Critical Internet literacy – WS 10 2017

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

7 June 2017 | 14:00 - 15:30 | Ballroom III, Swissotel, Tallinn, Estonia | video record
Programme overview wiki | Programme overview EuroDIG web site

Session teaser

Developing a rationale and strategy to develop competences on Internet Literacy in times of crisis such as ours: fake news, propaganda, radicalization, rumours and hoaxes, ...

Keywords

Internet literacy, fake news, Big-data analytics, Internet of Things, best practices, training, online freedom, privacy, identity

Session description

There is a need to develop a rationale and strategy to develop competences on Internet literacy in times of crisis such as ours: fake news, propaganda, radicalization, rumours and hoaxes and so on. This can be a threat to full citizenship online and is starting to damage our trust in the Internet and the legitimacy of its governance. In and beyond formal school education, critical Internet literacy is necessary for the digital transformation of young people and adults to:

  • assess the main social and legal issues that affect their digital transformation (online freedoms, privacy, identity),
  • decide and make choices, in a creative and critical thinking manner, which affect their values,
  • understand the way the Internet is managed and owned.

Outcome

The outcome of this workshop is to decide on a way forward on how to reach out to citizens in order to provide them with “Critical Internet Literacy 101” information and skills to enable them to shape their digital identities and collective belief and culture in the Internet of the future.

Agenda

1. What is “critical” Internet literacy?

  • Kimmo Aulake, Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland
  • Vincent Bonnet, European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA)
  • Indrek Ibrus, Tallinn University, Estonia

2. Best practices

  • Rachel Pollack Ichou, UNESCO
  • Pascale Serrier, Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL)
  • Corina Călugăru, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Moldova to the Council of Europe, Thematic Co-ordinator on Information Policy

3. Way forward

  • Peter Krantz, International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA)
  • Yves Matthieu, Missions Publiques
  • Cristina Monti, European Commission
  • Siobhan Montgomery, Council of Europe

4. Concluding remarks

  • Divina Frau-Meigs, Savoir*Devenir (rapporteur)

Format

Moderated dialogue with a limited number of panelists and wrap-up on the following:

  • What is «critical Internet literacy»?,
  • Best practices, ACTIVITIES ILLUSTRATING DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITIES’ AND CNIL’s BEST PRACTICES AND OTHER INITIATIVES IN DIGITAL PRIVACY EDUCATION
  • Way forward – what and how do we get there?

Further reading

Digitisation and Culture, Council of Europe

European Audiovisual Observatory

UNESCO

People

Focal Point:

  • Divina Frau-Meigs (Savoir*Devenir/Know*ing)
  • Kathrin Merkle (Council of Europe)

Subject Matter Expert (SME)

Key Participants (for workshop) or Panellists (for plenary)

For more information, please check the agenda above

Moderator:

  • Lee Hibbard (Council of Europe)

Remote Moderator:

  • Zakir Syed (ICANN)

Organising Team (Org Team):

  • Divina Frau-Meigs (Savoir*Devenir/Know*ing)
  • Kathrin Merkle (Council of Europe)
  • Lee Hibbard (Council of Europe)
  • Zakir Syed (ICANN)
  • Stephen Wyber (International Federation of Library Associations - IFLA)
  • Pascale Garreau (Savoir*Devenir)

Reporter

  • Divina Frau-Meigs (Savoir*Devenir/Know*ing)

Video record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU9GreG2jGU

Messages

The definition of Critical Internet Literacy (CIL) encompasses skills, competences, attitudes and values about Information. Information is being redefined by media, data and algorithms. As such information needs to be reliable and open so that today’s citizens can make informed choices and be empowered without fear.

  • CIL is part of Media and Information Literacy (MIL), as a pedagogy, a socio-economic right and a political project. The way forward relates to the construction of a desirable future:
  • as pedagogy is to provide for spaces (online and in real life) where trial and error can take place without consequences and to modify the curricula to inject learning by doing and CIL competences about media and data. Training of teachers and adult is crucial.
  • as a right is to accommodate the right to chose, to be inscrutable, to have transparency, to consumption without traceability, to safety, to privacy, to human rights. The need to embrace the complexity of the global society also attaches two emergencies together: the digital transition and the climate transition.
  • as a political project is connected to convergence of MIL governance and Internet governance. A multi-stakeholder approach is recommended to create a collective for MIL and digital competences that embarks the Internet intermediaries and social media in MIL initiatives as a public value.  Beyond current partnerships, more coordination is needed to share and extend the tools that exist and create the jobs of tomorrow. So citizenship and employability are closely linked.

  Recommendations:

  • Launch a global citizen debate on the future of the internet as seen by the grassroots, so that it is treated as a common good that needs to be tended by informed literate citizens, consumers and workers;
  • Establish a platform or observatory for better coordination of multi-stakeholders and for sharing experiences and competences across national divides and differentiated needs across the world;
  • Connect recommendations on Internet of Citizens, on Big data and culture with recommendation on CIL and information integrity (against fake news, …);
  • Attach Digital transition to Climate transition and develop tools, jobs, and competences that increase frugality of all kinds (footprint, bio-solutions, …).

See Frau-Meigs, Divina et al, Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe. Cross-country comparisons. Routledge.

Transcript

Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, 800-825-5234, www.captionfirst.com


This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.


>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. Can you hear me now? That's better. Hello. Are we going to close the doors? Okay. We are going to start in about 30 seconds.

Can I close the doors? Okay.

Hello, everybody. My name is Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe. I would like to welcome you to this workshop on Critical Internet Literacy. As you see we have lots of people in the front, more people than almost in the seats there. We are not -- I don't think, I have done a few of these things, I don't think we are going to have a proper formatted workshop with lots of people speaking in panels with long speeches, et cetera. You are really going to be the stars of this discussion.

I would like to heavily rely on your input and maybe their reactions. They will give some comments, we will have short interventions. I will be trying to walk around and bring you into the discussion. I would like to change the dialogue to make it a conversation with you because we are talking about Critical Internet Literacy. We talk about media literacy in the past, media and information literacy, we talked about digital literacy. Now we are talking about critical Internet literacy, which is I think another step. So far what I've heard is that in many ways we are going much with the Internet and how our lives are, we are going much further and deeper into what we need to know, dealing with fake news, et cetera.

We have lots and lots of challenges ahead, whether we be, whichever stakeholder group we talk about. Whether we are technical, we need to train people and make them literate.

I have colleagues back in Strasbourg dealing with competencies, dealing with digital competencies. They talk about learn can and creativity. They talk about active participation, health and wellbeing, ePress and communications, privacy, security, rights and responsibilities, ethics and empathy, media and information literacy and also consumer awareness.

Which is much more the literacy to be safe or to be private or to be secure online. For many people, literacy and education and skills has been about, it's a negative thing. Needing to be safe, your children, et cetera, et cetera.

Now in digital transformation we are undergoing, talking about digital transformation of one's self, jobs, the future, it's much more than that. I think you can agree with that. I will stop talking.

