics.

4D.

Initiate a Nordic task force to oppose the risks to democracy from

disinformation generated by artificial intelligence.

5A.

Support access to platform data and algorithms for independent

researchers.

5B.

Commission a biennial report on the state of Nordic digital

democracies.

The Nordic democratic debate

in the age of Big Tech

Today, online platforms

such as Facebook,

YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter provide

channels for citizen participation in democracy

and public debate. These platforms did not exist

20 years ago, but today they allow people to

connect across the world and new communities

to arise. At their finest, they reduce distances

between people and give everybody the chance

to make their voices heard. Aside from creating

forums for interacting and exchanging opinions,

online platforms and social media have become

popular sources of news in the Nordic countries.

Consequently, online platforms are both

important infrastructure for following and

participating in public debate.

However, online platforms and, especially, their

algorithmic functions for recommending content

may also cause serious harm to our democracies

and public debate if not regulated properly. Online

debates are often hateful or offensive and can

threaten the freedom of speech by causing some

groups in society to withdraw entirely from public

debate.

5, 6

Particularly young people and women

seem to avoid online debates today due to the

hateful language in online debates.

7, 8

Big Tech threatens to undermine

open democratic debate

MAIN THREATS TO DEMOCRACY FROM ONLINE PLATFORMS

•

The spread of hateful content, mis- and disinformation hinders

open, transparent and informed public debate.

The easy production and spread of false information give

favourable terms to creators of content aimed to manipulate and

undermine democracy. The large amounts of data stored by online

platforms may further be abused to microtarget manipulative

content to users.

Algorithms may promote divisive and polarising content that

harms democratic debate.

Systems for taking down illegal or hateful content are less

efficient in smaller languages such as the Nordics.

The lack of transparency from the online platforms regarding their

algorithms and data collection prevents effective oversight of

societal consequences.

•

Another challenge is the spread of mis- and

disinformation online that threatens transparent

and factual democratic debate and may fuel

polarisation.

9, 10, 11

Factual debates and credible

sources are being further eroded due to the

accelerated prevalence and easy production of

false and biased information online.

Ultimately,

the scale has tipped in favour of creators of

content aimed to manipulate and undermine

democracy.

Social media are typically available to their

users free of charge. Platforms profit from

selling advertisements and, therefore, seek to

maximise the amount of time users spend on their

platforms. Rather than focusing on supporting

and promoting open democratic debates,

they seek to keep the attention of the users by

offering engaging and curated content to each

user, moderated and recommended based on

parameters that are unclear to both the users

and the public. As a result, misinformation and

disinformation, as well as other polarizing or

harmful content, thrive on online platforms

since they encourage user engagement by

evoking strong feelings such as anger.

13, 14, 15, 16

Consequently, such content may spread faster

than more moderate and factual content.

This challenge is a global one, but more pressing

in small language areas such as the Nordic region.

Online platforms rely heavily on automated

moderation to take down content that is illegal

or in violation of their terms and conditions.

Since such moderation tools are developed

primarily for content in English, this leads to less

effective moderation in small languages, and may

increase the proportion of harmful content.

17, 18

Added to this challenge, the principles of content

moderation are global, which means that they are

formulated in different cultural contexts than the

Nordic. Accordingly, Nordic historical references,

values and satire might get lost in the moderation

process, and the wrong content may be taken

down.

While these challenges endanger the democracies

of today, they are even more pressing for the

democracies of tomorrow. They also affect

the future citizens of the Nordic countries –

today’s children and youth – whose journey

towards democratic citizenship takes place in

an environment of misinformation and hateful

speech. For malignant actors who wish to

manipulate public opinion, the youth and children

are especially vulnerable since they are the

most digitally active across the population.

19, 20

Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that

the heavy use of social media and other digital

platforms by children and youth has consequences

on their general well-being. This needs to be

followed closely.

The platforms collect enormous amounts of

information about their users – from self-reported

data to behavioural data, from information on

your age to information on your health. Such

information allows online platforms to micro-

target content to individuals based on their

interests but may also be abused for manipulative

purposes, e.g., by targeting content and

advertisements specifically to certain individuals

in order to retain attention and maximise

engagement.

The lack of transparency and accountability

from online platforms regarding what citizens

are exposed to in the algorithmic user feeds,

their moderation practices and information on

what they do with our data hampers effective

public oversight. This is highly problematic since

Finally, the rapid development of the tech industry

and its corresponding influence on our lives for a

long time has left these companies with almost

no regulatory boundaries. Increasingly, regulation

is catching up, and societies are deciding to set

the rules for the platforms and not the other

way around. Regulation, however, have a hard

time keeping up with the intense and constant

development of technological opportunities, and

there are plenty of areas where democracies

need to do more and demand more from online

platforms.

online platforms today constitute a democratic

infrastructure that plays a central role in our

social life and society at large. Consequently, we

do not know nearly enough about how Big Tech

and their platforms influence our society and our

democratic debates, particularly how they impact

our children and young people.

