Author: pixel2coding

Source: UK Parliament

Democracy under threat from ‘pandemic of misinformation’ online, say Lords Committee

The UK Government should act immediately to deal with a ‘pandemic of misinformation’ that poses an existential threat to our democracy and way of life. The stark warning comes in a report published today by the Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies.

Report: Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust (HTML)
Report: Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust (PDF)
Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies

Committee Chair

The Chair of the Committee, Lord Puttnam said:

"We are living through a time in which trust is collapsing. People no longer have faith that they can rely on the information they receive or believe what they are told. That is absolutely corrosive for democracy.

"Part of the reason for the decline in trust is the unchecked power of digital platforms.
These international behemoths exercise great power without any matching accountability, often denying responsibility for the harm some of the content they host can cause, while continuing to profit from it.

"We've seen clear evidence of this in recent months through a dangerous rise of misinformation about COVID-19. We have become aware of the ways in which misinformation can damage an individual’s health along with a growing number of instances where it is our collective democratic health that’s under threat.  That must stop – it is time for the Government to get a grip of this issue.
They should start by taking steps to immediately bring forward a Draft Online Harms Bill.
We heard that on the current schedule the legislation may not be in place until 2024.
That is clearly unacceptable.

"We have set out a programme for change that, taken as a whole, can allow our democratic institutions to wrestle power back from unaccountable corporations and begin the slow process of restoring trust. Technology is not a force of nature and can be harnessed for the public good.
The time to do so is now."

Recommendations

The report says the Government must take action 'without delay' to ensure tech giants are held responsible for the harm done to individuals, wider society and our democratic processes through misinformation widely spread on their platforms.
The Committee says online platforms are not 'inherently ungovernable' but power has been ceded to a "few unelected and unaccountable digital corporations" including Facebook and Google, and politicians must act now to hold those corporations to account when they are shown to negatively influence public debate and undermine democracy.
The Committee sets out a package of reforms which, if implemented, could help restore public trust and ensure democracy does not 'decline into irrelevance'.

Publish draft Online Harms Bill now

The Government has failed to get to grips with the urgency of the challenges of the digital age and should immediately publish an Online Harms Draft Bill that covers the impact of disinformation.
This should give Ofcom, as the proposed Online Harms regulator, the power to hold digital platforms legally responsible for content they recommend to large audiences or that is produced by users with a large following on the platform.
The Committee point out that many content providers are in effect in business relationships with platforms that host their content and the platforms have a duty of care to ensure the content is not harmful, either to individuals or our shared democratic principles. This should be backed up by the power for Ofcom to fine digital companies up to four percent of their global turnover or force ISP blocking of serial offenders.
Ofcom should also be given the power to ensure online platforms are transparent in how their algorithms work so they are not operating in ways that discriminate against minorities. To achieve this Ofcom should publish a code of practice on algorithms including internal and external audits of their effects on users with the characteristics protected in the Equalities Act 2010.

Regulate political advertising

The report calls for political advertising to be brought into line with other advertising in the requirement for truth and accuracy. It says the political parties should work with the Advertising Standards Authority and other regulators to develop a code of practice  that would ban "fundamentally inaccurate advertising during a parliamentary or mayoral election or referendum". This Code would be overseen by a Committee including the ASA, the Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the UK Statistics Authority and would have the power to remove political advertising that breached the code.
This new regulation would be supported by a significant toughening up of electoral law including a requirement for online political material to include imprints indicating who has paid for them, real time databases of all political advertising on online platforms and an increase in the fines that the Electoral Commission can impose on campaigners to £500,000 or four percent of the total campaign spend, whichever is greater.

Introduce a digital ombudsman

The Committee calls on the Government to establish an independent ombudsman for content moderation who will provide a point of appeal for people who have been let down by digital platforms. This would ensure the public would have a representative who could both force the tech giants to take down inappropriate content and protect individuals from their content being unfairly taken down by platforms.
The Committee also makes recommendations for increasing digital media literacy and developing active digital citizens through changes to school curriculum and adult digital literacy initiatives.

Source: The Irish Examiner

The cancellation of this summer’s Leaving Cert exams presents the perfect opportunity to reform the university admission process. 

