# data[].attributes.body
This source discusses the ability of AI to mimic the voices and appearances of people to deceive audiences. On social media where misinformation is rampant, it prioritizes user engagement over truth and since misinformation is generally more interesting than true information, it gets more attention from people, which starts a cycle of misinformation. This is helpful in understanding our problem because the sophistication of AI-generated misinformation is so complex that it is hard to detect. It also talks about how a collaboration between government, tech companies, and civil society organizations would be helpful to enforce a standard to hold platforms accountable for the content they host, which could be part of a possible solution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Rise of AI and Its Role in the Spread of Misinformation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI’s rapid advancement enables transformative benefits but also amplifies misinformation, making truth harder to discern in a digital landscape.

# data[].attributes.headline
Final Report from the U.N. Advisory Board on AI & Humanity (Global)

# data[].attributes.subject
Final Report from the U.N. Advisory Board on AI & Humanity (Global)

# data[].attributes.body
1) This “Governing AI for Humanity: Final Report”, formed by the U.N. high-level advisory board on AI, discusses and presents a need for a “global governance framework” to address both opportunities and challenges presented by AI. The report highlights gaps in current AI governance, particularly with coordination (AI governance efforts lacking cohesion), representation (global south in particular is excluded from AI governance and initiatives), and implementation (commitments often fail to translate into actionable outcomes). Seven recommendations are proposed regarding policy dialogue, scientific inquiry, capacity development, and establishing a U.N. AI office.

2)This source is helpful because it helps readers understand what the current risk AI poses: 1) AI is utilized to create disinformation campaigns, 2) AI systems are not easy for the public to understand making it difficult to identify when it is used maliciously, and 3) biased algorithms targeting marginalized groups have the potential to violate human rights. These concerns also help readers to understand the recommendations proposed which include: establishing a scientific panel to assess AI risks + opportunity, creation of a global fund for addressing AI disparities, as well as development of a global AI capacity network which will be necessary for providing skills, infrastructure, and equitable distribution of AI.

# data[].attributes.body
It talks about the accessibility and affordability of AI leading to its widespread use. It allows governments to subtly censor various online platforms. It talks about Venezuela, which spreads pro-government messages from a fake news anchor from a fake English news channel. Freedom House researchers found that 22 countries created laws that required or encouraged online platforms to censor unfavorable speech. It helps show examples of how the problem is used in non-democratic countries, such as in China where chatbots are programmed to not answer questions about Tiananmen Square.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How generative AI is boosting the spread of disinformation and propaganda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a new report, Freedom House documents the ways governments are now using the tech to amplify censorship.

# data[].attributes.body
AI has been used to counter misinformation and AI itself by identifying bot accounts and having an automated fact checker, but it has its limitations. It struggles with sarcasm and culturally specific nuances, as well as overblocking legitimate content. It also discusses the algorithm bias built into the system itself which can do the opposite of what it was supposed to do. This shows how we can develop a solution for our problem and what has been tried to solve it already.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article explores the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in artificial intelligence (AI) in the context of information operations. The article first examines the ways in which AI can be used to counter disinformation online. It then dives into some of the limitations of AI solutions and threats associated with AI techniques, namely user profiling, micro-targeting, and deep fakes. Finally, the paper reviews a number of solutions that could help address the spread of AI-powered disinformation and improve the online environment. The article recognises that in the fight against disinformation, there is no single fix. The next wave of disinformation calls first and foremost for societal resilience.

# data[].attributes.body
This report talks about the fact that no policy or intervention has been universally effective in combating misinformation. Solutions to this problem are dependent on the will of the political emplacement, which in countries where misinformation is a political tactic will not regulate it. This report advocates for solutions like supporting local journalism and fact-checking. This report helps with understanding the problem and possible solutions by talking about the obstacles in the path of combating misinformation, especially in countries that actively use it for political reasons. Possible solutions can be investing in psychological research on factors that make misinformation spread.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace generates strategic ideas and independent analysis, supports diplomacy, and trains the next generation of international scholar-practitioners to help countries and institutions take on the most difficult global problems and advance peace.