We have lots of people here. We will come to them, break us into three blocks as in the agenda. One block is what is critical about Internet and the need to be literate online? What is critical? We have a few speakers there.

We have a second block on good practice. There are lots of people who have done lots of good things in their countries. I would like them to step up and say something, but short.

And we have a way forward. We are going to break into three parts and way forward will be looking to what we can do together or separately, actionable things. We have a rapporteur who will be wrapping up. At that point she is going to give us a few words of context because Divina was one of the people who created this workshop, pushed this workshop forward. Some context from her and she'll come in at the end of the session. Please, Divina.

>> DIVINA FRAU-MEIGS: Thank you, Lee. Thank you, all participants, and participants because we are very much in what Lee was talking about. This is a peer participatory approach. We are all very legitimate about these issues.

Let me start with something I never thought I would ever say: Thank you, Trump! Thank you for fake news. Why? I'm too close to the speakers. This is media literacy that I should remember.

Because it is we are in the times of crisis about the Internet, how to approach it. Media literacy is back on the for front. It had been side lined by topics such as security, such as safety, such as coding, new competencies that are more technical.

But we realize again that there is a need for values, a need for content. There is a need for mastery and critical thinking. This is what we are here about, how to assess that.

I wanted to share with you the results of this book that I just published that compares public policies in media information literacy in Europe. And the results are basically very good. Europe has an abundance of resources of good practices. You'll hear some of them here. Europe has an abundance of training. Europe has an abundance of actors who participate in media and information literacy. But where are we going? It is all extremely scattered. There is no governance of media and information literacy, the way we are striving also of governance of the Internet.

What I would like to propose to you is that it is the same fight. Internet governance, media and information literacy governance are the same fight. It is about how we want to shape the future of the Internet. We as users, we as citizens. And so the question is: To push as much as we can here and beyond the agenda, the research agenda, the policy agenda, the different stakeholders agenda in the same direction in the future. We are at the moment where because of the news, we are reaching a new maturity about the Internet, technically but also as a human group. So how do we think about it together? How do we push with the best interests of young people? How do we push the Internet in a direction that we can be proud of?

This is just the little aim of this workshop. Thank you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much, Divina. Our first block, what is critical Internet literacy? Before we go to Kimmo Aulake and Indrek, I would like to open the floor to get you to talk about this. Safety is a soft topic. We all agree it's important and we need information. Do you have any views on what you've heard and where you want literacy to go? What you need for the future in terms of skills, competencies, education, formal education for your children, nonformal education for your work and other things? Do you have any views?

I would like you to come into the discussion. I'll hang around here and look at my colleague on the panel there and they will come in. I really wish to have a dialogue. This is not a formal panel setting. I would like to have a conversation. We have Kimmo Aulake from the Ministry of Education and Culture, Vincent Bonnet from the Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations and we have Indrek Ibrus from Tallinn University here in lovely Tallinn.

What is critical about Internet literacy regarding the Internet, please?

>> KIMMO AULAKE: Thanks, Lee. Before trying to answer that, and I'm getting into the crystal ball to see the future. I take a quick look into the past because until 600 years ago people, all of us -- not us, but them -- were confined to kind of the immediate families and communities. Why 600 years ago? Because in 1439 Gutenberg invented the printing press which led to the birth of press, the newspapers. That process, gradually, of course, widened the life spheres of people to thousands and gradually to millions.

Radio, television further expanded that, but what we see today is that 3.65 billion people are connected to the Internet. So basically half of the world's population.

Which means that in principle 3.65 billion people can be directly in contact with each other. And it has led to the formation of different communities, tribes, especially in social media.

Of course, that's an expansion of this communication and an exchange is most welcome. But I think what we have entered now is definitely uncharted waters. What I mean by that is that information technology allows for the collection of an enormous amount of information, of our preferences, of our consumption online. Basically everything we do online is being recorded. And this big data that is being collected is also being analyzed by the companies operating the main social media and other platform, Internet platforms. And they use that information not only to sell to advertisers, but to know more about us than we could ever imagine.

And consequently, when it comes to literacy, which meant originally that you were able to read and write, to function, to be an active citizen, that notion, of course, is still relevant but it was succeeded by media literacy, still very much a part of what we do in the Ministry. I guess in every European country. But even that seems to be too narrow. Now we are talking about critical Internet literacy which to me means skills and competencies to also understand what kind of information is collected of us, how this big data is used to come up with algorithms that more or less determine what is being offered to us, who does that, how, and why.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. Now, coming to Vincent, the word critical refers to two things, about the critical nature of where we are and what we need to do and also the fact that we need to be critical in the analysis of what we receive online. I guess it has a double meaning. Vincent, what is your take on Critical Internet Literacy from a library perspective, please?

>> VINCENT BONNET: From a library perspective, I will use a sentence quote from a librarian from the Iowa University, so from the U.S. And basically about critical, he said that once they recognised the connection between power and literacy, societies found they could Han I late literacy levels to distribute power. Literacy has always been connected to power and to social class. It has been intentionally deployed by society to manage these categories and functions. That's the end of the quote.

So I found interesting the link between manipulation, literacy and power as it talks to us about the question of fake news and alternate facts and all these questions we are dealing with at the moment. Critical for us, being critical means that it is the ability to be free from manipulation and aware of what is happening and how the Internet is regulated, and how individuals can manage their own rights and know what they are doing by using all these technological tools.

From a library perspective we have already charters that are created in some countries that protect the individual rights and that insist on the fact that the information that are available should be open and reliable. We have also library giving trainings in different countries. We have been collecting that around the fact that actually 82 percent of the population in Europe are following training, life long training in libraries. There is a big outreach of libraries there to help out in really making critical Internet literacy a reality.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Indrek, we want you to come to the microphone and we have other people in the room who should participate too. Please have a discussion with us.

Indrek, is there a tension? We are singing the same song with regard to literacy and education, no one will dispute that. Is there a tension? What is your take on Critical Internet Literacy.

>> INDREK IBRUS: Hello. Thank you, Vincent for the definition of how can we understand critical Internet literacy. I would start out by an apology. While I work in the university, I am not actually a literacy researcher as well. I am a media, critical media production researcher. This is what I do.

however, in this context you mentioned that people need to really understand how the media and the Internet industries are regulated. Next to it, I think the critical really means, really understand when people face content, people face services, to understand why are these services, texts, content there? This really means understanding how the industry works. What are the rationales? What are the practices? What are the operations like?

In this sense, I'm making my job as a production researcher more important and relevant for the literacy. But in terms of regulation, this really means the question, how to make these production processes more transparent for the general audiences. And then next to it, what kind of questions do we as critical audiences really should be asking on an everyday basis.

Just before lunch I was attending the panel on copyright here. While I really feel of these people asking the critical questions and demanding more freedom with regard to remix practice which is part of the critical literacy and critical Internet skills, while I sense there is kind of the feel for empathy towards their journalism, that kind of media industry, yes, we need to have more freedom, but what happens to the media industry then? Just yesterday I trained journalists in the university and their company name Delfi is now widely known in Europe and the rest of the world. We read the court says Delfi versus Estonia. I can introduce a little bit of information I heard yesterday: Why are all graduates from the university finding really easy to go and work for Delfi in Estonia? It is because Delfi can only afford journalists paying minimum pay. They are struggling financially.