With Irish students sitting some form of written exams each summer for the last 95 years, we may never have a better opportunity to improve the current system.

That’s according to educator, Oscar-winner and digital advocate David Puttnam, who believes that now is the time to examine how students here get to third-level. Mr Puttnam was one of a number of people who called for this year’s Leaving Cert exams to be scrapped, due to the upheaval caused by the pandemic.

Speaking to the Irish Examiner back in April, he criticised the initial decision to postpone this year’s exams until late July, lamenting the lost opportunity to find a better method of assessment. Believing it was cruel to have delayed the exam until the end of summer, he called for an alternative to be managed through a system of predicted grades, and a swift appeals process.

This is, essentially, what was later decided on by the Department of Education. Cancelling the exams was the right call, Mr Puttnam still believes: “I do understand that from the Government’s point of view, it was the least worst option.

“There was no good option here, but having said that, what I think they’ve done is open up a fantastic opportunity for themselves.

“This is really a moment of opportunity for them. They have the chance now to do a total review of both the Leaving Cert exams and the university admissions process.

“If I was in government, I’d appoint an expert to carry out a full review of the system because they will never have a better opportunity to make a fresh start.” 

Mr Puttnam is best known for his role in producing Hollywood blockbusters, including The Mission, The Killing Fields, and Chariots of Fire. Together, these films have collected 10 Oscars, 10 Golden Globes, 25 Baftas, and the Palme d’Or at Cannes Film Festival.

He is also a member of Britain's House of Lords, a former president of Unicef UK, and he was Ireland’s first national digital champion. Since retiring from film production in 1998, he has focused on his work in education, the environment, and communications.

He is the chairman of Atticus Education, an online education company that he runs from his home in Skibbereen, West Cork.

While he understands the pressure teachers feel in regard to using predicted grades, the system is used in other jurisdictions to great success, he added.

“It comes with the job of being in education that you have to make judgements,” he said. “I genuinely don’t understand, and I am conscious that I am saying this with an English accent, why there is a slight neurosis here around the idea of conflicts of interest. Ireland is a small country, but so is Denmark, so is Finland, so is Estonia. Somehow they don’t seem to have to ask themselves those questions. 

“I never really understood why. I absolutely trust the principals of schools, I absolutely trust teachers. I wouldn’t expect them to be assaulted in Supervalu. Teachers will make the best judgement that they can make.” 

The vast majority of educators do not agree with the Leaving Cert, he believes, adding that he hopes a new way to get students to college can be found that sees less pressure hinged on just one set of exams. 

“I think that one of the things that should also come out of this is much more engagement from universities, as part of an interview process,” he said. “One of the problems with the Leaving Cert is, theoretically, if you get the points you’re in. Yet, you might arrive at university and you are totally unsuited to both the course you got and the way you are going to be taught. It just doesn’t work for you. 

“But that didn’t emerge the day you got your points. I think an interview process is really, really important. It should help to bring in people who have real potential because of the nature of their personalities, and not just people who have just done a few months of hard slog in a grinds school and got the points. That is not education. I can’t say it often enough, and educationalists know it.” 

Today, Mr Puttnam is the president of Britain’s National Film and Television School (NFTS), having also sat on the admissions panel for many years.

“We used to have students who, on paper, looked great. They’d come in, and you’d go through all their stuff but then you’d ask ‘Oh, by the way what are your three favourite movies, and why?’ and they’d freeze. What you’d realise then is that there was no reason for them being there really, other than they thought it was a nice idea to be in the movie business.

 “They’d done some research on the internet, but when you actually met them, you realised they were never going to make it in the field, it was never going to work for them because there was no passion there.” 

He feels very strongly about “inappropriate life-defining exams”, likening the Leaving Cert to a set of British exams called the ‘eleven-plus'. "Those exams basically determined the whole rest of your life. If you passed, you went to a grammar school, you got to wear a blazer and you were taught French. That was a defining moment for kids. Sensibly they binned it because it was so patently unfair and unjust.  The only reason I had passed is because my mother took herself up to London to a bookshop that sold old exam papers."

