Moderator
– Wang Ting-Yu, Editor-in-Chief of Plain Law Movement
Panelists: – Chou Yu-Siou, Executive Committee Member of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, Lawyer at CHEN & CHOU Law Firm.
– Liu Jia-Wei, Professor of the Department of Public Administration and Policy at National Taipei University.–online
– Lo Chi-chun, Chief Operating Officer at Pearson Data.
15:45-16:00 Q&A
Meeting Minutes
Mr. Wang Ting-Yu first explained the meaning of democracy at the opening, stating that democracy refers to the people being able to make decisions for themselves. The democracy involving government authority is a policy that aims to fulfill the thoughts and expectations of the people. However, when democracy intersects with the digital age, it may also pose threats. For example, algorithms on social media platforms collect personal information to disseminate false information content.
Mr. Lo Chi-chun believes that in an era of democracy where the people are in charge, clarifying the characteristics and thoughts of the people is crucial. Understanding the current state of society through online surveys or market research can contribute to the functioning of the democratic system and help people form a general consensus. Taking the analysis of the threat of online misinformation as an example, one can first assess the age groups that are more susceptible to influence by examining the average time people spend on the internet. The average internet usage time for Taiwanese people is 4-8 hours, and younger age groups tend to spend more time online.
Analyzing the social media platforms commonly used by the Taiwanese population reveals different discussion atmospheres and dissemination methods on each platform. Different sparks and clashes in topic discussions can be observed, with LINE, YouTube, and Facebook being the most frequently used social platforms in Taiwan. By analyzing the daily routines of Taiwanese people and the ecology of public affairs, one can also understand the logic behind public affairs and news dissemination.
Mr. Lo also emphasizes that when incidents occur where misinformation is used to undermine democracy, the analysis of the three aspects mentioned above can help us understand our vulnerabilities and strengthen our self-defense awareness.
Mr. Lo utilized an AI drawing tool to depict the image of democracy. When he used the keywords “government power,” “capital power,” and “social power,” the AI tool generated a totem of the three forces in conflict. However, when he included “technological power,” the originally intertwined pattern was separated. He believes this is because technology emphasizes independent dialectical processes and independent operational workflows. He then discussed the maintenance of democracy from a cost perspective, including the costs of establishing and maintaining legal systems, political participation, education and communication, maintaining social stability and transformation, and foreign policy.
From the perspective of a data analyst, there is no concern about the future development of humanity, but the process of development can be observed through data collection. When digital technology is involved in social change and evolution, one should also consider the coverage and substitution rate of technology. Mr. Lo pointed out that people should have the ability to self-awareness regarding changes in social order. When the power of emerging technologies begins to impact society and even individual lives, people should seek adaptive solutions and ways to participate.
Mr. Chou Yu-Shiou discusses the impact of technology on democracy from the perspective of fake news. Due to the rise of the internet, the effects of fake news have been amplified, and the cost of verification is higher. The position of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights is to balance the control of false information while ensuring freedom of speech. He first introduced Constitutional Interpretation No. 613, which mentions the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution, including the freedom of communication and broadcasting. This means the freedom to obtain information and express opinions through communication facilities while ensuring a public discussion of diverse opinions.
In Judgment No. 8 of the Constitutional Court in 112 years, the judges acknowledged that although people have freedom of speech, both the media and the general public should bear a certain level of verification responsibility for the information provided to prevent the spread of false information. In response, Mr. Chou has a different perspective. He metaphorically likens speech to a commodity, further illustrating that if a consumer buys an expired product in a store, the general understanding is that the store should bear the responsibility for not properly managing the product. Consumers typically are not required to take on the duty of verifying the expiration date themselves.
Regarding the spread of false information, Mr. Chou suggests further consideration of whether the mechanism of the free speech market needs improvement or government intervention for regulation. It should not be a simple demand for the audience to shoulder the duty of self-verification.
Currently, Taiwan’s laws do not have a clear definition for “false information.” Similar terms such as rumors and untrue matters can be found scattered in regulations such as the Social Order Maintenance Act, Public Officials Election and Recall Act, Communicable Disease Control Act, Disaster Prevention and Rescue Act, etc. In the absence of a clear explanation of the definition and scope of misinformation, the legitimacy of law enforcement remains to be confirmed.
For example, the Social Order Maintenance Act grants the police the power to initiate cases on their own. When dealing with online comments, this not only may fail to achieve the goal of preventing harm but could lead to the abuse of the law by authorities, reinforcing people’s distrust in the government. Moreover, determining how to recognize the harm caused by false information requires sufficient “causal relationships” to be proven. Therefore, the vague and broad provisions in the Social Order Maintenance Act, such as “spreading rumors that could affect public order,” should not continue to be used to intervene in speech without proper clarification and limitations.
