Awareness

Sincere appreciation to the APrIGF secretariat -DotAsia-, the MSG, PC and the local hosts that made the event possible. The 3 themes selected for this year, continue to acquire additional meaning as the challenges to have meaningful access to the Internet are still front and center to the work many of us do.

The DC agreed to add this paragraph in this tense as the event had not yet completed at that time. It will be revised. Which line needs to be changed?

It proved to be a good decision to do that change, as the program shaped in a way that showed wider dimensions of the themes.

The 3 main tracks are very relevant to the situation the whole world is facing currently due to Covid-19 pandemic. More than anytime before today we have issues with not enough inclusion, trust and sustainable nature of Internet and its applications.

All of us had stories to share with our own experience. This is a great and timely change.

The selected sessions did not have enough and pronounced coverage of gender or sexuality as a topic that intersects with Internet governance issues, digital rights etc. The UN IGF has a Gender BPF (Best Practices Forum). The APrIGF could possibly consider a gender thematic track or BPF.

“economic dimensions”

Doesn’t it have legal dimensions as well?

In the ICT or internet area, the first step is helping people to have qualified, affordable internet. People can educate themselves, upgrade their skills to get jobs,s and improve their economy better.
The next step is to help people to have their ability to keep connecting to the internet or have their ability to invent affordable technology to empower themselves. Then we can close the digital divide with time and economic factors. Skilled human capitals and advanced technology are two important economic factors to help economic growth. Then we may think about the sustainability of the internet with environmental protection issue.

The community-based network systems are still controversial among stakeholders but on the other hand, having those kinds of network systems can provide more Internet coverage areas. The huge digital divide among developed and developing countries is needed to reduce by collaborating and working together. Also, when the users have the right to connect online, Internet connectivity should be a human right. Multi-stakeholder have to be seriously considered for any kinds of human rights violations such as Internet shutdowns forwarding to the inclusion.

Inclusion is not only about connectivity and devices or even awareness and skills, but also about content. Connectivity, devices, skills are there to give us all access to information in the broad sense. However, for some people, e.g. persons with disabilities and older persons, technologies often make digital divide bigger rather than bridge it. This is in many cases because the formats of the information provided in websites, applications, tools are not accessible for somebody who can’t see or hear, experience other physical or mental difficulties. Something created for such extreme scenarios is always more convenient for moderate scenarios, which any of us can experience.

For me, we should be able to resolve access first because too many people still do not have access to the internet – the rural poor, PWDs who are not provided for with appropriate assistive devices, and many others like students and ordinary workers. For example, in the education sector alone, where because of the pandemic, schools are still closed, and learning is limited to poor internet limited sessions, and printed modules left to the responsibility of the parents and students to fulfill. Inclusion is the major issue, until we resolve that, the rest remain to be the issue of the privileged and connected. But that is not to say that we should not address sustainability and trust. just that we focus more on inclusion. This is also to reduce the digital divide.

Building digital literacy skills both among youth and elderly population is vital . The issues most young students facing like cyberbullying , misleading information and getting connected with unsafe Internet environments and finally end up with life losses could have been avoided , if parents are literate enough to provide safe Internet environment for their children

ranging from ….can we also add small island states e.g Tuvalu or Vanuatu?

Partnership, collaboration and knowledge sharing in digital media and information literacy literacy between libraries and other organisations from public, private and people sectors are essential to widen the reach and deepen the understanding of the ever changing information landscape.

There is a need for digital information literacy skills development native and indigenous languages.

Do we have indicators or measurements about the maturity of AI technology? Does the AI technology have enough maturity to identify the semantic of a post or sentence or do fact checks for every internet user?
People will talk about using the multistakeholder mechanism to clarify identification conditions. Still, hopefully, we need to have a more specific definition of the multistakeholder, not only the groups or communities mentioned in the Tunis agenda(2005). Nowadays, people always misunderstand the multistakeholder to stakeholders.

Is there a sector on other emerging technologies and the fourth industrial revolution?