The next sort of what we can infer from this when we start thinking about the fake news and all that, this is part of the formula. They don't do well. There is very little in the small market of Estonia when it comes to media industry, there is no power of producing truthful content as much as maybe should be the case.

Therefore, putting the two things together, copyright, content industry struggling, et cetera, the literacy issue emerges as a kind of common ground, something they can build their alliances around. Because just a few minutes ago, literacy is something we can all understand which is uncontroversial when it comes to this is how we improve things. Therefore, we can bring both of the parties on board here.

Why are we all here? We have been also working on the Council of Europe recommendation when it comes to big data for culture and Internet literacy. Very interesting point for me in there is what we have defined as the right to be inscrutable, which is a big thing. To give to all of the Internet users the right to really sort of step out of the gate saying we don't want that algorithm designing our media, something that Kimmo already mentioned. It is almost a binary choice, yes or no. In some sense it is so principled, so important. If you make all of the Internet users to think about this one single step, I think this is a big educational threshold to start to understand each one of us, what is media doing to us, how are they designing media menus and maybe also why are they doing this.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, thank you. I mean, there are other colleagues on the panel who can come into the discussion, of course, feel free.

I'm still standing here and walking among you to know whether you have any comments.

Can I ask you, do you think it's urgent? Is there a sense of urgency regarding how you behave online or how others behave online? Are you worried about, is it undisputed that there is no problem? Is there any problems with literacy or education? Do you feel that it's okay? Are you bothered? Or is there a sense of urgency in your countries, in your stakeholder groups, family and friends? Is it okay?

I ask to the panelists too, but do you want to come in on this? I would like you to put your hand up or take the mic. Don't be shy.

You are here because literacy is important. I'm looking at my colleagues who deal with literacy regarding no hate, no hate speech. There is no pressure, but also other people too. You know, informing the public about no hate speech is very important. Very briefly.

>> It is worth adding to the discussion or reflect also on this. In the opening statement it was already brought out that Internet literacy, to take media out is a good point. In terms of literacy, it is much broader than just the safety of children online or to understand how to express ourselves. I work for the campaign, our coordinated campaign against hate speech. For us it has become very clear that we need to educate and raise awareness about your behavior online and the way you express. But this comes with values. And values related to, okay, what does it mean to do human rights or do democracy in the online space? For us this paradigm is very clear. It is not only about the technical skills but very much on the choices that you make on using them or not. I mean, the social value of not using it.

This is one point. I'm very happy that the Internet literacy is now seen as a much broader aspect which covers many aspects. That's good.

My question here is, can we in the educational approach we use, can we explore ways of creating safe places for practice. Many youth that I work with say that lots of the kids learn by doing. And that's fine if it's in a classroom or in the school setting, et cetera. But learning by doing on the Internet is often not an isolated safe space. So this year maybe we should create spaces for learning by doing, which is a very important way of doing. Nonformal or informal learning. Maybe we can explore this. How can we create areas where people can go trial-and error without having long-term consequen-es or being exposed? Because kids need sometimes to have a bit of feedback from their peers and all these things are going on that can be very harsh. If this can be created in a safe environment, that would be good. Maybe we can explore that.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Manogue. We have ten minutes or so on this block, but it's funny how we go to the obvious choices, fake news. To me it's about the Internet of Things, about big data, the collection of your data, whether it's personal data or data which is not attributed to you as a data subject but which can be reidentified about you later on and then used to profile you, for example.

That is becoming more and more important. Devices in your home will be collecting more and more information about you, what you eat, how these devices interact with you and maybe with other people. There are already televisions out there that scan your eyes as you look across the screen. Some already listen to the conversations. These are devices in your home. The right to private family life, the right to be left alone, the right to be private, think and form thoughts in your own home, do we understand the ability to make choices to turn it off? I would like to come to you, panelists, do you have comments on what is critical and do you agree with me or do you want to answer the question of Manogue in this regard? Anybody?

Siobhan, please? Siobhan Montgomery from the Council of Europe.

>> SIOBHAN MONTGOMERY: I think it's important for us to talk about human rights, human rights, but people have to know what is meant by human rights. It should become second nature. Children, adults, older people. Everyone should really understand what having a human rights perspective actually means, equality, respect for diversity, et cetera.

I feel that we've created -- when I was a kid I used to watch Batman and Robin a lot. There was always a baddie and the baddies always wanted to control the world. Ironically or scarily we have created a world with Internet in which some people are trying to control the world, as we have seen recently with the elections in the U.K., the referendum and the Trump elections.

I think it's really important for the private sector to act along with the public sector. For the public sector to understand their concerns and for them to understand our concerns. And I think this is really the way forward. The public must work hand in hand with the private. I work on the digital platform on the impact of digitization on culture. I must say we have problems trying to contact the private sector. We found it very, very difficult getting in contact with Google. I wonder how many people from the private sector today are here in this room. I think there needs to be more connection, more communication between the public and the private.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Siobhan. Do you want to come in?

>> I want to insert learning by doing, there is a trend in libraries now that the new model of libraries developing with the people. There is a co-development of what other services and what people expect. And actually when you look back into the Netherlands a few years ago where there had been a project, a library for the children called library of the 100 talents. And before the new library building was started they asked the children what do you want in this library and how do you see the services? They basically asked for the library to be a safe space and also a space where you can play and learn by doing. If we can bring this also into the Internet, it's already happening in some of the new libraries, we can have, provide actually new type of content and new kind of awareness for the children, the grown ups and the elderly about what they are doing, what they can do online.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much.

>> CRISTINA MONTI: I would like to give two comments first, what is critical. I have some data from Efco, the regulator in the U.K. They have been doing studies on media habits. For me one of the best research in Europe. So they came with the result that one out of four European people see that when they do Google research, what they get is accurate and has been verified. So it is one out of four. So this is data which is really, really hard. And the second, they did another test about ability of people to recognize advertising on a Google search. This little box AD, 40 percent of the people are not able to recognize us on a search engine. They think that this AD is the best result or best recommendation. So this is hard data. And we are all of us confident users of the Internet, but we are not savvy users. It is not just for children, but for all generations of people. This is very critical and very urgent. There was also the point about the involvement of the private sector. We have, in November last year, a fundamental rights and Google and Facebook were there, and the European Commission committed itself to continue a dialogue on media literacy with digital intermediaries such as Twitter, Facebook and Google. They will provide citizens with knowledge and understanding of the functioning of social media because they provide the services. They make big benefits and have big responsibilities and they are big players with big capacity to have impact. So far we think Facebook is putting in place media literacy project. I don't know if there's anybody from Facebook here that could elaborate. There are people from Google also that could explain. Because the point you made is very, very important. They are also part of this solution. They can escalate these solutions. Thank you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Before coming to France, it was said this morning that one in two Europeans, a recent study, I think, limited their Internet activity because they were fearful of issues of privacy or security. They were not confident to properly use the Internet. So there is fear there on the other side. I don't know how much confidence is there. I put that there. Also I know Roberto, the Director General of DigiConnect. We talk about human-centric Internet for the future. That must mean education, learning, learning.