Lord Puttnam joined Siobhán Cronin recently to discuss the decision to use a grading system for this year’s Leaving Cert, how he finds working from Skibbereen and virtual House of Lords sittings, and he his top Netflix viewing recommendations. 

You can listen to the podcasrt here: LISTEN NOW

In special webinar hosted by super fast broadband provider Fibrus with MW Advocate, film director and producer David Puttnam talks about the work undertaken in Skibbereen to introduce superfast broadband to help bridge the digital divide. Also joining the webinar is the Rural Community Network, Business in the Community, Kainos and NI Screen.

You can watch the Webinare here: WATCH NOW

Students selected for film legend’s mentoring scheme

Source: University of Sunderland 

Six students who underwent a vigorous selection process have now been chosen to work with Lord Puttnam on his unique mentoring scheme over an intensive three-month period.

The ‘Puttnam Scholars’ programme will involve the students taking part in a series of interactive seminars in the course of which Lord Puttnam will set them a film project to be completed by June.

Last year’s scholars made a 13-minute documentary highlighting the plight of asylum seekers and refugees. ‘In Limbo’ shone a light on the struggle faced by refugees and those seeking asylum in the region, as well as the dedicated work of the workers and volunteers trying to help them, it was screened across the North East as well as in festivals and competitions.

This year’s group – James MacNeil, Katie Stubbs, João Chambel, Luke Adam Smith, Millie Bourke and Abdullatif Mahjoub – met with the Labour Peer at the House of Lords, to discuss and launch the programme.

All students are at various stages of their university journey from first year to post graduate study.

Lord Puttnam, the first Chancellor of the University of Sunderland (1997-2007), and an Oscar-winning producer of films including Chariots of Fire, The Mission, The Killing Fields and Midnight Express, said: “Having thoroughly enjoyed working with the first two cohorts of scholars, this year’s group promises to be every bit as committed and dynamic as their predecessors. The truth is that I learn as much from their energy and insights as I’m ever able to offer in return. I can’t wait to get thoroughly stuck into their film project.”

Pro Vice-Chancellor Graeme Thompson, added: “This is once again a great opportunity for our students to be selected for the Puttnam Scholars programme.

“Lord Puttnam is a tremendous supporter of our university and we are delighted he has chosen to continue this unique programme with us. It’s been a tremendous success which has helped shaped our previous scholars’ studies and career choices.”

What the students say

Katie Stubbs, from South Tyneside, is studying Screen Performance and hopes to gain a better insight into the film industry as well as produce a high-quality professional film which she can showcase and use for future job applications.

She added: “I applied to become a Puttnam Scholar as this opportunity does not come around often. To be mentored by someone of such great success will greatly benefit me in the future. The first session was very interesting and I learnt a great deal from Lord Puttnam, discussing identity within the film industry.”

James MacNeil, from the Isle of Lewis, Stornoway in Scotland, is in the final year of the Media Production course.

He explained what he hoped to get out of the programme. “I hope to gain an insight into the creative process of filmmaking with guidance from a highly regarded producer as well as collaborating with talented individuals also dedicated to the field.

“I applied for the programme to further my career and to prove to myself I can make it in this industry that I am so passionate about. The first session last Friday opened my eyes to some of the history of filmmaking: including prominent figures, particularly Charlie Chaplin's, importance to the growth of cinema and film.”

João Chambel, from Portugal, is studying Film Production, he said: “I hope to get behind the scenes knowledge from an experienced name in Hollywood. The first session went fine, especially the "Oscar Flex" moment and David's words on Charlie Chaplin.”

Abdullatif Mahjoub, from Syria, studying Digital Film Production, said: “I hope to move to a higher level in the film industry and expand my knowledge in terms of theories, craftsmanship, and implementation.

“This programme is a golden opportunity to be under the care and supervision of Lord Puttnam, who has global experience in making films and is passing on his experiences to us.

 “It is great that we will make a film and it will not be limited to theoretical matters, and we can apply what we will learn.”

He added: “The first session was full of cinema history that we should always remember because it is the first seeds in the field of films. Also, it confirms to me that most films are based on the character, opinion, and the history of the filmmaker. The filmmaker reflects what is inside it, whether it is negative or positive on the screen, in order to allow everyone to share these reflections.”