# data[].attributes.body
This report talks about the types of AI generators such as generative models that create fake images and videos, automated bots, and algorithms that can create misinformation and give it traction immediately. It talks about the technological imbalance, where we have incredibly complex AI generators of various types, but the technology to detect it within real information has lagged behind, which explains the problem we are having now. A possible solution the report goes over is educating the people on how AI works and how to identify it, which can not only lessen the effect of AI but also generally increase critical thinking skills. It also helps to understand the problems democratic governments have fighting it as opposed to authoritarian governments' heavy use of it to reinforce their own position.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Distrust of Everything: Misinformation and AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New York Times technology reporter Tiffany Hsu joins the podcast to discuss the impact and potential impact that AI has on misinformation, national security, and could have on U.S. elections.

# data[].attributes.headline
Journal Article on a Blockchain Authentication System for Detecting Digital Misinformation (Global, but can be implemented at different scales)

# data[].attributes.subject
Journal Article on a Blockchain Authentication System for Detecting Digital Misinformation (Global, but can be implemented at different scales)

# data[].attributes.body
1) This article by Islam et al. (2024) discusses the threats posed by AI to democracy and global elections. Through the creation of deepfakes and misinformation, AI technology may exacerbate political polarization (prioritizing sensational content and creating “echo chambers”), manipulate public perceptions, and destroy voters’ trust in the political process. A “Blockchain-based Deepfake Authenticity Verification Framework” (B-DAVF) is proposed; it is a technology which uses the blockchain system to authenticate digital content with the goal of utilizing it to improve the integrity of electoral processes (voter targeting & messaging; data analysis). The authors also provide a rather comprehensive countermeasure list which includes educational initiatives (e.g. media literacy programs on recognizing AI-generated content) and technology regulations (e.g. legislation on role of AI in political campaigns; mandating disclosure when AI is used in political advertising, etc.) to mitigate AI risks in political scenarios.

2) This source supplies readers with an understanding of the structure of a Blockchain verification system, currently considered countermeasures, a history of AI misuses, as well as example cases studies depicting the dangers that accompany AI misuse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI Threats to Politics, Elections, and Democracy: A Blockchain-Based Deepfake Authenticity Verification Framework

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The integrity of global elections is increasingly under threat from artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. As AI continues to permeate various aspects of society, its influence on political processes and elections has become a critical area of concern. This is because AI language models are far from neutral or objective; they inherit biases from their training data and the individuals who design and utilize them, which can sway voter decisions and affect global elections and democracy. In this research paper, we explore how AI can directly impact election outcomes through various techniques. These include the use of generative AI for disseminating false political information, favoring certain parties over others, and creating fake narratives, content, images, videos, and voice clones to undermine opposition. We highlight how AI threats can influence voter behavior and election outcomes, focusing on critical areas, including political polarization, deepfakes, disinformation, propaganda, and biased campaigns. In response to these challenges, we propose a Blockchain-based Deepfake Authenticity Verification Framework (B-DAVF) designed to detect and authenticate deepfake content in real time. It leverages the transparency of blockchain technology to reinforce electoral integrity. Finally, we also propose comprehensive countermeasures, including enhanced legislation, technological solutions, and public education initiatives, to mitigate the risks associated with AI in electoral contexts, proactively safeguard democracy, and promote fair elections.

# data[].attributes.headline
Report from a Non-Profit Public Policy Org. on AI & African Democracies (National & Local)

# data[].attributes.subject
Report from a Non-Profit Public Policy Org. on AI & African Democracies (National & Local)

# data[].attributes.body
1)This report explores AI disinformation threats on African democracies during national elections. The report writers point out that there is growing trend of “foreign-sponsored disinformation” and viable countermeasures include increasing AI literacy and distributing greater responsibility to local fact-checking organizations. They call for a collaboration of many stakeholders to build a more resilient democratic framework against AI-generated misinformation. Something concerning the authors mention is that AI-generated misinformation has already contributed to coups in nations such as Nigeria, Gabon, and Burkina Faso.