NEW LEGISLATION ON THE WAY IN THE EU

Recently, the EU adopted the Digital Services Act,

which sets up new rules for online platforms, including

very large online platforms and search engines

such as Facebook, YouTube and Google. This new

regulation will, among others, require such platforms

to make annual assessments of systemic risks of

their platforms, including the negative impact of their

platforms on society at large, democracy and the well-

being of users. Importantly, they will be required to

take action to mitigate such harm. This new legislation

will, together with other new EU legislation – i.e., the AI

Act, the European Media Freedom Act and the Digital

Markets Act – provide a framework for any initiatives

to come, whether European, national or Nordic.

A shared Nordic perspective

The Nordic countries have strong cultural and

structural similarities. We share universal welfare

states, strong democratic traditions, a high degree

of digitalisation and social media usage, high

trust levels, strong public service broadcasters

and national newspapers, and high educational

levels.

23, 24, 25

These are characteristics of the

Nordic countries that we cherish and wish to

actively work to protect – even when the world is

changing, and our democracies are increasingly

digitalised.

In a global context, the individual Nordic countries

are both rather small in terms of population and

language making the Nordics more vulnerable

despite their generally high media literacy and

resilience against manipulation.

To a large

degree, we share the same challenges and

concerns when it comes to standing up to Big Tech

and protecting our democracies.

This shared background and the tradition of

Nordic cooperation provide a strong starting point

for a joint approach to strengthening our digital

democracy in light of the rapid technological

development and the rise of Big Tech. Together,

the Nordic countries should be a driver for a more

forceful and transparent approach when it comes

to how we allow Big Tech to influence our societies

and democracies in the Nordics, in Europe and

globally.

Vision and recommendations

for Nordic democratic debate

in the age of Big Tech

VISIONS

1. We want the Nordic

countries to be a united

tech-democratic region

RECOMMENDATIONS

Establish a Nordic Centre for Tech and Democracy to

support the enforcement of European tech regulation,

share experiences and develop new policies

2. We want the Nordic

countries to have thriving

and digitally literate citizens

Protect the well-being and safety of children and youth

online and push for more general control for citizens

Establish an online hub for knowledge exchange on

digital literacy

3. We want the Nordic countries

to have access to diverse and

credible digital platforms

and communities

Support the volunteers who facilitate online communities

where democratic debate unfolds

Promote the innovation and implementation of technology

that supports open digital public debate to create

alternatives to large online platforms

4. We want the Nordic

countries to have open

and informed public

debates

Give public service media a strong digital mandate for

online presence, content creation and development of

platforms for democratic debate online

Step up support for independent fact checkers

Push for better content moderation in the Nordics

Initiate a Nordic task force to oppose the risks to

democracy from disinformation generated by

artificial intelligence

5. We want the Nordic

countries to have vigilant

and well-informed oversight

of Big Tech platforms

Support access to platform data and algorithms for

independent researchers

Commission a biennial report on the state of Nordic

digital democracies

1. A united tech-democratic region

Unifying as a tech-democratic region can help the Nordic countries pursue their

common interests and pool their resources to strengthen digital democracy in

light of the technological development and the rising influence of Big Tech. This

unity will ensure that the Nordic countries remain at the forefront of responsi-

ble digital development and remain a democratic role model internationally.

Recommendation 1A – Establish a Nordic Centre for Tech

and Democracy to support the enforcement of European

tech regulation, share experiences and develop new

policies

To effectively address some of the biggest concerns relating to the

democratic influence of Big Tech, we need strong institutions to facilitate a

coordinated Nordic effort. When the Nordics work together, we can have a

stronger starting point for dialogue within the European Union.

Accordingly, an organisational entity for Nordic collaboration on tech and

democracy can play an important foundational role as a driver and host for

Nordic initiatives within tech and democracy, covering both future initiatives

yet to emerge as well as some of the other recommendations presented in

this report.

We recommend

that the Nordic governments establish a Nordic Centre

for Tech and Democracy within the framework of the Nordic Council of

Ministers to act as a collective Nordic instrument for further initiatives to

tackle challenges arising from the increasing influence of Big Tech.

The Centre should address two main areas:

Firstly, the Nordic Centre for Tech and Democracy should organise and

coordinate a stronger Nordic voice on ambitious tech regulation and support

national enforcement. This need has grown in recent years as the tech sector

has increased lobbying resources dramatically. To secure a more level playing

field and counterbalance the discussions around digital democracy, the Centre

should pool resources and expertise from the Nordic countries. Accordingly,

the Centre should collect the most pressing challenges related to the

functions of Big Tech identified by civil society and research communities and

distribute these to relevant national and European authorities.

Secondly, the Centre should track Big Tech’s compliance with European

regulation such as the Digital Services Act in the Nordic region, to support the

relevant authorities’ enforcement of legislation. As a key part of the Digital

Services Act, the largest tech platforms will be obligated to publish an annual

risk assessment and commission an independent audit of the systemic risks of

their platforms. These new obligations should increase transparency related

to the negative impacts of their platforms on society, democracy and well-

being, especially regarding children and youth. The Nordic Centre for Tech

and Democracy should work to hold relevant tech companies responsible

by examining and challenging these assessments, potentially in the role of

a ‘trusted flagger’. To that end, the Centre should build a Nordic panel of

experts who annually present their analysis and possible objections to these

assessments. Further, they should engage with the European Commission,

which enforces the transparency obligations of very large online platforms at

the European level, as well as national authorities where relevant.

