THE DISRUPTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES: IS WEB 2.0 A REASSURANCE FOR OR A THREAT TO THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES IN RESPECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS?

Year 2021, , 501 - 527, 31.12.2021

Bilge Kaan Güner

https://doi.org/10.47136/asbuhfd.916253

Abstract

Data is flying around us and there is a constant flow. Data traffic, based on a predictable and controllable system, is promising with its contributions to many areas of life and the solutions it offers to social problems. With the growth of technology, the internet continues to facilitate communication channels that are an integral part of our lives. The widespread applications of algorithms using artificial intelligence (AI) and the gradual increase in the use of 'Internet of Things' (IoT) technologies are stunning examples of how the internet has become a ubiquitous part of everyday life and how it permeates our lives.
While the extensive use of digital platforms benefits human rights, facilitating greater diversity of voices, greater access to information, and stronger social movements than ever before, there is also an increase in the abuse of society by malicious actors. Political microtargeting campaigns, mass spread of disinformation, foreign intervention in elections, and polarized 'echo chambers' during election periods, cyber techniques used directly or indirectly by such actors or institutions, we are subjected to destructive information bombardment. Therefore, within the framework of international human rights, there is a need for new local or international legislation to guide digital technology. However, due to the complexity of the problem, a multidimensional approach is needed to deal with cyber techniques that threaten democracy. Finding adequate solutions to disruptive cyber techniques is directly linked to maximizing accountability in the context of digital technology.
The purpose of this article is; It is an overview of why regulations that will solve this problem are vital while addressing the current and possible consequences of the algorithmic accountability problem in digital platforms created by governments and various institutions. In light of these, the first part of this article will attempt to explain current cyber techniques and how digital platforms facilitate their use. Then, the adequacy of current approaches to the disruptive aspects of technology will be examined within the scope of relevant human rights laws. Finally, the article will be concluded with a multidimensional approach to ensure internet freedom and protect democracy and rights.

Keywords

Accountability, Democracy, Disinformation, Micro-Targeting, Human Rights

İLETİŞİM TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN YIKICI GELİŞİMİ: WEB 2.0, İNSAN HAKLARI KANUNLARI İLE İLGİLİ DEMOKRATİK DEĞERLERİN TEMEL İLKELERİ İÇİN BİR GÜVENCE Mİ YOKSA TEHDIT Mİ?

Abstract

Veriler etrafımızdan uçuşup gidiyor ve sürekli bir akış var. Öngörülebilir ve denetlenebilir sisteme oturtulmuş veri trafiği hayatın birçok alanına katkısı ile toplumsal problemlere sunduğu çözümler noktasında meydana gelen gelişmeler umut vaat ediyor. Teknolojinin büyümesiyle internet, hayatımızın ayrılmaz bir parçası olan iletişim kanallarını da kolaylaştırmaya devam ediyor. Yapay zekâ (AI) kullanan algoritmaların yaygın uygulamaları ve 'Nesnelerin İnterneti' (IoT) teknolojilerinin kullanımındaki kademeli artışlar, internetin günlük yaşamın nasıl her yerde bulunan bir parçası haline geldiğinin ve hayatımıza ne denli nüfuz ettiğinin çarpıcı örnekleridir.
Dijital platformların yoğun kullanımı insan haklarına fayda sağlarken, daha fazla ses çeşitliliğini, bilgiye daha fazla erişimi ve her zamankinden daha güçlü sosyal hareketleri kolaylaştırırken, kötü niyetli aktörler tarafından toplumun istismar edilmesi noktasında da aynı oranda artış yaşanmaktadır. Siyasi mikro hedefleme kampanyaları, dezenformasyonun kitlesel yayılımı, seçimlere dış müdahale ve seçim dönemlerinde kutuplaşmış 'yankı odaları', bu tür aktörler veya kurumlar tarafından doğrudan ya da dolaylı olarak kullanılan siber tekniklerle yıkıcı bilgi bombardımanı altında kalmaktayız. Bu nedenle, uluslararası insan hakları çerçevesinde, dijital teknolojiye rehberlik edecek yeni yerel veya uluslararası mevzuata ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, sorunun karmaşıklığı nedeniyle demokrasiyi tehdit eden siber tekniklerle başa çıkmak için çok boyutlu bir yaklaşıma ihtiyaç vardır. Yıkıcı siber tekniklere yeterli çözümler bulunması, dijital teknoloji bağlamında hesap verilebilirliğin azami düzeye çıkarılması ile doğrudan bağlantılıdır.
Bu makalenin amacı; hükümetlerin ve çeşitli kurumların yarattığı dijital platformlardaki algoritmik hesap verilebilirlik probleminin mevcut ve olası sonuçlarına değinirken bu probleme çözüm getirecek regülasyonların neden hayati olduğuna genel bir bakıştır. Bunların ışığında, bu makalenin ilk kısmı mevcut siber teknikleri ve dijital platformların kullanımlarını nasıl kolaylaştırdığını açıklamaya çalışacaktır. Ardından, ilgili insan hakları yasaları kapsamında, teknolojinin yıkıcı yönlerine karşı mevcut yaklaşımların yeterliliği irdelenecektir. Son olarak, internet özgürlüğünü sağlamak, demokrasi ve hakları korumak için çok boyutlu bir yaklaşımla makale noktalanacaktır.