2) This source is helpful in bringing attention to what specific issues that nations in the global South and underdeveloped countries face in regards to AI misuse. First, media consumers in many African countries often encounter misinformation, not only related to politics, but public health; this has been linked to the HIV/AIDS crisis. Secondly, representation (as the U.N. report mentions) has not advanced on its front given that most AI programs operate in Western languages, easing the spread of false information in African contexts. Lastly, it highlights national and local resources that African citizens must engage with or rely on and certain initiatives - these include sites like AfricaCheck or Dubawa and working to increase local media literacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
[PDF] African Democracy in the Era of Generative Disinformation: Challenges and Countermeasures against AI-Generated Propaganda | Semantic Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An academic search engine that utilizes artificial intelligence methods to provide highly relevant results and novel tools to filter them with ease.

# data[].attributes.body
1) This commentary analyzes the implications of deepfakes in the 2023 Slovak parliamentary elections, particularly the victory of pro-Russian candidate Robert Fico, who many claim was influenced by a deepfake depicting electoral fraud that went viral. The authors say that this raises concerns over “technology-induced misinformation” however there needs to be research into how deepfakes interact with a historical context in nations that already have long standing political distrust between citizens and government.

2) This source is unique in that it provides insight into vulnerability to AI/pro-Russian propaganda/conspiracy theories in democracies with a history of disinformation campaigns. The authors point to politicians as more than just consumers but also major disseminators of misinformation who may intentionally utilize AI to exacerbate the “liar’s dividend” where true and false information are conflated in public discourse. The authors also encourage research into encrypted messaging, a tool which initially intended to secure information, might be used as a misinformation vehicle.

# data[].attributes.headline
Journal Article on AI and China's Authoritarian Government (National)

# data[].attributes.subject
Journal Article on AI and China's Authoritarian Government (National)

# data[].attributes.body
1) This article examines the intersection of AI and China’s authoritarian government and highlights how the CCP leverages AI for administrative efficiency as well as maintaining legitimacy and state control. The author, Jinghan Zeng, explores AI’ capacity to bolster authoritarian practices. He states that AI offers opportunity for economic advancement in China but that comes at the risk of increasing state surveillance and repression. In particular, Zeng mentions that the CCP aims to develop an AI economy worth > 1 trillion yuan by 2030, hoping to use AI to foster public support.

2) his source discusses how the potential for AI to consolidate authoritarian practices raises implications about global civil liberties. This author would argue that AI advancement empowers state control and repression which, of course, is a problem for democratic norms. By 2030, this would position China as a major player in international politics and economics, and a potential antagonist against liberal democracies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Artificial Intelligence: The Biggest Threat to Democracy Today? (Global)

# data[].attributes.subject
Artificial Intelligence: The Biggest Threat to Democracy Today? (Global)

# data[].attributes.body
1) This source discusses how AI poses a threat to democracy. For one, it discusses how many generative AI models have data sets manually coded in by programmers. With these come bias. Since AI can be responsible for the production of misinformation, such technologies harm one's ability to make political decisions independent of outside influence. As a result, political trust is likely to decrease. The authors forecast the emergence of a radical populist right, the bolstering of authoritarian regimes, and algocracy (the rule of algorithms).

2) Understanding the direction that politics is headed in the age of generative AI is useful for identifying the problems we will run into and planning their solutions ahead of time.

Nie, M. (2024). Artificial Intelligence: The Biggest Threat to Democracy Today?. Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, 3(1), 376-379. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaaiss.v3i1.31239

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Authors Michelle Nie Sciences Po, Paris, FR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Artificial Intelligence: The Biggest Threat to Democracy Today? | Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on increasing misinformation is well-understood. But there remain questions on how GenAI impacts the well-being of individuals and societies at large. This paper tackles this question from a political science standpoint and considers the impact on democracy, which is linked to individual and social well-being. It examines aspects of AI systems, including GenAI systems, that threaten to undermine democracy the most, such as misinformation. This paper also clarifies the nature of these threats to democracy, makes the connection to epistemic agency and political trust, and outlines potential outcomes to society and political institutions, including accelerating the rise of populism, the enhancement of authoritarian governments, and the threat of rule by algorithms.