Importantly, the Centre should act independently from both the tech

sector and Nordic political systems and be led by a board of relevant Nordic

researchers, legal experts and NGOs within the field.

2. Thriving and digitally literate

citizens

For citizens to effectively handle the threats and opportunities online, they need

the skills and knowledge to critically evaluate and navigate digital media and

information. This requires media literacy in general but also, more specifically,

digital literacy. However, citizens also need the tools to control their own usage

of online platforms and to help their children navigate online life.

Recommendation 2A – Protect the well-being and safety

of children and youth online and push for more general

control for their citizens

The well-being of citizens, especially children and young people, is a

particularly pressing concern. While social media and screen time have many

positive effects, it is also associated with risks when it comes to mental

well-being in terms of unhealthy comparison culture,

loss of face-to-face

interaction,

loneliness,

lack of sleep

etc.

In general, we also see very low

participation of youth in public debate online, with young people themselves

blaming the harsh tone in political debate.

32, 33

Children and youth are more experimental online and are, therefore, more

exposed to online harm than adults

making it problematic when especially

younger children have access to platforms and forums that lack robust age

verification and parental control by design.

The Nordic countries should therefore strive towards minimising online risks

to children and young people as they are the future of our societies and

democracies.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries push for making platforms

legally obligated to offer settings that enable citizens to take more

control of their usage of platforms in their everyday lives at EU level.

These settings should be guided by a need for the well-being of citizens in

integrated online and offline lives, with a particular focus on protecting

children and youth, and the well-functioning of our democracies.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries establish a specialised

Nordic task force to 1) commission a meta-analysis on the potentially

damaging effects of social media platforms on citizen well-being and the

democratic space, and on this background 2) develop recommendations

for Nordic policy initiatives onward.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries work ambitiously to protect

minors from harmful environments and functions online. This should

include applying a precautionary principle when introducing new

functions on social media and other digital platforms. In this way, the

online platforms will, to a greater extent, have to assess, document and

counter possible harmful effects of their services.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries work to introduce a legal

demand for effective age verification and parental control as default

settings for relevant social media platforms. The policy should be

work in France, Germany and the European Union (i.e., the EU-consent

project). The Nordic countries’ policy approach should strive to grant

the best protection for Nordic minors while respecting minors’ right

to freedom of expression and their right to privacy.

Subsequently,

the Nordic countries should work to make such verification part of the

common EU agenda and future amendments to the Digital Services Act.

Eventually, such verification may be extended beyond verification of age

to verification of identity.

Recommendation 2B – Establish an online hub for

knowledge exchange on digital literacy

Digital literacy and source criticism are essential for citizens to fully

participate in the digital society and to understand the impact of technology

on democracy. The high level of personal curation of our online feeds may

make it harder to bridge cleavages between differing opinions since we

cannot know what information has informed those opinions. This places high

demands on individuals to understand the mechanisms curating the feeds.

Through effective digital literacy tools, the Nordic countries can empower

their citizens to distinguish between different kinds of information and

sources and their credibility and to think critically about why certain

information is presented to them in a particular way. Since contextual and

technological challenges are rapidly changing, this requires constant updating

of digital literacy competencies. Strong and systematised collaborations

across countries and actors on digital literacy could help strengthen the

impact of digital source criticism and literacy activities.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries create and run an open-access

online repository for developing and sharing best practices and methods

for digital literacy. The hub should have a capacity-building role and

create content resources including learning materials and curricula,

and provide support and education for teachers, librarians, media

professionals and other crucial actors promoting digital literacy.

3. Access to diverse and credible

digital platforms and communities

For an open and vibrant democratic debate online, we benefit from being

able to access a diverse set of fora that allow us to meet others with similar

interests and exchange opinions. However, much of the public debate unfolds,

although in different communities, on the same online platforms. Accordingly,

these platforms have massive power over our democratic debate but do not

always live up to the responsibility of protecting the public debate. Nordic

countries should strengthen transparency, accountability and social trust by

promoting diversity in platforms and communities.

Recommendation 3A – Support the volunteers who

facilitate online communities where democratic debate

unfolds

Public debate online takes place all over the internet – in the comments on

media outlets and politicians’ social media accounts and not least in open

digital communities on everything from being a new parent to the town you

live in.

In these digital community halls, millions of Nordic citizens participate

in the public debate, and the volunteers who organise, facilitate and moderate

the conversations carry a large responsibility. Regardless of the primary

subject of the community, a growing number of digital volunteers spend their

time caring for the health of the digital community halls while also working to

support open and trustworthy online debate.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries develop and test strategies

for supporting digital volunteers to complement the Nordic countries’

long-standing tradition of supporting an active civil society around our

democratic conversation. Such initiatives may consist of micro-funding

schemes funded by Big Tech for administrators of public groups of a

certain size to cover operation expenses, training and innovation of the

public debate within their group. They may also include the development

of free training modules to promote inclusive and vibrant digital debates

in online groups. Finally, Nordic countries may fund innovation projects

that enhance public debate by building on shared Nordic democratic

values.

