Common challenges for humanitarian response
Freedom of Expression and Risks to Information Integrity
One the fundamental challenges for humanitarian actors in addressing risks to information integrity is the perceived tension that exists between upholding freedom of expression and addressing the harms that may from the circulation of misinformation, disinformation and hate speech. However, the issue is not about prioritising one over the other. Freedom of expression only exists when everyone feels safe to speak their mind openly and freely without fear. If hate speech and incitement to violence are not adequately addressed, they can lead to the silencing individuals or entire communities. At the same time, if excessively restrictive and disproportionate measures are adopted to respond to such risks, this can be counterproductive. It is in restrictive information environments, that disinformation and hate speech tend to flourish. Therefore, promoting more, not less, speech, as well as access to diverse opinions, will present the more effective approach to information risks.
This means that responses to risks to information integrity must be grounded in international human rights and international humanitarian law to be effective and to avoid unintended consequences for those most exposed to such risks. With the exception of speech that constitutes incitement or propaganda for war, international law does not categorize speech or information, nor does it make any distinction based on the information’s veracity.
Crafting responses requires careful consideration to prevent unintended outcomes and an understanding what forms of speech that require prohibition under IHRL and IHL, and the type of speech than that can be subject to restrictions. Beyond the importance of understanding the applicable legal frameworks, it is also important to consider that information risks are often more effectively tackled by addressing its root causes and strengthening societal and information resilience, rather than by focusing on restricting expression. Ultimately, the only long term and sustainable solution to addressing information risks is the promotion of an information ecosystem that creates freedom of expression is fully enjoyed and information that is accurate, reliable, free from discrimination and hate is available to all in an open, inclusive, safe and secure manner.
RESOURCE
ARTICLE 19, Clearing the Fog of War
In this policy brief, ARTICLE 19 examines how international human rights law and international humanitarian law protect freedom of expression and information during armed conflict. In particular, it seeks to fill interpretative gaps in the existing legal frameworks, including with respect to the functional protection of media, digital threats against journalists and human rights defenders, or internet shutdowns. The brief also specifically addresses the legal standards that apply under international human rights law and international humanitarian law to ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ during armed conflict and proposes how challenges to the information ecosystem can be addressed while upholding freedom of expression.
Limited Evidence Base and Data Availability
While there is a growing evidence base that information risks can contribute to offline harm, causal relationships between specific incidents remain hard to establish and in turn raise challenges for the creation of evidence-based responses. Further UN and academic research as well as pilot projects to explore these relationships and to establish a reliable set of effective and sustainable responses are needed. Part of the challenge in building up an evidence base is increasingly limited access to data from social media platforms for researchers due higher barriers for access, an increase in imagery and video content and a move to closed channels.
RESOURCE
Despite the span of risks related to misinformation, disinformation and hate speech, no typology exists that maps the full range of such harms. This article attempts to fill this gap, proposing a typology of harms related to the spread of harmful information on social media platforms experienced by persons affected by armed conflict. Developed using real-world examples, it divides potential harm into five categories: harms to life and physical well-being, harms to economic or financial well-being, harms to psychological well-being, harms to social inclusion or cultural well-being, and society-wide harms.
Terminology and Definitions
Different stakeholders (UN Agencies, humanitarian organizations, tech platforms, state entities and national legislation, etc…) utilise a variety of umbrella terms and definitions to refer to information risks in line with their respective mandates, contexts and policy and legal considerations. While this can create tension at the policy level, findings from the pilot indicate that it remains less of a challenge at the operational level.
UNHCR and UN Agencies have generally coherent working definitions of information risks such as misinformation, disinformation and hate speech, however field colleagues may find that operationalizing terms remains difficult due to linguistic and contextual factors. Furthermore, such terms have become politically charged in certain contexts, further contributing to the use of a wide range of different terminology. UNHCR's working definitions aim to provide clarity and are crucial for designing human rights-based responses, however distinguishing between hate speech and misinformation or disinformation can be challenging in certain contexts. While definitions and consistency are key to developing coherent and effective responses, where possible staff members should prioritize using terminology that is easily accessible given contextual factors.
Financial and Human Resources
Beyond terminology, understanding and analysing information risks is a fairly resource intensive endeavour. Comprehensive automated online analysis tools can be costly, and manual analysis requires dedicated human resources and expertise and both the field, regional, and global levels. Furthermore, understanding information risks in displacement contexts inherently necessitates the ability to analyse multiple languages and the broader context, potentially requiring additional human or technological resources. When coupled with a need in contexts for complimentary offline information, resource capacity and expertise remain a large hurdle to effectively addressing information risks.
Partnerships and Coordination
Lastly, information risks are a whole-of-society issues which necessitate a whole-of-society response. No single organisation or entity can address the challenges on their own. At present, establishing coordination and cooperation between UN agencies, government partners, humanitarian organizations, tech companies and platforms, NGOs, CSOs, and media to address information risks remains a challenge. Promoting information integrity and enabling a more open, transparent, and inclusive information ecosystem begins with partnerships and coordination.