IGF 2021 – Day 0 – Event #118 Freedom of speech on the Internet - what does it mean for young people??

The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.



>> We all live in a digital world. We all need it to be open and safe. We all want to trust. 

>> And to be trusted. 

>> We all despite control. 

>> And desire freedom. 

>> We are all united. 

>> We all live in a digital world. We all need it to be open and safe. We all want to trust. 

>> And to be trusted. 

>> We all despise control. 

>> And desire freedom. 

>> We are all united. 

>> So I think that we can start our panel discussion organized by our organization from Poland by the council with the young generation of the republic of Poland. It's a pleasure and honor to lead this panel, to moderate this panel about very interesting subject. It is about freedom of speech on the Internet and we will talk about what does it mean for young people. Because we spend more and more time in the Internet in social media and there is still a discussion over how does freedom of speech seem. It's a pleasure to have you here from the council of the dialogue of the young generation from the Republic of Poland. And from youth idea ICOC from Ghana. Thank you very much for taking this invitation. And we have online. We'll start with the questions at the beginning of our discussion, so the question to Lilly, how do you in your country understand freedom of speech on the Internet. 

>> Thank you so much for the invitation to discuss and share perspective from our part of the world and pick things from that happened in our world. Even though the same things happen, there may be differences. I want to share what Ghanaians think about freedom of speech and the work that we've done with the special interest group which is usually very, very global. In Ghana we have just like other parts of the world freedom of speech being a human right. It's universally accepted that people can speak about certain topics and contribute to a sense of happenings. We have also joined the worldwide wave of contributing to discussions online and how to do this as true traditional media that's radio, that is TV, and show media. 

Where you find most people participate in so much young people is social media. And how they express their freedom of speech. Usually you find that there are people who want to probably tell you that this is where you can speak up to and this is where you can probably get to that is not acceptable or there is a point that you speak to that probably violates people's rights. So what we've seen over the years on social media is that people are learning to be very vocal about what's happening in our community in traditional media or use it to show. I'm going to give you an example. Ghana had elections last year in 2020. We had hints that the government was probably preparing to do a certain shutdown so people do not propagate certain information. 

You may think if you're using the idea of a shutdown being good for people maybe it's good so people do not spread this information in the wake of an election and to cause fear and panic. But no. We all know the implications of shutdowns are. So we had an uproar on social media. People took to social media to start conversations around it. It didn't take even long. After a day all those plans came to shut because nobody wants to hear people's right to engage on social media and have access to connectivity because you are thinking there is going to be misinformation. They didn't just say stop it, but give alternative. If you want to prevent the misinformation, maybe you should let them know this is an effect of fake news, especially in an election. Maybe it will come up on issues in politics and general human rights in Ghana. 

>> That's really interesting that social media and freedom of speech and social media influences more and more year by year also in the politics area and in the election. That's a very interesting case. How does this situation look in Poland? How do young people in our country understand the freedom of speech in social media? 

>> Well, first of all, for young people, freedom of speech is a value ‑‑ is a fundamental value. So we spend more and more time and thanks to social media, we can express your opinion, take part in discussion and some community. On Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter. We can express ourselves and create community people who are very ‑‑ who are like us. We can talk more and more. And improve our language or our hobbies. They allow us communication with people from all around the world. Unfortunately, many users encourage hate speech. Also we have to pay attention for hate speech because it's very negative influence, especially for young people. 

>> Yes. It's also very important aspect in recent years and during the pandemic also on mental health. But now let's move to Slovakia where we have Jakub. A very beautiful city. How do young people in your country understand freedom of speech under Internet? What are the differences between this situation in your country and the countries that are represented here by the previous speakers? 

>> Jakub Boruv: Hello. Thank you for the invitation. I would start with the fact that we are the first generation that have IT education at our elementary schools. We have teachers who are explaining to us how does the Internet work, that there is so many tricks and that we have to be careful. Also we are the first generation that we experienced in cyber bullying at a young age. That's something different from the older generation. When I ask my grandma, she has, like, really short course of, like, computer technology. However, what I remember from really the first time I entered elementary school when I was 6 years old, teachers keep repeating that we have to be aware of what we post on the Internet. That the Internet is going to tomorrow forever. And that the hate speech can be ‑‑ it's not true or it's not respectful, then the police can act. This is what is missing in older generations. And I think that's like a huge difference. We are using Instagram more and not on Facebook. This is more for Slovakia for cyber education is here already for almost 20 years. That's something that really shaped my generation. Thank you. 