Recommendation 3B – Promote the innovation and

implementation of technology that supports open digital

public debate to create alternatives to large online

platforms

Online platforms have become almost unavoidable for ordinary people in their

everyday lives. However, with the challenges for democracy and public debate,

including the blurring of lines between authentic and manipulated content,

the use of time retention strategies and the manipulation of public opinion,

alternatives for accessing public debate are pressing.

Since the online platforms of Big Tech have so many users and their business

models are based upon the acquisition of smaller platforms on the rise,

few alternatives to these platforms exist. Consequently, the promotion of

technological as well as civic innovation and implementation of technology

that enables open and trustworthy digital public debate may offer citizens

real alternatives to large online platforms. Such technologies already exist

around the world but need support in order to constitute realistic and

trustworthy alternatives to the platforms of Big Tech.

Nordic countries ought to promote innovation and implement technology that

support open digital public debate.

We recommend

that Nordic countries support the use of open standards

and protocols (such as ActivityPub) to encourage effective portability

between competing platforms.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries support funding for public and

civic actors and regulations that increase diversity in available platforms

in accordance with established state aid rules.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries ensure that policies on

business and industry promote the development of sustainable and open

democratic technologies, both at a national and a European level.

4. Open and informed public debates

The spread of misinformation and hate speech on social media can have

detrimental consequences for democracy and public debate since it may prevent

citizens from knowing fact from falsehood or from engaging in public debate

at all. Especially since some groups are proven to be more vulnerable and

exposed to these phenomena. The Nordics should have transparent and

informed public debates. Public debate in the Nordics has been characterised

by freedom of speech, education and access to credible news as well as a strong

culture of credible information use

37, 38, 39

This should continue to be the case.

Recommendation 4A – Give public service media a strong

digital mandate for online presence, content creation and

development of platforms for democratic debate online

Disinformation, diminishing trust in democratic institutions, as well as digital

divide in access to quality news content challenge democratic debate in many

countries. The Nordic countries have robust and pluralistic national media

systems where both commercial and public service media play an important

role in informing public debate. However, the latter, by nature, hold special

responsibility for fostering democratic debate and participation.

Public service media should be able to effectively navigate the digital

landscape and lead the way when it comes to transparency and the

promotion of spaces for open public dialogue.

We recommend

that Nordic public service media are given a strong

mandate for online presence and content creation. Public service media

should be given a strong mandate to freely utilise digital productions in

any relevant formats and develop new competencies and practices in

the transparent use of algorithms and technologies to strengthen public

cohesion.

We recommend

that Nordic public service media are given a mandate

to develop, together with other national and Nordic partners and in

accordance with established state aid rules, public service alternatives

to commercial online platforms for participating in democratic debate

online.

Recommendation 4B – Step up support for independent

fact-checkers

The spread of disinformation online urges democracies across the world

and in the Nordics to defend trustworthy public debate. In combination

with literacy, one way to counter the spread of false information online is

fact-checking statements and reporting online to detect and inform of new

disinformation campaigns and coordinated activities.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries step up the support to

independent fact-checking organisations that guarantee diversity,

independence, and expertise in countering mis- and disinformation.

On their part, fact-checkers should implement and continuously

improve tools and practices in their processes to sufficiently battle

false information online at a pace that matches the spread of such

information.

Recommendation 4C – Push for better content moderation

in the Nordics

Content moderation is an important tool for weeding out harmful content

on online platforms. Such moderation is to a large degree carried out by

artificial intelligence developed for content in English and with limited human

involvement in the process. The transparency of online platforms when it

comes to their moderation practices is inadequate, and this hampers public

oversight. Moderation in smaller languages may thus be of much lower

quality than in larger languages, which has consequences for whom and what

controls both freedom of speech as well as the limits hereof in the Nordic

countries.

The Digital Services Act establishes a right for insight into platforms’

moderation practices and a demand for biannual reporting from very large

online platforms. However, greater insight into how our democratic debate

is moderated by Big Tech is needed in order to keep trust in the democratic

system high.

Online platforms should consequently do more to support public oversight.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries jointly push for moderation of

high quality in the Nordics – both in the EU and vis-à-vis Big Tech. This

may include appeals to employ Nordic moderators who can perform

high-quality moderation of content in the Nordics with respect to the

distinct Nordic cultures, democratic values, freedom of speech and

freedom of information.

We recommend

that Nordic countries push for more transparency in

moderation practices with a view to securing transparent and high-

quality moderation in the Nordics. This should include an obligation

to disclose information on both algorithmic and manual moderation

practices categorised by language and cultural background (e.g., what

content and actors are downgraded and deleted and by whom).

Recommendation 4D – Initiate a Nordic task force to

oppose the risks to democracy from disinformation

generated by artificial intelligence

The past year brought about several breakthroughs within the area of content

generated by artificial intelligence (AI). Most publicly known was the release

of ChatGPT (GPT 3.5) with its authentic AI-powered text generation, but also

the release of other AI tools to generate image, voice, and video. These tools

mark the acceleration of an era where artificial intelligence will not only filter

our democratic conversation but also produce some of its content.

