Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate

Online Safety, Online Disinformation and Media Literacy: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Today's meeting, which will be in two separate sessions, is with key representatives to discuss online safety, online disinformation and media literacy. Its timing could not be more pertinent after what we have seen in the past couple of weeks. I thank the witnesses for being with us here. In our first session, we will meet representatives from TikTok, Meta and Google. To this end, I warmly welcome from TikTok, Ms Susan Moss, head of public policy, and Dr. Nikki Suu, safety and well-being public policy subject expert; from Meta, we have the familiar face of Mr. Dualta Ó Broin, head of public policy in Ireland; and from Google, we have Mr. Ryan Meade, government affairs and public policy manager, and Mr Ollie Irwin, trust and safety team.

The format of today's meeting is that I will invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements which are limited to three minutes. I ask them to be cognisant of that limit to give my colleagues on the committee as much time as possible to engage in questions over and back thereafter. As the witnesses may be aware, the committee may publish the opening statements on our web page. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we proceed to the opening statements, I wish to explain some limitations in relation to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to any identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind colleagues of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House to participate in public meetings. Therefore, any member who attempts to attend from outside of the parliamentary precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

I propose that we proceed with opening statements. We will begin with Ms Moss on behalf of TikTok.

Ms Susan Moss

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. I thank the members of the committee for this invitation to speak to them and contribute to this important discussion. I am head of public policy at TikTok in Ireland. I am joined by my colleague, Dr. Nikki Suu, safety and well-being public policy subject expert.

In my opening statement, I will provide the committee with a short overview of TikTok’s commitment to online trust and safety and ongoing response to disinformation.

By way of background, we first invested in Ireland in 2019 and we continue to grow our presence and operations here, with over 3,000 employees in diverse roles, including data privacy and TikTok's trust and safety team. TikTok is a platform where people can find content that entertains them, educates and provides a safe space for people to express their true self, whether that is reading through BookTok or bringing Irish music to a global audience through #Fleadh.

With a large and diverse community comes a responsibility to provide a safe and trustworthy environment. TikTok’s approach, first and foremost, is safety as a design rather than safety as a bolt-on. We do this in a number of ways, including third-party engagement with our European safety advisory council, bringing together leaders from academia and civil society.

Our community guidelines reflect our values and establish the kind of behaviour we expect on our platform. TikTok proactively seeks out and removes content which violates these guidelines. We enforce these rules using a combination of technology and our safety experts around the world. In order to support fair and consistent review of potentially violative content, moderators work alongside our automated moderation systems and take into account additional context and nuance which may not always be picked up by technology.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

That is 6,000 employed in moderation.

Ms Susan Moss

Within the European Union languages. There are more globally.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Across the board we have 40,000 people working in trust and safety. Of those, approximately 15,000 are in content moderation.

Deputy Imelda Munster

That is 15,000 in content.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

That is a mix of in-house and external. I do not have a breakdown of what that is.

Deputy Imelda Munster

There are 15,000 people and then there is automated.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

There are regulators now in place to ensure we are applying our community standards objectively and fairly and with equity across the board, and not just the European Commission but Coimisiún na Meán here as well. It is our intention to apply them fairly and with equal treatment to everyone but the regulators are there to oversee that. I will make a general point. Part of the reason we set up the oversight board in 2019 was that we realised that, in certain instances, it should not be left to platforms like ours alone to make a decision on what should or should not remain on the platform. That is an additional layer of oversight we have, independent of the regulatory structures that are now set up in the EU.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I thank the witnesses. I apologise if I was a bit abrasive in the questioning but we all have to do better in terms of stopping this.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy O'Sullivan. Next on my speaking rota is Senator Sherlock.

Senator Marie Sherlock

I thank everyone for coming for this hearing today. I, too, join with Deputies O'Sullivan and Munster, along with the Chair, in expressing that frustration in terms of representatives from X not appearing here today. This is really my first question. I have read the statements carefully and listened to what the witnesses said about the efforts they are making across all four platforms, as I understand it today, in terms of the education piece or pre-bunking, as YouTube called its initiative. I want to ask about the platforms' recommendation system.

