Coalition for Reform in Political Advertising – written evidence (DAD0092)

 

Introduction

 

 

 

 

THE COMMITTEE IS SEEKING INPUT ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

 

GENERAL

 

1. HOW HAS DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CHANGED THE WAY THAT DEMOCRACY WORKS IN THE UK AND HAS THIS BEEN A NET POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE EFFECT? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. HOW HAS THE DESIGN OF ALGORITHMS USED BY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SHAPED DEMOCRATIC DEBATE? TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD THERE BE GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE DESIGN OF THESE ALGORITHMS?

 

 

EDUCATION

 

3. WHAT ROLE SHOULD EVERY STAGE OF EDUCATION PLAY IN HELPING TO CREATE A HEALTHY, ACTIVE, DIGITALLY LITERATE DEMOCRACY?

 

 

ONLINE CAMPAIGNING

 

4. WOULD GREATER TRANSPARENCY IN THE ONLINE SPENDING AND CAMPAIGNING OF POLITICAL GROUPS IMPROVE THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN THE UK BY ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY, AND IF SO WHAT SHOULD THIS TRANSPARENCY LOOK LIKE?

 

 

 

4.1. Transparency of identification of the advertiser

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

4.2. Transparency of material claim evidence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

4.3. Transparency of personal data collection

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4. Transparency of all campaign material

 

 

-          the advertising

-          the date it was posted

-          targeting

-          spend

-          reach

-          engagement.

 

 

Summary

 

 

 

 

 

5. WHAT EFFECT DOES ONLINE TARGETED ADVERTISING HAVE ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS, AND WHAT EFFECTS COULD IT HAVE IN THE FUTURE? SHOULD THERE BE ADDITIONAL REGULATION OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING?

 

 

 

 

 

A new culture

 

 

 

 

 

A way forward

 

 

 

 

 

PRIVACY AND ANONYMITY

 

6. TO WHAT EXTENT DOES INCREASING USE OF ENCRYPTED MESSAGING AND PRIVATE GROUPS PRESENT A CHALLENGE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS? 

 

We believe this question will be better addressed by the authorities we referenced above.

 

7. WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ANONYMITY ON ONLINE DEMOCRATIC DISCOURSE? 

 

We believe this question will be better addressed by the authorities we referenced above.

 

DEMOCRATIC DEBATE

 

8. TO WHAT EXTENT DOES SOCIAL MEDIA NEGATIVELY SHAPE PUBLIC DEBATE, EITHER THROUGH ENCOURAGING POLARISATION OR THROUGH ABUSE DETERRING INDIVIDUALS FROM ENGAGING IN PUBLIC LIFE?

 

We believe this question will be better addressed by the authorities we referenced above.

 

9. TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE TRUST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND IN DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS; AND WHAT MIGHT BE THE BEST WAYS TO COMBAT THIS AND STRENGTHEN FAITH IN DEMOCRACY? 

 

MISINFORMATION

 

10. WHAT MIGHT BE THE BEST WAYS OF REDUCING THE EFFECTS OF MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS?

 

We confine our answer to the issue of misinformation as expressed in electoral political advertising.

 

  1. Give an existing body the power to regulate political advertising content or create a new one to do so;
  2. Legislate so that all paid-for political advertising can be viewed by the public;
  3. Introduce compulsory imprints or watermarks to show the provenance of online advertising.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funding the regulator

 

 

 

 

 

MODERATION

 

11. HOW COULD THE MODERATION PROCESSES OF LARGE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES BE IMPROVED TO BETTER TACKLE ABUSE AND MISINFORMATION, AS WELL AS HELPING PUBLIC DEBATE FLOURISH?

 

TECHNOLOGY AND DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT

 

12. HOW COULD THE GOVERNMENT BETTER SUPPORT THE POSITIVE WORK OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS USING TECHNOLOGY TO FACILITATE ENGAGEMENT WITH DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES?

 

13. HOW CAN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES USE TECHNOLOGY TO ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC IN LOCAL AND NATIONAL DECISION MAKING? WHAT CAN PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT DO TO BETTER USE TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT AND ENSURE THE EFFICACY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?

 

14. WHAT POSITIVE EXAMPLES ARE THERE OF TECHNOLOGY BEING USED TO ENHANCE DEMOCRACY?

 

10