Search results

Last month, the Independent Electoral Review released an interim report outlining what the future of Aotearoa New Zealand’s electoral system could look like. While a lot of ground is covered in the report – from parliamentary terms to improving voter participation – our submission focuses on the report’s recommendations about managing disinformation, given our longstanding interest and expertise in this area. Overall, we welcome the panel’s recognition that defining disinformation is difficult and imprecise, and that efforts to address disinformation can potentially have negative consequences for democracy. It is reassuring to see that the panel has taken a broadly cautious approach to this developing policy area, especially as empirical research on the impact of misinformation and disinformation and the efficacy of interventions is still emerging. Additionally, we are pleased to see the panel’s emphasis on education as a critical way to reduce the risk of disinformation in the electoral system. If you’d like to read our comments on the panel’s specific recommendations on managing disinformation, you can read our full submission below.

Today, Brainbox is proud to share the outputs of collaborative work with the Global Network Initiative (GNI) and the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership (DTSP), two organisations that incorporate the world’s largest tech companies and a diverse, global, and a long-standing network of civil society organisations. You can access the relevant workshop materials on the websites for GNI (here) and DTSP (here). Brainbox is privileged to be able to support and lead various trusted multi-stakeholder discussions among companies, civil society organisations, audit firms, and government bodies through the Action Coalition on Meaningful Transparency, and this work with GNI and DTSP had a similar character. On 24 and 25 May, we facilitated workshops with approximately 80 total participants from the world’s largest tech companies, as well as academics and influential global civil society organisations, to discuss how systemic risk assessments ought to be conducted under the European Union’s recently implemented Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA governs the provision of services by internet companies to users in the European Union, and includes enhanced obligations on platforms and search engines with more than 45 million EU users. One of the core obligations imposed on these very large providers is a requirement to assess their systems for “systemic risk”, which must be published and independently audited by professional audit firms. The August deadline for the first risk assessments is rapidly approaching, but significant uncertainty remains around how the assessments can and should be conducted. As a result, engagements in trusted forums are essential for promoting mutual understanding and best practice. Ultimately, all stakeholder groups have an interest in effective public policy that actually works, and a shared process of insight and understanding. In practice, an industry around trust and safety, human rights risk assessment and independent audit for digital platforms is now springing into existence, which is generating conversations that are both fascinating and multidisciplinary in nature. Brainbox played a substantial role in designing, organising and facilitating the workshops, and it was a privilege to work alongside the fantastic teams at GNI and DTSP. We also created and distributed a reference material document, a pre-event survey, and a document summarising key insights from the discussion. These resources are now publicly available, and we hope they offer valuable insights to a range of stakeholders globally, as everyone comes to grips with how the DSA will be implemented, its global ripple effects, and inevitable emulation in other jurisdictions (including New Zealand). We welcome any inquiries related to this work and related subject matter. We will also be looking to bring our experience and insights on this and similar work to domestic conversations on platform regulation.

The Brainbox Institute welcomed the release of the “Safer Online Services and Media Platforms” discussion document by The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) yesterday, which proposes a new content regulation framework for Aotearoa New Zealand. The details of the discussion document have been long-awaited by the organisation, following its involvement in stakeholder consultation in June 2022, and its ongoing domestic and international activities investigating content regulatory frameworks. Director of The Brainbox Institute, Tom Barraclough, says there are many promising aspects of the discussion document, including a legally independent and accountable regulator, a multi-stakeholder approach, and steps to ensure codes of practice genuinely reflect community input. “The inclusion of independent audits and an approach based on systems rather than content are particularly encouraging features. Officials seem to have taken cues from the European Union’s recently implemented Digital Services Act, which is widely regarded as a pioneering example of social media regulation, despite some flaws.” “DIA’s proposal does not seek to expand the categories of illegal content. Instead, it focuses on taking greater action against existing illegal content, including threats to kill and similar offences. DIA has clearly understood real concerns about the Government’s role in moderating individual items of lawful content.” “We think DIA’s proposed co-regulatory approach based on independent codes of practice is the right way to go here. Codes can and should be rejected if they don’t incorporate adequate community input, and there are substantial benefits to keeping content decisions at arms-length from politicians. An independent regulator would be subject to judicial review, and presumably rights of review and appeal.” However, Barraclough says there are some elements of the proposal that are a cause for concern, and deserve greater scrutiny. “There are complications that flow from lumping traditional and social media together. Clearly social media companies are the target, and it’s not clear what the problem is with existing traditional media regulation.” “It’s also strange the Harmful Digital Communications Act has been excluded, when it’s the main legislation that regulates communications between people online – the primary point of difference between social media and traditional media.” Barraclough says it’s critical that any regulatory frameworks that are developed are extraordinarily clear and transparent, in order to ensure maximum accountability. “While the regulator won’t make content moderation decisions, it will have a say on whether traditional media and social media are moderating “harmful content” to an acceptable level. That does give it some role in influencing editorial decisions by traditional and social media. The regulator should face enhanced transparency obligations that go beyond the OIA to justify public trust in how it’s operating.” “The Brainbox Institute believes it's really important that this discussion document receives rigorous scrutiny from the public, but it’s also important to be clear about what the proposal does and doesn’t suggest. The burden of meaningful engagement with this work is significant, and the decision by DIA to release discussion documents to some groups in advance of others will already have done substantial damage to public trust and confidence among some groups.” “We encourage people to make a submission by the July 31 deadline, and will be making resources available in the coming weeks to support people to reach their own conclusions.”

Brainbox has recently had a few personnel changes that we’d like to share. Firstly, two new Senior Consultants have joined us - Allyn Robins and Ximena Smith. Ximena has a background in journalism and communications, with over seven years experience across both industries. Her journalism work has included roles at Whakaata Māori, 95bFM and RNZ, as well as freelance credits for Prime, Vice, Newsroom and Stuff. She’s also spent time abroad in New York and London, working in several communications roles in the charity/NGO sector. Meanwhile, Allyn has been quietly working with Brainbox since April 2022. Before this he served as an Intelligence Analyst at the National Assessments Bureau within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, where - while also juggling the title of 'space guy' - he established the emerging technology portfolio. He holds a Master’s degree in Physics and Bachelor’s degrees in Philosophy and Theatre, which have been more practical than you might expect. We’re thrilled to have Allyn & Ximena on board, and they will both bring invaluable experience & knowledge to the exciting new projects that we have lined up. Secondly, Brainbox’s founding co-director, Curtis Barnes, has moved on to a role with Deloitte in London. We’d like to thank Curtis for all of his hard work over the past four years building Brainbox from the ground up and making it what it is today. If you’d like to keep in touch with Curtis or follow what he is up to in the UK, you can connect with him on LinkedIn here.