Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on European Union Affairs díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 2024

European Elections 2024, Voting Rights and Combating Disinformation: Discussion (Resumed)

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Dr. Eileen Culloty, who is representing the Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society and Media Literacy Ireland at Dublin City University, DCU. I also welcome Ms Noelle O'Connell, CEO of European Movement Ireland, who is accompanied by her colleagues Ms Lorna Hayes, deputy CEO, and Mr. Rory Harte, head of strategy. Today's discussion will be on the upcoming European elections, voting rights and combating disinformation.

The witnesses are all very welcome. I thank them for coming in.

I will just read our normal housekeeping note on privilege, if the witnesses will bear with me. All 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 or her identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an 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 members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings.

Having gone through that, I will now call on our first contributor, Dr. Culloty, to make her opening statement.

Dr. Eileen Culloty

I thank the Chair and members for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on the upcoming European elections, voting rights, and combating disinformation. As I am representing both the Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society and Media Literacy Ireland, I have divided my contribution in two. First, I will address disinformation and then I will speak about media literacy.

Disinformation and other forms of information manipulation are widely recognised as a major challenge for democracies within the EU and beyond. Although the phenomenon is not new, it is now manifest on an unprecedented scale due to the revolution in digital communication technologies. As we enter a new era of generative AI, these issues will intensify and yet, in many ways, information manipulation remains challenging to conceptualise, measure and counteract.

Regarding conceptualisation, there remains a key division between foreign information manipulation and interference, FIMI, and domestic information manipulation. Within the EU, countries vary in the extent to which they put emphasis on one over the other. Moreover, responsibilities tend to fall to different Departments given that, for example, FIMI is an issue of security and foreign affairs. In terms of monitoring and measuring the scale of disinformation, it is vital that both the foreign and domestic dimensions are considered.

Ongoing monitoring of narratives, platforms and actors is necessary to understand the evolving dynamics of disinformation in Ireland. It is worth noting that no entity is tasked with doing this. With limited resources, journalists and fact checkers respond to day-to-day events and some NGOs monitor specific topics of interest. However, there is no overall monitoring of the media environment that would support an objective understanding of whether disinformation about a particular topic is increasing or decreasing or whether certain groups are starting to target politicians, political issues or elections.

Last year, the European Digital Media Observatory, of which DCU is a member, established a task force on the 2024 European Parliament elections. It conducted a review of elections in ten different countries and found that suggestions of voter fraud or unfair electoral practices were widespread, which is to say that Donald Trump’s 2020 narrative of voter fraud is now a standard feature of elections in Europe. Gathering this type of information is one way to help prepare for elections and pre-empt attacks on electoral integrity.

Within the global response to disinformation, there is a bias towards focusing on new technologies rather than on the dynamics of the whole media system. While it is clear that social media platforms enable and drive disinformation in many different ways, it is a mistake to assume the problem begins and ends online. Indeed, some political actors and media outlets are opportunistic in seeking to exploit controversies and support false narratives. Meanwhile, investigative journalists and fact checkers may struggle to respond to the volume of claims spread across all of these media platforms. One way to think about the challenge of disinformation during elections is to think about whether there is a vibrant independent media system capable of providing high-quality investigations in the public interest.

As regards countermeasures, there is no silver bullet to resolve disinformation or protect electoral integrity. The development of the Electoral Commission is very welcome and it will be judged over the long term. It is important to note that disinformation is a complex phenomenon with deep social, political and economic dimensions. Disinformation thrives when there are political and commercial incentives to create it and when it meets the psychological needs and ideological biases of members of the public. Ultimately, the challenges posed by disinformation need to be understood on broad terms. In the foreword to 2023 IDEA report on the global state of democracy, Professor Michael Ignatieff warns that democratic backsliding is “the most worrying political trend in the world today”. Disinformation and conspiracy theories play a role in this democratic backsliding but so too do attacks on democratic institutions and conventions including courts, rights, the rule of law, media freedom, NGOs and other countervailing institutions that are essential for democracy.

It follows from what I have just said that media literacy should not be considered a panacea to the problems facing democracies. First defined in the 1990s, "media literacy" is the ability to access, analyse, evaluate and create various kinds of media. As defined by UNESCO, it now includes all competencies related to information, media and digital technologies. As fears regarding disinformation and generative AI persist, the importance of these competencies is only increasing and yet there is a lack of consensus about what constitutes media literacy and how it should be delivered. In formal education, for example, media literacy is often reduced to simply using digital technologies. Moreover, there is an urgent need to deliver media literacy to segments of the population across the life course.

In this regard, Media Literacy Ireland, as a national and voluntary association facilitated by Coimisiún na Meán, has been very successful in mobilising a range of stakeholders to develop and support media literacy campaigns including the national Be Media Smart campaign. There are, of course, limits to what a voluntary association can achieve. Notably, Finland has a state agency with responsibility for providing media literacy education. Tied to the Ministry of Education and Culture, it promotes educational practices for children, young people and adults. Thanks in part to the quality of the education system and the long tradition of teaching media literacy, Finland is considered highly resilient to information manipulation.

Clearly, education and the education system have an important role to play in maintaining healthy democracies. As the pragmatic philosopher John Dewey wrote more than a century ago “democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife”. In other words, a quality education system that meets the needs of the population is necessary if people are to realise their rights, responsibilities and potential as democratic citizens.

In conclusion, the message I wish to leave the committee with is that this year of elections will come and go but the policies that are put in place now need to serve democracy over the long term.

That was a very interesting opening statement. I call Ms O'Connell to make her opening statement.