While fascinating, the misuse of this technology to manipulate and undermine

democratic debates and elections poses a particularly serious threat to the

trust-based democracies of the Nordics.

With the proposed AI Act currently being negotiated in the EU and expected

to enter into force in 2025 or 2026, AI-generated deep fakes will likely

be subject to transparency obligations where users should be informed

if a piece of content is AI-generated or manipulated. This new proposed

legislation constitutes an important step towards addressing challenges from

disinformation generated by artificial intelligence. However, we worry that

transparency will not be enough. Disinformation is created and spread with

hostile intent, and we cannot rely exclusively on hostile actors to comply with

European regulations.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries act promptly on this new

risk and commission a provisional Nordic task force on AI-powered

disinformation. Composed of experts from the interplay of tech,

policy and disinformation, and in collaboration with relevant Big Tech

companies, the task force should explore short-term mitigating actions

along with structural and long-term counter-measures to the risks from

AI-generated content to complement those proposed in the AI Act. The

results should inform the governments of the Nordic countries along with

relevant Big Tech companies and the Nordic countries should work to lift

relevant solutions to a European level to ensure efficient responses to the

rising challenge.

5. Vigilant and well-informed

oversight of Big Tech platforms

Vigilant and well-informed public oversight in the Nordic countries

effectively puts pressure on Big Tech platforms to ensure that their design

and activities align with democratic values and comply with relevant regulation

as these platforms have become an essential infrastructure for our public

debate. Public oversight helps to build trust in technology and promotes

a healthy and democratic digital ecosystem.

Recommendation 5A – Support access to platform data

and algorithms for independent researchers

Open, transparent public debate and digital well-being in the Nordic

region require a deep understanding of the information landscape and the

factors that drive the spread of information. Furthermore, it requires an

understanding of how this influences the well-being of Nordic citizens and the

well-functioning of Nordic societies.

During the last five years, researchers’ access to platform data and

algorithms has deteriorated. The amount of accessible data has decreased,

and the labour needed to gain access to data has increased to a degree where

neither the individual researchers, universities nor NGOs have the resources,

competencies or personal network needed to achieve proper data access. Our

democracies thus risk losing basic empirical insights into the user behaviour

and working of the platforms upon which our digital democracies unfold.

While the Digital Services Act aims to address this problem by offering

formal rights for researchers to request access to data from very large online

platforms and search engines of systemic risks for society, we worry that

some platforms might attempt to limit access to data-sharing solutions

through bureaucratic processes and demands that few researchers will know

how to navigate. Furthermore, researchers may need assistance to comply

with the demands for data protection and confidentiality set out in the

Digital Services Act to gain data access.

Consequently, we worry that formal rights of access will not provide the

desired knowledge and insight without support.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries work to ensure that no

independent researcher with the intent to produce research for the good

of society can be excluded from doing so. Accordingly, platforms’ terms

of service should not prevent data access for researchers who comply

with relevant regulation and scientific integrity, even if this involves the

use of web scraping techniques.

We recommend

that the Nordic countries establish an office to support

Nordic actors’ access to platform data by guiding researchers in their

application processes and helping researchers comply with rules on

data protection and confidentiality when carrying out their research.

Additionally, the office should gather and distribute knowledge of what

research applications other European researchers have been granted

data access to with the purpose of creating transparency on data access

and supporting the production of future research.

We recommend

that the office should work on ensuring sustainable and

sovereign data storage solutions where data access is administered and

provided through an independent Nordic entity outside Big Tech (e.g., a

collaboration between national Nordic statistical agencies).

Research access to the platforms is crucial for the well-being of our

democracies, and accordingly a permanent organisation with this specific

aim and with permanent staff is needed to sufficiently ensure that the Nordic

societies gain the full advantage of the novel rights within the Digital Services

Act. A collaboration among the Nordic countries will make any effort even

more powerful as it will allow for more effective knowledge sharing and

gathering of expertise.

Recommendation 5B – Commission a biennial report on

the state of Nordic digital democracies

When the democratic debate unfolds online, the fate of democracy is

put in the hands of privately owned online platforms. Any change in their

algorithms, platform designs or moderation practices means an adjustment

in the dynamics of democratic debates, often without any prior democratic

discussion or even knowledge of the altered algorithms.

We recommend

that the Nordic Council of Ministers for Culture

commission a biennial report on the state of Nordic digital democracies

that can inform public debates on strengthening our societies and

democratic debates in the age of Big Tech. The report should provide

a comprehensive picture of the current state of the Nordic digital

democracies while also identifying potential risks and challenges for the

future, including assessing the Nordic ecosystem and content moderation

practices of very large online platforms.

We recommend,

with inspiration from Reuters Digital News Report and

as part of the commissioned report, creating a Nordic Tech-Democracy

Index to systematically track developments in our digital democracy over

time. Parameters may include digital civic and political participation,

trust level and the level and spread of hate speech, misinformation and

disinformation distributed across platforms and countries.

