The Issue

Technology has created new opportunities for journalism, making it easier for diverse voices to be heard and for journalists to connect with the public. However, these advancements have brought new challenges, including a rise in online harassment and abuse towards journalists and news organizations. Some harassment campaigns are led by individuals; others are orchestrated or endorsed by governments. 

Online harassment is generally understood as using technology to bully, threaten or aggressively target someone. It can cause journalists significant psychological and emotional distress and can be linked to real-life violence. Such abuse can also lead journalists to self-censor their work or distance themselves from their audience to avoid further abuse. One in three journalists in CNTI’s recent survey regularly face serious risks, including online abuse. Other data show that online harassment disproportionately affects women journalists and journalists of color. 

The increases in online abuse are prompting responses from legislative bodies, tech companies and civil organizations. Some countries, like Australia and the United Kingdom, have passed legislation to address online safety by defining abusive content and requiring more oversight of online service providers. In the U.S., legislation has been repeatedly introduced to modify Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content. Finding the appropriate level of content moderation is difficult. While some argue for stricter content moderation to curb abuse, others worry this could threaten freedom of expression. 

To help with this issue, tech companies and civil service organizations are offering journalists tools like AI software to filter harmful content, cyber toolkits and field manuals to improve online safety. 

Despite these efforts, there is a consensus that these non-legislative actions and tools are insufficient. Journalists facing high risks report insufficient protections and feel that their newsrooms are not supportive of their needs. This has led many to deal with online abuse on their own. While methods like peer support have shown promise in mitigating harm and building resilience, further action is necessary to protect journalists from online abuse and to support those who have experienced it. 

What Makes It Complex

Any policy or standard for moderating content and mitigating online harassment must also protect the freedom of expression and free speech. Moderating online abuse is a significant challenge due to the tension between free speech protections and the difficulty in defining where expression becomes harassment. This becomes more complex with the different types of digital communication, whether the communication is public or private, and if moderation occurs before or after an individual receives it.  

Countries and regions like Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have begun to formalize content moderation requirements and methods, with many of the implementation decisions resting with social media companies, though some laws provide detail about online providers’ reporting requirements and the authority of various government agencies to handle online abuse.  With declining press freedoms and increasing government censorship globally, there is concern about the potential for state actors to exploit content moderation for censorship.  The balance of decision-making power is both complicated and important: too much power in the hands of any single entity, whether a technology company, government entity or other powerful institution, could be used for information control if critical safeguards and checks on power are not in place.

Technology companies have weakened their content moderation protocols and teams, presenting novel challenges and concerns. Recent layoffs across the technology industry have significantly impacted teams dedicated to combating online abuse and disinformation. Throughout 2025, platforms, including Meta and TikTok, have continued to cut staff and programs in this space..

These staff cuts in trust and safety programs coincide with an increase in online abuse, misinformation,and harmful content. While data about the effectiveness of trust and safety programs is limited, their goal of preventing abuse remains important, though clearer articulation of these goals and how they balance freedom of expression may be needed.

While not aimed directly at journalists, these trends are taking place as legislative efforts worldwide are pushing for stricter online safety regulations. Tech companies now face substantial civil penalties for non-compliance with laws like Australia’s Online Safety Act and the EU’s Digital Services Act, highlighting the critical role trust and safety teams play in protecting individuals and journalists from online harm.

The online space has enabled and encouraged journalists to engage and make direct connections with the public which, while valuable, also increases the potential for online abuse. The digital environment allows for and encourages “reciprocal journalism” where journalists and the public have the opportunity to learn from each other, which leads to increased trust and engagement in the news. Journalists provide factual information to the public and individuals share their experiences, thoughts and reactions with journalists.

At the same time, this closer connection creates more access points for potential online abuse. The rise of online harassment has significantly influenced journalists’ perceptions of their audiences. Those subjected to high levels of abuse tend to express negative sentiments towards their readership, adopting defensive mental barriers and emotional boundaries. As a result, they may withdraw from online platforms and self-censor their content.

In this delicate balance, the promise of reciprocal journalism can be overshadowed by the threat of online abuse, undermining the symbiotic relationship between journalists and their audiences. This situation is exacerbated by the disconnect between those making the policies on online abuse and those experiencing the abuse. 

Newsrooms do not always provide support to journalists experiencing harassment, creating mistrust within newsrooms. Financial and organizational culture often prevent newsrooms from providing support, such as mental healthcare coverage, to employees. As a result, journalists feel like they must deal with online abuse alone, and many have voiced a lack of trust in their newsrooms’ capacity and ability to assist them. 