Keywords

Demokrasi, Dezenformasyon, Hesap Verebilirlik, Mikro Hedefleme, İnsan Hakları

References

• Alegre, Susie. “Rethinking Freedom of Thought for the 21st Century.” European Human Rights Law Review, no. 3 (2017): 221–33.
• Andersen, Lindsey. “Human Rights in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” Last modified: April 10, 2021. https://www.exploreaiethics.com/reports/human-rights-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence/.
• The Guardian. “Coronavirus: Facebook Will Start Warning Users Who Engaged with ‘harmful’ Misinformation.” 16 April 2020. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/16/coronavirus-facebook-misinformation-warning.
• Cubbon, Sed. “Evolving Disinformation Tactics in France: Comparing the 2017 and 2019 CrossCheck Projects.” First Draft, 25 February 2020. https://firstdraftnews.org:443/latest/evolving-disinformation-tactics-in-france-comparing-the-2017-and-2019-crosscheck-projects/.
• DiResta, Renee, Kris Shaffer, Becky Ruppel, David Sullivan, Robert Matney, Ryan Fox, Jonathan Albright, and Ben Johnson. “The Tactics & Tropes of the Internet Research Agency.” U.S. Senate Documents, 1 October 2019. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/senatedocs/2.
• Dobber, Tom, Ronan Ó Fathaigh, and Frederik J. Zuiderveen Borgesius. ‘The Regulation of Online Political Micro-Targeting in Europe’. Internet Policy Review 8, no. 4 (31 December 2019). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1440.
• European Comission. “Final Report of the High Level Expert Group on Fake News and Online Disinformation.” Text, 12 March 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/final-report-high-level-expert-group-fake-news-and-online-disinformation.
• “Facebook Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2020 Results.” https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2021/Facebook-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2020-Results/default.aspx.
• Flynn, Matthew J. “Cyber Rebellions: The Online Struggle for Openness.” Journal of International Affairs 71, no. 1.5 (2018): 107–14.
• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). “General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Official Legal Text.” https://gdpr-info.eu/.
• Jones, Kate. Online Disinformation and Political Discourse: Applying a Human Rights Framework, 2019.
• Leiner, Barry M., Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, and Stephen Wolff. ‘A Brief History of the Internet’. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 39, no. 5 (7 October 2009): 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629607.1629613.
• McCarthy-Jones, Simon. “The Autonomous Mind: The Right to Freedom of Thought in the Twenty-First Century.” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2019.00019.
• Mosseri, Adam. “Building a Better News Feed for You.” About Facebook, 29 June 2016. https://about.fb.com/news/2016/06/building-a-better-news-feed-for-you/.
• Naughton, John. “The Evolution of the Internet: From Military Experiment to General Purpose Technology.” Journal of Cyber Policy 1, no. 1 (2 January 2016): 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1157619.
• Ottis, Rain. “Analysis of the 2007 Cyber Attacks against Estonia from the Information Warfare Perspective.” 7th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security 2008, ECIW 2008, 1 January 2008, 163–68.
• Roth, Yoel, and Del Harvey. “How Twitter Is Fighting Spam and Malicious Automation,” 2018. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/how-twitter-is-fighting-spam-and-malicious-automation.html.
• Schiffrin, Anya. “Disinformatıon and Democracy: The Internet Transformed Protest but Did Not Improve Democracy.” Journal of International Affairs 71, no. 1 (2017): 117–26.
• Schneier, Bruce. “News: Surveillance Is the Business Model of the Internet: Bruce Schneier - Schneier on Security.” https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2014/04/surveillance_is_the.html.
• Shahbaz, Adrian, and Allie Funk. “The Crisis of Social Media.” Freedom House, 2019. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2019/crisis-social-media.
• Shiner, Bethany. “Big Data, Small Law: How Gaps in Regulation Are Affecting Political Campaigning Methods and the Need for Fundamental Reform.” Public Law, 28 October 2018.
• Sunstein, Cass R. “Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media.” Princeton University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8xnhtd.
• Tarran, Brian. “What Can We Learn from the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal?” Significance 15, no. 3 (June 2018): 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01139.x.
• Tufekci, Zeynep. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven ; London: Yale University Press, 2017.
• “United Nations Treaty Collection.” https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4.
• “Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).” https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Compilation/Pages/UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(1948).aspx.
• Unver, H. Akin. “Digital Challenges to Democracy: Politics Of Automation, Attention, and Engagement: Politics of Automation, Attention, and Engagement.” Journal of International Affairs 71, no. 1 (2017): 127–46.
• Wachter, Sandra, and Brent Mittelstadt. “A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 5 October 2018. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3248829.