# data[].attributes.body
1) This TED Talk demonstrates how we can overcome the challenges presented by the use of AI in democracies. She explained how she trained an AI using a constitution written by other people. As much as there will be challenges, there are opportunities to strengthen democracy with new technologies and the information output they allow for. However, this talk is overly optimistic and does not give concrete examples of AI being implemented to directly aid democracy. It does not account for the fact that AI companies profit by keeping their models undemocratic.

2) The speaker's example of training an AI model to be democratic is a glimpse into how this new technology can be harnessed for good. It is also a call for more action to see how we can implement generative AI into the functions of democracy, ethically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How AI and Democracy Can Fix Each Other | Divya Siddarth | TED

# data[].attributes.body
1) This is a peer-reviewed publication by the Journal of Democracy. It explains how AI undermines democracies by undermining representation, accountability, and trust, which are the three pillars of democracy. According to the source, AI can inhibit political representation by allowing bad actors to generate many unique advocacy letters and sending them to representatives. With AI, anyone can write propaganda. Also, with so much information in the media market we may see the public wholly distrusting the democratic process even more than before.

2) Here, it is suggested to create AI detection tools, set boundaries so that AI is not used in unethical ways, and promote digital literacy. There have been pushes to implement these changes, but more work still needs to be done. For our project, this article demonstrates why AI and misinformation in general is a great problem that we must work to solve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Project MUSE - How AI Threatens Democracy

# data[].attributes.headline
Artificial Intelligence and Elections: Protecting Democracy in the Digital Era

# data[].attributes.subject
Artificial Intelligence and Elections: Protecting Democracy in the Digital Era

# data[].attributes.body
1) California's Legislature met to discuss how to combat the negative impacts of AI. They said that while AI will allow for voter education, outreach efforts, and election material delivery, we will need to prepare for its negative potential. The members explained that it is up to each county in California to run its election system. With decentralization, it it harder to alter election outcomes on a large scale but easier for each county to become overwhelmed by the spread of misinformation. The article explains the importance of security, impersonation checks, and communication plans.

2) This article is relevant to us as residents of California and shows some of the work being done right now by our legislators to address the negative consequences of AI. The ideas given here could be generalized to other states or the United States as a whole.

# data[].attributes.headline
Examples of Russian disinformation and the facts (Russia-Ukraine)

# data[].attributes.subject
Examples of Russian disinformation and the facts (Russia-Ukraine)

# data[].attributes.body
This article was written by the German government and talks about how Russia uses misinformation in regards to their Ukrainian invasion. It does so by providing specific examples of the information they released and refuting them. This article is helpful in understanding the challenge because it provides a specific example of how a government can use misinformation to disrupt democracy, and while this article may not contain all of the details it leaves a place for us to start and research.

Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community. (2023, November 2). Examples of Russian disinformation and the facts. Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community.

# data[].attributes.headline
Can Democracy Survive the Disruptive Power of AI? (Global)

# data[].attributes.subject
Can Democracy Survive the Disruptive Power of AI? (Global)

# data[].attributes.body
This article was written by the think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and discusses how artificial intelligence can be a threat to democracy. It provides information about how deepfakes can be used to gain a political advantage and how they make the political environment for voters even more confusing than it already is.  They also discuss how AI can be a threat in many unforeseeable ways because it can advance faster than the government can regulate it if it is weaponized. It can essentially create this misleading content on its own which can outpace real information so it increases its impact with the sheer amount of content. The article also suggests certain regulations that the government can make to prevent it from getting out of hand, which includes watermarking AI content and preventing its use for certain situations. Overall this article is helpful as it highlights the threat that AI poses as well as propose certain countermeasures policymakers can take.

Csernatoni, R. (2024, December 18). Can democracy survive the disruptive power of ai?. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/12/can-democracy-survive-the-disruptive-power-of-ai?lang=en

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace generates strategic ideas and independent analysis, supports diplomacy, and trains the next generation of international scholar-practitioners to help countries and institutions take on the most difficult global problems and advance peace.