News organizations can support journalists by developing comprehensive policies and protocols about online abuse and safety. For example, a common framework for reporting, recording and reviewing online abuse can lead to understanding the efforts used to target  journalists in a news organization.

Another way to aid journalists experiencing online harassment and abuse is through peer support. While it does not prevent online abuse, encouraging journalists to connect and discuss their shared experiences can alleviate some of the detrimental effects of online abuse.

End-to-end encryption complicates the government and technology companies’ shared responsibility for online content moderation.  End-to-end encryption (E2EE) services, such as Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp, can help shield journalists from obtrusive surveillance, and many journalists frequently use these services to communicate with each other and with sensitive sources. Different countries’ policies, such as the TAKE IT DOWN ACT in the U.S.,  are made to address online abuse but threaten the integrity of E2EE services.  

E2EE moderation is also complicated because globally, laws regarding online privacy are a patchwork. Current legal frameworks make content moderation across various geographic contexts convoluted. Governments and law enforcement organizations have even pressured technology companies to provide access to private E2EE messages. To address legitimate concerns without overmoderating legal content, technology companies and governments will need to find an appropriate balance that protects individual privacy online, including E2EE, while also mitigating online abuse.

State of Research

Journalists around the world are facing a growing tide of online abuse, and research reveals important trends and impacts. While any journalist can be a target, studies show that women and journalists of color are disproportionately affected, experiencing more intense and overt harassment. This abuse has serious consequences, including psychological distress, self-censorship and leaving the industry, threatening the existence of a free, independent and diverse press. 

Research shows the need for more support from news organizations. Many journalists feel their employers expect them to be active on social media platforms but do not provide adequate policies or support to protect them from harassment. This can lead to a perception that the organization prioritizes its reputation over the well-being of its staff. 

The research also shows that these attacks are often organized campaigns of “mob censorship.” In these scenarios, political leaders or other public figures make disparaging remarks about the press, which then incites groups of followers to target individual journalists with the goal of silencing them. 

To combat this, there are several promising interventions. Newsrooms can develop clear policies and protocols to address online abuse, provide support services for their staff and freelance journalists, and educate themselves about these coordinated campaigns. Peer support groups have emerged as an effective tool, offering a sense of community and shared understanding for journalists who are experiencing similar challenges. 

Continued research is needed to explore how technology can be used to mitigate abuse, what other support systems can be implemented, and how technology companies can be more transparent and accountable.

State of Legislation

A 2023 report by the World Bank reveals that out of the 190 countries examined, 58 had cyber harassment laws, and 22 of those 58 had legislation related to cyber sexual harassment. These are significant gaps in protection from online abuse for journalists. While some of these laws can cover journalists by extension, there are very few with a specific focus on online abuse of journalists. 

Countries have also been developing comprehensive legislation regarding online safety at large. This type of legislation is broader than cyberbullying legislation in that it focuses on many online harms (e.g., exploitation, data privacy and protection, terrorism). The European Union’s Digital Services Act (passed 2022, enacted 2024) and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act (2023) both have provisions for reducing online harms. Australia and the United Kingdom signed a joint memorandum (2024) to collaborate on creating a safer online experience for all users. 

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act and the U.S.’ TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025) both impact end-to-end encryption (E2EE) of online services. The United Kingdom’s act has provisions for online service providers to monitor end-to-end encrypted services for online abuse (e.g., child exploitation, terrorism). The U.S.’ act does not provide exceptions for E2EE services in its mandates for online services to remove flagged content within 48 hours or to identify and remove known copies. These types of provisions have led to concerns about government overreach and an invasion of privacy. 

Beyond legal protections, technology companies and social media platforms are also offering tools to journalists to limit online abuse such as filters to decrease the likelihood of encountering abusive content and a streamlined process of reporting abusive content to platforms. PEN America’s report about how to fix reporting processes on online platforms provides potential revisions/updates that can increase the effectiveness of reporting abusive online content.

Notable Legislation

The Issue

Journalists and their sources face digital security threats globally from a variety of actors, including states, corporations and criminal organizations. As cybersecurity concerns evolve and become a part of everyday life, they are becoming a critical concern for policymakers: as of 2025, 90% of countries have enacted cybercrime legislation.

These threats can take a variety of forms. Malware is a broad term for malicious software designed to disrupt systems, steal data or gain unauthorized access. Spyware, a type of malware, is designed to enter and steal data from a computer system to a different party.  Ransomware is a different kind of malware that encrypts the victims’ files, making them inaccessible. Often, attackers will demand a ransom in exchange for restoring access. Phishing attacks use fraudulent messages through email, SMS or other methods to trick individuals into revealing sensitive information like passwords or financial information. Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks overwhelm a website or server with a flood of traffic from multiple sources and cause it to slow down or crash, making it unavailable to most users. In man-in-the-middle attacks (MitM), perpetrators intercept communication channels to capture sensitive information. Social engineering attacks exploit publicly available personal information or information gathered through deception and manipulate users into providing unauthorized access. 