Ms Noelle O'Connell

I thank the Chair and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to address the committee here today. Is mór againn a bheith leo. Táimid an-bhuíoch as an gcuireadh teacht chun caint leis an gcoiste inniu ar ábhair fhíorthábhachtacha dúinne i nGluaiseacht na hEorpa in Éirinn agus do na baill, mar choiste, gan amhras. As members of the committee will no doubt know, European Movement Ireland, EMI, is the longest-established not-for-profit voluntary membership organisation working on European affairs in Ireland. Since 1954, our mission has been to develop that connection between Ireland and Europe and achieve greater public understanding of, and engagement with, the European Union and our European partners. This year marks a very special 70th anniversary for us. I am delighted to be joined by my colleagues: our new deputy CEO and head of policy and research, Lorna Hayes; and Rory Harte, our head of strategy, who is the project lead on our disinformation and misinformation project. It is a privilege to be here to discuss some of our ongoing disinformation research work and the project and campaigning work we will do in advance of the European elections in June. I commend the Cathaoirleach and the distinguished members of his committee for their foresight in undertaking proactive engagement on such an important topic.

As we approach this year's European Parliament elections, it is of vital importance that all stakeholders are aware of the discourse around EU and European issues. We in European Movement Ireland are particularly cognisant of public sentiment regarding the EU. The committee will, of course, be familiar with our long-standing attitudinal polling, which provides us with a nuanced perspective on how people view our relationship with the EU and Ireland's broader European relationship. We look forward to presenting the findings of our poll, which will be taking place over the coming months, but we note that, in our research carried out for last year's poll, 88% of respondents agreed that Ireland should remain in the EU, although only 58% felt that the EU was going in the right direction.

Support for the EU can be mercurial and we note the coarsening of language used around the EU and issues related to Europe since our most recent polling in our disinformation research project. Although we are not in a position to pre-empt the results of our this year's all-island poll, which we are in the throes of preparing, we are conscious that this shift in discourse is likely to have an impact on the findings for 2024.

We in EMI are mindful of our role as an important source of information regarding the elections to the European Parliament. This year, our work will primarily focus on three separate cohorts. For young people and students, we will be carrying out information and voter registration sessions in third level institutions in each of the European Parliament constituencies. As an apolitical and non-partisan organisation, our work will be focused on providing factual information about voting, candidates and the role of the Parliament and helping the public to answer any questions they may have. For the general audience and wider public, we will be carrying out public town hall meetings in Cork, Dublin and Galway to provide a forum for the public to discuss issues with experts and members of the media and academia. Finally, we are very aware of the important role that civil society plays in the democratic process. For the upcoming elections - 2024 has been referred to as a democracy Super Bowl - we are providing a co-ordination platform in order that civil society organisations can plan their activities and schedules and help to mitigate the risk of overlap in a way that supports a broader sectoral approach to ensure we reach as wide a base of the public as possible. It is important to stress that we are mindful, as Dr. Culloty stated, of the excellent work of the Electoral Commission. I am sure it will be incredibly busy in the run-up to the European Parliament elections. We are conscious that we wish to support and complement its work alongside our own.

I will now hand over to my colleague, Mr. Harte, who will talk the committee through our disinformation project, particularly as it pertains to our upcoming European Parliament election programme of work.

Mr. Rory Harte

European Movement Ireland is very conscious of our role as one of the many custodians of Ireland’s relationship with the EU. A core part of this relationship is a trustworthy and clear information environment. This is especially true as we approach these crucial European elections. Since 2023, we have carried out programmes aimed at buttressing Ireland’s information ecosystem in respect of issues relating to the EU and examining the impact of disinformation online in order that we, as a society, can address these issues head on.

First, I will address how our work supports Ireland’s information ecosystem. We are cognisant of the strong network of academia, industry and civil society working to support media literacy, as referenced by Dr. Culloty, and giving people living in Ireland the critical skills they need to evaluate the information they come across online. Through the working group co-ordinated by the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media that is leading on the development of Ireland’s national counter disinformation strategy, and organisations such as Media Literacy Ireland, the European Digital Media Observatory Hub and the Future of Journalism school in DCU, theJournal.ie and the Hope and Courage collective, among many others, incredible work is being done in Ireland to push back against the tides of false information.

We see our role in EMI as to support the work of all organisations that wish to provide accurate information about Europe to the public. We recognise our long-standing expertise on the EU, how it functions and the role that Ireland plays. We recognise that not everyone has the same access to resources that we enjoy. As such, especially in advance of the upcoming elections, we are providing opportunities for researchers, journalists and those working on EU issues to come to us if there is anything on which they are unsure, want to check or need advice. We can and will provide expertise and access to resources to ensure that, where possible, people can feel confident that the information they are putting out is correct.

We note through our engagement with stakeholders in academia, industry, civil society and at governmental levels that there is a well-developed network of organisations carrying out innovative research into disinformation channels and narratives in Ireland. Our disinformation research programme is focused on examining the impact of disinformation on how people in Ireland discuss issues related to the EU in online spaces. Using thematic and linguistic methodologies, our work cross-references disinformation narratives against Irish social media content to explore how these issues are being framed online. For instance, in our most recent research paper, published this morning, we note a continuing focus on migration and a significant amount of discourse around the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Most disinformation themes are localised. In the US, migration is tied to the southern border, while in the UK, it is tied to channel crossings. In Ireland, it is linked to housing and the role of government. In our most recent data, we see how discourse on these topics is coarsening. Delegitimising terminology about those coming to Ireland is predominant, while the use of legitimate terminology is becoming less prevalent. More generally, sentiment in respect of migrants and those seeking international protection is becoming more negative.

Our data also draws attention to the role of language around the war in Gaza. Antisemitic tropes echoing disinformation narratives are common, as is language questioning Israel’s motivations. There is evidence of language being used to frame Hamas as a puppet which does not have agency in the conflict, which attributes to it a level of victimhood. It is interesting to see how general narratives come down to the discourse we see online.

Understanding how disinformation affects communities is vital. We use our results to develop tailored awareness campaigns and support our work in media literacy. Moving forward, it is vital that NGOs in Ireland are supported to carry out work in this area, in collaboration with media outlets and civil society more broadly, to facilitate access to trusted sources of factual information. As we continue this ongoing project, we look forward to building further partnerships and networks to support the effectiveness of our efforts.