The question that has to be asked is whether the model upon which all four platforms operate is undermining all efforts to try to prepare people for the content they will see. Ultimately, it is the model of the four platforms that is pushing the most extreme content on people. What has been done to alter the platforms' recommendation systems? We know from UN investigators that Meta played a determining role in the Myanmar genocide in 2017. In Russia, the European Commission has spoken about how the recommendation system, particularly in Meta, has played an influential role. What changes has Meta made to its recommendation role? Is it the case that the recommendation system is the reason we are having these conversations? It is not only that I post photos of my children, and that is fine; it is that Meta is promoting vile content that poured fuel on the fire of what happened last Thursday week. Maybe I will start with Meta.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

The notion that we are just interested in any engagement and it does not matter what the context is could not be further from the truth. Our business model is based on advertisements. Brands do not like to be put beside harmful content so it is in our direct commercial interest, and as well as in the interests of our social responsibility, to remove and reduce as much harmful content as possible from our platforms.

In relation to the recommender system and the search system, we have introduced a mechanism that means certain terms are banned from search. If you are searching for certain things, you will get pop-up notifications about sources of information in relation to that.

We do not permit hate, hate speech or hateful ideologies to appear on TikTok. Therefore, that would not come as part of your algorithm or your recommender system.

The Senator asked about some of the recommendations we are doing. We have a non-personalised feed on TikTok. If you do not want to have content serviced to you based on your interests, you can opt out of personalisation. The other thing we do is we have a refresh system so you can refresh TikTok as if you have downloaded it for the very first time so it is learning your interests once again, maybe in a different way. We also have a filtering process. If you do not want to see content based on religion, for example, you can put in hashtags in the background to remove that type of content from your feed.

Senator Marie Sherlock

That engagement and that filtering process requires a lot of engagement from a TikTok user. Some very young users, and even older users as well, would not necessarily be able to navigate that. We are very much reliant on individuals.

I am almost out of time but I have one other question that I would like to ask after Google has answered this question.

Mr. Ryan Meade

Recommenders are one way that users find content on some of our products, like YouTube. They can also find it through search or through following topics, etc. It is a system that is valued by users and by creators because it allows them to create an audience based on the content they are producing which may be not at the very top of people's search. If it is not pop music or sport, but it is, for example, agricultural or political, a recommender system allows them to find an audience of people who are interested in that. It is an important tool but, as the Senator has indicated, safeguards are required to ensure it does not end up being harmful.

Before I ask Mr. Irwin to talk about that in more detail, I will mention that we are continually iterating on how recommendations work. Next year, on YouTube, we will be rolling out a product update which will ensure that teen users, if they are watching a sequence of videos which on their own are not harmful but in sequence may threaten to be a risk for well-being or mental health, will no longer be able to continually watch that type of content. I refer to the sort of content that may relate to body image and that sort of thing. We are definitely attending to the question of recommender systems. They are valued by users. They are important in terms of the way the systems work but there are always ways we can improve. I might pass to Mr. Irwin to mention some of the things we have done.

Mr. Ollie Irwin

I will touch on some of the safeguards but I will be brief. For some topics, such as Covid, you will see high-quality information pinned at the top. We have worked with organisations like the WHO and local health bodies in order to ensure that when you are searching for information, this high-quality information is pinned at the top. It is the same for elections. You see high-quality authoritative information pinned at the top. The feed may be different but the high-quality information rises up.

The Senator mentioned prebunking. I would like to just touch on that. We launched the prebunking campaign across central and eastern Europe. It involved videos of counter-narratives to what research was seeing across platforms. For example, we were playing videos of counter-narratives on anti-immigration to try to prebunk or debunk some of the myths that were going around and people would see that pre-roll before seeing videos. That is an experiment to try to counter bad information with good information.

An Cathaoirleach

I must move on. I call Senator Warfield.

Senator Fintan Warfield

I thank the Chair. The guests are all welcome here. Cuirim fáilte rompu. It is a pity Twitter did not bother to show up. I echo the sentiment expressed by my colleagues.