About the Nordic Think Tank

for Tech and Democracy

In 2021, the Nordic Council of Ministers for Culture

decided to establish a temporary think tank for

addressing the influence of Big Tech on democratic

debate in the Nordic countries.

The purpose of the Nordic Think Tank for Tech and

Democracy has been to discuss the increasing

influence of social media and Big Tech on

democratic debate in the Nordic countries and

recommend possible political actions to protect

and strengthen Nordic digital democracy.

The Think Tank was appointed in May 2022 and

consists of 13 members from all over the Nordic

Region: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland,

Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands and Åland.

The work of the Think Tank has been organised

around three physical meetings in Copenhagen

between September 2022 and February 2023.

The Ministry of Culture, Denmark, has served as

Secretariat to the Think Tank.

Members

Tobias Bornakke

(chair), Denmark, is a researcher

and co-founder of Analyse & Tal. Tobias holds a

PhD in digital methods and has led several studies

on the democratic debate on social media across

the Nordic countries.

Anja Bechmann,

Denmark, is a professor at Media

Studies and director of DATALAB at Aarhus

University. Anja is also the Principal Investigator

of the Nordic Observatory for Digital Media and

Information Disorder (NORDIS).

Bente Kalsnes,

Norway, is a professor at the

School of Communication, Leadership and

Marketing at Kristiania University College. Bente

has served as a member of the Freedom of

Speech Commission appointed by the Norwegian

government.

Signe Ravn-Højgaard,

Greenland, is an assistant

Carl Heath,

Sweden, is a senior researcher at the

Research Institute of Sweden (RISE). Carl has

previously been commissioned by the Swedish

Government as Special Counsel for the protection

of democratic dialogue.

Sumaya Jirde Ali,

Norway, is a poet and former

Elfa Ýr Gylfadóttir,

Iceland, is the director of the

Icelandic Media Commission. Elfa has been Head

of Division of Media at the Ministry of Education,

Science and Culture and has been lecturing at the

University of Iceland for 25 years.

Thorgeir Ólafsson,

Iceland, is a senior advisor at

Fredrik Granlund,

Åland, is a journalist and

program manager at Ålands Radio and TV (public

service). Fredrik has worked as a journalist for 25

years and is interested in the relations between

humans and new technology.

From the Ministry of Culture, Denmark, Marie

Hanna Haaslahti,

Finland, is a media artist and

director working with image and interaction.

Hanna is interested in computer vision and its

social implication on human relations and has

participated in many international exhibitions.

Funch Adamsen and Janus Emil Mariager have

served as Secretariat to the Think Tank.

the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service (RÚV).

Thorgeir has worked as a press officer and has

been responsible for mass media in the Ministry of

Education, Science and Culture.

editor of the feminist culture magazine Fett.

Sumaya has written three poetry collections and

received the Zola award for civil courage for her

work and participation in the public debate.

professor pursuing a PhD at the University

of Greenland. Signe’s research is on how

digitalisation and the use of social media affect

small democracies.

Jákup Brúsá,

Faroe Islands, is a digital marketing

consultant and has worked with 100+ companies.

Jákup’s research on political communication

was published in the International Journal of

Information Technology and Politics.

Martin Holmberg,

Sweden, is a programme

manager at Medier & Demokrati, Lindholmen

Science Park. Martin has previously worked in

media organisations as a journalist, editorial

leader and in leadership roles on digitalisation.

Minna Aslama Horowitz,

Finland, is a docent and

senior researcher at the University of Helsinki.

Minna is a member of the Nordic Observatory for

Digital Media and Information Disorder (NORDIS)

and a fellow at St. John’s University.

Disclosure of financial ties

Ahead of the work, all 13 members of the Think Tank handed in their individual disclosures

of potential financial ties to Big Tech companies in order to secure transparency within the

group on any relations to the industry in question.

Notes

Ytringsfrihetskommisjonen (2022). En åpen og opplyst offentlig samtale.

Ytringsfrihetskommisjonens utredning. Retrieved from Regjeringen.no:

https://www.

regjeringen.no/contentassets/753af2a75c21435795cd21bc86faeb2d/no/pdfs/

nou202220220009000dddpdfs.pdf

Humprecht, E., Esser, F., & Van Aelst, P. (2020). Resilience to Online Disinformation: A

Framework for Cross-National Comparative Research. The International Journal of

Press/Politics, 25(3), 493–516.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219900126

In the following report, we focus specifically on the social media platforms

of Big Tech that are “very large online platforms” in the sense of the Digital

Services Act. Very large online platforms according to the Digital Services

Act are online platforms “which have a number of average monthly active

recipients of the service in the Union equal to or higher than 45 million”

(Digital Services Act, article 33).

Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C.T., Eddy, K. & Nielsen, R.K. (2022).

Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022. Retrieved from Reuters Institute:

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/Digital_

News-Report_2022.pdf

Zuleta, L. & Laursen, S. K. (2019). Demokratisk Deltagelse på Facebook.