All present recognise the importance of these elections. We are well aware that voter turnout for European elections has been on the decrease, with Ireland’s voter turnout in recent elections being below the European average. Nevertheless, we are heartened by reports from the European Parliament that voter interest is on the rise. A thriving European democracy relies on increased voter turnout and informed and engaged citizens in Ireland and across the EU. This work is a fundamental part of EMI’s mission. We have played a vital role in informing the public and encouraging participation in the EU’s democratic processes through the past 70 years and we look forward to continuing this work in the future. I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. We look forward to members' questions.

I thank Ms O'Connell and Mr. Harte for their opening statements. Several members have indicated but, as Deputy Ó Murchú needs to be in the Dáil Chamber shortly, I will let him in briefly. If he wishes to return later-----

I might have to listen back to the witnesses' replies to my questions. I thank them for attending. Their opening statements were comprehensive. We all know the Electoral Commission, Coimisiún na Meán, the Digital Services Act and forthcoming legislation are necessary tools to deal with the world in which we live. We all know the issues involved, be that possible Russian involvement in the election of Donald Trump or what happened with Cambridge Analytica and targeting in the course of the Brexit campaign. Anybody who has been online has seen the issues that exist. Whether it is elections or major and sensitive issues such as migration, a person who looks at just one video on Facebook or TikTok will suddenly get a stream of it. Unfortunately, some people are more susceptible than others.

In fairness, there are two parts to this, as Dr. Culloty stated. It is about how to deal with disinformation and then how to provide people with digital literacy. This relates to the Finnish example of resilience. Meta and others will talk about teams they have to deal with disinformation. They will say that disinformation sometimes comprises an element of hate with a touch of truth. Where something is factually wrong, the platforms say they can deal with that, but they say it is difficult to deal with matters that are not factually wrong. In addition, we must accept that these are companies that are out to make money. The same goes for regular media platforms. That is why we need a trusted public-----

Yes, and a public service broadcaster, with all the issues that exist at the minute, but we do need trusted sources of information. It is a question of how we tackle these companies and how we tackle this across the board. Even if we have all the infrastructure that is planned - and, as Deputy Howlin will deal with later, some of the leverage that should be available to the Electoral Commission is not actually in play yet - I am not entirely sure how we will deal with this. We all know what can be done in an election campaign. A last-minute message online is very hard to put back in the box afterwards. Obviously, those companies' algorithms work for them as regards making money. I am not saying they are going out of their way to facilitate this hate, but hate is facilitated, whether by organised or disorganised actors, which we have seen.

I apologise. I have to run. I will listen back to the debate.

I am not sure there was a question-----

The question is straightforward. With what we have at the minute and what has been proposed - and the witnesses have made a more detailed study than anyone else - how do they perceive that we deal with this? All the tools are not in place. The Electoral Commission may have an okay relationship with the tech companies at the moment, but I do not know that this will deliver a safe European election or any other election into the future.

Dr. Eileen Culloty

It is very important to have a realistic understanding of recent legislation, both in Ireland and at EU level. A lot of it is long term. The Digital Services Act and our Online Safety and Media Regulation Act look at risks and harms. There are lots of risk assessments and lots of evaluations of what the tech companies say their risk assessments are. None of that will help us when it comes to elections this year. Those are long-term plans, and it is important to be quite clear about that because there is a lot of confusion surrounding the Digital Services Act, in particular in what it can and cannot do. It is very specifically focused on illegal content. People can flag illegal content but, as I am sure all the members will be aware, disinformation is not illegal. People are entitled to say things that are false and to believe things that are false. The issue is whether it causes harm, and that will be something that people can debate and argue about. We have to be very clear about that and not have unrealistic expectations.

Mr. Rory Harte

Dr. Culloty has covered everything specifically. The only thing I will add is that while long-term legislation and regulation are crucial, there is also the coalface work around media literacy to which we have all referred. While that overarching legislation is there to build in long-term protections systematically, there will always be a place for supporting resilience at a community level, on an ongoing basis, right now.

There is a very interesting court case at the moment in the United States. We are inclined to say of some of the large companies that they have an algorithm and that they do this for a profit motivation or for a reason. In actual fact, however, some of the large companies removed Donald Trump from their platforms in the aftermath of what happened in Washington. A supreme court case being taken by a group on the basis that one should not be able to remove people from a platform, no matter what they say, which shows that difference. The court has heard opening arguments and has not decided yet but, fundamentally, that court case will have an impact not just on the United States but globally as to how people are perceived in this.

I thank all the witnesses for being here to talk about this issue. We had a really interesting debate last week on the same topic, so this follows on very well. We all know we have a problem with misinformation and disinformation and we are not quite sure how to address it. There is, as Dr. Culloty put it, no panacea or one easy option. I was quite struck by what she said about there being no consistent monitoring of disinformation in terms of asking if it is increasing for a particular topic or increasing in the targeting of certain politicians. Do the witnesses have any suggestions as to how that should be done, who should do it or who should be responsible for it? That would be a good place to start.

It is great to see that EMI is doing a project on misinformation and disinformation. EMI has been on the scene a long time on European issues and has seen many European elections over the years. As regards that building of resilience, if EMI is doing a project, what should the Government be doing, maybe on a larger scale? There is a limit to what any one organisation can do. As regards the best way to tackle this, and notwithstanding our engagements with social media companies, which, certainly from my perspective, are not doing anywhere near enough and could be doing a lot more, they will always say they are waiting for regulations and laws but they do not need to do that to do the right thing. What can we do to educate and equip people to be more media-literate and more resilient? I think that will be our greatest tool in dealing with this.

I started with Dr. Culloty the last time, so if Ms O'Connell or Mr. Harte wants to start, we will alternate.

Ms Noelle O'Connell

Great. I thank the Senator. I will take the high-level big picture and will get Mr. Harte to drill down into some of the specifics. As regards building resilience and what the Government should do on a larger scale, we have to be cognisant that there is no silver bullet and that it is a mammoth task, but that should not mean that we should not do it. Deputy Ó Murchú mentioned Cambridge Analytica. I think back on probably one of the most innovative campaigns we ever did for the Brexit referendum, which was on voter registration. We did our #PhoneAFriend campaign, whereby we encouraged the 5 million British people who can claim an Irish-born grandparent to register and to vote. We also informed the British people living in Ireland that they had the right to vote as well as the Irish people living in the UK. By doing that, we managed to outline some factual elements to the wider Irish-UK-EU relationship, and it really resonated among different cohorts.