I ask the witnesses to set out their organisations' respective plans for the European and local elections next year, focusing solely on paid advertising as opposed to organic political content. Obviously, the concerns here are huge. I wonder if there are plans to black-out advertisements? If so, when will this kick in? Will there be a ban on international interference and maybe AI advertising as well? How can one tell if an advertisement is created by AI? I would appreciate if people would be brief on this. There are three sections I would like to go through and this is one of them.

Ms Susan Moss

I am happy to start. Just to confirm, TikTok does not permit political advertising on its platform.

Senator Fintan Warfield

I thank Ms Moss.

Mr. Ollie Irwin

I will go through some recent safeguards. We launched a new policy just two weeks ago that requires disclosure if you use generative AI on a political advertisement. We already have our election advertisements verification process, under which the actual person placing the advertisement or behind the advertisement has to be verified. That verification process also helps with our transparency site. If you go onto our elections transparency site, you will see each advertisement, how much was spent and who was the spender. It is a question of full disclosure based on that verification process. We also have our long-standing policies across misrepresentation. That would address, for instance, a deep fake of someone on something like YouTube.

Senator Fintan Warfield

Are there any plans for a blackout in the week or month in advance of any election date?

Mr. Ryan Meade

No. We would rely on the transparency and verification. Where there are local regulations in respect of blackouts, we would respect those. Where there is no law in place and the electoral system has not decided on blackouts, we would not impose those. In all cases, there will be verification and transparency.

Senator Fintan Warfield

What about taking out an ad as foreign interference?

Mr. Ryan Meade

I think that is covered by what Mr. Irwin said in that the person placing the ad has to be verified as an EU entity.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

As a high-level point, we recognise how significant the period ahead is from an elections point of view, not just globally but also here in Ireland over the next two years. We have announced for the US that there will be a blackout but we are not going to put that in place unless, as Mr. Meade said, there are local requirements to do so.

As for transparency, we have been running the ads library since 2017 and ads are stored there for a period of seven years. Interestingly, all ads, regardless of whether they are political, are now in the ads library as well. That is another transparency product we have added.

On the verification requirements, you need to be in the country to run an ad in Ireland. You need to have a location here, be able to have a disclaimer and have a whole verification process, which I am sure many committee members are familiar with, with steps to be gone through for that. We know how significant the period ahead is and we are doing everything we can to ensure we approach our role properly.

On AI, we have a similar policy on the use of synthetic media. If anyone uses our AI tools to create something, that will have a watermark on it, and we have a policy on deepfakes as well.

Senator Fintan Warfield

To go back to Google, am I correct in saying you only have to be in the EU to take out an ad in Ireland or do you have to be in Ireland?

Mr. Ryan Meade

For the European elections, we allow advertisers to be in a different place because, obviously, some candidates will be part of EU political groups and they are allowed to place ads.

Senator Fintan Warfield

I want to touch on what we are hearing about censorship and the disproportionate censorship of Palestinian voices. I have seen stories about hiding hashtags and content takedowns. We often see people using workarounds to try to trick the algorithm, such as by using an "@" sign in the word "Gaza". Does that work? Mr. Ó Broin said that complaints of this nature are coming from both sides, but it has been suggested it is more intense on Palestinian voices, given many Israeli accounts might be official entities.

In 2022, following the 2021 Palestine-Israel conflict, a Facebook-commissioned Business for Social Responsibility, BSR, report concluded that based on the data reviewed, Meta's actions in 2021 appeared to have had an adverse human rights impact on the rights of Palestinian users to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, political participation and non-discrimination and, therefore, on the ability of Palestinians to share information and insights about their experiences as they occurred. Our concern is that there is a huge threat to the flow of information, credible journalism, civil society voices and human rights defenders. I am also conscious that under the DSA, there is a need for transparency and shadow banning is covered. I would welcome a comment from all the companies, given they have all been accused of significant and disproportionate censorship of Palestinian voices. I am not just talking about Meta.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

It is similar to the response I gave to Deputy O'Sullivan. Our intention and objective is to apply the policies fairly, regardless of who the user is or where they are coming from. The issue is the content or the behaviour, either of which can be violating, and the intention is to apply that fairly and equitably. It would not make sense if we were to take any other type of approach because we would then be accused of being partisan, which would lead us down a path that would be extremely difficult for us to follow. That is our intention and it is what we are telling regulators we are doing. We are outlining in reports that we are applying these policies objectively and, obviously, regulators will then make a decision on whether we have done so.