Digital threats are often linked to physical threats and can result in significant mental health concerns for journalists. This connection highlights the critical need for a holistic approach to security for journalists and news organizations. Governments’ use of spyware and “lawfare,” the weaponization of legal systems against journalists, further complicates the landscape. Beyond the safety risks, digital security challenges can damage public trust in the news media. Cyberattacks can disrupt operations and business models, driving away audiences. A lack of digital security training, especially in smaller newsrooms, can cause sources and whistleblowers to fear being unintentionally exposed. These threats are difficult and expensive for news organizations to manage alone, making collaboration among policymakers, tech platforms and civil society essential to protecting a free press.

What Makes It Complex

The effectiveness of cybercrime policies depends on how “cybercrime” is defined. There is no internationally accepted definition of cybercrime or cyberattacks. Some policies may include crimes dependent on the use of technology, crimes facilitated by the use of technology, or both. The definition can also be based on the seriousness of the crime or the type of case. Too broad or ambiguous a definition raises the potential for abuse of government power and can negatively impact journalists’ safety, freedom of expression and human rights. Due to the limited existing case law, it is unclear how cybercrime laws apply to the spyware industry, which poses threats to press freedom. Furthermore,  the term “cybercrime” must adapt as technology, such as AI, continues to evolve.

Digital policies sometimes lead to unintended consequences that impact the digital security of journalists and the general public. When creating digital policies, lawmakers must be careful not to inadvertently create new vulnerabilities or undermine existing protections. Certain policies, such as laws passed under the guise of protecting national security, can weaken digital security by making it easier for spyware to be deployed against journalists. Other measures may compromise the integrity of end-to-end encryption, a tool that helps keep communications private and is an essential part of press freedom. Additionally, policies that restrict or ban the use of VPNs directly endanger journalists who rely on these tools to bypass censorship, protect their IP addresses and conduct sensitive research. 

Policymakers must recognize and address these potential cyberthreats. Ensuring that new regulations do not create loopholes for surveillance technology, weaken encryption or limit access to essential security tools can help fortify the digital security of the independent press.

Governments and non-state actors are using spyware to surveil and intimidate journalists. The use of spyware against journalists represents a serious threat to the free flow of information and the safety of journalists. Recent incidents in countries like Poland and Italy illustrate the real-world danger of this technology and demonstrate that it is not limited to authoritarian contexts. The technology has the ability to infiltrate a target’s entire digital life without their knowledge. Journalists may be left with the uncertainty of whether their device has been compromised, a fear amplified by “zero-click attacks” where receiving a message is enough to infect a phone. The constant threat of surveillance fosters a climate of fear, creating a chilling effect on reporting. When journalists are afraid their sources will be revealed or their private communications censored, they may self-censor to avoid covering sensitive topics.

The ability to mitigate digital security risks differs across countries and across newsrooms. Despite the need for robust digital defenses to protect journalists, the widespread adoption of digital security tools remains low. A major factor is the significant lack of resources, funding, and technological infrastructure. Many news organizations, especially those in developing regions, do not have the budget to invest in security software, hire cybersecurity experts or maintain up-to-date hardware. The complexity and the lack of user-friendly technologies are another deterrent.

This problem is particularly pronounced in environments with unevenly developed infrastructure, where systems may be a patchwork of old and new technologies. This lack of a cohesive, modern foundation makes it difficult to implement and manage a comprehensive security strategy, leaving holes that cybercriminals can easily exploit.

Journalistic practices and norms can, at times, be in tension with digital security practices. Journalism is inherently public-facing and accessible, giving rise to high risk for those in the industry. Cybersecurity attacks can take many forms, including doxxing, man-in-the-middle attacks and online harassment. Journalists become even more vulnerable when their contact information is easily accessible online, such as  through social media. At the same time, removing such information is fundamentally at odds with newsroom efforts around audience interactivity and engagement.

CNTI’s own research has found that journalists do not always feel supported by their newsrooms when it comes to digital security. However, there are ways to improve this environment. It is important that news organizations implement policies and provide training and psychological support so their employees are better equipped to handle these situations. Journalists themselves need to adapt their technology habits and use available security tools.

State of Research

In the wake of prominent attacks and among a growing concern about AI’s broader threats to journalism, academic and public attention to the impact of cybercrime, ransomware and spyware on journalists has increased.