Mr. Chou, from an economic perspective, analyzes whether the marketplace of free speech should involve intense competition among numerous voices, allowing audiences to independently choose information, or if it should be subject to unified government regulation. He further references the analysis of Dr. Lin Chun-yuan from the Academia Sinica, pointing out that the information explosion brought about by digital technology may lead to an excess of false information, undermining the audience’s ability to engage in critical thinking and potentially hindering democratic deliberation. Moderate regulation of speech actually helps people more efficiently receive meaningful information.
Finally, Mr. Chou raises three practical difficulties in addressing the issue of fake news. Firstly, communication poses a challenge because not everyone in digital democracy possesses the same technological capabilities or devices. Secondly, the phenomenon of polarization makes it more difficult to engage in discussions on public issues. Lastly, homogeneity is an issue; despite having numerous domestic news outlets, the news produced by each media entity may be identical, possibly due to market pressures forcing media to abandon relatively marginalized news and perspectives.
Current solutions include market-driven competition and government regulation. However, bridging the information asymmetry gap, as suggested by the previously introduced Digital Intermediary Act by the National Communications Commission (NCC), is indeed a positive direction. Yet, there is currently no consensus on the implementation details domestically.
Professor Liu Jia-Wei discusses the current democratic challenges in Taiwan from the perspectives of media and policy. She states that Taiwan’s democracy is indeed facing digital threats, with traditional media declining, the rise of the internet making information verification increasingly unreliable, and the extended internet usage due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic exposing people to a higher risk of encountering a large amount of false information.
In the political arena, the rampant manipulation of public opinion by a large number of fake accounts, bots, and other forms of online manipulation has had a significant impact. The government, too, needs to engage in political communication through the internet to promote public policies and gather interests. However, due to the varied quality of online content and the difficulty in distinguishing between truth and falsehood, exacerbated by the influence of social media platform algorithms, people find it more challenging to be skeptical about misinformation.
Certainly, Professor Liu Jiawei suggests leveraging the current advanced AI technologies to address the threats posed by digital technology. She recommends the application of weak artificial intelligence (weak AI) to handle these issues. Weak AI can assist people in decision-making by executing specific tasks based on the information input by individuals. Importantly, individuals have the right to reject policy choices suggested by weak AI. Professor Liu emphasizes that the application of weak AI is not meant to completely replace human decision-making but rather to play a supportive role.
Regarding practical applications of weak AI to enhance government administrative efficiency, she suggests starting with opinion collection. AI can be used to clarify the complex relationships among various opinions, with human experts conducting manual confirmation. However, while using AI, transparency and accountability must be maintained. It is suggested to openly disclose the methods by which AI collects data and to accept rigorous oversight from experts, scholars, and various organizations. Governments should also intervene as necessary and demand that AI service providers meet societal expectations. She also proposes developing AI applications for analyzing false information and strengthening information security to counteract digital authoritarianism.
In anticipation of the utility of AI technology in upholding democratic values, Professor Liu emphasizes the importance of AI’s collaborativeness and the equality of participation, allowing anyone to use and engage with it. Regarding the future impact of AI technology on digital democracy, she raises several considerations. For example, she questions whether the development of AI should prioritize commercial value or focus on public interest. She also expresses concerns about government regulation of AI, emphasizing the need for such regulation to balance privacy considerations. If AI development adopts an open-source model, where multiple parties contribute to its growth, it can enhance AI’s development but may also be susceptible to misuse for malicious purposes. Lastly, Professor Liu warns that individuals are more susceptible to the influence of online manipulation and misinformation when harboring feelings of anger and fear.
In conclusion, Mr. Wang emphasizes the significance of incorporating technological tools when discussing democracy in the digital age. He highlights the importance of avoiding the polarization and diffusion of the entire social community if we value democratic values and aim to build a sense of commonality. The pathway to improvement, according to Mr. Wang, starts with fostering more horizontal communication and active listening within society.
Presentation Download <Provided with the consent of the speaker>
– Chou Yu-Siou, Executive Committee Member of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, Lawyer at CHEN & CHOU Law Firm.- Presentation Download
– Liu Jia-Wei, Professor of the Department of Public Administration and Policy at National Taipei University– Presentation Download
– Lo Chi-chun, Chief Operating Officer at Pearson Data.- Presentation Download