Pascale, please?

>> PASCALE SERRIER: I wanted to address data protection services, I'm talking on behalf of the French and the international protection authorities, we have experienced some new approach which is not so far from learning by doing. We have launched a competition, a nationwide competition aimed to very young people, but often for candidates of students from 18 to 25. And we asked these students to learn and to provide content, best practices to the younger generation, how to be safe on the net. And this is a, we have developed this issue initiative with actors in digital education. We find it is much better than developing individually new contents on behalf of regulatory authorities. Sometimes it can be credible, but in situation on the spot we think that generation, intergenerational dialogue by the peers is not so far from learning by doing. We think that educators are also very relevant for playing in helping developing in this direction education and literacy.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. I'm still, I still have a microphone in my hand and still looking at you. I would like you to come into the conversation.

We have the last five, ten minutes on this block on what is critical. I would like you to think about, and maybe come up to the microphone and talk. Stephen from IFLA.

>> STEPHEN WYBER: A couple of points. The key one I think is about choice, knowing what decisions you're taking. It is a perfectly legitimate choice to give away your data for free service as long as you know what you are doing. It is explaining what you are doing that is key. The points you made about Bavarians, people who can come use the library as a platform is really useful. We have seen broadly that the little cookies box on websites in the EU, there's talk about getting rid of it after a short period of time, that's one way of trying to do it. Experimenting with how do you get people to understand what the risks are and how it could change and work properly, that's important. That requires people who know their communities. Queue the plug for libraries.

>> LEE HIBBARD: What would you like to say for this on this, from IFLA?

>> I would like to see things further. We talk about Internet literacy, but the same question for the citizen is the same question about literacy, it's about on the grounds literacy. If you take the seat of the ordinary citizen, there is much to learn now. What is common to all these systems is the complexity. We all belong to a global society. We need to learn the complexity of the society, but not only for the Internet. It is not the same for all the big challenges that we all face together. And so the question is, are we going to add demands to the citizen to learn Internet and to learn the on the grounds and the climate? They are going to do that during their nights and days. It's an endless system. What can we do in the system so that people understand the complexity and understand the role as citizens in a complex system?

So there are some probably some possibilities. One of my friends was a founder of the institute of desirable future in France. He says that as to all the citizens of the planet when they go to primary school they have histories of future. We should give lessons of future for everyone. In the curriculum if we teach the people how to learn and get ready for the future we will create a mindset where the people understand the complexity of the society and when they are in a position to take the right decision.

I will stop by adding one comment. It is about the climate. Much has been done to share the issue of climate with the 7 billion people living on the planet. We know that one thing does not work is to frighten the people. When you frighten the people you close them and stop their capacity to act. What works is, to give them a positive message. Yes, this is a problem and yes, we can solve the problem. If you see the next movie owe Al Gore on climate, it is about that. The problem is huge and we can solve it. For the Internet it is the same. If we do like the U.K. Prime Minister yet, threatening the people by saying we need to close to the Internet because it's due to the Internet -- I shorten the message, it was probably not exactly that. We will not promote a positive reaction. If you want them to trust the system, we need to employ them and show them that yes, we can solve the problem.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. Rachel, we will come to you shortly so we can build that in. It's quite clear that, I understand, Divina, that we link literacy to negative things. It is problems that we react, but it is causes, positive things too. It is not negative literacy problems that we should be left with. Any comments before we finish this block and carry on? Anyone want to come up? No? You're looking at me.

>> I want to make a comment because you talked about literacy. Internet and media literacy challenges traditional literacy. That is one of the reasons it finds a very hard time entering the mind set of curricula decided in the 19th century. There is a lot of resistance to media literacy. Everybody says it's obvious. I wish it were. It is not in the traditional educational system. Learning by doing strategies are extremely resilient -- resisted by what I call learning by affiliation. You learn by rote what you have been taught and what teachers have been taught themselves which is still very much the model.

Yes, we need media literacy and it is not obvious to put it in place in the traditional system. And that is a real open question, real tension there.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. Thank you. So I take it in this room we are all literate, all critical. We click on the Internet and we know exactly what we are doing, where we are going, we know the conditions of service, what they mean and how they should be interpreted in a legal context and what choices to make. I'm pleased about that in this firm.

Sorry, I'm being a bit silly.

Right, the second block. We have a block on best practice, good practices, what works. Divina mentioned the media literacy or the Internet literacy landscape is very sort of messy. There's lots of initiatives. There is evidence-based work out there that gives statistics. There are other things too. Talk about an observatory on literacy, collecting what we have and making sense of it.

I would like to hear some good examples. We have Rachel Pollack Ichou from UNESCO. You have nice things to say about their work and we have Pascale Serrier with CNIL and we have Corina Calgaru from Moldova dealing with Internet issues with the other governments of the Member States. Rachel, please.

>> RACHEL POLLACK ICHOU: Yes. Thank you. I have five points to make which I'll squeeze into three to five minutes. Stop me if you can. Building on the first block, defining critical literacies. Moldova, Divina is our Co-chair, that's the full title, but basically our message is not to get too hung up on the terminology. Often people are talking about digital literacy, Internet literacy, media literacy, referring more or less to the same things. We should focus on the competencies. So here I think is really it's about critical thinking. Our theme for this year is World Press Freedom Day: Critical Minds for Critical Times. We can see media and information literacy is an answer to many of the problems we are facing today. Of course, we mentioned fake news and radicalization.

But to empower individuals of all ages with a critical thinking skills and values of global citizenship to build more peaceful societies.

First not to focus on not terminologies but technologies.

We need a multistakeholder approach. There are fragmented landscapes and it's clear that not any one actor alone can find a solution. We have to bring together different Ministries of Education, Culture, Civil Society groups, researchers. And there I think we can take a model from the Internet governance world and apply it to media and information literacy.

Next, to look for innovative practices. So at UNESCO we have developed a series of MOOCs, Massive Open Online Courses on media and information literacies. We also have a new programme called MIL Clicks which is about social media. And the idea is to make learning these literacies fun and interactive, to build it into the social media platforms themselves through games and other activities.

We have an idea of MIL expansion. That's introducing opportunities for media and information literacy in the built environment. For example at a bus stop while you are waiting for the bus to arrive to have some kind of engaging content.

Finally, to look at partnerships. So at UNESCO we have initiated the gap mill which is the global alliance for partnerships and media and information literacy. I know there are more than 80 members. Maybe Divina can tell the exact number. We encourage all of you to join this movement and to share good practices and find joint solutions.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Rachel, who are you targeting with these activities? Who is the public? Everybody? Or is it particular groups of the public?