>> Thank you very much. It's also really interesting this aspect of education and aspect of changing the generations and the approach to social media. Now I will want to ask Sona from Russia about this same question. How does it look? How do young people in Russia understand freedom of speech and Internet in social media? 

>> Sona De Apro: Thank you very much. Yes, in Russia as in many other countries, freedom of speech, first of all, is a legal human right and opportunity to have voice and share with ideas, with thoughts. Their opportunity is always about responsibility. Responsibility of the possible consequences. The consequences of the ability to express your opinion, share information, communicate, et cetera. And those who understand this also in Russia use this opportunity and all the accuracy and knowledge of why we are doing it. And there are various communities, people who strive to change the world and give it new opportunities. They bring good to the world. 

But as any fairy tale as we know, there is evil which is the flip side of possibilities and doesn't take into account responsibility. I think we all remember article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the constitution of the Russian federation contains article 29 which guarantees everyone freedom of thought and speech, derived to freely speak, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information in any legal way. Freedom of the media is guaranteed and censorship is prohibited. So yes, I agree that today for the young generation also in Russia, freedom of speech is a big value. 

>> Thank you very much. Now we are back with the next question about the development of Internet and social media in the recent years, because it's really fast and I think that 30, 40 years ago more adult people, more adults don't even imagine that this development will be so fast. So I would want to ask you about just like in the analysis what are the strengths and threats of the development of social media? Because we see not only the good positive side but only maybe negative. Which side would you enumerate? 

>> Right. I think it's very important because in Ghana the strength, the weaknesses, the opportunities and the tricks just like you mentioned. Over the years we have built mostly on the strength of the Internet and how it's about to get people connected even outside their jurisdiction, their geographical location. It takes them beyond and allows you to connect with people from across the world. That's like the strength of it. We have the advent of COVID. People have been able to take full courses online. People have been able to connect with families and friends online. We had people who had assistance online. That is a powerful technology for us to be able to use it. Because technology is very fast evolving, there are other things that come with it. 

You talk about a weakness like security and trust. One of the things you hear most people talk about is how secure the Internet is for usage. That people can trust the digital assets, can trust the information going online. Can trust their activities online between their friends hoping that nobody intercepts it for whatever reason. And the weakness is not just on technology and the space that you're in, but the ideas that people have and that whenever they have, not many people know about it. People still have passwords. People have to learn that they have updated their software. I'm very guilty when I see the prompt updates, I keep rescheduling because I'm working on it at the moment. Those are weaknesses. Maybe a developer has detected something and is working to fix it. 

The strength is this. Opportunities which we are seeing currently that we young people are able to shape our dream Internet, are able to contribute to technologies because the Internet is for everyone and our ideas for young people, like our friend said for the other country, we are very first generation of activities on the Internet who are going to be growing up not just using it, but learning to innovate. We have all these ideas that are helpful. The opportunity for us is that we are able to innovate in technology and for the Internet and we are also able to lend some more. Everybody knows about the investment of YouTube. You can go to YouTube. You are going to commit to learning and you have the health part. Those are the opportunities given to us. 

There are also many tricks. We spoke about security. Because of Internet shutdowns where government in many places, even military are using the Internet as a tool to weaponize people who are supposed to be having access to it, but right now there are shutdowns that are really not helpful to people. Another trick you want to think about is groups that have back door access. If you wanted to have any investigation of somebody, you can find them. You can get some details on them. Once there is a loophole in the system it is very flawed. The way you secure a breach, you used to leave that space open for you to investigate more people. 

That same loophole to somebody who is a hacker or attacker can use to breach a whole system. So essentially because technology is fast evolving, even over time we'll be likely to see things happening. One thing is the effect of technology even on the environment. We talk environmental sustainability. The tools and devices we are building are helping us in the long run approximately will it have any effect on climate change in the long run? Will you connect and in the long run suffer because we have mind for the devices, we have dumped wastes in Ghana. We have dump sites which is seen to be the largest E‑waste dump site if not in Africa, maybe the world. 

There are many people who bring secondhand devices from outside in and it's a problem because they are recycling illegally and it's not helping the environment. That's also another trick and one of the things over time that people are beginning to talk about this. There can be some subtle effect of the devices and the development on the environment and we have to start discussing that also. 