AI is a broad terminology used. Machine learning techniques are improving day by day. New algorithms are showing improvements over the previous ones. The efficiency of the system depends on how well we train the data. Technology alone cannot solve the problem of hate speech, but can help tackle it to a large extent.

Lack of high speed internet in Kashmir has deprived many students of their basic right (education). Due to strict lockdown imposed on them way before the pandemic and the hampered internet connection before and even during the pandemic till date has affected their progress rate on the internet.

This was a good session. Particularly due to the dialogue between Private Sector, academia and civil society on Covid-19 apps being rolled out by governments. The role of the private sector and governments under different jurisdictions to ensure privacy rights as well as the long-term implications of such apps on privacy rights were discussed.

Everyone has the right to express themselves. A word or a sentence may have different impacts on different stakeholders and different perspectives. Should we set a limitation or obviously definition about harmful content, hate speech, or freedom of expression?
There is a grey area in what and how to define them. There are different cultures in the countries.

Nepal – Laws around online gender-based violence and freedom of expression are often protectionist and based on the idea of “lurking” and ambiguous threats, not focused on respecting and upholding human rights. Those in power decide they are the protectors and also decide who/what needs protecting and what society needs protection from. We need to further examine the importance we put on legal responses and our perspective of them as “unbiased”.

Malaysia – We need to question the logic of algorithms that propel social media spaces and demand transparency. We need to demand for human rights compliance within the design of tech companies, systems and business model itself, not just for piecemeal approaches.

Taiwan – Our governments often regard the online space as a tangible space with potential perpetrators and victims, with the government as a third party, as enforcers and protectors. The reality of the digital space however means that very few countries have governments that can implement full authoritative power over social media spaces and companies. These platforms are maintained by private entities and the power of governments over them vary in different contexts. It is often not clear the ways governments and platform companies work together to censor what we do online.

Sri Lanka – Content moderation is the online version of our laws – they really don’t do anything to stop the problem but targets individuals. Social media intermediaries and platforms will censort female nipples, nudity, “I hate men” but there is very little moderation or urgency about transphobia, usage of sensational content for clickbait, misogynist speech, hate speech. None of that is registered as “obscene”, those propagating this “obscene” content are not seen as being in the wrong. There’s a need for people and especially the platforms, to reevaluate what we think of as violence and what moderation of dangerous speech would entail.

Way forward – We need to review what justice can actually mean on a space as complicated as the internet.

In this world where by almost everyone even the kids make utilisation of internet for education or entertainment purpose, and especially in case of pandemic where by people spend most of the time with smart phones and internet, it become very important to teach kids that what is important and what is unnecessarily things available in the internet to protect them and their mind from the things present in the internet which should be out of reach of children. For this purpose training must be given to the parents or the guardians that how they can teach their wards and in school curriculum also this subject must be added

The earlier issues of economic divide, digital divide and gender divide all play a role here. Empowering the parents through constant sessions are needed. Along with the usage training, “ethical usage” should also be introduced to kids and parents.

I would change from best practices to good practices. Covid-19 has shown that the internet is not a luxury but a lifeline especially in land-locked and mountainous communities, and this is why meaningful internet connectivity and affordable access to devices is imperative especially during a pandemic. This topic addresses the need to close the digital gap. Organisations and individuals in Central Asia are helping children and youths living in remote and rural communities deal with challenges in education posed by covid pandemic. It talks about their experience during the pandemic and the opportunities they are providing to the children to ensure that they remain connected and have access to affordable devices and content during a pandemic.

After the COVID-19 pandemic, many face-to-face meetings change to an online model. The virtual meeting may mitigate the travel expanse from personal or company, also help to decrease flight and the percentage of spreading the COVID-19 virus. Less flight also mitigates the carbon footprint.
People persuade to have online brochures or online catalogs since we have the internet. To convince people to use an online catalog instead of participating in the exhibition in person.
On the other side, fewer flights may decrease the tourist income, especially to some countries’ economies, and also affect to build the relationship.
But honestly, virtual meetings also increase the demand for electric, electronic devices, internet connection. I don’t see any measurement for this.

Climate Change is related to every nation. There is no Planet B according to the UN. So, both developing and developed countries need to collaborate for a green economy by means of looking forward to our future.