# data[].attributes.headline
Overcoming digital threats to democracy (Global)

# data[].attributes.subject
Overcoming digital threats to democracy (Global)

# data[].attributes.body
This article was written by the Lowy Institute which is an Australian think tank. This article both discusses the potential threat to democracy created by the internet, as well as proposing a course of action that needs to be taken. This article talks about how the power of the internet is held by a few countries and the users are no longer citizens but more like commodities. This article suggests that countries need to use more deliberative democracy, which involves publicly deliberating ideas to ensure that they are actually valid rather than the ideas that have been most efficiently spread through the internet. Not only does it ensure the validity of ideas but it also increases citizen participation in politics. The article also proposes increasing this deliberative democracy using the internet which would help reverse the current situation. This article is beneficial, because not only does it establish one potential threat to democracy that the internet has created but it also offers a potential solution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using deliberative democracy to enhance trust and legitimacy in digital spaces.

# data[].attributes.headline
Many Tech Experts Say Digital Disruption Will Hurt Democracy (Global)

# data[].attributes.subject
Many Tech Experts Say Digital Disruption Will Hurt Democracy (Global)

# data[].attributes.body
This article was written by the Pew Research Center which is a think tank. They discuss survey results as well as the opinions of several experts to establish how many people consider the potential threat that this advanced technology may bring to democracy. While the survey may not have been completely accurate they found that 49% of participants believe AI will be a threat in the future. The primary reason why I believe that this article will be helpful is because it contains public opinion information about what they think about AI and it as a threat to democracy. This is important because if people are concerned they are more likely to support action against the issue. Another reason why this article is beneficial is because it has the opinions of several experts and how they think AI will affect democracy, which is a prediction but it may be helpful to look back on while writing the paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a nonscientific canvassing based on a non-random sample, so the results represent only the individuals who responded to the query and are not projectable to any other population. Pew Research Center and Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center built a database of experts to canvass from several sources, including professionals and policy people from government bodies, technology businesses, think tanks and networks of interested networks of academics and technology innovators. The expert predictions reported here about the impact of digital technologies on key aspects of democracy and democratic representation came in response to a set of questions in an online canvassing conducted between July 3, 2019, and Aug. 5, 2019. This is the 11th "Future of the Internet" canvassing Pew Research and the Imagining the Internet Center have conducted together. More on the methodology underlying this canvassing and the participants can be found here.

The years of almost unfettered enthusiasm about the benefits of the internet have been followed by a period of techlash as users worry about the actors who exploit the speed, reach and complexity of the internet for harmful purposes. Over the past four years - a time of the Brexit decision in the United Kingdom, the American presidential election and a variety of other elections - the digital disruption of democracy has been a leading concern.

The hunt for remedies is at an early stage. Resistance to American-based big tech firms is increasingly evident, and some tech pioneers have joined the chorus. Governments are actively investigating technology firms, and some tech firms themselves are requesting government regulation. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and foundations are directing resources toward finding the best strategies for coping with the harmful effects of disruption. For example, the Knight Foundation announced in 2019 that it is awarding $50 million in grants to encourage the development of a new field of research centered on technology's impact on democracy.

In light of this furor, Pew Research Center and Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center canvassed technology experts in the summer of 2019 to gain their insights about the potential future effects of people's use of technology on democracy. Overall, 979 technology innovators, developers, business and policy leaders, researchers, and activists responded to the following query:
Technology's impact on democratic institutions/representation Between now and 2030, how will use of technology by citizens, civil society groups and governments affect core aspects of democracy and democratic representation? Will they mostly weaken core aspects of democracy and democratic representation, mostly strengthen core aspects of democracy and democratic representation or not much change in core aspects of democracy and democratic representation?
Some 49% of these respondents say use of technology will mostly weaken core aspects of democracy and democratic representation in the next decade, 33% say use of technology will mostly strengthen core aspects of democracy and democratic representation and 18% say there will be no significant change in the next decade.

This is a nonscientific canvassing based on a non-random sample. The results represent only the opinions of individuals who responded to the query and are not projectable to any other population. The methodology underlying this canvassing is elaborated here. The bulk of this report covers these experts' written answers explaining their responses.

In addition to the plurality view among these experts that democracy will be weakened, a large majority of the entire set of respondents - including both the pessimists and the optimists - voiced concerns they believe should be addressed to keep democracy vibrant. Their worries often center on the interplay of trust, truth and democracy, a cluster of subjects that have framed key research by Pew Research in recent months. The logic in some expert answers goes this way: The misuse of digital technology to manipulate and weaponize facts affects people's trust in institutions and each other. That ebbing of trust affects people's views about whether democratic processes and institutions designed to empower citizens are working.