Research has depicted the unique threats of digital surveillance to investigative journalists and marginalized people and communities, including women, queer and gender-nonconforming people, and people of color. As noted earlier, there is a relationship between journalists’ digital presence and offline safety.

This research speaks to the global nature of digital security threats to an independent press. Future research should continue to examine how journalists, technology companies, researchers and policymakers can collaborate to defend against these threats, by tracking trends and sharing practices.

State of Legislation

Cybercrime has become a growing concern among policymakers in many parts of the world. However, cybercrime policy does not always account for — and at times directly threatens — the digital safety of journalists. Often, cybercrime policy efforts are led by countries’ security or banking sectors, leading to policymaking that may be at odds with international standards for press freedom and privacy. Research has found that many cybercrime laws can be used to target journalists, thus threatening an independent press and free expression.

Over the past two decades, legal frameworks established to protect an independent press and the confidentiality of journalistic sources and information have been threatened in many parts of the world. New legislation and policies, including national security legislation, override and/or contradict existing protections. Other policies pressure or force digital intermediaries to provide private user data. When legislation does not adequately account for new digital data or new technological tools used by journalists and sources, it cannot provide them with necessary legal protections. Thus, forward-thinking policymaking is critical.

Finally, it is critical to have open legislative processes around cybercrime or cybersecurity at both the supranational and national levels so that the voices of the news media, journalists and civil society more broadly are taken into account from the start.

Notable Legislation

The Issue

In its earliest days, the rise of the global internet signaled a potential for free and open societies that would transcend borders, connect people through digital civic spaces and provide a global repository of information. The internet, as a public good, can provide access to reliable and independent news as well as exposure to diverse sources and perspectives. But amid new technologies, changing geopolitical contexts and threats of online abuse and disinformation, policymakers around the world are rethinking updates to internet governance models. 

At the core of these discussions is who controls how the global internet functions. Often, this control is negotiated between governments and technology companies that preside over online spaces. 

These political, commercial and technological pressures risk fragmenting the internet into a collection of different networks and user experiences. Two users may encounter wholly different internet experiences based on their location and/or which corporation connects them to the internet. (This process is also referred to as “splintering” or “balkanization” and the result is sometimes referred to as “the splinternet”). In fact, internet fragmentation is already occurring in some places. While practices that result in internet fragmentation — via rhetoric, technological developments and legislation — are often enacted by autocratic regimes, they are also increasingly central to internet policy debates in democratic societies.

Regulations intended to restrict and/or control online environments can involve several tactics, such as content takedowns, blocked or rerouted websites or platforms, government-ordered network disruptions and versions of the internet entirely closed off from outside providers or services.

In weighing the challenges of this issue, it is helpful to distinguish between two types of internet regulation that result in fragmentation: 

1. Those where internet fragmentation is intentionally sought out, often to assert state control over data and digital assets or to cut off public access to independent information.
2. Those where internet fragmentation is an unanticipated byproduct of governments’ (or corporations’) attempts to prevent the spread of disinformation, address legitimate online harms and/or protect residents’ data from foreign interference. 

There are crucial differences between these two approaches, but both introduce risks if they do not include safeguards that protect both user rights and a free flow of global information. The preservation of an open internet is especially critical for the global protection of an independent, competitive news media. Journalists depend on access to open digital communication channels to both document and distribute news, particularly when platforms have been infiltrated or blocked by the state. A number of organizations that analyze internet freedom have found that online censorship and manipulation are growing worldwide. These are powerful threats to press freedom and safety as well as to public access to information.

As governments consider different approaches to internet regulation, they should consider that some policy responses risk facilitating a fragmented internet while others can protect societies from it. The challenge is to ensure they protect the public’s ability to use the internet to create, share and access information as well as journalists’ ability to report and distribute it — both within and across borders. 

At its most harmful, internet fragmentation enshrines government and/or corporate power in ways that erode human rights, including those of free expression and privacy. Policymakers must pay greater attention to these effects — even when unintended — to protect and promote an open internet.

What Makes It Complex

I. Internet fragmentation does not have a singular definition. As a result, it is hard to identify and address risks with comprehensive policy.

In academic and policy circles, the concept of internet fragmentation is broad and often contested. However, experts frequently cite three dimensions of fragmentation: 

1. Technical fragmentation, where systems may be completely disconnected from the global internet (e.g., China’s Great Firewall), or there may be other challenges to interoperability, such as websites that only render correctly on certain hardware. (For example, some websites designed for larger screens are very difficult to use on mobile phones — the primary internet device in most of the world.)
2. Content or user experience fragmentation, where individuals have different online experiences. In these cases, users may have technical connectivity, but face restrictions in what they can access (e.g., government-approved sources in a Google search or a social media feed, Netflix’s content filtered by geographic controls). It is also important to note that many differences of this type are beneficial, such as language and content localization.
3. Political or governance fragmentation, where decisions are made without consensus or where national governments introduce regulations that conflict with existing processes and policies. For example, Ukraine requested in 2022 that Russian domains be disconnected from the internet as a form of sanctions, although this request was ultimately denied.