Retrieved from Institut for Menneskerettigheder:

https://menneskeret.dk/

sites/menneskeret.dk/files/04_april_19/Rapport%20om%20demokratisk%20

deltagelse.pdf

Zuleta, L., Steffensen, T., Bahat, Y. & Kroustrup, J. (2022). Den offentlige

debat på Facebook. En undersøgelse af danskernes debatadfærd. Retrieved

from Institut for Menneskerettigheder:

https://menneskeret.dk/sites/

menneskeret.dk/files/media/document/Den%20offentlige%20debat%20

p%C3%A5%20Facebook%2C%20analysenotat%2C%20maj%202022_0.pdf

Zuleta, L. & Laursen, S. K. (2019). Demokratisk Deltagelse på Facebook.

Retrieved from Institut for Menneskerettigheder:

https://menneskeret.dk/

sites/menneskeret.dk/files/04_april_19/Rapport%20om%20demokratisk%20

deltagelse.pdf

Medietilsynet (2023). Digitale dilemmaer – en undersøkelse om barns

debut på mobil og sosiale medier. Retrieved from Medietilsynet:

https://

www.medietilsynet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/barn-og-medier-

undersokelser/2022/230206_digitale-dilemmaer.pdf

Benkler, Y., Faris, R. & Roberts, H. Network Propaganda: Manipulation,

Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Network Propaganda

(Oxford University Press, 2018).

10. Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Vahlstrup, P. B., Bechmann, A., & Petersen, M. B.

(2021). Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind

Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter. American Political Science Review,

115(3), 999-1015.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000290

11. Altay, S., Berriche, M., & Acerbi, A. (2023). Misinformation on Misinformation:

Conceptual and Methodological Challenges. Social Media + Society, 9(1),

20563051221150412.

https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221150412

12. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news

online. Science 359: 1146–1151.

13. Charquero-Ballester, M., Walter, J. G., Nissen, I. A. & Bechmann, A. (2021).

Different types of COVID-19 misinformation have different emotional

valence on Twitter. Big Data Soc. 8, 20539517211041280.

14. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news

online. Science 359: 1146–1151.

15. Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E. & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence

of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc. Natl.

Acad. Sci. 111, 8788–8790.

16. Horwitz, J. & Seetharaman, D. (26. maj 2020). Facebook Executves Shut

Down Eforts to Make the Site Less Divisive. Retrieved from The Wall Street

Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-

division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499

17. Ytringsfrihetskommisjonen (2022). En åpen og opplyst offentlig samtale.

Ytringsfrihetskommisjonens utredning. Retrieved from Regjeringen.no:

https://

www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/753af2a75c21435795cd21bc86faeb2d/

no/pdfs/nou202220220009000dddpdfs.pdf

18. Pedersen, K & Oehlenschlâger, M. (5. juli 2022). Danskerne er særligt udsatte

for hadtale online, forditechgiganterne ikke taler dansk. Retrieved from

Information:

https://www.information.dk/debat/2022/07/danskerne-saerligt-

udsatte-hadtale-online-fordi-techgiganterne-taler-dansk?lst_frnt

19. Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen (2020). Mediernes udvikling i Danmark: Sociale

medier 2020 - Brug, indhold og relationer. Retrieved from Kulturministeriet:

https://mediernesudvikling.kum.dk/fleadmin/user_upload/dokumenter/

medier/Mediernes_udvikling/2019/Specialrapporter/Sociale_medier_indhold/

Sociale_medier_-_brug__indhold_og_relatoner.pdf

20. Medietilsynet (2022). Unges erfaringer med hatefulle ytringer. Retrieved from

Medietilsynet:

https://www.medietilsynet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/

kritisk-medieforstaelse/2022-rapport-hatefulle-ytringer.pdf

21. Bruns, A. (April 25 2018). Facebook shuts the gate after the horse has bolted,

and hurts real research in the process. Retrieved from Internet Policy Review:

https://policyreview.info/articles/news/facebook-shuts-gate-after-horse-has-

bolted-and-hurts-real-research-process/786

22. European Digital Media Observatory (2022). Report of the European Digital

Media Observatory’s Working Group on Platform-to-Researcher Data

Access. Retrieved from EDMO:

https://edmoprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/

uploads/2022/02/Report-of-the-European-Digital-Media-Observatorys-

Working-Group-on-Platform-to-Researcher-Data-Access-2022.pdf

23. Hallin, D. C. & Mancini, P. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media

and Politics. (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

24. Syvertsen, T., Enli, G., Mjøs, O. J. & Moe, H. The Media Welfare State: Nordic

Media in the Digital Era. (University of Michigan Press, 2014).

https://doi.

org/10.2307/j.ctv65swsg

25. Ravn-Højgaard, S., Jóhannsdóttir, V., Karlsson, R., Olavson, R., & í Skorini,

H. (2021). Particularities of media systems in the West Nordic countries.

Nordicom Review, 42(S2), 102–123.

https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0020

26. Humprecht, E., Esser, F., & Van Aelst, P. (2020). Resilience to Online

Disinformation: A Framework for Cross-National Comparative Research.