The heavy use of digital space contributes to carbon footprints; online conferences inevitably contribute to this.
Solution: Maybe we can start thinking about offsetting the carbon footprints caused in conferences by measuring/estimating carbon footprints and compensating with greener alternatives

There is a need to look beyond the basic (device-oriented) view of the impact of digital technologies, and look at the digital ecosystem as a whole. Specifically, the impact (and resource use) of delivering certain types of content across the whole chain. By way of example, one would expect streaming of a standard HD video to have less of an environmental impact than a 4k video. The question is, is it necessary to watch a dog chase it’s tail, or a cat play with a tennis ball, in 4k?

Internet evolved as technology for non technologist. WWW is one technology which can be attributed for this sucess.

Utilising user’s data for business purpose might be economically beneficial but it is greatly putting people’s trust at risk. They feel monitored by technology. There is a common feeling among people that internet sells their personal data for the sake of economic benefits.

There are some definitions of harmful content by communities or government regulations, conventions. But should internet intermediary services take the responsibility to follow the government regulation to surveillance their users’ content? That may break the trust between users and the (internet) service providers. Some governments ask to crack the encrypted channel to prevent cybercrime.
The transparency reports from the internet service providers may be a way to build trust. The report should reveal how often and how many times in a year the government department asks for user data and what kind of data.

The balance between the fundamental freedom of speech and expression has to be balanced in view of the violence and harms caused due to the actions of people through intermediaries. Stringent enforcement of laws relating to classification and elimination of fake news will go a long way in ensuring that the safety of citizens are protected while also maintaining the intermediary liability of the major online spaces.

The encryption debate must be set against the wider context of the region’s efforts to make the Internet more accessible, secure and trustworthy.

As IG stakeholders, we must ensure that policies that impact the Internet do so positively, and contribute to its growth as an enabler and a force for good for APAC societies and economies.

The policies that have been enacted in APAC (TOLA and Revised IL Rules), undermine a core technology, encryption, that underpin the Internet’s security, and the security of everyone on the Internet.

These policies create opportunities for wider surveillance and data collection, more potent cyberattacks, and greater online abuse.
They impair businesses’ ability to compete regionally and in the global market, as recent studies show [https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2021/the-economic-impact-of-laws-that-weaken-encryption/]

These come at a time of APAC’s ever growing reliance on the Internet to run governments and businesses, respond to citizens’ needs, and to be an overall lifeline in a world increasingly shaped by the ongoing pandemic.

The challenges that spur these policies are important, but these are broad and long-standing societal problems predating the Internet, and cannot be solved by weakening security for everyone.

It’s also necessary to bring into the conversation sectors/people who may be the most affected if encryption is undermined e.g., financial/banking, journalists, etc.

During the session, Gaya educated enough about violence on the internet. She mentioned a suitable approach on solving hate speech. As it is obvious that education is the biggest answer for solving hate speech on the internet so simply blocking one’s access from a particular social media platform for voilating the “terms and condition” isn’t enough. One needs to talk and educate that person and let them know how their words not just stay confined to solid grounds of technology but also reach a human just like them.

Hate speech intersects with disinformation and misinformation when the content of hate speech is based on non-factual information – which is often the case in the APAC region. Amid gaps in hate speech legislation in the region, bottom-up, human-centered approach to counter online hate speech, such as using human experts to conduct fact-checking could address issues with automated content moderation which most online platforms rely on. These issues include the difficulty in identifying hate speech content across multiple languages and differing social and cultural contexts (the context-dependent nature of hate speech) and biases in machine moderation.

While fact-checking that relies on human experts is a more reliable approach, the volume and speed with which online hate speech is produced and disseminated make the effort seem unsustainable. Another issue is the reach of fact-checking output – Is the public aware of such an initiative? Who visits factchecking sites? Which intermediaries disseminate the fact-checking output?

To address the second issue, it is important that fact-checking organizations form partnerships with online networking platforms, the local media organizations – national and regional, and other relevant intermediaries to scale the fact-checking effort. Further, more research needs to be done to best bring together manual and automated approaches to fact-checking and content moderation toward human-in-the-loop system/method.