Each of these types of internet fragmentation introduces different risks, requiring different approaches to address them.

II. Bans on specific digital platforms have become a common response to concerns about online safety and disinformation, but they increase the risk of internet fragmentation and, some argue, threaten free expression.
A growing list of governments around the world have taken — or considered taking — action against TikTok and its Beijing-based parent company ByteDance. These bans respond to ongoing debates around two key issues: the potential national security risks of allowing the Chinese government to access sensitive user data and/or distribute disinformation, and rising concern about children’s online safety on digital platforms. Autocratic governments have also weaponized bans of specific platforms, and some argue that these bans inhibit fundamental rights to access and distribute information in democratic societies. Enforcing bans on specific platforms could also require technical surveillance that could put privacy and civil liberties at risk. 

Some argue that there are times when platform bans are justified. For instance, in Brazil, Telegram and X have been blocked temporarily due to failures to comply with lawful requests from the Brazilian Supreme Court. 

III. There is legitimate disagreement about the bounds of free speech, even among democratic societies.
There has long been debate over whether and to what extent freedom of expression should include harmful forms of speech like hate speech and disinformation. For example, Germany places much stricter limits on free speech than the United States. More recently, these disagreements have come to the forefront in efforts to regulate online platforms, and are at the root of tensions between the U.S. and the EU. Inconsistent definitions of acceptable speech create more opportunities for fragmentation.

IV. Internet fragmentation presents new challenges for corporations asked to comply with demands that would permit governments’ abuse of power.
At times, governments may demand (including through legislative policy) that platforms provide private data and information on their users or take down content that is otherwise protected by free speech laws in other jurisdictions. If corporations adhere to these demands, they risk enabling government abuse. If they do not, they risk breaking the law, which may lead to fines or bans. These situations have arisen in Malaysia, India, Brazil and the United States which encompass many different sociopolitical contexts, including democratic societies. It is crucial to acknowledge that this issue is multifaceted, and corporations often choose specific jurisdictions and legal frameworks for market and product reasons.

V. Protecting an open internet is not always possible in autocratic societies, but actions taken elsewhere still impact people living under these autocratic regimes.
Citizens, advocacy groups and watchdog organizations often have limited power to stop autocratic action. However, open and globally focused policy discussions raise awareness and, as such, offer a means of pushing back against abuses of power and creating greater accountability. Further, democratic governments can impact people in authoritarian regimes by taking internet governance actions — for better or for worse. For example, while the Iranian regime’s censorship and infrastructure controls form the core of internet restriction, U.S. sanctions exacerbate the problem by further limiting ordinary users’ access to global platforms and services. On the other hand, the EU’s Global Gateway promotes rights-based infrastructure in emerging economies.

VI. Consolidation of infrastructure among a few large companies may counterbalance state power — but it increases other risks.
Every layer of the internet has become consolidated among a few very large companies. There are benefits to this consolidation, notably for users’ security and privacy from the state. However, consolidation can cause problems for internet resilience: when these large companies face attacks or technical problems, the impact is much broader. Moreover, consolidation increases the reach of corporations, worsening the potential impact of state abuse by proxy and corporate-driven fragmentation. Many observers have raised major concerns about corporations’ power over both public and private information.

VII. Zero-rating programs can prevent people from accessing the complete, open internet.
Technology companies, including mobile carriers and app providers, have implemented “zero rating” programs, which provide select content or services without data charges. These programs are offered to attract customers and increase internet access, especially in less wealthy countries, but they can also fragment the internet landscape. By granting free access to certain sources of content but charging for others, these programs can become the arbiters of what content is accessible, creating a tiered internet ecosystem as they promote broader adoption. (For example, Meta offers free internet access to millions of people who would not otherwise have access — but Meta limits what they can access.) 

VIII. The contemporary internet is still not a truly universal or open network; technical and linguistic access vary considerably around the world.
Debates around public access to information and international connectivity standards must consider existing barriers to an open, global internet. According to the World Economic Forum, 2.5 billion people still lacked internet access as of September 2024. There are also large gender gaps in internet access in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Even among those who do have access, speeds vary dramatically around the world. And access gaps are not just technical: 85% of internet content is in just 10 of the more than 7,000 languages currently spoken. Even among the dominant languages, the universe of information available online differs from one language to the next. New efforts are just beginning to address this challenge.