Moreover, our community standards are not standing still. They are not set in stone, and that is one of their strengths in contrast with laws, which are. They are constantly evolving, we are constantly learning from things that happen and we constantly update them to ensure they are right where they need to be. We do that by consulting not just law enforcement experts and regulators but also NGOs throughout the world and fundamental rights organisations to ensure we are getting the balance right, but it is a tricky balance to achieve.

Dr. Nikki Soo

At TikTok, we apply our standards equally, regardless of the event. This was, of course, a significant event. It has never been more important to make sure we apply our standards carefully. The Senator asked about using hashtags or faked activity. We deployed our team really quickly, but I have a couple of statistics on this issue to share. Since 7 October, we have removed more than 24 million fake accounts globally relating to the conflict and more than 500,000 bot comments under hashtags relating to the conflict. It is not really about any side as much as making sure the content is accurate and legitimate. Apart from that, in general, wherever we find any content that violates our community guidelines, including violent content and incitement to violence, we will remove it.

Mr. Ryan Meade

I am not aware of any specific allegations in respect of our platform, so if there is anything the Senator can share, we will be happy to take a look at it. Events such as these challenge all the processes and policies that have been put in place, which are very much designed on our side to be as unbiased and even-handed as possible, based on whether the content specifically violates our polices.

I might ask Mr. Irwin to talk about the technicalities behind how we try to achieve that.

Mr. Ollie Irwin

Touching on bias, we have a responsible innovation team that tests our models for bias via adversarial testing. We will be challenging the model to produce outputs and it will then be tuned to address those biases.

Senator Fintan Warfield

Can a user trick the algorithm by using an "@" sign, for example?

Ms Susan Moss

We are alive to those kinds of things, such as using "@" symbols. We have more than 40,000 trust and safety professionals globally and they are absolutely aware of those kinds of tricks to bypass our systems.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

The misspelling of hashtags is another method we have seen being used in the past to try to get around our moderation systems. As Ms Moss said, we are alive to it.

Mr. Ollie Irwin

This whole technique goes back to the days of spam.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

I thank each of the witnesses for being here and having the trust and confidence in their systems to allow them to be scrutinised in the public domain, something that people in X, or Twitter, are obviously not happy to do. I am sure the public policy team from X is watching these proceedings as we speak. I invite them to come before us, a public committee, in a fully transparent manner. I invite them to drop an email to the owner suggesting he desist from commenting on affairs within Ireland, which he patently knows nothing about. He has personally served to stoke hatred and conflict in recent times in Ireland and he should be deeply ashamed of those actions.

In the European Economic Area, Google Ireland Limited is the governance entity, so the policies that apply are ultimately under the governance of the board of Google Ireland here in Dublin. On an operational level, we have a major trust and safety hub in Dublin, but we work with colleagues around the world to develop and refine those policies. It is exactly as the Deputy says; one needs to have a robust policy that is enforceable consistently.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

Yes, and it needs to be somebody who has an in-depth knowledge of the political landscape of whatever country or region the particular content is being shared in. That is important as well. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Senator Micheál Carrigy

I welcome the witnesses. I was watching for a while and apologise for being late, but I was at another meeting.

First, my own view - and I have been quite vocal on it - is that we need to put minimum ages on access to social media accounts for children. The reality is that there have been various reports published which say that kids as young as eight or nine years of age have access and open accounts. They are not being put on by their parents; they are actually able to open the account. Responsibility needs to be put on all social media companies to put the proper security procedures in place. Significant profits are being made from the business, and there is a responsibility on the companies to safeguard our children. That is their responsibility as companies that have put their platforms out there.

There is also a responsibility on parents. I am not trying to abdicate that, and I am speaking as a parent of three young kids who is quite afraid of what is ahead for kids. My own child, my oldest young lad, is 12. Thank God he is the only child in his class who does not have access to a phone. All the rest of them have, and are on all the various platforms. Snapchat, you name it. They are sending photographs from there. It is critical that the responsibility is put on the companies by Coimisiún na Meán, and I have put that forward on a number of occasions. We need to put a minimum age of at least 16 years of age to allow children any access to any of the platforms.