>> This aspect of shutdowns is also real interesting because we have many situations when we have problems with Facebook or messenger when young people, for example from the first year of studies could not meet because they cannot communicate without Facebook and there are many accidents that they were not able to even meet. But I want to ask also to make this aspect wider about the regulations of social media. Do you think that the situation of social media, the impact of social media on young people and to many people in ‑‑ all over the world, it's so big that it should be regulated by state or by the organizations, make like the United Nations or other organizations, international organizations, or not? Or it should not be regulated. I ask this, because, for example in Europe we have from one year a discussion, a very serious discussion about the digital service act that is by the European commission and discussion between the presidency in Europe is really interesting. And the main answers are that the impact of social media is so big that it should be maybe more regulated. What is your point of view? 

>> I'm going to share from experience. This conversation is very nuanced in the sense that people think that there should be essentially a balance. If you wanted to regulate, there should be a balance. Where my friend says something about social media regulation and even content regulation, and I'm going to come to that, he said that there are people who sit behind a count are that are fake and people share a lot of things and essentially you don't find it. He was thinking if you can see it online, probably say it to my face. That's like the very basis of that. 

There are many people who have caused an uproar on social media who we don't usually know and we think maybe this idea on social media will be helpful, but let's think about it. The fact that we are in an era of 2.0, which is where people have a lot of content, where there will be a lot of device and digital involvement in our content, it means that people are likely to still see most of these fake profiles and everything come up. Now, there's something about regulation I've come to realize. The regulation that is a type of innovation and regulation that can promote innovation. There should be a fine line between the both of them. 

If you're regulating on social media, you probably create content and share content because now maybe it should be more local content created. If you were to start regulating content, it means people won't be able to use it and won't be able to innovate it at times and to be able to maximize the use of social media and technologies to a large extent. So I'm thinking that what are we essentially regulating? What do we want to do? Is it the platform or the content? Is it usage? What is it that we are looking to regulate? It can bring into perspective maybe an idea of how to do it properly. I know from 2018 there has been a conversation about net neutrality. 

I'm wondering what's the implication would be if we have access to everything and anything and if you can access any site or anything from anywhere, would it be helpful for you? Those are questions we have to think about when we think about regulation. I for one will think about that nuance conversation about where we draw the line. What is it that we want to regulation? How can we do it so it doesn't prevent people's rights. It doesn't also tackle innovation and people's freedom to work online. And that's generally essentially what I have in mind around regulation. 

>> Thank you very much. Now the question to come back to the previous question about the positive and negative sides of the development of social media and this impact of social media on our daily life. What positive and negative sides of social media can you see? 

>> I'm glad you're asking. This is an essential question. Social media has a strong influence on young persons. In our life, in our daily routine, we can't imagine life without social media in this century. So online communication is something we can do every time. We can communicate with all the world. Young people online write with friends, date, and work on social media. When we browse Instagram, Facebook and other social media, we compare themselves to the influencers. Young people attach photos, the influencer's life, unfortunately not everyone is aware that Instagram is only a part of these people's life. This can negatively affect young people because some standards on Instagram that's impossible to get. But on the other hand, a lot of young people get inspiration. They're finding new hobbies, meeting new people, creating a community. I believe that the development of social media is inevitable. It makes our daily function very easy. 

>> Thank you very much. Now the next question to Jakub, because I mentioned the digital service act which is preceded by the European union and Slovakia is a very important part. What do you think? Regulation of social media is needed? This social media has so much power that should be regulated by state or by European Union or another international organization? What is your opinion on that? 

>> Jakub Boruv: First of all, we have to understand how Facebook or YouTube is working. If you search, for example, let's use YouTube, dogs. You will click on the first video of dogs and then YouTube will keep proposing new and new and new videos of the dogs. And in the end you will find yourself in the situation when you're clicking still on the new and new media of the dogs. It's because the main goal of YouTube is to keep you on the Internet, on that platform as long as possible because they want to show you a commercial advertisement and the more time you spend there, the more money they will get from the companies that are advertising on YouTube. 

That's why this algorithm was created to keep you there. Just like clicking on the same videos, the algorithm works like that. It's not a problem until the situation in Slovakia, for example, when the pandemic started, people started protesting. If you clicked first under video of the people who are protesting against face masks were let's say taken by the police, they used water cannons. They used many ‑‑ let's say they used the ‑‑ the police used power against people, then you just keep watching the videos of police brutality. And then if you clicked on the video where they are attacking police, YouTube was showing you videos where the police is attacked by the protestors. And then you are just watching one point of view from one perspective. 