IX. Policymakers may not have access to nuanced technical expertise in how the internet works, which can make it harder to foresee unintended consequences.
The internet is complex, and policy development requires evidence-based technical discussions in order to be effectively addressed, especially when it comes to fragmentation. Understanding the layers of the internet stack is vital to identifying technical fragmentation or changes in infrastructure that prevent systems from interoperating and the internet from functioning consistently at all endpoints. However, additional forms of expertise are also important — such as expertise in privacy, bias and disparate effects. That’s because fragmentation is not necessarily only technical in origin. Fragmentation can also be rooted in governmental policies or corporate practices that prevent use of the internet.

State of Research

To date, much of the work on internet governance has centered on “digital authoritarianism” (with a particular focus on China and Russia), as well as some research examining the European Union’s digital sovereignty agenda. We are just now starting to see a growing segment of research focused more broadly on assessing both the extent of internet fragmentation and the mechanisms that contribute to it. 

However, most of the research either provides informative case studies or focuses narrowly on the policy context. As a result, there is little systematic research on the scope and impact of shifts in internet governance. Moreover, a lack of consensus about what internet ‘freedom’ and ‘censorship’ entail also means that researchers disagree about appropriate interventions. 

As platform bans, data localization and age verification become more commonly discussed approaches to addressing online safety and disinformation, research analyzing the scope and impact of these policy debates will be particularly useful. This includes how particular policy language is adopted in one context and readopted elsewhere over time and on a global scale.

State of Legislation

The internet is now a central locus of global policymaking as governments increasingly debate how to regulate digital spaces within (and sometimes outside) their own borders. Internet governance includes a broad range of stakeholders and mechanisms including national and international policy as well as infrastructures, technical standards and company policies.

In recent years, there has been a shift towards “digital sovereignty,” or governmental capacity to control or regulate residents’ internet content and their country’s flow of data through its technological infrastructures. 

In some cases, legislation attempts to protect societies from a fragmented internet. In others, legislation risks encouraging fragmentation either intentionally or unintentionally. Such legislation includes direct attempts to develop a closed national intranet, interventions to block access to specific platforms or sources of news and information, and broader online governance laws that may introduce indirect consequences for free expression and an open internet. For example, online safety regulations in the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States may promote protections for residents while risking user experience fragmentation by enhancing controls over what and where content is shown.

Those developing legislation to protect an open internet should consult resources and recommendations provided by global internet experts. Recommendations include limiting governments’ ability to collect or access user data, protecting encryption and VPN access, creating interoperable privacy and governance regimes, and maintaining access to services and platforms.

Notable Legislation

Archived Resources

Issue primers have been reviewed at multiple stages by more than 20 global research and industry expert partners, including CNTI advisory committee members, representing five regions. We invite you to send us research, legislation and other resources. Read more about CNTI’s issue primer and other research quality standards.

The Issue

The public’s perceived relevance of journalists and the role they play in providing fact-based accounting of events and issues is an essential ingredient in building policy that protects a strong, diverse and independent press, a crucial principle of democracy. Yet, achieving relevance seems harder than ever. 

The internet provides new opportunities for producing news, telling stories and reaching and connecting with audiences. It also poses new challenges – including entirely new structures and formats of news as well as a wider range of content and creators competing for the public’s attention, trust and value. The public’s ability to share information and opinions through social media also holds journalists accountable in ways they weren’t in the age of traditional media.

In a digital environment where publishers no longer serve as the sole gatekeepers of news and information, they must find new ways to stand out by developing relationships with audiences that reflect their lifestyles and habits. This means rethinking the very concept of news: how people define it, what news they’re looking for and where they access it. The “unbundling” of news and its financial structure are only the beginning of what has changed. 

Younger generations require particular attention. In addition to being digital natives, many also have grown up in the social media age, when news is just one of many kinds of content mixed into online spaces which include messaging apps, private groups, video games and social feeds. Information sources are global. With so many choices, access to verified and independent reporting can be difficult. With habits already different from other age groups, how will their relationships with news evolve as they move further into adulthood? More broadly, how do they differentiate news from other kinds of content? What do they look for versus happen upon? How do they recognize brands, if at all? Who do they trust, and why?

Members of historically marginalized and underserved communities also require attention. They often have well-earned skepticism of news media broadly, having been historically underrepresented in newsrooms and misrepresented in (and actively harmed by) news coverage. They face unequal targeting from disinformation campaigns and often have less access to news and information. Inequities in representation, coverage and access impact people with disabilities through insufficient accessible and inclusive news, particularly for visually impaired news audiences and/or people with cognitive disabilities. 