The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(3), 493–516.

https://doi.

org/10.1177/1940161219900126

27. Børns Vilkår (2020). Køn, krop og digital adfærd. Hvordan mindsker vi presset

på børn og unge online. Retrieved from Børns Vilkår:

https://bornsvilkar.dk/

wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Pres-og-stress-Krop-k%C3%B8n-og-digital-

adf%C3%A6rd.pdf

28. Ottosen, M.H., Andreasen, A.G., Dahl, K.M., Lausten, M., Rayce, S.B. &

Tagmose, B.B. (2022). Børn og unge i Danmark. Velfærd og trivsel 2022.

Retrieved from VIVE:

https://www.vive.dk/media/pure/18610/14872861

29. Ottosen, M. H. & Andreasen, A. G. (2020). Børn og unges trivsel og brug

af digitale medier - to analysenotater. Retrieved from VIVE:

https://www.

vive.dk/media/pure/15089/4329811

30. Ottosen, M.H., Andreasen, A.G., Dahl, K.M., Lausten, M., Rayce, S.B. &

Tagmose, B.B. (2022). Børn og unge i Danmark. Velfærd og trivsel 2022.

Retrieved from VIVE:

https://www.vive.dk/media/pure/18610/14872861

31. Medietilsynet (2023). Digitale dilemmaer – en undersøkelse om

barns debut på mobil og sosiale medier. Retrieved from:

https://

www.medietilsynet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/barn-og-medier-

undersokelser/2022/230206_digitale-dilemmaer.pdf

32. Zuleta, L. & Laursen, S. K. (2019). Demokratisk Deltagelse på Facebook.

Retrieved from Institut for Menneskerettigheder:

https://menneskeret.

dk/sites/menneskeret.dk/files/04_april_19/Rapport%20om%20

demokratisk%20deltagelse.pdf

33. Medietilsynet (2023). Digitale dilemmaer – en undersøkelse om

barns debut på mobil og sosiale medier. Retrieved from

https://

www.medietilsynet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/barn-og-medier-

undersokelser/2022/230206_digitale-dilemmaer.pdf

34. Medietilsynet (2023). Digitale dilemmaer – en undersøkelse om barns

debut på mobil og sosiale medier. Retrieved from Medietilsynet:

https://

www.medietilsynet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/barn-og-medier-

undersokelser/2022/230206_digitale-dilemmaer.pdf

35. CNIL (2022). Online age verification: balancing privacy and the protection

of minors. Retrieved from CNIL:

https://www.cnil.fr/en/online-age-

verification-balancing-privacy-and-protection-minors

36. Analyse & Tal (2022). Danmarks Digitale Medborgerhuse. Retrieved from

Analyse & Tal:

https://www.ogtal.dk/assets/files/Danmarks-Digitale-

Medborgerhuse_compressed_2023-03-14-102118_vuig.pdf

37. Hallin, D. C. & Mancini, P. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of

Media and Politics. (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

38. Syvertsen, T., Enli, G., Mjøs, O. J. & Moe, H. The Media Welfare State:

Nordic Media in the Digital Era. (University of Michigan Press, 2014).

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65swsg

39. Ohlsson, J., Blach-Ørsten, M., & Willig, I. (2021). Covid-19 och de nordiska

nyhetsmedierna. NORDICOM.

https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855473

40. Ytringsfrihetskommisjonen (2022). En åpen og opplyst

offentlig samtale. Ytringsfrihetskommisjonens utredning.

Retrieved from Regjeringen.no:

https://www.regjeringen.no/

contentassets/753af2a75c21435795cd21bc86faeb2d/no/pdfs/

nou202220220009000dddpdfs.pdf

41. Møller, L. A., Walter, J. G., & Bechmann, A. (2020). Evaluating safe space

solutions including data management and processing setups. Aarhus

Universitet. Retrieved from Social Observatory for Disinformation and

Social Media Analysis:

https://www.disinfobservatory.org/wp-content/

uploads/2020/08/SOMA_D2.1.pdf

About this publication

A Nordic approach to democratic debate

in the age of Big Tech: Recommendations from

the Nordic Think Tank for Tech and Democracy

Nord 2023:004

ISBN 978-92-893-7535-1 PDF

ISBN 978-92-893-7536-8 ONLINE

http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/nord2023-004

Cover photo: Magnus Fröderberg/Norden.org

Photo of the members: Charlotte de la Fuente/norden.org.

Photo of Tobias Bornakke: Rasmus Preston. Photos to the recommendations:

1-2: Unsplash.com 3-4: Norden.org 5: Unsplash.com

Published: 18.04.2023

Nordic co-operation

Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional

collaboration, involving Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the

Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland.

Nordic co-operation has firm traditions in politics, economics and culture and

plays an important role in European and international forums. The Nordic

community strives for a strong Nordic Region in a strong Europe.

Nordic co-operation promotes regional interests and values in a global world.

The values shared by the Nordic countries help make the region one of the

most innovative and competitive in the world.

The Nordic Council of Ministers

Nordens Hus

Ved Stranden 18

DK-1061 Copenhagen

www.norden.org

Read more Nordic publications on www.norden.org/publications

The Ministry of Culture, Denmark, has

served as Secretariat to the Think Tank.