This consultation is now closed.
Read the Summary Report: Promoting Information Integrity in Elections.
You can now check out more on the UNDP's Oslo Governance Centre Information Integrity Portfolio here and about the Action Coalition on Information Integrity here
Thank you to all participants around the globe who shared their valuable knowledge and expertise in this SparkBlue ‘Promoting Information in Elections’ e-discussion hosted by UNDP Oslo Governance Centre and the Action Coalition on Information Integrity in Elections
We had contributions from across 25 countries, sharing learning and best practice from a range of electoral contexts. These have helped sharpen our thoughts and created “a pool of wisdom” that is now guiding the programmatic guidance paper on Information Integrity in Elections. This will be presented at multiple global forums, disseminated by the Action Coalition members and participating experts, and will be the first of its kind: A consensus-led guidance on addressing election disinformation in a technological age.
A special thank you to the fantastic discussion moderators from member organisations of the Action Coalition: Ingrid Bicu Niamh Hanafin, Hedda Oftung, Anneliese Mcauliffe, Jiore Craig, Petra Alderman, Professor Nic Cheeseman, Vusumuzi Sifile, Mirna Ghanem, Carolyne Wilhelm, Bianca Lapuz, Clara Raven, Gilbert Sendugwa.
Member organizations of the Action Coalition:
- UNDP
- Africa Centre for Freedom of Information
- Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR), Birmingham University
- Institute for Strategic Dialogue
- International IDEA
- Samir Kassir Foundation
- Panos Institute Southern Africa
- Maharat Foundation
Following the e-discussion, here are the next steps:
- In-Depth Consultations: We continue to consult with individual UNDP teams, other UN entities, partners, donors, and thematic experts to further sharpen the guidance paper on how the Action Coalition can best respond to enhance information integrity in elections
- Validate our findings: We will be hosting a virtual event which will run through the findings of the guidance paper and ensure that the final paper is consensus-led guidance.
- Programmatic Guidance Paper: By the end of 2022, we will have a final programmatic guidance paper on addressing information integrity in elections. We hope to share this with contributors to this consultation before promoting during early 2023.
- You can continue the exchange thoughts or contributions to this topic by contacting UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, Niamh Hanafin ([email protected]) or Clara Raven ([email protected])
|
Introduction
In recent years, digital technology has played an increasingly important role in elections. Social media platforms have been used to spread disinformation and manipulate public opinion, and ill-intentioned actors have been accused of weaponising online dissemination methods to interfere in the electoral process. However, digital technology can also be used to combat these threats. For example, online fact-checking sites can help to debunk false information, and experts can use big data analysis to identify potential vulnerabilities. In addition, public awareness campaigns can help educate voters about the risks of disinformation and how to protect themselves from it. By harnessing the power of digital technology, alongside more “traditional” approaches, can we better protect our elections from interference and manipulation?
Questions:
- What kinds of digital solutions are being deployed?
- What are the benefits and risks of digital tools to counter disinformation in an electoral setting?
- What are the recommendations for effectively deploying digital tools into existing information/election landscapes?
- How do we understand and measure impact of digital interventions and responses?
|
We are committed to protect the identities of those who require it. To comment anonymously, please select "Comment anonymously" before you submit your contribution. Alternatively, send your contribution by email to [email protected] requesting that you remain anonymous.
Hello and welcome to Week 3 of Promoting Information Integrity in Elections. A big thank you to Jiore Craig for moderating this discussion room last week. There have been some excellent contributions.
My name is Clara Raven, and I work with UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (OGC) providing support to their Information Integrity portfolio. Prior to joining OGC I was with UNDP in the Cambodia Country Office. I look forward to getting to know some of you this week.
Digital technologies, by nature, are iterative and fast-changing; the nature of digital tools and users’ interactions requires us to think differently about measuring outcomes and impact than we might have in traditional, offline interventions. One of the questions I would really love to explore more this week is ‘How do we understand and measure impact of digital interventions and responses?’
A recent project we have been working on under the Tech for Democracy initiative is looking at just this. We are developing an M&E framework to understand the impact of UNDP’s iVerify platform has had on information integrity on pre-election and post-election periods in Kenya.
What are some of the ways you are exploring impact? Online surveys, comment analysis or are you using machine learning to analyse data and evaluate impact? How are you incorporating digital data and metrics into your monitoring and evaluation frameworks? What core metrics are you focused on?
This discussion is open to the public and all contributions are welcome. The questions above provide some guidance but if you have thoughts beyond those, please feel free to share. We're looking to hear from researchers, journalists, civil society actors, electoral commissions, UN agencies, tech companies and of course voters. Invite colleagues to participate and share examples of your work!
Please indicate the question(s) you are answering in your comment and feel free to introduce yourself
Looking forward to a great discussion...
Thanks Clara! My name is Mark Belinsky and I work with the UNDP ExO from the Digital Office. I've been leading the technical implementation of iVerify and grappling with the ways to measure impact and metrics. Currently we do this in a number of ways and are looking to further expand our methods as we continue to build new features into the product.
In terms of analytics, we've been looking at tracking website usage using tools that are GDPR-compliant. For instance we leverage hotjar.com to give us insights into the reach that our website is having with users.
When reviewing hate speech, we're filtering millions upon millions of posts from Facebook for instance to see what instances are occurring. By leveraging machine learning to detect potential cases then filtering down further with human-in-the-loop machine learning to both ensure that humans are making decisions on content and that they don't get burdened with the same content twice. This allows us to get to the core questions of whether a lack of hate speech is due to a healthy ecosystem or due to limited tracking on our side. From there, we can adjust our system to become more exacting and thus start to measure the levels of interventions we need to pursue as well as the success of those interventions.
Similarly we are looking to model efficiencies into other social media sites. Tools like Twitter and YouTube are often monitored erratically because location is hard to determine. Instead of using weaker methods of monitoring, we're creating methods to determine what a country's communication ecosystems look like then tracking those to secure more accurate results. Other newer social media sites like TikTok have proven even more difficult due to a lack of access to their APIs as well as the cost and difficulty of tracking video and audio content.