As regards voter apathy and building resilience, we should not lose sight of the fact that we should continue to be ambitious in that regard. Voter turnout in the Irish European Parliament elections has declined. It went down to 49.7%, under the EU average, the last time. We want to see that increase. There is a role for political parties to promote increased voter participation and engagement. We have to work with social media platforms in that regard, foster a culture of critical thinking, try to encourage young people to vote and engage with those audiences on the platforms they are on with regard to flexible voting options and building up awareness. There is also a duty and a responsibility on people to vote and engage, and the Government can do only so much in that regard. There is that onus and responsibility on us, working very closely with civil society organisation, to promote increased voter participation among their stakeholders as well.

On the specifics of some of our disinformation work, I will hand over to Mr. Harte.

Mr. Rory Harte

The Senator's question is a very good one. From our perspective, what Ireland does very well compared with other EU member states is that, with regard to disinformation, misinformation and broader supports for media literacy, we have a far more joined-up network of organisations working in this area. At governmental level, there is everyone from the Department of media to the Department of Foreign Affairs. There is not only Coimisiún na Meán and the Electoral Commission but also industry working very heavily and academia working very heavily, whether it is the future of journalism school or the ADAPT centre in UCD, as well as civil society, like us. Everyone brings something specific to the table.

This is about supporting those networks and, for instance, civil society so that we can be part of the conversation and supporting academia so that there are fully funded roles that allow academics to dig into the research. That is one part of it.

The next part is the joined-up policy thinking, at which Ireland is doing quite well at the moment. There is EU-level stuff such as the Digital Services Act coming down the line. There is Irish-level legislation but there is other stuff that could be there. Dr. Culloty mentioned approaches like the Finnish model. Exploring those different policy ways forward is a bit that we might miss in the future.

Senator Chambers asked about monitoring material as it appears and the ebbs and flows of the disinformation that is out there. I referred to the ADAPT Centre in UCD. Lots of research is being done by academics working in that area. It is quite a nuanced technical field that I cannot speak to but there are people very much working on it at the moment. Fingers crossed, that will produce helpful results.

Dr. Eileen Culloty

On the question of monitoring, the issue is that the entire media system is incredibly complex. There are so many different platforms and actors. Any one of us can create media and call ourselves a journalist. There are so many different journalism outlets. Ireland is a small English-speaking country which is massively influenced by what happens in the UK and US. When one puts all of that together, one has health and wellness influencers on Instagram or TikTok who are slowly engaging with content in the US that is becoming quite political and then suddenly they are talking about politics in Ireland. That might not be on any of our radars because people who are interested in European affairs may not be particularly interested in what people are saying about going to the gym.

When an issue arises and we see something dramatic happening, journalists and fact-checkers can try to understand what has just happened but without that background understanding of just what is going on across the whole system media system. For example, and I know this as a lecturer, the people students are interested in and follow are people I have never heard of. I assume that most journalists are not aware of who these people are either. This idea of monitoring is very much about being aware of what is going on in Ireland, who is influential, what topics are gaining traction and so on.

That is not something that is being done across the board. Journalists do not have resources to be doing that because it is not something they would be reporting on every single day. Then there are NGOs, for example, the work EMI is doing around Europe, and other NGOs might focus on particular issues they are interested in. Again, one is missing that bit about the wellness or foodie influencers or whatever it is. The European Digital Media Observatory at DCU leads on that and is the hub in Ireland. The original idea was that this body would do some of that work but the European Commission funding for it was cut so we now only get 50% funding.

Researchers are a different thing. What they do is try to understand. Research is a very long process and it is not about this day-to-day of what is going on. It is not clear under whose remit this would fall. Whoever could do it, and I do not think it would require a huge amount of funding as a handful of people could probably do this type of work, it would need to be transparent. Whatever methodologies are used, it needs to be accountable because many NGOs which do this work then come under attack with people saying they are biased and so on. It is about transparency in the methods they use and showing their work. That could then be a great resource for people, whether it is journalists, politicians or other actors, to understand what is going on. Even the Electoral Commission or Coimisiún na Meán would benefit from this type of resource. Instead, at the moment we are all quite blind and reacting to stuff instead of understanding the environment.

I have one more question. Could the Electoral Commission or Coimisiún na Meán potentially have a team attached to it that does that work? Would that be suitable or is it too close? Ultimately, the Government would probably have to fund it.

Dr. Eileen Culloty

Many of the models are multi-stakeholder models. The Electoral Commission is clearly focused more specifically around elections and Coimisiún na Meán has a remit now that includes an awful lot of areas. They can work with and have a model of trusted flaggers and multi-stakeholder models. This could be working with academics and different NGOs and groups but the work needs to happen and it needs to be transparent.

I have two straightforward questions and a kind of rambling one such as Deputy Ó Murchú might ask. He is not here now. Sorry about that.

As you rarely ask one of those types of questions, Deputy Haughey, you are most definitely entitled to ask one.

My first question is for Dr. Culloty. On foreign information manipulation and interference, we talk about Russia and China and their influence in the Balkan states and across Europe, in particular, in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. We have had witnesses before the committee who have spoken about that. What is Dr. Culloty's view of that? Is it a very serious issue? Is it rampant, for want of a better word? Is there any evidence of Russian and Chinese foreign interference in the Irish case?

We had the Electoral Commission in here last week and its representatives spoke about US influence on Irish politics. I believe Dr. Culloty mentioned that in one of her replies. I am interested in finding out if there is any evidence of Russian and Chinese foreign information manipulation or interference in the case of Ireland. What does Dr. Culloty know about what is happening across Europe in that regard?