And we realize we have two groups of people, one against another. It's mostly because that's how social media works. They keep you showing the same image still over and over again. When I mention dogs, it keeps showing you dogs. YouTube will not show you cats because YouTube knows that you want to see more dogs. If you keep clicking on the dogs or if you keep clicking on the let's say right wing content or left wing content, then social media will not show you the other perspective. That's like real serious thing. That's why European Union has such a problem with Facebook, because that's like the main reason why there is a huge radicalization in Europe and it's not mostly a problem with young people, but I would say it's a problem of people who are over 30. 

This is something that really needs to be solved. I think one of the solutions to the future may be when you pay subscription, when you pay to YouTube to not show you new advertisement because then YouTube is making money without the need to keep you on YouTube as much as they can. And this is something that will be, I think, that can change the crept situation because the radicalization in society is huge, especially here in Slovakia. 

>> Thank you very much. I want to ask more about the specific situation of the freedom of speech in the social media, because more than a year ago we have a very huge situation, a very loud situation about social media in the campaign in the United States, in the United States where Donald Trump was banned on Twitter and on Facebook. We can have positive or negative opinion about this person, but it was I think a huge moment in the history of social media that the president of the United States, one of the most powerful countries in the world was banned. It had a big impact on the campaign, I think, so in this situation I want to ask, and maybe similar situations in the future that can appear, what do you think? That social media should be more regulated or not? And they shoot and just make decisions about the ban of very, very important people? 

>> Jakub Boruv: As a student, that's a real interesting question. The social media should not be the one who are banning people. I think we will discuss it later because we also have some decisions, but I think it should be the state policy that is banning people. Not some private company shall say oh, tomorrow I will ban that person because I don't know what. I think the state should create the regulations and the tools that will allow or will give us an opportunity to really decide who should be banned and who not. I think it's really a huge power in the hands of private company, so that's my opinion. 

>> Okay. Thank you very much. Now it's time to Sona. The same question about the regulations of the social media. What do you think? That this situation should be more regulated or maybe not so much regulated? What's your point of view? 

>> Sona De Apro: Yes, thank you. The activity and function of social media takes place in a cross-border space where there are no clear boundaries yet. I can say that, of course, there are local, regional rules. For example, we know the GDPR or we know the experience of China and Russia in building in cyberspace, but there are attempts to regulate social media. It is very important to be able to strengthen the security of users and eliminate the criminal part that exists in social media as well, you know. However, this active use of broadcasting meaning, values and dissemination of information and news materials, in this case one should adhere more to the possibility, I think. And one's own nature. It carries a positive responsibility which must certainly be used in good intentions. Knowing that it can affect both the present and the future, including future generations. In whose hands the same will be that responsibility. We should not ‑‑ now teach how to use this. So I think that it's more like self‑regulation. That is my point. Thank you. 

>> Thank you very much. Now the question, I want to make this discussion about the regulations maybe wider. You say some aspect about this, but I want to ask that should in the pane Union be more engaged, more committed to removing illegal or harmful content in social media area and what about fake news? Because fake news is more and more popular, especially during the time of pandemic. During the pandemic a lot of fake news from all sides I would say are spread and how to fight with that. 

>> Exactly. We've seen over the years how important information is. You just mentioned very important in the news where that information can make or break a process. You mentioned fake news and say the era of the pandemic. Fake news and misinformation in the area of vaccination. I'm even going to mention in the area of elections. Imagine somebody says okay, guys, maybe there is an election in the country. This presidential candidate has moved the whole box or ballots and then this person begins to attack. That is the effect of somebody's very loose talk on social media that has cost maybe millions and millions and millions of people. Probably if you go down in history, we'll probably have instances like this. But the essence of the history that people have had for us is to be very vigilant and look out for things that usually cause chaos and unrest in our communities. 

Where it starts is social media. I mentioned during this era, moving into web 3.0 where there are more content creation for people and even more devices, so many people are getting connected and also sharing information. The tendency of somebody to create information that sues them is not entirely true and can have implications is very high. The already fake news detect the sites where you can probably put a URL and tell if it's real or not. I think you can Google if you can detect a news item that you are probably reading is true or not. It's good because you do want to have to deal with more like every active approach to solving this. 