These bottom-up approaches need to be accompanied by advocacy efforts targeting regulatory changes at the national and regional levels. The recommendations of the 2020 Asia-Pacific Regional Forum on Hate Speech, Social Media, and Minorities could serve as a basis that clarifies the role and responsibility of different stakeholders in countering hate speech and provide examples of relevant multistakeholder frameworks for monitoring hate speech.

Today, the Internet plays an essential role in the majority of societies around the world. From banking to education, health to logistics, just about every sector relies on Internet-based applications and services to function.

Our increased dependence on digital technologies brings with it growing concerns around Internet security. While there are many dimensions to Internet security, securing the key building blocks of the Internet’s infrastructure is critical.

The Internet’s routing system enables data to flow from one point to another. Ensuring that this data flows correctly, and to its intended recipient, is the foundation of Internet security.

Thousands of Internet routing incidents occur every year, leading to economic and social harm by making key services unreachable, disrupting e-commerce, allowing malicious actors to spy on users and with it, the potential to compromise systems.

While existing security measures can help address many of these routing incidents, the solutions they provide are often limited. The interconnected nature of networks means that many solutions only work when other networks make the same improvements. We need collective action to make a real change.

In support of the larger Internet security agenda, policymakers should work with network and infrastructure operators, critical infrastructure protection agencies and standards bodies, among others, to improve global routing security while also preserving vital aspects of the system that have allowed the Internet to be open and universal.

Actually it’s not just the weaponization of surveillance but even of one policy fits all approach to the pandemic. The high handed approach have shown how government officials, particularly in the frontline – police, community officials – could go beyond their mandate in implementing what they thought were right. Some minors suffered corporal punishments for violating curfew, while other people were charged with cyber libel for questioning the local officials’ response to the pandemic. Luckily most of them were thrown out by prosecutors or the courts, but not after the hassle of being arrested, published on social media, and detained for a time. Worst, government-paid trolls extol these kind of actions as necessary for discipline and compliance to pandemic control.

Although a lot of concerns/problems and measures should be improved, the positive role of ICT in prevention and control the pandemic should be recognized.

For those of us with access to the Internet, it is a technology that plays an increasingly central role in our daily lives, letting us work, study, and connect with friends and family from around the world.

But the Internet – including infrastructure and devices, applications and services, and the relevant policies and regulations – is in a constant state of flux. Governments and businesses are increasingly making decisions that could impact the Internet. If we fail to recognize, protect, and support what makes the Internet valuable, we risk a series of irreversible and accelerating changes that chip away and ultimately break the foundation underpinning this incredible resource for us all.

That is why as the Internet evolves it is key for all Internet stakeholders to understand any change that can threaten the fundamentals of the Internet. We should be able to tell if a proposal could harm what makes the Internet work for everyone.

The most important thing about regulation is that they have to be rights respecting. The recent emergency ordinance on Fake news in Malaysia and Social media rules in India are cause for serious concern. Users are unable to understand what amounts to a violation and this reduces their ability to have a trusted internet and a predictable one.

COVID-19 pandemic has pushed more communities online at a faster rate, accelerated the adoption of e-commerce, and facilitated the rapid dissemination of new digital skilling tools, e-health services, and remote work applications. But it has also introduced new risks that are experienced by users online such as online scams, phishing attacks, identify thefts and online bullying.

The pandemic COVID 19 increased the pace of digitization in developing economies. There was an overnight shift. This helped in continuing the life without any break. The other side of the issue is the digital literacy and cyber security awareness.

Internet education should be part of the life skills training since we also need to teach young people to protect themselves from harm in the internet, and not just its beneficial use.

As World is struggling to develop an education system completely dependent on internet. we, as students, are being inculcated with a sense that internet is our new strength; as our future depends on it. However, we are and never in past were taught about internet ethics & ground rules. Educating about ground rules can not only solve hate speech but also encourage better use of social media platforms.

The The warmth of the meet and greet is very much missing . Listening continuously in online media is giving Zoom fatigue.