My next question is for European Movement Ireland. Coming up to the European Parliament elections, how do we keep the debate focused on European issues? I suspect there will probably be a number of issues on the top of the agenda, particularly migration, the nature restoration law on which the European Parliament voted yesterday, the European Green Deal and the whole climate change agenda, as well as Israel and Gaza and the remarks of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen following the brutal Hamas attacks, which raised issues. While I suspect that European issues will come to the fore as we head into the European Parliament elections, what can be done to keep the debate focused on those issues? I guess the candidates have a role to play in that regard and they will do their best but this is very important because these elections are so important.

I will now ask the rambling question. Who decides the facts? I was reading Paul Lynch's Prophet Song last night and it features an interesting paragraph about facts and how society can just adopt a whole new set of facts under certain conditions. It is probably a very complex question but there is no doubt that populism is on the rise across Europe. There are far-right issues, for example, migration, the push-back against enlargement and against climate change measures, with farmers protesting, and even criticism of the role of NGOs. That is very much a problem across the European Union. Does EMI have anything to say about who actually decides the facts or can that be done? Linked to that, can Coimisiún na Meán do its work in this area or is that a huge challenge? To return to Deputy Ó Murchú's question, does it have the tools to deal effectively with the issue of disinformation?

That was not too bad at all. We will start with Dr. Culloty this time.

Dr. Eileen Culloty

On the question of the EU, Russia and China, there is a huge difference in the EU in terms of what is concerning to countries. Our colleagues in the European Digital Media Observatory from eastern Europe are dealing much more - clearly, constantly - with Russian interference. In Ireland, I cannot conclusively say whether there is evidence of Russian or Chinese interference. That is why the monitoring piece is important as interference can be less obvious or direct. When we talk or think about these things in Ireland we have a tendency to be quite complacent and to say it is an issue for someone else and not something that we need to be bothered about. We also need to think on principle.

It is not just about Russia or China but about any state because any state interfering with our democracy is a problem. The nature of contemporary media is such that this type of interference can be really nefarious. For example, in Canada there were issues with employees of fake companies producing content for blogs that were all orchestrated by the Indian State. I assume there was some kind of economic interest there. It can be very subtle and very nefarious but that is not necessarily something journalists or researchers would focus on from day to day.

With regard to the facts, this is again about realistic expectations. There are factual claims that can be verified. When somebody says something that is just completely wrong about how you vote or the earth being flat, that is fairly straightforward. These are also not the things most people argue about. The things people argue about are political. The British political scientist, Stephen Coleman, calls them political facts and says that we should not pretend that these things are easily verified because they are decisions about who gets funding and who does not and about what is going to happen and what is not. We have to be quite honest about that. We also do not want to abdicate responsibility for these things and leave them to tech companies, which are primarily global corporations whose interest is profit. As the Chair was saying, these are US companies and so have US ideas about free speech, which are different from our ideas about free speech in liberal democracies. That has been a very significant issue and it may be one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in.

Fact-checking is very important. In Ireland, The Journal does a lot of fact-checking, as do many other journalists. However, if you read their work, you will see it says that some things might be true and that others are hard to verify because it depends on how you look it. Even on the issue of whether there is a correlation between migration and crime, academics have been studying that question for decades and still have not come up with any good clear solution. We cannot fact our way out of those issues. That does not mean it is not worth investigating them because it may be possible to arrive at a conclusion. However, you are not going to arrive at a fast conclusion the night before an election.

On Coimisiún na Meán and disinformation, a great deal hinges on the EU code of practice on disinformation and the expectation that this will become a code of conduct under the Digital Services Act. Working with Coimisiún na Meán and, previously, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, we in DCU have written four reports on this code. Again, expectation management is important because a lot of what the code asks for is for companies to submit reports on what they do with regard to media literacy and to keep users informed and the number of pieces of disinformation they took action on. Researchers have consistently said that this is just not enough and that they cannot do enough with this content. At the moment, it is a lot of companies writing reports and somebody in the regulator perhaps reading those reports. The question of whether any of this is actually going anywhere is still to be answered.

Mr. Rory Harte

The Deputy's question as to how to keep the information environment in respect of the EU elections to European issues is something we in European Movement Ireland focus on a lot. The conclusion we have come to both for these elections and over the past 70 years is that we have to meet the audience where they are. While in this room we might talk about the European Green Deal or the just transition, when talking to someone on the street, you talk about cars and how these initiatives will affect their day-to-day transport and, when talking to the agricultural community, you talk about their specific needs. You can always bring high-level European issues down to a day-to-day issue that really impacts voters. It is about acknowledging the domestic day-to-day issues but also noting that the decisions made about them are made in Europe, that is, that European issues affect people's day-to-day lives. We always bring it down to that day-to-day level with people. That means we are pulling on different threads. For instance, we know that housing is not a European competency but, if you start talking about housing in terms of competition law and how it affects prices further down the line, that is something that really chimes with people. Almost everything falls under that European portfolio. As long as you can bring people to that conversation, it is actually not too hard to get people to have those debates.

We certainly recognise that, coming up to the European elections, the media climate will look to European issues more and more. We recognise that it is incumbent on ourselves, broader organisations and communities that are addressing the European elections to jump on that opportunity. We do not see it as insurmountable.

Ms Noelle O'Connell

To follow on from Mr. Harte's point, when we do our candidate debates and town hall hustings, we encourage the candidates to keep the debate focused at a European level while taking on board all topics and points raised. With regard to the facts, if we can increase informed participation and education, we will build resilience and will not see as much erosion of trust in the democratic process. I know that members of this committee are very supportive and engage with students and young people. Through a simple programme, the Blue Star Programme, some 205,000 primary school pupils from the age of four up to 12 in more than 1,250 primary schools in the country over ten years have learned about geography, history, the institutions, our shared European heritage and our values in a curriculum-friendly manner. That is building up informed young people. Going up through secondary school, they study these issues in CSPE although, obviously, a lot more could be done.