Many newsrooms have taken significant steps to connect with and serve marginalized and underserved communities, but there is still much ground to cover. One of the positives of the digital realm is the low cost to publishing, which has enabled the creation of niche news publishers. That said, building audiences can be incredibly challenging because it involves creating content specific populations connect to and value. 

For journalism to be relevant today, publishers must listen to audiences and evaluate what they want and need so they can both meet their audiences’ wants and needs and offer accountable, fact-based work. As important as independent, competitive journalism and an open internet are to the future of functioning societies, neither can be ensured if the press, at large, does not gain the recognition, relevance and trust of audiences in the communities it strives to serve. Publishers and journalists need to think hard about what news means in the future and how people find it, value it and understand who produces it. Neither further regulation nor revenue alone can solve this part of the equation. 

One challenge publishers face is gathering research and analysis that differentiates between their audiences’ expressed desires for news and actual media practices. This research and analysis is complex, expensive and falls largely on the news industry and research communities.

What Makes It Complex

What publishers think about news “relevance” does not always align with what the public considers relevant to them. What audiences personally want and value from the news can be contradictory and can vary, particularly when it comes to younger and historically marginalized audiences. The mismatch between publishers’ perception and the public’s perception of what is relevant exists from the international level to the local level. For instance, research shows that large national news outlets in the U.S. often skew coverage toward a wealthy, white and liberal audience, and local U.S. newsrooms often fail to cover topics their local audiences are seeking out.

The primary challenges to producing relevant news are different in different contexts. For instance, in politically polarized societies like the U.S. and Brazil, partisanship plays a critical role in perceptions of and trust in news media. There are also countries where history influences the public’s understanding of and relationship with news media. There is also variation in the degree of independence the news media has had from national governments. In many cases, larger institutional or cultural shifts are required before we can address broader issues of relevance through changes to news practices or content.

News publishers must make trade-offs to engage different groups. Journalists cannot meet the needs and wants of every person. What appeals to one group might very well turn off another. This applies to everything from long-form to short-form content, and from news that carries viewpoints and opinions to news that does not. It also applies to the use of visuals, source type, and topics. Publishers seeking to appeal to a mass audience rather than smaller, niche ones that share news preferences face the greatest challenge engaging their audiences.

Many people do not see the news as central to their lives. While the future of independent journalism is critical for open societies, it is not often central to people’s everyday lives or online experiences. People are increasingly getting news via distributed discovery (especially social media and search engines), but many use platforms primarily for other purposes and may actually be hesitant to get news from them. Further, people who are less trusting of news also pay less attention to and have fewer opinions about news practices, implying a broader lack of interest in what news is or what it should be. Persuading the public to see news as relevant will require communicating its value to people who do not consider news to be an important part of their lives.

Young people’s media habits and attitudes make them harder for news publishers to reach than older audiences. Compared with older audiences, under-30s in particular are increasingly reliant on digital and social media, more disconnected from news brands, and have different perceptions of what news is. Younger and/or less educated audiences are more likely to avoid news because they perceive it as hard to follow or understand. Traditional media often assumes a certain amount of knowledge and often provides little explanation of context, which can alienate younger or newer news consumers. And, the spaces they find news and information online change. For instance, younger audiences increasingly use platforms like TikTok as both a search engine and a news source despite understanding that not all information on the app is credible and/or independent. It is critical that publishers meet audiences where they are, and with news formats they can understand, trust and connect with.

State of Research

Research continues to indicate global public interest and trust in the news media declining and news avoidance rising. Many news avoiders perceive the news as irrelevant for navigating their daily lives. The question of news relevance, and the public’s perceptions of it, tie into a broad range of research topics, including media trust and engagement, the changing media environment and business models, and the public’s news choices and expectations (and those of young news audiences specifically). Together, this work – detailed at various points throughout this issue primer – paints a clear picture of the challenges facing publishers attempting to remain or become relevant to their audiences. 

Moving forward, audience-centered work quantitatively and qualitatively measuring public perceptions and attitudes of news relevance and public trust in non-U.S. and comparative contexts is critical. In many countries, we simply lack evidence-based understandings of what different groups want and need from news publishers. For example, we could move beyond simple assumptions that news for younger audiences needs to have a “youth” slant if the solution is actually hiring young talent and presenting stories in ways and on platforms that align with their lifestyles. 

Research can also push to explore new ways of thinking about news. Many of the decades-old parameters of how news is defined no longer apply, making it less clear what news means to people today. Many initiatives aiming to connect with audiences – such as explanatory, “good news,” solutions or constructive journalism – are also untested, and their effectiveness (as well as whether audiences actually want them) is still unclear. And, while recent research has told us much about how audiences (including young people) either intentionally or incidentally consume digital news, opportunities remain for further exploring how specific audiences navigate an increasingly mediated and fragmented digital news environment.

