Beyond the ballot: AI, voter rights and the future of elections in Africa
Posted: 28 March, 2024 Filed under: Bonolo Makgale | Tags: Access to Information, AI technology, Artificial intelligence, democracy, democratic engagement, digital democracy, digital technology, digital transformation, elections, electoral fraud, Fake News, governance, inequality, information age, right to vote, socioeconomic status, technological challenge, user-friendly interfaces, voter rights, Yiaga Africa Leave a comment
Author: Bonolo Makgale
Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
Introduction
The year 2024 is an extraordinary year for elections in all its hazardous glory as it sets the record for the greatest number of people living in countries that are holding elections. More voters than ever in history will be heading to the polls in at least 64 countries representing a combined population of about 49% globally. Many of these votes will test the limits of democracy, while others will be exercises in rubber-stamping and the results of which, for many, will prove consequential for years to come. Yet, these elections are taking place against the backdrop of a relentless global evolution of digital technology which has ushered in a new era of unprecedented challenges in the democratic and political space. In an era of data manipulation and the growing influence of artificial intelligence, democracy stands at a critical crossroads.
The relative success of fact checking services in combatting fake news – a quick patch for a systemic problem?
Posted: 26 July, 2023 Filed under: Mihail Stojanoski | Tags: accessible information, Deutsche Welle, education system, election periods, fact-checking, Fake News, independent fact-checkers, intermediary regulation, lack of rationality, logical assumption, media literacy, monetary gain, research, social media, tech companies, time-limit Leave a comment
Author: Mihail Stojanoski
Human rights lawyer, Macedonia
There is little need to introduce the buzzword “fake news” and the risks associated with it. The phenomenon is nothing new but its re-emergence during the second half of the past decade is attributed in large part to the massive proliferation of news on social media and the overall lower barriers for entry into the field of news distribution.[1]
Responses were numerous and quick to appear – from the introduction of an interim take-down measure available during election periods in France to outsourcing the problem by introducing intermediary responsibility of the platforms which transmit the content in question in Germany. Setting aside the latter, which rapidly gained global popularity ,[2] an initial antidote to fake news, which was introduced swiftly and to public acclaim in many countries, was fact-checking.
A socio-legal analysis of Nigeria’s Protection from Internet Falsehoods, Manipulations and Other Related Matters Bill
Posted: 5 December, 2019 Filed under: Tomiwa Ilori | Tags: Africa, Bill, Constitution of Nigeria, dissemination of information, ECOWAS, Fake News, false statements, freedom of expression, Frivolous Petitions Bill of 2015, ICCPR, internal rules, Internet Falsehoods, legislation, Manipulation, Manipulation and Other Related Matters Bill, Nigeria, Nigerian Communications Commission, online freedom of expression, platform regulation, Protection from Internet Falsehoods, restriction of content, social media, social media platforms 4 Comments
Author: Tomiwa Ilori
HRDA Alumni Coordinator/Researcher: Democracy, Transparency and Digital Rights Unit, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
Introduction
The curbing of information disorder online has become one of the most contentious areas in platform regulation. Not only do states struggle with the best approach to fulfill their responsibility to safeguard human rights, non-state actors, especially social media platforms are stepping in with self-imposed rules that may reflect scale but struggle with context on regulating free speech. The most prevalent challenge facing social media regulation, especially outside the United States whose free speech regime is regarded as liberal, is the varying degrees of the protection of free speech in other jurisdictions. Social media platforms also face the challenge of protecting free speech on one hand and catering to national contexts on the other. These variations are often due to the different socio-political local context of each country.
AfricLaw 