The witnesses are in here speaking to politicians. We are talking about hate, and we are the subject of it. Every one of us here have been subjects of it. What way do social media companies deal with stuff that is targeted at those in public life? Do they treat us differently from the general public? The reality is they do. The companies do not treat us correctly or protect us, and we are the people who are in public life, putting our faces out there.

Senator Micheál Carrigy

Does Mr. Ó Broin think it is right that knowingly false information, when Meta specifically identifies in its policy certain things that can be taken down for a private individual, should be left up there because we are in public life? We are all private individuals with families, who are all entitled to the same protection.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

One of the things we did earlier in the year was we brought our expert in on that policy to present in Leinster House, and to explain why we put that policy in place. I am not an expert in that policy so I cannot give the Senator exactly the type of detail that he could but that is what we did. Unfortunately, the event was not that well attended. He also presented to the task force on safe participation in political life on the same subject.

An Cathaoirleach

Could Mr. Ó Broin forward the name of the person who does that policy piece with regard to what Senator Carrigy has raised, and perhaps we could invite them in to have a discussion? That would be a good follow-up on what the Senator has raised.

Senator Micheál Carrigy

I am astounded that a company would allow that to happen, that it allows people who are in public life representing the general public to be targeted or tarnished with stuff that is lies. It is false information and damaging to their good names, and it is allowed to be left there because they are politicians. They are also people who have families, kids, wives, husbands or whatever, and I do not think it is acceptable that such a policy is in place. There will be fewer people going into public life.

Yes, we treat everyone equally. Everyone has to abide by our community guidelines.

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

It is the same for us. The community standards are the same. Similar to what Google has said, if it is a public figure, that enters into the equation.

Senator Micheál Carrigy

The content itself is not harmful. What we are trying to interrupt is a pattern of harmful viewing, if you like. There is nothing wrong with the content itself and if it were against our policies, it would be removed. We are trying to interrupt a flow that someone might get into and which might have a damaging effect on their mental health.

An Cathaoirleach

The following question is for all the witnesses. Have they identified any patterns around the sources of misinformation? Are there patterns of misinformation coming through? Have our guests recognised any particular sources? They may not be able to name those sources but I am asking the question broadly if the witnesses could speak to it. If they see a pattern, can they identify it and remove it quicker so that the algorithms do not get the chance to have the spread they currently have? I might start with one of the TikTok representatives.

Ms Susan Moss

We have a split session today. We now need to take a small break after which other witnesses come before us. We will certainly follow up on some of the suggestions and ideas mentioned today. I thank all the witnesses for being with us. I propose that we suspend briefly to allow witnesses to withdraw before resuming in public for our second session.

Sitting suspended at 3.12 p.m. and resumed in public session at 3.14 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

We are now in our second session discussing online safety, online disinformation and media literacy. I am delighted to welcome Dr. Leo Pekkala, deputy director of the Finnish National Audiovisual Institute, KAVI. I thank him for joining us today. The format of the meeting is such that I will invite our witness to deliver an opening statement, which is limited to three minutes and which will be followed by questions from my colleagues. As Dr. Pekkala is probably aware, the committee may publish its opening statements on its web page.

Before inviting Dr. Pekkala to deliver his opening statement, I wish to explain some limitations in relation to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. However, witnesses who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts does and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Persons giving evidence from outside the jurisdiction should be mindful of their domestic law and how it may apply to the evidence they give. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to any identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I ask Dr. Pekkala to deliver his opening statement.

Dr. Leo Pekkala

I am grateful for the invitation to appear before the committee. KAVI has a legal obligation to advance media education, and promote media literacy. KAVI's department for media education and audiovisual media, which I head, also functions as an independent media regulatory authority tasked with overseeing age restrictions for audiovisual programs.