Some think the information and trust environment will worsen by 2030 thanks to the rise of video deepfakes, cheapfakes and other misinformation tactics. They fear that this downward spiral toward disbelief and despair also is tied to the protracted struggles facing truthful, independent journalism. Moreover, many of these experts say they worry about the future of democracy because of the power of major technology companies and their role in democratic discourse, as well as the way those companies exploit the data they collect about users.

In explaining why he feels technology use will mostly weaken core aspects of democracy and democratic representation, Jonathan Morgan, senior design researcher with the Wikimedia Foundation, described the problem this way: "I'm primarily concerned with three things. 1) The use of social media by interested groups to spread disinformation in a strategic, coordinated fashion with the intent of undermining people's trust in institutions and/or convincing them to believe things that aren't true. 2) The role of proprietary, closed platforms run by profit-driven companies in disseminating information to citizens, collecting information from (and about) citizens, and engaging political stakeholder groups. These platforms were not designed to be 'digital commons,' are not equally accessible to everyone and are not run for the sake of promoting social welfare or broad-based civic participation. These companies' profit motives, business models, data-gathering practices, process/procedural opacity and power (and therefore, resilience against regulation undertaken for prosocial purposes) make them poorly suited to promoting democracy. 3) The growing role of surveillance by digital platform owners (and other economic actors that collect and transact digital trace data) as well as by state actors, and the increasing power of machine learning-powered surveillance technologies for capturing and analyzing data, threaten the public's ability to engage safely and equitably in civic discussions."

Those who are more optimistic expect that effective solutions to these problems will evolve because people always adapt and can use technology to combat the problems that face democracy. Those who do not expect much change generally say they believe that humans' uses of technology will continue to remain a fairly stable mix of both positive and negative outcomes for society.

The main themes found in an analysis of the experts' comments are outlined in the next two tables.

Themes About the Digital Disruption of Democracy in the Next Decade: Concerns for Democracy's Future

Power Imbalance: Democracy is at risk because those with power will seek to maintain it by building systems that serve them not the masses. Too few in the general public possess enough knowledge to resist this assertion of power.

EMPOWERING THE POWERFUL

Corporate and government agendas generally do not serve democratic goals and outcomes. They serve the goals of those in power.

DIMINISHING THE GOVERNED

Digitally-networked surveillance capitalism creates an undemocratic class system pitting the controllers against the controlled.

EXPLOITING DIGITAL ILLITERACY

Citizens' lack of digital fluency and their apathy produce an ill-informed and/or dispassionate public, weakening democracy and the fabric of society.

WAGING INFO-WARS

Technology will be weaponized to target vulnerable populations and engineer elections.

Trust issues: The rise of misinformation and disinformation erodes public trust in many institutions

SOWING CONFUSION

Tech-borne reality distortion is crushing the already-shaky public trust in the institutions of democracy.

WEAKENING JOURNALISM

There seems to be no solution for problems caused by the rise of social media-abetted tribalism and the decline of trusted, independent journalism.

RESPONDING TOO SLOWLY

The speed, scope and impact of the technologies of manipulation may be difficult to overcome as the pace of change accelerates.

PEW RESEARCH CENTER and ELON UNIVERSITY'S IMAGINING THE INTERNET CENTER, 2020

Themes About the Digital Disruption of Democracy in the Next Decade: Hopes and Suggested Solutions

Innovation is inevitable: Change is beginning to happen at the level of individuals and social systems. History shows how human adaption pays off in the long run.

EVOLVING INDIVIDUALS

Increased citizen awareness, digital literacy improvements and better engagement among educators will be evident in the next decade.

ADAPTING SYSTEMS

Changes in the design of human systems and an improved ethos among technologists will help democracy.

ENSHRINING VALUES

Deep-rooted human behaviors have always created challenges to democratic ideals. Historically, though, inspired people have shown they can overcome these darker tendencies.