>> RACHEL POLLACK ICHOU: No, this is really -- sorry, MIL, Media and Information Literacy is not only for children. It certainly should be part of formal education systems. Then, for example, developing curricula for Ministries of Education and policymakers. But we believe that this is a life long process of learning and it doesn't stop. At UNESCO we have universal reach. So the citizens of the world are the target audience. To go through that ultimate end user, we work with key partners. So again Ministries, Civil Society organisations, researchers, but these are competencies and skills that everyone needs.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Pascale, are French people literate on the Internet? Are French people literate on the Internet?

>> PASCALE SERRIER: Yes.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Tell us more.

>> PASCALE SERRIER: Thank you. You know, maybe you might be surprised to see the protection authorities here taking part with such workshop because we are known as regulatory authorities and enforcement authorities. But we have one of our mission is also to provide advice, advice quite early in the development of proceedings. And that is why we have strong idea a few years ago to a new approach which could be shared as a multistakeholder approach because we can not do everything only by our own and not only with data protection regulation. We know this is a necessary framework, the new GDPA will get into application in one year. But we have to also provide advice and some contents to schools, to Ministries of Education, to nonformal educators as well. That's why we have to illustrate this approach. We have created three years ago a multistakeholder approach called a collective for digital education, grouping actors -- now there are some 60 actors from the world of education, the world of research, from Civil Society, from also foundations and we provide the same message. We are trying to use individual networks to share the same content and also the same message to the public. And we have considered young people where one of the priority public to train.

The second target we have included in our initiative, in our actions are the Ministry of Education. Here I am talking about formal education. For instance, I know many of our counterparts in the world, not only in Europe, have also concluded agreement of different kind of partnerships with Ministries of Education. Here we typically develop some training for teachers because we consider it is obvious that there is a lack of training of teachers in privacy skills and digital skills at large. That's why we provide some training to trainers as well. We have also developed some content for the official, how to say, database and the official libraries they may provide to the teachers.

We have developed some new con settlement which is a form of competitive framework on privacy and data protection issues. These did not exist yet. There are so many competency framework in so many matters. Here we have developed the main key competencies and skills which need to be encompassed by the young people and by teachers as well because this is also intended to teachers. These are a few examples of the contribution made by data protection communities at large in the processing of developing competencies to young people, to children, and also to their staff.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Pascale. Before passing the mic to Corina, can I ask you, we talked about, we are all here because it's multistakeholder, we know that the governance of the Internet is multistakeholder, it's not just the government or one group, it's a shared approach.

In your work in France, for example, you are working with educators in a target groups with education, Ministries, et cetera. Are there any -- I mean, is it multistakeholder? Do you invite companies into that discussion? Other stakeholders from the technical communities? Is it only CNIL and one or two professionals, individuals, students, or is it more broad?

What I'm trying to say, you are on safe ground with that education approach. But we talked about companies earlier and they are not in the room. Are they in the room in CNIL and the work you do?

>> PASCALE SERRIER: Not the companies, but the foundations of some companies have joined our group. For example, three foundations has recently joined our group, but industry is only one part of the stakeholders because it is important for us to have also Civil Society, parents, representation. And such stakeholders who also interact directly with children, with pupils as well. There are some companies, but only nonprofit making companies. And they are foundations, they are welcome if they have some training programmes to develop on digital education with us, yes.

>> LEE HIBBARD: I'll pass the mic to Corina, but to end by saying if we are all using Facebook on Google, whichever platform, they should be in the room when we discuss these things. They are offering you services, giving you choices which we should discuss. We all have a responsibility. That's something to think about in terms of including those people. If we use their services we should talk with them and they should be in that discussion, I think.

Corina, from a political perspective, knowing how governments work in Strasbourg in the Council of Europe, knowing there are many media literacy initiatives happening in different parts of the work, is it a political priority? How do you see the viewpoint of Moldova, too? What is your political take on this area of work?

>. CORINA CALUGARU: Hello, everybody. In fact, I think when we are talking about the Internet we need to take into consideration a few elements. In particular, a few years ago everybody was talking about the access to the Internet. Even my one country is one of the top ten countries of the fastest access to the Internet, even in the public spaces, including in the parks. So when we were promoting access to the Internet just now we came to the moment talking about how to use the Internet. So in this field we had quite very active Civil Society that created the platform, online platform for the parents and children named saferInternet.md. We had discussions with the Council of Europe and cooperation, for Eastern partnership countries on digital agenda. It was promoted through videos and booklets, how to use it.

And at the same time we are used to talk about how we can use the Internet in the framework of the development of the country or the region. So it is really very complex and we don't need just the governments, just the private, but as well the Civil Society, but at the same time a regional and international partners. So it is very, very complex because we are seeing that every organisation has a lot of tools, but we have arrived at the moment when we are talking more and more about coordination. So I think the recent aspect towards propaganda, fake news, political movements, we have the approach at the moment of coordinating between us at the national, regional and international level and to see how we can put all the tools that we have to be more efficient because we have everything, apparently, but it is just the communication and how to put this to work.

So I think even with all the developments of at the experts level, it is really important how we are communicating at the experts level in order to attract more and more the high level in order to support all the aspects.

It's true, nowadays digital education and in general. Twenty years ago it was in a bog, the topic was human rights education. Right now we are talking about Internet education. I'm asking myself, the Minister of Education from everywhere in this world are a little bit stressed because they understand that they need to modify the curricula.

My question is a little bit more practical: Should we change the entire curricula or we can introduce in fact the elements from the digital literacy on the vertical education? It is true we need to take into account the new generation, the children, but we need to take into account the entire societies with adults, with elderly that are used to use the Internet but they want to be safe and here as well we were talking about American-based companies, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter. But we need to take into account other Internet companies that should be invited as well at our more internal discussions the thank you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. The appointment of access is a good one. I know that we talk about Internet governance, pushing the billions online, push them online without any sort of Internet literacy with regard to access. Are those billions actually ready to navigate and make the choices we are talking about. It is ironic.

>> CORINA CALUGARU: We are talking at the Council of Europe, how we can do this. It is interesting, are we developed, skilled enough to vote electronically? It is step-by-step we want to indigenous lies our existence. Going towards digitalization, we need these definite skills.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Going further, maybe I'll throw it out there, for every policy in the future that involves the Internet there should be a de facto, what is education literacy for that policy, otherwise how do you implement it correctly.

As it regards curricula, look no further than Finland, your colleague next to you. Kimmo, the dialogue was changed to address that.

We have Marie Marcel from the Diplo Foundation and then we'll come to Steven.

>> Maybe the part is the first -- I'm going to mess this up a little bit, but the point is related to the fact that I think that fake news had a very detrimental effect on the fact that we were almost getting to the point in which we were having a serious discussion about algorithms, which I think is a very important problem related to literacy, related to transparency, related to governance which I think is even more fundamental because fake news, somehow they are out there and they can be confronted. Whereas when something gets filtered by filter bubbles and algorithms it doesn't exist in the world. You cannot even confront or question it. So the fact that in EuroDIG, for instance, last EuroDIG we had a very interesting session on algorithm and it received much more attention than this particular meeting. Fake news is important but we should not be distracted from the fact that real news can be pushed down and won't exist in the world. It is serious and it is related to the fact of how platforms see themselves.