We are responsible for implementing the national media education policy, which states that media literacy is a civic skill for all. We approach media literacy comprehensively to comprehend and analyse media, create media, and engage in a secure and responsible manner in media environments. This approach also considers the perspective of active citizenship across all these aspects. It is hard to stress enough the importance of having a national policy for promoting media literacy. The policy is the backbone for all media literacy work done in Finland and supports different organisations in their work in promoting media literacy. The current government programme of the Prime Minister, Petteri Orpo, states that critical media literacy and awareness of cyber risks in order to reinforce broad social resilience should be boosted. Our ultimate goal is to promote peaceful society, functioning democracy with stable economy and by doing so we hope to work for a good life for everyone.

I will outline some examples of successful media literacy initiatives. We have been organising a media literacy week since 2012. The Finnish games week has been running as long. We have a media literacy school website which collects and shares teaching and learning resources for media education which is free for anyone to use. Another simple fairly recent initiative has been “media literacy coffee breaks” for government civil servants, in which civil servants gather together to discuss current issues on media literacy, following the Chatham House rules. This way we have managed to create cross-sectoral co-operation within the government structures.

I wish to conclude by reflecting on some issues related to media literacy discussion internationally. There seems to be an ongoing obsession with measurement of success of media education or media education programmes or projects. However, it is unclear what is being measured and how. Typically, the measurements we see, like the media literacy index, focus on technical skills, access or other external factors, but not on critical thinking skills, which are most important.

Another problem is the solutionism, where media literacy is seen as the solution to all problems in society. However much I believe that promoting media literacy is really important, I do not believe that we can solve all the problems in society by investing only in media literacy.

Achieving results in media literacy requires policy support, time, patience and resources. If you think media education is expensive, try ignorance.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Pekkala. We are delighted to have him. As he may know, we had a session before he joined us with some of the tech companies here, namely, Meta, TikTok and Google. This fits in neatly with what we were discussing and the wider work of the committee.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I thank Dr. Pekkala. It is good to get this insight from a Finnish perspective. What does he think media literacy means?

Dr. Leo Pekkala

To us, it means access to the media, the capabilities of producing and using media and being part of the media discussion, and being an active citizen in society. It combines an holistic perspective, as we see it. It is not just a technical skill; it is a kind of competency, but not only in regard to digital natives, given I do not really believe in digital natives. Young people may have technical skills, but whether they have critical thinking skills is another issue. To be media literate, you also need to have critical thinking skills connected to the technical skills you may have.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I understand the access to media part of it, using digital media, having the technical skills and so on. The critical thinking part is a bit more difficult. Will Dr. Pekkala elaborate on how KAVI addresses that critical thinking issue and ensures responsible use of social media platforms?

Dr. Leo Pekkala

We try our best. You need a multifaceted approach. One way we have tried to address this issue is by working together with both governmental and non-governmental organisations, given we believe you need multiple channels. In many ways, we try to think in a way whereby we co-ordinate the overall objective but we do not tell organisations how they should reach their goals. We believe it is better to have different ways of speaking about media literacy and what it means. It requires a lot of education and discussion, and it never ends. We believe you can never really be ready and say you are now media literate and no longer need to think about it. It is a long process, connected closely in our system to the comprehensive education system, where media literacy is part of the curriculum as a transversal skill. It is connected to that, but it is also outside school and we work mostly outside school. We meet different age groups.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

That is interesting. In Finland, therefore, there is a great focus on education and media literacy is taught within schools. Obviously, as Dr. Pekkala said, a lot of that is about the technical aspect and access to these platforms. One of the reasons this session is being held relates to the incidents of violence and upheaval in our capital city a number of months ago, and the call on social media platforms and social media giants to take some responsibility for their role in the spread of misinformation and disinformation. How is that education done within the school system? Am I correct in assuming that there is an effort within education and the teaching of media literacy for young people in particular to show responsibility for their own actions and the type of content they share or engage with?

Dr. Leo Pekkala

In the school system and the national core curricula for comprehensive education, it starts in early childhood education and continues to second level education. Media literacy is seen as developing a set of competencies and skills and young children can learn what can be done with various devices and how stories can be created. You learn to understand that behind every story, there is always someone with some kind of idea. Later, at the teenage phase, you start to create stories and little movies. Basically, you have to develop the skill all the time, but when you learn to create, you also learn to understand that all the different stories and pictures you see have been created by someone. That, we think, helps foster the discussion. Moreover, teachers discuss issues and help students understand who is behind different issues and how they should check facts if they see something that is probably not true. Nevertheless, a lot of media use is for fun, so we do not want it to be too serious. Playing games, for example, is not always bad and can also be good fun and can develop certain skills.