Leadership and activist agitation will create change

WORKING FOR GOOD

Governments, enlightened leaders and activists will help steer policy and democratic processes to produce better democratic outcomes.

Technology will be part of the solution: Some of the tech tools now undermining democracy will come to its aid and helpful innovations will be created.

ASSISTING REFORMS

Pro-democracy governance solutions will be aided by the spread of technology and innovations like artificial intelligence. Those will work in favor of trusted free speech and greater citizen empowerment.

PEW RESEARCH CENTER and ELON UNIVERSITY'S IMAGINING THE INTERNET CENTER, 2020

Some of the striking observations about democracy's current predicament came in these responses:

danah boyd, principal researcher at Microsoft Research and founder of Data & Society, wrote, "Democracy requires the public to come together and work through differences in order to self-govern. That is a hard task in the best of times, but when the public is anxious, fearful, confused or otherwise insecure, they are more likely to retreat from the collective and focus on self-interest. Technology is destabilizing. That can help trigger positive change, but it can also trigger tremendous anxiety. Technology also reconfigures power, at least temporarily. This can benefit social movements, but it can also benefit adversarial actors. All too often, technology is designed naively, imagining all of the good but not building safeguards to prevent the bad. The problem is that technology mirrors and magnifies the good, bad AND ugly in everyday life. And right now, we do not have the safeguards, security or policies in place to prevent manipulators from doing significant harm with the technologies designed to connect people and help spread information."

Susan Etlinger, an industry analyst with the Altimeter Group, responded, "Today we have the ability to amass massive amounts of data, create new types of data, weaponize it and create and move markets without governance structures sufficient to protect consumers, patients, residents, investors, customers and others - not to mention governments - from harm. If we intend to protect democracy, we need to move deliberately, but we also need to move fast. Reversing the damage of the 'fake news' era was hard enough before synthetic content; it will become exponentially harder as deepfake news becomes the norm. I'm less worried about sentient robots than I am about distorting reality and violating the human rights of real people at massive scale. It is therefore incumbent on both public and private institutions to put appropriate regulations in place and on citizens to become conscious consumers of digital information, wherever and however we find it."

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said, "It was naive to believe that technology would strengthen democratic institutions. This became obvious as the technology companies almost immediately sought to exempt themselves from the laws and democratic rules that governed other businesses in such areas as political advertising, privacy protection, product liability and transparency. The rhetoric of 'multi-stakeholder processes' replaced the requirement of democratic decision-making. The impact was immediate and far-reaching: The rapid accumulation of power and wealth. Techniques that isolated and silenced political opponents, diminished collective action and placed key employees by the side of political leaders, including the president. And all with the support of a weakened political system that was mesmerized by the technology even as it failed to grasp the rapid changes underway."

An internet pioneer based in North America, said, "I am deeply concerned that democracy is under siege through abuse of online services and some seriously gullible citizens who have trouble distinguishing fact from fiction or who are wrapped up in conspiracy theories or who are unable or unwilling to exercise critical thinking. ... We are seeing erosion of trust in our institutions, fed in part by disinformation and misinformation campaigns designed to achieve that objective and to stir dissent. We are seeing social networking systems that provoke feedback loops that lead to extremism. Metrics such as 'likes' or 'views' or 'followers' are maximized through expression of extreme content. Trolls use media that invite commentary to pump poison into discussion. Constant cyberattacks expose personal information or enable theft of intellectual property. Tools to facilitate cyberattacks are widely available and used to create botnets, generate denial of service attacks, spread malware, conduct ransom demands and a host of other harmful things. Law enforcement is challenged in part by the transnational nature of the internet/web and lack of effective cooperative law enforcement agreements across national boundaries. Privacy is abused to commit crimes or other harmful acts. At the same time, privacy is extremely hard to come by given the ease with which information can be spread and found on the net. Nation-states and organized crime are actively exploiting weaknesses in online environments. Ironically, enormous amounts of useful information are found and used to good effect all the time, in spite of the ills listed above. The challenge we face is to find ways to preserve all the useful aspects of the internet while protecting against its abuse. If we fail, the internet will potentially devolve into a fragmented system offering only a fraction of its promise. In the meantime, democracy suffers."