To follow on from Dr. Culloty's point regarding FIMI, our counterparts in European Movement networks in eastern Europe, particularly those in the western Balkans and our Serbian colleagues after the elections in December, tell us that the challenges they face in respect of misinformation and disinformation are massive. At the level of the European Movement network, we saw that funding was provided to promote civil society organisations as regards education and engagement during the European accession process for those countries. However, the tap was turned off very quickly after accession. I would say that the results of that speak for themselves when the 2019 elections saw turnouts of 28.72% in Czechia, 28% in Slovenia, 22% in Slovakia and 29% in Croatia. A strong and robust civil society ecosystem is invaluable in combating the forces of misinformation and disinformation.

I thank the witnesses for the presentations they have given on really important issues that are very broad and multifaceted. In her introduction, Ms O'Connell described us as "distinguished" Members of Parliament. It reminds me of a trip I made with Barry Andrews, who is now an MEP, to an Irish Aid project in Africa. We were introduced by our hosts as "extinguished" Members of Parliament. Perhaps we will be in the future.

I will drill down into a few issues, some of which will overlap. On foreign information and manipulation and domestic actors providing misinformation, Dr. Culloty made a very important intervention in response to Deputy Haughey on the question of what objective truth is. We all have our prejudices. Today is objectively Wednesday. Most people would agree with that. However, if I say that Donald Trump is an ignorant narcissist, which I believe to be an objective truth, that can be disputed. People are entitled to their own opinions and evaluations of these things. That is where the political dimension comes in. We often take umbrage at people making assertions that we do not agree with. Although they are entitled to their opinions, these assertions can be distorting. I am interested in any analysis the witnesses have of malign actors outside and within the EU. Again, this was touched upon by Deputy Haughey. A distinction was drawn between the geographies of the European Union and it was noted that, in the eastern parts of the EU and the Baltic states, the activities of Russia are more visible.

We know that from our interactions and the agencies we have established to track that. Is it the case? Are our guests aware of other actors about which we can do something? Within the EU, many people in countries such as Hungary do not believe or subscribe, including at government level, to the norms and values of the European Union. They are entitled to argue their view. How do we deal with that?

As regards domestic actors, some of them are supported from abroad. There is a combination in that regard. In particular, some of the very far-right stuff that is coming from America is in some way supportive of some of the marginal actors that are involved in our politics. I do not wish to sound despairing but in all this I am hearing a broad picture of difficulty with the multimedia platforms we have now. How do we ensure people have objective fact but are entitled to say what they like, as long as it is not unlawful, in a democratic system, which is our big flaw in many ways? That gives them a broad terrain to peddle untruth, if that is their opinion. These are fundamental issues.

Whose responsibility is it to do the fact-checking? From the presentations, it seems the standard media should be the ones responsible, but they are not resourced to do that and it is not their job to do it. It is too big a job for them to do. Some of them are prejudiced anyway. Those of us who are in politics a long time are certainly aware that many print media publications have a political view of their own to espouse.

I do not wish to extend the pessimism, but Mr. Harte sort of put forward education as a pathway to rational decision-making. Is that the case? I would be interested in our guests' take on this. The narrative in respect of America is that for the past 30, 40 or 50 years, liberal universities have created liberal media and a liberal law-making judiciary and now thoughtful and educated conservatives are taking that back. In a way, it is prejudice on our part to think that if people are educated, they will think like us. It is part of the arrogance that drives those people on. Hillary Clinton referred to them as the "deplorables". There is a narrative that they are too ignorant to understand and that if they were properly educated, they would think like we do. These are fundamental issues that will impact on the way future democracy works.

As an aside, I was taken by Mr. Harte's observation that the antisemitic tropes echoing disinformation narratives are common, as is language questioning Israel's motivations. I ask him to expand on the point in respect of language questioning Israel's motivations. Certainly I question Israel's motivations in what it is doing now. It goes to my point that it is not wrong to have a different view from us. I watched a debate on television the other night where a very strong journalist from Israel made his argument. I fundamentally disagree with that argument, but he is entitled to make it.

I thank the Deputy. There is a lot in that. I will go to Ms O'Connell and Mr. Harte first.

Mr. Rory Harte

I thank the Deputy. I was furiously scribbling notes and I am sure he will excuse me if I miss a few of his points. I will start with the point on Israel and Gaza. As I stated, there is antisemitic language that draws down from broader narratives we see within disinformation. We do not research those disinformation narratives but, rather, access research databases from other people. However, we use a discourse analysis process to understand how that is shaping how people have those conversations. I cannot speak to the disinformation narratives themselves but-----

The basic question I asked was how that conclusion in respect of Israel's motivations was reached.

Mr. Rory Harte

The language that is being used right now is around resources in Palestine, that it is purely genocidal and has nothing to do with the hostage situation. The language is very much that this is purely violent. This is stuff that many of us understand to be the case nonetheless, but that does come from disinformation narratives that are coming from databases out there. There is foreign information manipulation and interference, FIMI, from certain countries, whether Russia or other countries, speaking to Israel just being in this for the resources or that it is about killing Gazans or Palestinians and nothing else. This is the language we are taking. As Ms O'Connell stated, we are strictly non-partisan. We do not put any sort of value judgment across any of that, but this is the language we are noting coming up and this is how it is shaping the discourse in Ireland. It adds to the discourse becoming very coarse and polarised.

The Deputy will excuse me if that point bleeds into my response to his question on the role of education. There are several important matters to address in that regard. When we in EM Ireland talk about the broader information ecosystem and supporting it to be healthy, there are a few traditional approaches to take. One of them is debunking. That is where a person reads something online and I rock up and tell the person he or she is wrong. There is also prebunking, however. Prebunking is the idea of having that information out there in the first place in order that those who might come across false information later are better informed. Prebunking works a little better than debunking. I am wearing my psychologist's hat on this one. Much of our sense of self and how we understand information at this stage is very binary and polarised and it is built around our identity. The information people digest contributes to their sense of self. If I tell those people that information is wrong, it is an attack on their sense of self and they retreat a little back into themselves. At one end of the scale, people can become defensive. It can go further, to people becoming red-pilled or black-pilled, as it is known, where they become very reactionary and end up on the right. That sort of debunking can have a counter-intuitive result and add to that polarisation.