The Deputy asked about the responsibilities of social media platforms, especially the very large ones, and there is a problem in that regard. Of course, for a small country such as Finland, we do not have any of the headquarters within our country and legal system, so we have to see what happens in this space in Irish or Dutch law. We have little power in that respect and that is why we have to invest in education. It is not only school education but also something that happens outside school, in hobbies and with grandparents. That is why we also target the adult population, given they are important and we cannot focus only on children and young people.

Senator Fintan Warfield

I thank Dr. Pekkala for joining us. What he just said points to my first question. Often, when we hear about online safety, we hear it in the context of young people, but I am equally worried about my mum and dad, for example, at home and the type of media they might see on YouTube, where they get their political content. Am I right to be equally worried about older people even though, in the main, younger people seem to take up the focus in online safety?

Dr. Leo Pekkala

The Senator raises a very important question. As I said, we generally think our children and young people get some kind of education during their school years and their compulsory education, so we are not too worried about them. There is also, of course, a huge population of adults who have never received this kind of education, especially the ever-growing senior citizen population, who are often the grandparents of children and young people and spend a lot of time with them out of school.

It is really important to reach out to them. One way we have been doing that is through work with non-governmental organisations and public libraries. Public libraries also are really important especially for senior citizens. I also learned to use public libraries since I was a child. Libraries are a good place to reach the adult population and to share information. Also, senior citizens in particular quite often need technical help to understand how to use different services that society is offering more and more digitally. While they are being guided in how to do banking business or deal with tax issues, they also get information about fake news and disinformation, etc. In the ideal world, that works really well. This does not happen in every library and everywhere so there is a lot of work to be done but that is one example of a success story.

Senator Fintan Warfield

That is really helpful. Some of our public libraries are like Internet cafés. The computers are in more use than the books and it is probably a great environment for this. Dr. Pekkala made a good point about banking because, again I mention my mum and dad, the two-factor authentication is an awful difficulty for them. That is a practical example of educating people on those issues and using it as a chance for media literacy.

Does Dr. Pekkala have any other example of projects, both for young people and older people, that have been successful?

My final question is my understanding is that the institute has a legal duty to provide media education. Is that unique in a European context? I am sure there is research we can do here but it is my understanding the institute has a legal duty in this area and is that unique in Europe for that to exist?

Dr. Leo Pekkala

First, two different examples of success that the institute has run over the years and still runs are the media literacy week and the games week. Both of them are organised in a way that the institute only co-ordinates the organising of the event and the themes. However, for example, the media literacy week, has more than 50 organisations organising different campaigns and there are hundreds of different local events across the country during this week. They keep on going and are mostly based on volunteer and NGO work. Those are really good examples. One thing I will stress is the continuity. One week in the year is definitely not enough for almost anything but this is a themed week that focuses on these issues and brings up in the media the point that we are celebrating this theme this week but the work continues throughout the year. We need perseverance here and to have a long-term plan. The media literacy policy helps in our case because it creates the framework for the work we do. With regard to the legal duty, we are not the only one. When the institute was established in 2012, I was asked to come and start up this office. We were one of the first ones but the Nordic countries all now have a governmental office that has the same legal duty, more or less. There are certain differences on the large scale, and there are some others who have this but it is not very common. There could be more, because we have clearly seen the benefit of having the legal framework to support our work. I always encourage my international colleagues to work towards getting a real policy that lasts for different parliamentary elections and seasons so that the policy continues even if the parliament or government changes and is more of a long-term thing.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Pekkala and have one question for him. I really appreciate his contribution so far. My question concerns the platforms. They appeared before the committee today. Will Dr. Pekkala talk a bit about what responsibilities the online platforms have in Finland and what tools regulators have to deal with any issues that may arise?

Dr. Leo Pekkala

So far, there are not any online platforms that would meet the definition of the audiovisual and media services directive located in Finland. The government organisation responsible for defining or finding out legally whether we do have, and if one day we would have, such a service located in Finland is the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency, which is under the Ministry of Transport and Communications, whereas we are under the Ministry of Education and Culture. At the moment we do not have any platforms.