Luke Adam Smith, from Sunderland, who recently completed his Masters Degree in Media Production (TV and Film), says he hopes the programme will help iron out any weak points he may have and produce a film to be proud of. Adding: “Learning from David Puttnam is a brilliant opportunity and experience.

“The session on Friday went amazingly well, we discussed Identity in film and all aspects of that, Putnam gave us all a chance to speak our mind and ask questions while referring to film examples he had used within the presentation. 

Millie Bourke, from Darlington, studying Digital Film Production, said: “From this experience I hope to learn something new and become more professional at filmmaking as a craft. I want to come away from this having the confidence to carry on making creative products that say something. I applied to become a scholar because I knew this experience would help me establish myself better and help me gain more knowledge on my future career.

“The first session we had with Lord Puttnam was already very informative and exciting, he has a lot he is willing to share with us and isn’t afraid to tell us what’s what.”

On Thursday 5th March, Lord Puttnam contributed to an important debate in the House of Lords on the BBC and public service broadcasting:

Source: Hansard

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for making possible this incredibly timely debate—albeit the Roger Bannister version, as I view it. In the short time available, I hope to remind your Lordships that the current project to undermine public service broadcasting is not new. It is simply the most recent iteration of a decades-long campaign of salami-slicing and intimidation by, I am sad to say, successive Conservative Governments, many of whom have sought to take the wind out of the BBC’s sails and erode the trust it enjoys among the public. It is the now-familiar Putin playbook: promote fear and distrust, and allow the consequences to multiply.​

As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has already suggested, there is something rather ironic in the determination shown by Conservative leaders to dismantle an institution of which the party itself should be rightly proud. Perhaps the Prime Minister has forgotten that it was under the leadership of his hero, Winston Churchill, that a Conservative Government passed the Television Act 1954—legislation that protected the position of the BBC while, at the same time, introducing a brilliantly conceived system of regulated competition through a new Independent Television Authority. This system established a nationwide ecology—there is that word again—of public service broadcasting that allowed all aspects of the media to thrive. Crucially, while there was competition for audiences, the BBC/ITV duopoly did not compete for revenue.

The one-nation vision that lay at the heart of policy-making 60 years ago would appear to have evaporated and turned into something rather more sinister. There is no lack of vision in this Government’s policy towards the BBC. The vision is there; it was laid out with paint- by-numbers clarity by the Prime Minister’s principal adviser, Dominic Cummings, in 2004. Writing that year, he called for a campaign to undermine the corporation’s credibility, suggesting that:

“The BBC is a determined propagandist with a coherent ideology.”

To combat this, he argued for the creation of a British version of Fox News. He believed this could be achieved through a

“campaign to end the licence fee”.

Here was a vision that represented a massive departure from Conservatism, certainly as most Members of this House would understand it. Its genesis was that of Trumpian populism, an ideology that treats contempt for institutions as a form of political weaponry and is a long way from the wisdom of Edmund Burke, who once said:

“Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years.”

For the past few months I have spent a great deal of my life in the Committee Corridor, chairing a Select Committee looking at the impact of digital technology on democracy. One thing has already emerged with quite frightening clarity: confusion over where to seek verifiable fact. However, thanks largely to the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who I am delighted is in his place, and as recently confirmed by Ofcom, the BBC has emerged as the digital gold standard in the provision of trusted information in an era of fake news. Surely, as we stand on the brink of a global pandemic, that gold standard of trust is more crucial than it has ever been.

This can no longer be about the wilful vengeance of politicians; it is about the very real possibility of saving lives. To paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, speaking in this House just two months ago, trust is the scarcest and most precious political metal we have. Sad to say, I am far from reassured by the Secretary of State’s well-trailed retreat from earlier briefings. I can only repeat my belief that we are watching a well-rehearsed process of intimidation and destabilisation. Hopefully, when she comes to respond to the debate the Minister will unequivocally assure me that I am wrong, because ​we cannot allow an unremitting vendetta to rob us of the most valuable asset that democracy has at its disposal.