The harm has already been done. They are trying to help it. The active approach is what people do when they copy the link and go to verify if it's true before they start to share. So I think to a large extent, there is a proactive approach to curtailing the spread of misinformation before it gets far. One way is to have detectors or ways to remove them before they've been spread. And also maybe even have some people who spread this information and we're penalizing them, that would be maybe a projection in the future. How do you make sure this particular news site that is notorious for posting fake news is not continually in action and continually sharing information? How do you make sure you find them out and calm them down so it doesn't continue? It's very important. You have to emphasize how important information can cost people with a positively or negatively. 

We all have a role to play. If you have information on Facebook, on Instagram, do Dow any checks? Any fact checking for you? How do you go about it? I mean, I was just in a session where a friend was mentioning that we do not even have older folks who didn't grow up with technology and are the large perpetrators of the spread of misinformation. My mom sends me a lot of stuff saying there is going to be rights coming from somebody and somebody sent it to her or sent it to 12 people or sent it to a number of people and something happens. There has to be also for us a way for young people that are supposed to be mentoring. They need to also teach our parents and older folks. We speak about youth inclusion most of the time, but it's also inclusion of the older folks. Maybe they're the older ones so they don't need so much help, but they need help inasmuch as we all do. When we start with ourselves as subjects where we can stop the spread from us, it means it gets into the platforms that gives it momentum to go even further. 

>> Another side of this problem are users that may be some because of the failures of the social media platforms and they are ‑‑ they have maybe problems with their content that is not illegal or harmful but the algorithm of social media decided that it is harmful or it is fake news because if Facebook or gram or Twitter would have to check every message, every content by person, I think it should be hire maybe a few billions or millions of people to check it. So should there be any formal appeal ‑‑ any formal path to appeal from the decision of the platform if we do not agree with that? What do you think? 

>> That's a very important point to mention, there is an issue of tagging a removal and issue of wrong tagging and removal of information and how to appeal for that. I've not seen a practical way that has been done yet. Let's see what happens when there are profiles that I brought down. Usually Instagram ‑‑ sorry, Twitter can see that you've put something that is not incorporated that you pull down temporarily. They give you an option to probably report or say it was the wrong ‑‑ it was not the right thing or maybe it was a mistake that happened, not for you but maybe on their part and you can send a text like a response to the tech team and they're probably able to forward it to who is in charge. That could be a route to follow. 

There is an opportunity to give feedback, to reach somebody who can escalate and who reinstates your information if it's right. From the top of my mind, I think that is a route to go. Feedback and an opportunity for you to say if something was right or done roughly because it was not fake news. These are platforms that it's happening and from time to time you do tests to feel these. It's good we're talking about them now. Even though the rightful tagging of misinformation, it can be wrong. 

>> What is your point of view about this removal or illegal content by social media platform and maybe sometimes it is not correct. It could be the failure of the social media platform. The user doesn't agree with that decision. Should the formal path to appeal from the decision against that social media platform? 

>> Last year when most people learned online, social media has become the main channel of communication. Many young people started to move their business into our world. So many companies have made their activities totally dependent on social media. For influences and for young people losing access to their social content, social media accounts was really a tragedy. They lose money, they lose a contractor everything that they built for many years. In my opinion the first step is that a blocked user is contact administration of a given portal, Facebook or Instagram. We are the first country that have such solution to start working with Facebook incorporated with our government. And the agreement is the protection of freedom of speech on the Internet and our users will receive additional ‑‑ oh. 

>> It's interesting in this case in Poland, we have this path to appeal formal. The government site and we do not agree, we have to connect it with the ‑‑ disconnect it with the implications of official government applications that confirm that you are a person that exists and it's not a fake person really. Would you add something? 

>> I think it's well said, what she said. I was thinking that route of, like, responding to ‑‑ like she said, she gave an example that Poland is doing. I didn't know this. I'm going to look into it some more. One way that we can pick best practices from a country I'm spearheading in this regard. I have to probably look into it. It's very important. I'm going to be heading to another session, but I'm available to answer any questions should there be any. So for any other questions that may come out, I'm going to answer them also. Thank you so much. 

>> Thank you very much. Now the question to Jakub, connected questions about the two sides of our discussion, do you think that the social media platform should be more and more engaged, more and more committed to just ban or to shut down users that spread this information and to ‑‑ should social media be more and more committed to removing illegal or harmful content or content connected with the fake news? And another aspect about this user that doesn't agree with the decision of social media platform, should it be regulated path to appeal against the decision of social media platform? What is your opinion? 