In terms of what the platforms do there is very little jurisdiction except of course about the kinds of things that are under the audiovisual media services, AVMS, directive or under criminal law. Platforms must remove content if it is illegal. Otherwise, we are on the outskirts of that, legally, at the moment. I hope I helped.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, Dr. Pekkala did and I thank him. That is my line of questioning finished. Does Senator Carrigy want to come in? No. I thank Dr. Pekkala most sincerely for his attendance. I know he is a leading light and a shining light when it comes to media literacy and online media literacy, particularly in schools and in education. I really appreciate him sharing those thoughts and experiences with the committee. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Dr. Leo Pekkala

I thank the Chair. To finish, I will say that Coimisiún na Meán in Ireland is doing great work and building up its organisation. I have good colleagues there and I trust that Ireland will be and already is one of the leading countries in Europe in this. There is a lot of work being done there. I thank the committee for the invitation and the discussion.

Senator Micheál Carrigy

Apologies, can I come in for a second?

An Cathaoirleach

Did the Senator want to come in?

Senator Micheál Carrigy

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

If Dr. Pekkala is not rushing off, a colleague has just thought of a question or comment he wants to make. This is Senator Carrigy.

Senator Micheál Carrigy

I thank the Chair and I apologise for coming in now; I had to go out to something else. I have a question about something I mentioned at the earlier meeting and that I feel very strongly about as a parent of young kids. It is children with access to social media accounts. When we discussed the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill, we discussed having a minimum age for social media accounts and putting the responsibility on the companies to implement that and putting stringent controls in place to now allow young children to open or set up accounts. What is Dr. Pekkala's view on that from an EU perspective?

At the time, this was being looked at from an EU-wide point of view but I feel Ireland should go ahead rather than wait for the EU to make a decision. While Coimisiún na Meán is looking at this, I believe we need to go ahead and implement it here ourselves. The reality is that kids as young as eight and nine years of age are actively on social media where there is a significant amount of harm and disinformation. What are Dr. Pekkala's views on that?

Dr. Leo Pekkala

This is a very complicated issue as I am sure the Senator is well aware. The general thinking in Finland is that at the moment, it seems almost impossible to get reliable age verification systems in place. Before we have such things, it will be very difficult to restrict access.

Our solution at the moment is that we try to invest in education as much as possible and educating the children themselves because rather young children can understand these topics and most children do not actually want to see things they do not like. We invest in educating them but we also invest in educating the parents and try to have the discussion. It is hard work and one can never succeed 100%.

I do not really think that strict restrictions about not giving mobile devices to children of a specific age would work because there is always a way to find access to the content. The only solution would be educating, but it is complex and it takes time, and one can never have a full 100% result.

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet in this case either, but the platforms could do much more if they would reveal their algorithms openly to researchers and to governments and they would invest more on these issues. I believe there is more work to be done.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Pekkala and Senator Carrigy. I thank Dr. Pekkala so much for being with us today. It has been a very fruitful engagement. I am sure we will be coming back to Dr. Pekkala for more engagements in the future.

I thank the members. I propose we suspend the meeting briefly to allow witnesses to withdraw before resuming in private session to deal with the housekeeping matters and correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee suspended at 3.42 p.m., went into private session at 4.03 p.m. and adjourned at 4.09 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 13 December 2023.

Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate - Wednesday, 6 Dec 2023

Online Safety, Online Disinformation and Media Literacy: Discussion

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Ryan Meade

Ms Susan Moss

Ms Susan Moss

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Ollie Irwin

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Ollie Irwin

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Ms Susan Moss

Ms Susan Moss

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Ms Susan Moss

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Ollie Irwin

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Ollie Irwin

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Dr. Nikki Soo

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Ollie Irwin

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Ollie Irwin

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Ms Susan Moss

Mr. Ollie Irwin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Dr. Nikki Soo

Mr. Ryan Meade

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Mr. Dualta Ó Broin

Dr. Nikki Soo

Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate -
Wednesday, 6 Dec 2023