He Order The government took most political, academic and media actors by surprise when it announced the creation of an advisory panel against disinformation. Space, which depends on the Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge and Innovation and advises Segegob, raised a dust storm within days.
That is. The event, which seeks to “analyze global disinformation and its manifestation at a local level in Chile,” will be chaired by the Minister of Science and will include two representatives from state universities, two private schools and one From a company headquartered outside a metropolitan area. Three members from NGOs, foundations or civil society related to the area and one from an organization Reality check.
But why do recommendations on public policies and public policies on misinformation and democratic quality, digital literacy, misinformation on digital platforms and good digital practices, cause so much hostility within the cast?
Keeping your head underground is dangerous when it comes to issues like digital literacy and misinformation in digital spaces.
Those who raised their voices first Advisers By Wednesday, who anticipated possible bias and instrumentalization by authorities. Who spoke in the note? Besides the executive director of IES, the two academics are Universidad del Desarrollo and Universidad de los Andes. In other words, three voices representing a very significant sector of the population.
SecondFor his part, gave place A series of comments coming out of Twitter saw more dangers than real opportunities to solve a problem affecting the entire world. as Revealed two years ago The Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Expression and Expression said, “Online disinformation can have serious consequences for democracy and human rights, as demonstrated in recent elections in response to the Corona Virus Infection (Covid). -19) and in attacks against minority groups”. Nevertheless, he said, the responses adopted by states and institutions were “problematic, inadequate and harmful” to human rights.
Does the above mean that it is not necessary to seek solutions to a problem that threatens the entire world and our country? Of course not. It was Science Minister Ison Etcheverry who clarified a few things. Interview cheater Third, he promises that the place he leads “does not define what is true and what is not.” His words were echoed by Anadel president Pablo Vidal, who said he viewed the commission with “good eyes”, although he found some of the opposition’s complaints “acceptable”. In this regard, the President of National Association of Journalists (ANP) has sent a letter Wednesday Y Third, promised that “we will cooperate” if the phenomenon of misinformation is resolved from educational and technological advances. Not bad for a place that has historically resisted any kind of similar events.
Unsurprisingly, the most regressive voices on the far right brought out all their cannons for those who held no epithets. “The audit is progressing by decree,” Marcela Cupillos wrote on her Mercurial forum, while attorney Gabriel Zaliaznik said: Your place Inside Third The reason for the proposal was “an expression of the authoritarian drive nested in broad sectors of the present government”.
It is hard to believe that a government that is moderate at all possible levels is putting on the table a plan that threatens freedom of expression and could be used by a government of a different political identity in the future.
Editorials in magazines are not far behind. when Wednesday He criticized the government as “re-assigning the role of a neutral actor”. Financial diary proposed More powers should be given to civil society. ThirdMeanwhile, he said the government’s proposal deserves “deep reform”. The same newspapers gave it Vast grandeur For the Inter-American Press Association (SIP), its leaders argued that such incidents pave the way for a “temptation to establish censorship mechanisms”.
But is the government-run commission really like this? Behind the rightful fears of the commission lurks a partly insidious fear of any event that would regulate places to accommodate a few. Beyond that, the strategy of sowing panic in the face of any kind of proposal coming out of the ruling party has become an overhyped wild card in the last couple of years by the more conservative sector. When will the minute a proposal not be received become a Castro-Savista threat that spreads ten calamities?
It is hard to believe that a government that is moderate at all possible levels is putting a plan on the table that threatens freedom of expression and could be used by a government of a different political identity in the future. By the way, the fears of some groups are not only valid but necessary, but they must be directed towards the progress of a phenomenon that seems fundamental today. Keeping your head underground is dangerous when it comes to issues like digital literacy and misinformation in digital spaces. The debate is more urgent today than ever.