We had a very interesting in meeting with Facebook. It was the week in which we were having elections and the week in which they were you can canning the experiment to see how news would affect the mood of people. They were somehow tweaking the algorithm to see how that would affect the mood of people. It was our week of election. For us it was one plus one equals two. You can have an effect here, guys.

What they said we are just a platform. We do not have to do with elections or anything. We are just providing you a service. We want you to feel good when you go into the platform. We want you to see things that bring you pleasure, that make you happy, that reinforce the positive mood of your day. And if you don't like that we are doing that, you can step out and go somewhere else.

But the whole notion that you will stay there because you are feeling good and seeing nice things just shows that the system is built for you to be locked in. The way that they see them sells as just providing a service and not having anything to do with media or content or anything, I think this is really serious and needs to be discussed with them. They have promoted so many interesting campaigns on birthdays, for instance. This is very environmental in Brazil. Everyone who has a birthday, Facebook has created videos with birthdays, to celebrate your anniversaries with your family and friends. Why don't they create this for fake news? How they don't give prominence to programmes developed by UNESCO. Google does the same. This collaboration, platforms can do a lot to give information that is educational and has public value too.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. The point of emotions and triggering emotions online with words and psychometric profiling is something, I don't know if literacy can affect those things that affects something inside of you. We have Stephen and remote participation and we will close and go to the last block, the way forward. Stephen, please.

>> STEPHEN WYBER: Quickly here. I think it's true of the last answer, you have seen some movement from the Internet companies to react. Maybe it's completely insufficient, but I noted at least there is a political need to do it. Actually looking at how effective what they are doing is interesting. They have clever people in there. They are not necessarily, seeing what they do, learning about it, being honest about ourselves, is this profit driven or not, that is where the literacy effort is going to come in.

The point I was going to make, the point you made about people coming online for the first time and using that opportunity, hard wiring literacy into access, library stats, 7 million people a year in Europe go online for the first time in the library. Fantastic opportunity to teach literacy, when you are building your fiber connections out to the villages, probably more of an issue in the developing world but it happens in Europe as well. Again it's an opportunity to give literacy and hard wire things in. At the same time slightly caution against the idea that we shouldn't be giving people access until they are educated. We used that argument about democracy in the 19th century and that's out of fashion now. I think the learning by doing approach is the best way. We shouldn't necessarily hold ourselves back.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much, good point.

Remote participation, who is online? Of course, the room as well if you have comments, please.

>> Can you hear me?

Now it is. Well, we have a question from Zakis, an ICANN Fellow. And the question is: The significance of Internet literacy based from region to region. For example, in Africa where too many are not connected to the Internet, Internet literacy will mainly be around to the how to use Internet, how to go online, how to send email, et cetera. But the more advanced societies where the Internet penetration level is comparatively very high, Internet literacy will mainly mean how to be secure on the Internet, how to consider privacy when online, et cetera, et cetera. How do you as expert in critical literacy look into this dimension? This is the question.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay, thank you very much. I don't know whether anybody of the panel wants to come into that. Time to digest it or whether you want it repeated for that matter.

Do you want to -- did you get that? Did you get the point that was made? Could you repeat it please?

>> Sure, again, the significance of Internet literacy varies from region to region. For example, in Africa where too many are not connected to the Internet, Internet literacy will mainly be around the how to use Internet, how to go online, how to send an email, et cetera. But in more advanced societies where the Internet penetration level is comparatively very high, Internet literacy will mainly mean how to be secure on the Internet, how to consider privacy when online, et cetera, et cetera.

How do you as experts in critical Internet literacy look into this dimension?

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay, thank you. The panel, please. I think it depends whether you come from a developing country or developed country or whether there's low level of access or high level of access of penetration.

Does literacy change shape and form? Does it become deeper with more access? And more use of the Internet? Anybody want to respond? Corina, Pascale and Rachel, please.

>> CORINA CALUGARU: In fact, for Europe, but worldwide, first of all, we are talking about access to the Internet. So of course, there are particular aspects how we need to have this access to the Internet. And step-by-step we are talking already about how to use the Internet. So there are two different perspectives, a little bit different. I think through the different programmes there are particular steps how to approach at the national level.

Definitely it is about national, regional, international level, the differences. What we are doing in some countries and what we are doing in the different countries because there are different level of access to the Internet. And definitely in the towns, countries where there is no yet access, you need to give the knowledge, elementary knowledge how to use the Internet. Where you have free access in the public space, for example, of course you need to talk about the rules how to keep operations safer, something like that.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Pascale, please?

>> PASCALE SERRIER: Maybe if it can help to answer this question, for instance, data protection authorities have created an international working group to promote and to share experience. And in this international working group there are some 50 authorities. And there are some more advanced in new methodology and others less advanced. We have a mixture of experience between Africa who learn from each other, or some who are interested in that. We have Burkina Faso, groups in Senegal. We have the Madii groups who are interested in joining us asking questions. For instance, our colleagues from Canada, from France, from Spain, we share our own content resources, tutorials, videos, ready to use kits. It is at the disposal of others.

We have created a website, common online website library, thanks to the European Commission. It is open to all data protection for the moment worldwide. In this library, online library, the platform, we applaud videos, comics, all these kinds of material resources that contribute to help each other according to the level of development you are in your country.

For instance, we also in France think some proposals from Canada might be interesting to our future as well. So this is a sharing of database and this is for us a good way to help according to the level of development of pedagogy in Developing Countries.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Rachel?

>> RACHEL POLLACK ICHOU: I wanted to say that I think the premise of the question is that in parts of the global south it's less potential for advanced ... just to point out, I think there are digital divides on many different levels. So just the access, to physical infrastructure is one kind but social economic digital divides or the way people use the Internet once they have access, for career development or just for Facebook?

That can also exist in Europe, these sorts of divides. And I'm also thinking that in many Developing Countries zero rating has become quite widespread. When people are first accessing the Internet it may be to Facebook and what's app or Wikipedia and the type of experience and the way they learn about critical Internet literacy. That's even more reason to work with these big platforms. I know that Google and I believe also Facebook has worked now, is developing some kind of media and information literacy programme. They sought the expertise of various bodies. It is important that we ensure that they, in these programmes, they convey the values of critical Internet and media and information literacy and not to sort of skew the information in a way that presents their company in a very positive way to the detriment of the individual user.

Also just one last thing. It is important to adapt content to local context. Of course, translate into different languages, multilingualism.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Yeah. Thank you, thank you. Yes, please, Kimmo, please. We are on to the last segment now almost.