Still, there are those who wrote that they expect human systems and tools will evolve to solve some of the new challenges to democracy.

Paul Saffo, chair for futures studies and forecasting at Singularity University and visiting scholar at Stanford MediaX, said, "There is a long history of new media forms creating initial chaos upon introduction and then being assimilated into society as a positive force. This is precisely what happened with print in the early 1500s and with newspapers over a century ago. New technologies are like wild animals - it takes time for cultures to tame them. I am not in any way downplaying the turbulence still ahead (the next five to seven years will not be fun), but there is a sunnier digital upland on the other side of the current chaos."

Brad Templeton, internet pioneer, futurist and activist, a former president of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote, "There are going to be many threats to the democratic process that come through our new media. There are going to be countermeasures to those threats and there are going to be things that improve the process. It is very difficult for anybody to evaluate how the balance of these things will play out without knowing what the new threats and benefits will be, most of which are yet to be invented. It is certainly true that past analysis underestimated the threats. Hopefully this at least will not happen as much."

One of the most extensive and thoughtful answers to the canvassing question came from Judith Donath, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center currently writing a book about technology, trust and deception and the founder of the Sociable Media Group at the MIT Media Lab. She chose not to select any of the three possible choices offered in this canvassing, instead sharing two possible scenarios for 2030 and beyond. In one scenario, she said, "democracy is in tatters." Disasters created or abetted by technology spark the "ancient response" - the public's fear-driven turn toward authoritarianism.

In the second scenario, "Post-capitalist democracy prevails. Fairness and equal opportunity are recognized to benefit all. The wealth from automation is shared among the whole population. Investments in education foster critical thinking and artistic, scientific and technological creativity. ... New voting methods increasingly feature direct democracy - AI translates voter preferences into policy."

Her full mini-essay can be read here.

The 12 main themes emerging from these experts' comments are shared in the following section, along with a few representative expert responses for each.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Many Tech Experts Say Digital Disruption Will Hurt Democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a nonscientific canvassing based on a non-random sample, so the results represent only the individuals who responded to the query and are not projectable to any other population.

# data[].attributes.headline
AI And The Shadow Over Democracy: The Rising Threat To Global Elections (Global)

# data[].attributes.subject
AI And The Shadow Over Democracy: The Rising Threat To Global Elections (Global)

# data[].attributes.body
This article was written by Forbes which is an American media company. While it is highly recognized the information may need to be checked using other sources, it provides some helpful background information. The article discussed how deepfakes can be detrimental to democracy as mentioned by several other articles, however they also mentioned how social media can create an illusion of consensus which may encourage voters to vote a certain way by excluding the opposition. Social media also polarizes the country because it constantly shows people opinions that they already support and does not show the opposition, because it may decrease engagement, however this simply makes them stronger supporters of their cause but increases their disdain for the other opinions as well. I believe that this article will be helpful, because it covers some of the essential issues that are caused both by artificial intelligence and social media as well as proposing some potential solutions, such as improving media awareness in order to help prevent the damage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI And The Shadow Over Democracy: The Rising Threat To Global Elections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The same technology, celebrated for its potential to solve complex problems, is also being weaponized to manipulate elections and undermine democratic institutions.

# data[].attributes.headline
An Agenda to Strengthen U.S. Democracy in the Age of AI (National/Global)

# data[].attributes.subject
An Agenda to Strengthen U.S. Democracy in the Age of AI (National/Global)

# data[].attributes.body
1) This article discusses how AI was used in various ways to spread misinformation during the 2024 election, although the projected worst-case scenarios did not play out. The authors outline an agenda to minimize the dangers of AI and maximize its democratic potential. They suggest ensuring that governments have the personnel sufficient to create and maintain ethical use standards. Also, the authors call for transparency in AIs use on social media and for self-disclosure of politicians when their communications include AI content.

2) The suggestions given here are very helpful and relevant to the United States. They give action items to follow in ensuring that our elected officials use AI ethically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Agenda to Strengthen U.S. Democracy in the Age of AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Federal and state policymakers must rise to the challenge artificial intelligence poses to safe, secure elections and responsive, accountable governance.