>> Jakub Boruv: I would mention again the legal aspect of this question. We have article 10 of human rights act and here is ‑‑ I'll also mention the freedom of speech. There is one case when one platform let's say users were posting fake and let's say hateful information, and there is a case when one European ‑‑ said yes, the platform is responsible for hateful comments of its users when the users are an enemy. I also mention our vaccination. Most of the hateful comments like some people want to kill us as young people, and most of those profiles were fake. 

He said there is no way. Just contact the police. They are here for thousands of years to protect society and protect individuals. And I think it should be also ‑‑ like, we should also be able to ‑‑ or the law should be able to access individuals and society online. Again, what I said in previous questions, we met a lot of people here that were trying to pursue us and the vaccination will kill us, and it's not because they were stupid or not educated or something like that. They just, like, they just clicked on some media or on some post on Facebook and then the Facebook started showing them the content that would keep repeating that vaccination is going to kill you. The same as if today to give a "like" to someone who just posted on their Facebook that the president is responsible for the COVID pandemic in the world, and you'll get ‑‑ and then Facebook will keep showing you more and more posts that the president is responsible for the whole pandemic. Of course, it's not true. However, if you are ‑‑ every day you see it on your ‑‑ in your feed on Facebook, then you will start believing it because if a lie is big enough and repeated enough, then people will start believing it. 

That's something that is really dangerous for our society and we should really think about the people who are influenced by fake news and hate speech. In fact, it's not just them being responsible for that. It's also the social media. The algorithm as we mentioned and that's something we really should be regulating by the law and I think that's already what was said and it's something that also ‑‑ in Slovakia the government is preparing new law about hate speech on the Internet. However, as mentioned, it's not ‑‑ the Internet is a global network and it's not enough if we have just local initiatives or state initiatives. We really need to take global actions. Thank you. 

>> Thank you very much. The same question to Sona about the commitment of the social media platforms to just ‑‑ the removal of the content that is seen as illegal or harmful or as a fake news. What do you think about this? Should social media be more committed? Another way is should users have a clear path to appeal from this decision of the Facebook, for example? 

>> Sona De Apro: Social media, as we know, has somewhat controllable power in terms of the information dissemination. Here there is an enormous risk. It can have a dramatic effect on them which can have irreparable consequences both for the child and for society as a whole. What you said about the commitment of companies, of IT Giants, I think that it is hard to say because it is very hard to track down the dissemination of illegal will information, even for law enforcement agencies, even for companies before it does harm. In Russia, distribution of prohibited content and the violation of legislation regarding the dissemination of information is rather closely monitored. We have, for example, a case with the slowdown of Twitter in Russia. In addition, finding a post on other social media such as YouTube, Facebook and Instagram and also Twitter can ‑‑ every simple dissemination, every simple information that is spread in the social media, so therefore, in my vision, companies ‑‑ those who have a voice and simply social media users are a winner of their responsibility and rely on self‑regulation. Well, we are accustomed to reacting to fake news, for example, emotionally. Making informational reasons out of everything. 

Creating in a sense a show. Often the users themselves, the audience themselves makes a sensation out of nothing. So therefore, in my opinion, we need to be able to change the policy of our attitude towards fake news. And even to any information in a more debatable comport where the audience consuming information from the media or social media isn't a lie and creating a platform for public discussion over the news submitted in a fake format. The time is not too far away when news and more complex materials will be created by artificial intelligence and a person must have enough wisdom, patience, and knowledge to cope with the common changes. 

And what quality information they will receive. In other words, we need to be prepared. There is a source or rule in journalism, so until the information is confirmed, it is not confirmed by free authority sources. It is not considered reliable. Roughly the same principle should be used when consuming information from any means of disseminating information. And this already depends on the level of digital literacy of users, which is very important to think about, both at the state level ‑‑ stakeholders should pay attention to the development of regulation and make the solution a priority on their agenda since this directly affects security, for example. Digital education, sustainable development. So this is very serious. Thank you. 

>> Thank you very much. That was the last answer to our questions during our debate. So thank you very much about the discussion of the freedom of speech on the Internet and how does young people understand it. We mentioned a lot of subjects from the illegal or harmful content to the fake news, for fake news and even to the weaknesses and strengths of the social media and development of the social media, so thank you very much for taking part, for participation in our debate organized by the ‑‑ by our organizations, by the council of young generation of the Republic of Poland. Thank you to our panelists. Thank you very much that thanks for supporting us in organizing this panel so this discussion will be more and more wider. Thank you very much.