>> KIMMO AULAKE: Just briefly. To me this literacy that we are talking about is a vast concept. I see it as a crucial, critical part for being able to exercise one's citizenship effectively. So it has nothing or very little to do with Internet as a technical infrastructure. So perhaps what we are talking about is not critical Internet literacy because what we are referring to is the content and services that are available through the Internet. So maybe it is actually critical literacy relating to something else than Internet.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay, thank you very much. I would like to say we are coming to the last segment, looking forward, but I would say, I'm looking at Indrek in the sense that listening to sim consult yesterday in the keynote speech and how Estonia is so advanced with respect to so many people online, that supposes that Estonia people, the education literacy must be quite powerful -- I'm smiling -- to really embrace all of those new services. I guess some services are not offline, they are only online. Do you have anything to say on that before we go to looking forward?

>> INDREK IBRUS: Yes, there is a lot of mystery going on there. Actually, the fact, the service demonstrated that Estonians are not that literate and so are the parents. There's this technical skill of learning eGovernance services, which is good. When it comes to filtering out with good, useful understanding how the services work, what is good for them, et cetera, there is a long way to go. This is an interesting discrepancy.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Thank you very much.

The mic is still there for you guys in the room. Please come up. You have a comment, please? Yes?

>> This is Esmeralda Moscatelli from IFLA. I had a thought, a comment. How, whatever we talk about literacy, we have to think about some sort of double movement, somehow synchronic and diachronic at the same time. If we look at the horizontal diachronic one, we have to think about the importance of listening, also exploring and building consensus to create capacity and to eventually to change because within this realm of communication we have to be also aware that communication is not only about what we do daily, which is raising awareness and persuading and informing, but it is also ultimately about change. I see this as a double movement that we can daily fight our battle for informing people. But then we have to be able to also listen and build capacity to ultimately achieve change.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. That's a very good point. Change is very important. We are all in change all the time.

We are down on the last segment. We have 20 minutes left of which I would like to leave five minutes for the rapporteur to wrap up.

We have Stephen to give a little bit of a look and then Yves Matthieu and Cristina Monti and Siobhan Montgomery from private sector. You have two to three minutes?

>> STEPHEN WYBER: Three points I want to make from the library perspective. The first, we are talking about digital things but the physical place is important. The place where you can bring in the relevant experts. The private sector resources all the time, there can be bias built within that. Private resources, fine but in context. Public oriented space, focus on improving people's lives and making the change happen as Esmeralda mentioned.

Second thing is the skill side. I think I totally get Rachel's point. We want to avoid creating literacy, where we spend half the time talking about what the late race and these things means. Focusing on outcomes, convincing the people who teach history and teach people about how you evaluate sources in history, convincing the people who teach literacy, it has been as long as the Internet. Training up the schoolteachers, youth workers, librarians, anyone who has access. The will final point, getting our own houses in order, making sure that our own websites are good practice, making sure that we can make sure when you come on to our website you are not being tracked necessarily. You are secure. Your data is not leaked all over the place. Going that example is a good way forward, to be honest.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Yves Matthieu, tell us the way forward for Missions Publiques.

>> YVES MATTHIEU: The way I would like to propose to you, live like we were in 2017. The way things are organised today is a bit like they were in 1780 in the beginning of the modern democracy. When we go from vote on paper to electronic vote, we keep the system of 1780. We don't change the system. But the citizens live in 2017, 2018. It is important that we all together increase our democratic literacy because this is the stake. The stake is not to consider that we are the expert and we need to train the citizens who are not experts. We need to include the nonexpert in the decision making process because the nonexpert has an expertise and if we do not mobilize the expertise of the nonexpert we will miss something and we will continue to work in the former paradigm. If we continue in 1780 it is not going to be possible. Things are going to go backward, not forward. To go forward we need to think forward.

So my proposition is to, as I said, to include the nonexpert in the field of decisions and to do that, so concretely, my proposal is to organise the global citizen debate on the future of the Internet and give the keys to the future of the Internet to the nonexperts and trust less, the citizens and include in the Internet Governance Forum and all the places where the future of the Internet is being discussed as it is a common good, to include the vision of the nonexpert to the future of the Internet.

And doing that, we are going to work on -- we will increase our democratic literacy because the experts will understand the value of what the nonexpert has to say and the nonexpert will understand that it is not enough to act as consumers of the decision of the governments or the decision of the Forum that decide how to shape the common good. And anybody is today part of the system. And it is important to give a strong signal that we need to go from a position of consumers and complainers to a position of core actors. This is my proposition for the way forward.

>> LEE HIBBARD: You made me think when we talk about democratic literacy, we should have a literacy test before we vote in elections. Maybe that would have changed recent results, I don't know. Cristina Monti from the European Commission?

>> CRISTINA MONTI: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm happy to share on perspectives on this issue. I gather there is a huge need for skills, but at the same time there are different needs. So people in general need to get ready for the future. But different people have different needs in different parts of the world. That is why we also have such a variety of initiatives happening at many different levels.

Today we heard a lot about the problems of fake news and these kind of issues. How can we help develop critical thinking? And indeed on this specific aspect we think that the most vulnerable groups are young people, but there is a need also to expand these skills. Just I was reading an Article where we are saying that teenagers are very good at learning how to take the perfect selfie. But then what do they do with that? This kind of thinking that needs to be, and awareness that needs to be developed. Parents are important and other stakeholders are important as well.

I can assure you that there are a lot of initiatives and projects that, for instance, the European Commission is supporting or financing. I have here a whole list which I will not go through, but this is for sure an interesting area.

I would like to mention another macro area where I think it is important to develop the appropriate skills, which is in the labor markets. We still don't know what skills will be required for the future. And this is a challenge.

How can you educate people for jobs that still do not exist? And already now I just would like to mention some figures. 37 percent of the labor force lacks basic digital skills and around 40 percent of enterprises looking to fill ICT specialist jobs say that they have difficulty in finding the right people.

So also a lot of attention is now going to this area.

Another macro area as I tend to call this, is cybersecurity. So what skills do users need to protect themselves? Here there is an important role also for knelt sends. They need to be aware that they need to do simple things like changing their passwords and so on. This is what is called sometimes as digital hygiene. So also there is a lot of work to do.

Another area could be also developing skills to better participate in Internet governance discussions. There is a project that I'm always talking about which is the global Internet policy observatory, another tool.

What I would say is that there are many initiatives. This is something that we should welcome. Of course, I agree that more coordination would be helpful, but at the same time I don't see this as a big problem in the sense that there is a variety of needs that need to be taken care of. So the more initiatives, the better. So we can reach more and more people. At the same time if we realize that we are just at the beginning of the digital revolution which has an impact on the economy, and society, it is only normal that educational systems will need to adapt. This will require some time.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, excellent. Those resources, I hope if they are not already along with other resources, mappings and initiatives are on this wiki page that we have for this workshop. Maybe we can add them if they are not already there. It would provide you with reference if you haven't already done so. Before we come to Siobhan for your final remarks, it is quite rather messy. When you look the way products are successful regarding whether it be phones or whatever, often the ones which are most successful are the most simple. I wonder if there's correlation with the messiness and the effectiveness of what we want to achieve. If we make it simple it can be different inside, if it's simple maybe it's more effective. How you make it simple, I don't know.