The Deputy referred to liberal students becoming one end and Hillary Clinton talking about the "deplorables". There has been very interesting research coming out of NYU recently about how, in the context of the idea of a polarised community, a person who holds certain beliefs and identifies in a particular way is, as part of that group identity, more likely and willing to believe stuff that he or she understands is not 100% accurate. That is a pathway to believing one thing because you believe something else. It is all tied into identity. It is very difficult to tell people who are polarised that they are wrong because it is part of who they are.

Ms Noelle O'Connell

I fully take on board the Deputy's point on the challenges facing the EU and the subscribing to values, but we need to consider that no member state should be able to hold things up, as we have seen recently. There is a need to look at qualified majority voting, QMV, in this regard. At the Conference on the Future of Europe, I sought to get consensus and compromise, which the Deputy knows better than anyone.

One thing which might be of interest to the committee is that in last year's poll, on an all-island basis, we asked people where they get their information on EU issues from. Some 61% in Ireland and 62% in Northern Ireland got it from traditional media, so the percentages are remarkably similar for traditional media. Going to the Deputy's and Dr. Culloty's point about fact-checking and how we do that, no one body, institution or organisation has a monopoly on that. There is a role for the Electoral Commission, organisations like ours, the Commission and the parliament. We have to go with trusted sources of information. As regards social media, the figure is 20% in Northern Ireland and 13% in the Republic. Some 14% in Ireland and 6% in the North get their information on EU issues from NGOs. it totally opens up with the age breakdown , with 43% of the younger demographic, the 18-to-24-year-olds, in Northern Ireland getting their information from social media and 40% in Ireland, so 18-to-24-year-olds, young people, on the island of Ireland get their information on European issues from social media. It is something we just have to be aware of. To Mr. Harte's point, we have to engage with people where they are and where they are sourcing their information from. That is why engaging with social media will be hugely important as part of these European Parliament elections.

Dr. Eileen Culloty

A lot of interesting and very important points were raised. What this is getting towards is that disinformation became almost a moral panic in 2016, after the US election and then Brexit. People became very fixated on these pieces of content. That is what disinformation is - a false claim. However, the issue is about influence and what the influences on our democracy are. FIMI and foreign interference were mentioned. When it is thought about that way, someone can influence much more broadly. Someone can think about countries that are funding academic institutions and countries that fund particular research bodies or major tech companies with lots of views on our politics and our laws. Is that not a type of interference? In addition, particularly coming from the US, there is free speech absolutism-type rhetoric. Frankly, it is just a completely different political system and is dominating or pushing those values into an Irish space, and then that is repeated as though it is normal here when it is not. We are almost losing a sense of our normative understanding of democracy in Ireland and in Europe.

Free speech is very important in different ways. Historically, the right to free speech has been important in a democratic way and a scientific way because it allows people to challenge consensus. That remains very important. The right to free speech also has an individual sense in that people should be free to say what they think and not be coerced into saying something else and so on. All those ideas, of course, come from a time when most of us had no great opportunity to set up our own media outlets to espouse our views, and that is really what we are grappling with. Unfortunately, however, most of the conversation is completely dwarfed by this crazy US debate that does not apply here. We could have very good conversations about free speech and proper debates about it but, unfortunately, we are not doing so.

It is interesting that newspapers were mentioned in particular because, historically, they have been free to say fairly outrageous things. It is very easy to zone in on social media now as though that is the problem. It is an intensification of a problem that was already there, albeit maybe not as strong in Ireland as we have seen in the UK or the US. The sight of a UK newspaper calling judges traitors is absolutely shocking, and social media cannot be blamed for that. Traditionally, print media was allowed to self-regulate, and self-regulation has largely been a disaster. It has not produced fairness or a respect for facts. Broadcast media were heavily regulated in this country, and we see a different model. Social media is completely self-regulated. The European model is now to co-regulate, and we will have to wait and see whether that will work.

In this environment, where people are free to say what they want and where people with lots of funding and platforms can say things that are actively wrong or against our interests or counter to our democratic values and principles, a big question becomes who we trust to actually provide accurate information. This is where the attacks on experts and expertise become problematic. Having said that, I had some sympathy for Michael Gove - I might be in a minority in ever having sympathy for him - when he said people had had enough of experts. This is related to Deputy Howlin's point about Hillary Clinton and the "deplorables" because experts cannot just be figures on high who tell us stuff. As regards the example given, I would be very interested to know what those databases were that produced those narratives as though that is somehow transparent or objective. Experts have to demonstrate that they are trustworthy, they have to demonstrate that to everybody and they have to do that by being transparent, accountable and open to being questioned.

As regards the Deputy's final point about education, in the US, public education has been massively defunded and privatised. This is why we should be very wary of these things in Ireland and very wary of platforms that come in and say they will teach AI literacy in schools. It is great if they want to give their money to let other people do those things, but we should not abdicate responsibility for education to private companies. We are very fortunate in Ireland that we have a very good education system and a lot of respect for teachers, and that our teachers are well trained. That is not a norm in many other European countries, so protecting education is, long term, a way to protect democracy.

I will focus on a couple of little issues in my contribution. The first is to take up some of the comments Dr. Culloty just made because I have a slight difference of opinion with her. The US model of free speech is not absolutist by any means. Just in the last month, we have seen that former President Trump had severe damages imposed on him for comments he made that were deemed by a court not to be acceptable. Therefore, even though he has a right to free speech, like all US citizens, he will have to pay out - and I am sure he will challenge it - substantial damages before libelling someone. The problem, as I see it, and I could be slightly wrong, relates to when social media - the Internet more so than social media - was being established in the United States. People harp on about free speech going back to constitutional times. The reality is that Congress legislated to change the platform's liability from being that of a publisher to being that of a conduit, which effectively was the same viewpoint that AT&T or something like that would have. Everyone had the right to use the platform and, therefore, it should not be moderated and there was no liability to the organisation for the content on the platform. That really is at the heart of it. The European Union has moved to co-regulation, as Dr. Culloty said, but I am a firm believer - and this is absolutely no attempt to suppress free speech - that if the same liabilities and penalties that attach to traditional publishers were to attach to the operations of social media companies in the European Union, first, and then in the United States, there would be a sea change in what we see. While people have a right to have a voice, we cannot believe that there is no damage to somebody having a voice and effectively facilitating extremism, which is what one is doing. That is very dangerous. It undermines democracy at its core. We will look back in decades to come at what is happening now and be amazed by the willingness of democracies to accept it. The irony of ironies is that we accept it because we are a democracy. In China and certain other countries, the control level is great, and the platforms are still there but they are controlled. Nobody wants that because that is a totalitarian dictatorship, but it proves one thing, that is, that technologically, there is the ability for platforms to regulate content.

