卡内基国际和平基金会-EU-Code-of-Practice-on-Disinformation-Briefing-Note-for-the-New-European-Commission_26页_512kb

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation: Briefing Note for the New EU Commission

Core Content

The EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (COP) is an international initiative aimed at countering influence operations through a multistakeholder approach. It involves collaboration between governments, tech platforms, media, academia, and civil society to address the challenges posed by disinformation. The initiative was launched in late 2018 and is intended to be a voluntary self-regulatory framework. However, after one year, the COP has shown mixed results, with limited progress in building trust and measurable impact.

Main Issues and Recommendations

Key Issues for the Incoming Commission

1. Lack of Trust and Consensus: Stakeholders, including governments, tech companies, and civil society, have not yet developed a shared understanding of the problem, its scope, or the best ways to address it.
2. Inconsistent Terminology: Different stakeholders use varying terms to describe influence operations, leading to confusion and hindering effective communication and collaboration.
3. Need for Impact Evaluation: There is a lack of comprehensive, methodologically sound studies on the effects of influence operations and countermeasures, which is essential for informed policy development.
4. Social Media Black Market: Malign actors exploit the internet in ways that require a coordinated, cross-sectoral response.
5. Regulatory Options: The COP may be replaced or complemented by regulations derived from the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Democracy Action Plan.

Key Recommendations

• Develop Shared Terminology: Establish a unified EU framework for terminology to support common understanding and reporting.
• Campaign-Wide Analytics for Impact Evaluation: Create a shared repository of analytics and data to assess the effectiveness of countermeasures.
• Iterative Consultancy Process: Support ongoing, methodologically rigorous research to generate actionable evidence on the impact of influence operations and countermeasures.

Progress Made

Areas of Progress

• Political Advertising Transparency: Platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have created Ad Libraries to archive and track political advertising, though the data provided is limited in scope and depth.
• Takedown Data Access: Twitter has been a leader in providing takedown data through its Election Integrity Hub, enabling researchers to analyze the impact of countermeasures.
• Misinformation Labeling: Platforms have increased the labeling of misinformation, though the effectiveness of these labels remains unclear and requires further evaluation.
• Fact-Checking Expansion: Facebook and Google have expanded their partnerships with third-party fact-checkers, improving the visibility and credibility of fact-checking efforts.
• Journalism Training: Programs such as the Facebook Journalism Project and the Google News Initiative have trained thousands of journalists in fact-based reporting and identifying disinformation.
• Media Literacy Initiatives: Platforms and member states have supported media literacy programs to help the public better understand and navigate the information environment.

Areas of Insufficient Progress

Challenges and Gaps

• Definition of Issue-Based Advertising: There is inconsistency in how platforms define and regulate ads related to social issues, elections, and politics. For example, Facebook excludes political ads from its fact-checking process, while Twitter bans all political advertising.
• Data Granularity: The COP has called for more detailed data on takedowns, but platforms have not provided sufficient breakdowns of the nature and source of the accounts removed.
• Impact Evaluation: There is a lack of clear, verifiable metrics on the effectiveness of the COP's measures. Most reports focus on descriptive statistics rather than actual impact.
• Empowering Research: Researchers have limited access to data necessary for in-depth analysis, and the current data-sharing practices do not fully support academic research needs.

Conclusion

The EU Code of Practice on Disinformation represents an important but evolving effort to combat disinformation through voluntary collaboration. While some progress has been made in areas like transparency and fact-checking, the initiative faces significant challenges in building trust, standardizing terminology, and providing robust impact assessments. The incoming EU Commission is urged to take a more inclusive and collaborative approach to address these issues and to consider the role of regulation in complementing or replacing the COP. The next phase should focus on long-term, evidence-based strategies to ensure the effectiveness of EU policies on disinformation.