A recent survey conducted by the Tachlit Institute, the Institute for Israeli Policy, through the iPanel Institute on the field of social networks in Israel reveals interesting findings: 92 percent of Israelis have an active account in one of the social networks, and half of young people use them as a central source of information and news.
In addition, 66 percent of Israelis believe that social networks have a toxic effect on public discourse in Israel, even before the start of the current election campaign.
80 percent believe that networks have a bad effect on the discourse in the country, although 40 percent of respondents see the state equally guilty in this harsh reality when referring to the overall public atmosphere outside the network.
Directly or indirectly responsible for network discourse?
Mark Zuckerberg Facebook Founder, Photo: None
This figure is even more pronounced when the public is asked whether any regulation should be imposed on the field in order to monitor it.
Here it turns out that 81 percent of the public believe that social networks should be monitored in one way or another.
To understand what is meant by supervision and what the survey examined, we spoke with Dr. Tal Mimran, head of the "Digital Convention in a Digital Age" program, the Institute for Israeli Policy.
2 out of every 3 Israelis believe that networks have a toxic effect on public discourse in Israel.
This feeling stems from alarming trends - the use of bots, the dissemination of false information, invasion of privacy and the abuse of addictive tendencies.
On the other hand, others fear the misuse of the power of social networks to silence certain political views.
This is an important concern because fear of clogging mouths may undermine the legitimacy of the discourse, and from there the path to consent becomes difficult and impossible.
The discourse must be open, and one that gives legitimacy to all opinions, in order for social networks to fulfill important social goals such as sharing information and disseminating knowledge to the public. "
What does the public want in relation to the regulation of the field?
"There is a clear feeling from the survey that Israelis rely less and less on technology content platforms. And yet, in the same breath, almost every Israeli has at least one profile on a social network. And creating trust in relation to digital content platforms.It's a difficult struggle, but not one that is lost in advance. Moments of trust, like the current one, are an opportunity to redefine the rules of the game in a way that increases public trust, the lifeblood of democracy. Broad access to the network in a way that is compatible with a thriving culture of freedom of expression, which provides a safe and protected environment in which their privacy is maintained and provides an opportunity to develop an entrepreneurial and innovative economy. "
When it comes to the question of whether or not order will lead to mouth clogging, Dr. Mimran replies that the opposite. He says, “The opposite is true.
Clear rules of the game will increase freedom of expression, within agreed limits, and make it difficult for social networks to make decisions to remove profiles from considerations that are not acceptable to the Israeli legislature.
The one who is supposed to define the limits of freedom of expression is the legislature, and the court, certainly not a private actor whose interest is commercial.
On a practical level, we have seen in recent years that there is manipulative and even false use of information for election purposes, leading to increasing social polarization fed by social networks.
"We must act to allow as many opinions as possible, in the spirit of preserving freedom of expression in Israel, and remember that what we have before us is not a point of contention, but a real struggle over the image of democracy in Israel - and our future, and our children."
To what extent do social networks really affect society in Israel, and is this not an attribution of excessive power to this field?
"They are very influential, no doubt. Social networks are the new city square that allows the flow of information to the entire population - those who are isolated or silenced in these areas can not play a significant part in public discourse. For example, the survey shows that 92% of young Israelis maintain one profile. At least in social networks and that for 48% of them social networks are the main source of news consumption.In the face of this reality, it is important to remember and resonate that we have reached a state of democratic deficit: social networks exert significant regulatory power in the online space, but unlike government officials, have no democratic responsibility "Regulatory oversight by the state is necessary in order to bridge this gap and encourage policies that reflect the public's values and preferences."
Main direction - to promote the law of bots.
Minister of Communications Handel, Photo: Yehoshua Yosef
What are your recommendations in the field to the Minister of Communications?
"Regulation should strive to restrict on the one hand social networks from abuse, but at the same time recognize the economic incentives of content platforms. As part of this, it is important to try and consult with networks - to see what can be required of them in real terms. That these companies will want to act to promote these interests and not do so out of coercion (or, as has happened in Australia, reach a state of conflict with the law enforcement authorities). Of "notice and action", in order to increase their responsibility and encourage them to act in the name of interests that are important to the public. "
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we would love for you to share it with us