A choice is being made. I sat on a justice committee in 2017. The platforms were quite willing and open to pointing out that they make a cost-benefit analysis. I totally agree with the point about not trusting them to be the provider of information because it is a cost-benefit analysis to determine how much is spent on content moderation. Those are some of the overall points. At the heart of this is Dr. Culloty's comment on the "deplorables" that Hillary Clinton made, which is that if you actually believe something is fair and balanced, it is usually because it is only plus or minus 5% of your own viewpoint. If it is within those confines, you think that is great and that it is a fair and balanced source. There are many people in the United States who refer to Donald Trump in a particular way but the real issue with fact or non-fact is that 85% to 90% of people who indicate that they will vote for Donald Trump in the next election believe he won the last election. They used to say you can have your opinions but not your own facts. The reality is now that we have reached a world where people have their own facts. Whole sections of society have their own facts.

The aspect of the question I wanted to put to Ms O'Connell is something we discussed last week and I am interested in her take on it again. It is still at the heart of this. From the point of view of European elections or any other elections, though we are facing into the European elections, how do we, in a fast-moving age, try to combat information that appears during a cycle that is effectively three to four weeks long but is dealt with by bureaucracy, legislation and systems that require months, if not years, to respond? The reality of it is that the case I was referring to in the United States is going before the court for an adjudication today, in 2024, for an incident that happened effectively four years ago. People will argue that the damage is done. Are there, in Ms O'Connell's view, systems or processes that could be looked at or that could be imposed on social media platforms that would be much more immediate? How would we go about implementing something along those lines?

Ms Noelle O'Connell

Regarding the US and free speech, it is true that one can sue people for almost anything in the US. You can certainly sue them if they defame or libel you. The US is an outlier among democratic countries in its insistence that the individual right to free speech trumps collective responsibilities to others, which is the tradition we have in Europe. The fact that we hear so much about that American understanding is what is destructive to the debate here.

The Cathaoirleach is absolutely right in his characterisation of the platforms being publishers versus platforms. It is instructive to think about where that comes from. In the 1990s, as web technology was developed out of public funding at CERN, it is worth remembering that somebody did not try to make lots of money out of it. Tim Berners-Lee said this should be for the public good. The thinking in the US and Europe was about how we would allow digital business to grow. They came up with their e-commerce directives. One of the things was that these new businesses must be considered platforms like utilities and not as publishers, when they are very clearly publishers now. They are moderating content. The telephone company never moderated what we said on the calls. It is interesting that the EU's Digital Services Act did not attempt to roll that back.

That was fine, since it allowed digital businesses to thrive but how have we ended up in a world where there are just a handful of these businesses and they appear to have taken over the Internet and our communities? It is where you go to find out the results of the under-10 football match, to sell your furniture, to hire a nanny, or whatever. How is this all concentrated on a handful of platforms? It is because competition law has failed to be applied to these companies. It is interesting that the US is really starting to look at competition law, which is supposed to prevent these monopolies from developing in the first place. One way out of this might be if there were alternative companies offering better services that do respect community rights. The free speech issue on platforms is a bit of a misnomer. These are private companies. They can decide what people want to say on them. It is not a town hall or the national parliament, so the companies can decide. If we are annoyed with how things are happening on the Meta or X platforms, why are there not alternatives offering better things? There are not alternatives because competition law allowed them to become so big. This is positive but late, since if competition law was applied, we might not be in the scenario we are in now.

On what to do during election cycles, just yesterday Meta announced that it would have a specific task force for European elections and would maybe look at AI. As we saw in the Slovak elections, disinformation often appears at the last minute, so journalists do not have time to fact-check it. That is good but there will always be questions of who gets to decide or whether Meta acted on time.

A few years ago, before the 2016 election, there was an organisation, the Fair Play Pledge, which asked Irish politicians to commit to not using disinformation and being civil. That might not sound like it is a lot but if we get journalists to commit to not repeating salacious stories just for the sake of it and for getting the clicks, and to correcting false information and publishing reliable information and if politicians commit to civil debate and not to indulge in this stuff, we could maybe collectively restore some kind of order. Then, when a false claim emerges, if there is consistency across journalists, politicians and others saying it is false, that would go some way towards taking back control of our own democracy and society, rather than expecting platforms to come and do these things for us.

Mr. Rory Harte

I do not think there is anything to add to that.

Ms Noelle O'Connell

On the Fair Play Pledge-----

Mr. Rory Harte

Ms O'Connell does have something.

Ms Noelle O'Connell

It is the Cork in me. On the Fair Play Pledge, we in European Movement International have asked all the political party groupings to sign up and support exactly that as part of the European Parliament elections. If something like that could be rolled out more broadly, it will not be that magic silver bullet, but it will definitely be a step in the right direction. We are calling for all the political party groupings to sign up to that. We hope that could be something that candidates standing for the European elections in Ireland would consider too.

It is good to end on a positive note from both witnesses about something that can be done to hopefully take us into a better way of conducting the upcoming elections. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the committee for coming in today. We have had a strong, fruitful engagement. We have covered much ground. I appreciate the time they have given us. With that, I will draw our meeting to a close. Our committee will stand adjourned until Wednesday, 6 March at 10 a.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.38 a.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 March 2024.
Barr
Roinn