Siobhan, some final words before we wrap up with Divina?

>> SIOBHAN MONTGOMERY: I just want to talk about our platform exchange for digitalization and culture. This was set up in 2014 to look at the impact of digitalization on culture. We believe it culture has an impact on digital ecosystem, lessening the digital gap. We have identified that the digital gap is not just about people not having access to digital equipment. It's also about people who have access to digital equipment and don't want to use it or are unable to use it.

We have had, as I say, the critical Internet literacy has been an underlying theme and indeed this was incorporated into our recommendation 2016 to Member States. You may have seen it, actually. I see that all the copies went on the Internet of citizens. And this encourages cultural institutions or governments to encourage cultural institutions to get involved in digital literacy, such as organizing online courses, and using innovative cultural digital programmes.

We found there was a need to encourage cultural institutions in this area. Some had started digital archiving programmes but there was a need to encourage cultural institutions to be more inventive. That's where our second platform took us, look willing at innovative cultural perhaps.

Our third platform which was held again in Tallinn with Indrek looked at the opportunities and challenges of cultural big data. From this we drafted a new recommendation, the policy guidelines for Member States, Council of Europe and this looks at how we can encourage our citizens to understand what algorithms are about, what cultural big data is about and how they can manage this cultural big data. We will soon be holding our fourth platform, which will focus on digital cultural tools for counsel at the acting fake news and undemocratic ideologies, as well as the power of cross-disciplinary networks and how they can be used in this context.

And that will be held in Kosovo.

It is important that the public and private sector work together, Civil Society too. Our platform enables this opportunity. So the way ahead is for our platform to continue and, like EuroDIG, to be a way where we can discuss the most recent challenges and opportunities for cultural institutions in the digital field.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much, Siobhan. Thank you to all the panelists. It's really a very good cross-section of views and different initiatives. By looking at you, we have libraries, data protection, universities, international organisations, we have governments, education specialists. We have those looking to the future with consultations, global consultations. Already there is a vast array of different sector views there which have to be brought together. It is very complicated, isn't it?

Divina, we are down to our last five to seven minutes. It's a tough one. Can you wrap it up? Can you tell us what we need to do before we leave? In seven minutes time before the next session?

>> DIVINA FRAU-MEIGS: Actually, a lot of things came up. It will be very difficult. Sorry if I botch your job and I hope you get all the your perspectives not represented. I'm going to try to do that.

Funny, because I said how am I going to organise all these things and not lose anything. You have to look for that online when we have a full report.

But it turns out that the way I understand media literacy as a pedagogy as a right and as a project fits in everything that you said. I'm going to do it that way. Media literacy, pedagogy, you've all said that. You've all insisted on competencies, on outcomes, on attitudes, hygiene you said. So this idea that we are dealing with something that is very malleable and maybe media literacy is not the right word anymore, but who cares? We are all knowing what we are talking about when we talk about it and it is talking about 21st century skills.

Definitely I sensed a feeling that we have to move away from even the 18th century, as Yves said. We have to transition to a new mind set and for lack of a better word this is the one we have, critical Internet literacy, critical literacies in general. But what came out, it's around information, deep at heart. And how it is used and how information is power. And how information can be manipulated or can be empowering. So as long as we concentrate on cultural information, I think we have something very concrete toll bring us all together. The idea that information has to be reliable, transparent, open. I think there's a general consensus that this is what we want for us and for our children and that this is maybe the common ground.

So the pedagogy for that, critical, learning by doing, trial and error, the hands-on approach, creative approach. That's what you have all been talking about. The fun and not just fear has come up often. So let's move in that direction. Let's be optimistic about what can be brought along for life long consequences.

Negative point, training. Training, training is lagging behind. Teachers need training, training in data, et cetera. It's important. But training is perceived as being horizontal. We are learning as much from our peers as from our experts. This is an important mind settles to acquire. Maybe less arrogance about who retains knowledge. That's the pedagogy part.

The social, economic right. Boy, did you come up with a new set of rights. This is a very intense moment for rights. Soft rights and that's probably one of the issues of critical literacy is that it's perceived as soft. Yet we all agree that soft actually is quite hard. But so to give a sample, the socioeconomic right to choose, to use or not to use, to be inscrutable, to have transparency, to consume, to safety against hate speech, to privacy, to human rights. This is a whole new set of rights that we need. The general idea again, what is lagging behind may be human rights and how we make them concrete to people, not just abstract.

A political project. It is around values more than technology. Even though technology is recognised as very important, but it is about choosing how to use the technologies.

It is a project that is intergenerational and peers are not necessarily the people your same age but people with the same affinity and mind set. A different way of seeing peers, and the idea that it's a political project about governance. There we have EuroDIG meets IGF meets MIL. We are talking about governance. Multistakeholder, definitely this is taking the school and the classroom out of the recommendations of the concrete buildings. And we have more stakeholder here, libraries, governments, universities. Not the private sector which everybody has noticed being absent though not inactive, but the private sector is doing MIL on its own agenda and initiative and maybe we should bring them around to the closer discussion with us and bring them to realize that they are not just a neutral service. They are not neutral, even if they would like to.

So that's what we get. Very good, lots of good practices. And we have the collective for digital education, gap MIL, et cetera, et cetera. Totally new actors that are helping us hear differently, regulatory authorities that are not being authoritarian, et cetera, et cetera.

It's an interesting world we are in. The solutions, same thing. I'm going to be short. I give a lot of solutions. For pedagogy, learning by doing spaces. They have to be in real life and online. And we need more of them to protect young people.

Modify the curriculum. Ha-ha, that's a tough one. Bridging the gap. And the gaps that are in development and we in the north we have ourselves, just as well. But the recognition that we have differentiated needs, north and south and public, publics that are different. The idea that we have now recommendations, like the one on Internet of citizens, big data. Seeing culture in different way, contributing to culture in different way. Pedagogy could be about that.

The political project, partnerships, again and again and again, including and especially with private sector, the digital intermediaries, where are they? And more coordination about all these actors, coordination. Interministerial, interregulatory, intereducational, whatever, but coordination is key. And it is a challenge. It is a challenge not just for citizenship and schools as citizenship but also as employability. That's something we don't take into account enough in MIL. That's something for us to take away. And the right, it right where we can see the emergence of these platforms that can be spaces for negotiations and for deliberation. Very horizontal. That is a plus. And making people understand complexity and I like what Yves said that we have two emergent transitions, transition to the digital, transition to the climate change, they should converge. We should fight in a very coordinated way to push these issues and give lessons for a desirable future, desirable future that we want.

So this would lead us eventually to something even bigger than MIL called democracy literacy. I think we are all in favor of this. Thank you for your attention.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, thank you, Divina. Okay, we are out of time. I would like to thank you all for coming and staying. You stayed, that's cool. Most of you just sat there. Hopefully you've learned. I learned a lot. I would like to thank you all for coming. This session is closed. Thank you.

(Applause.)


This text is being provided in a realtime format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) or captioning are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.