State of Legislation

Legislation might not be explicitly designed to address the challenges of news relevance, but it nonetheless serves as a motivating factor behind a range of policies at the intersection of journalism and technology. This includes legislative debates addressed across several of CNTI’s issue primers:

• Our issue primer addressing economic support for news outlines policies intended to support commercial, public and local media through various funding mechanisms, which may offer ways for journalists and publishers to focus on important connections with the public. However, it is often unclear whether these responses address, or even consider, what the public desires or how they connect with news today, which are central for the news media to remain relevant with audiences.
• In our issue primer on artificial intelligence (AI) in journalism, we consider how automation offers opportunities for news productivity and innovation at the same time that it risks enabling disinformation, obscuring source attribution and undermining public trust in news. These questions of trust will continue to be influenced by how publishers, technology companies and policymakers handle AI transparency and accountability.
• In our issue primer on addressing disinformation, we detail global concerns about the rise of false and misleading information online as well as the type of content the public tends to perceive as mis- and disinformation. These perceptions have critical insights into which sources audiences trust and consider relevant.

Resources & Events

Issue primers have been reviewed at multiple stages by more than 20 global research and industry expert partners, including CNTI advisory committee members, representing five regions. We invite you to send us research, legislation and other resources. Read more about CNTI’s issue primer and other research quality standards.

The Issue

For decades, the commercial business model of bundled news with embedded advertising generated high profitability for publishers. The internet gave rise to new structures for news consumption as well as new and more targeted ways for advertisers to reach people. As the digital landscape evolved and more of the public moved online, the traditional news business model became obsolete and the news industry plunged into financial crisis. 

Simultaneously, the role of news publishers began to change, particularly when it came to distribution of news. While the advent of digital platforms (primarily social media and search engines) broadened news publishers’ access to potential audiences, it also left publishers more dependent on these intermediaries. 

Amid these changes, the news industry has made efforts to develop new business models such as building digital subscribers, donations, grants, membership events and other means of funding. While there have been some successes, the news industry has not been able to generate the levels of revenue it had previously enjoyed. Because news is critical to functioning democracies, governments and civil society have responded to economic challenges in the news industry with a range of policy initiatives aimed at providing financial support.

When it comes to commercial news media, a range of proposals to provide financial support exist, but most notable are recent media bargaining legislation in Australia and Canada, which have inspired policy debates in many parts of the world. Earlier attempts to provide financial support for news were often based on copyright law, but these policies are based on competition (antitrust) law, requiring digital platforms to negotiate payment to news publishers on the grounds that platforms have financially benefited from digital advertising by providing links to publisher content without due compensation. Other efforts, such as in the U.S., aim to create exemptions to antitrust law to bring technology companies to the bargaining table. 

In response to some of this legislation, technology companies such as Meta and Google have begun to shift away from news altogether, calling the legislation unworkable for a number of reasons, including concerns over their own financial liabilities. This shift away from news would almost certainly harm publishers’ (and particularly smaller publishers’) ability to reach audiences and inhibit the public’s ability to access legitimate news sources and information. 

There are also ongoing policy debates surrounding what is perhaps the most substantial form of direct government intervention in the news industry: support for public service media. In many democracies, public media sit at the center of the news ecosystem, making them key players in debates around public policy aimed at enabling independent, competitive journalism. However, public media also continue to face many of the same threats as the commercial news industry, including challenges with digital transitions, decades of budget cuts and, in some cases, political attacks. As we address later in this primer, policy discussions surrounding public versus commercial news media support are often siloed or considered at odds with one another (despite little to no evidence to date supporting the theory that public media support ‘crowds out’ or shrinks commercial news audiences). 

Attempts to regulate economic support for the news industry introduce difficult but critical questions about the balance between news as a public good versus a market product, the role of public or local media and freelance journalists in the news ecosystem, the tension between content neutrality and curbing mis- and disinformation, the challenge of making complex and proprietary platform infrastructures publicly governable and accountable, the potential implications of government involvement in news media revenue structures and the role of public policy in compensating for market forces (versus changing them) in the public interest.

It is critical to address the economic sustainability of the news industry, which includes promoting a pluralistic, diverse and innovative media ecosystem, local and public news, and broader public access to news. However, these multistakeholder conversations must be guided by evidence-based practices that reflect strengths and weaknesses of policy-driven news support, with an eye toward media independence, plurality and transparency.

What Makes It Complex

These debates raise the broader question of whether, or to what extent, governments can and should save independent journalism from financial crisis. Democratic governments are obligated to protect fundamental rights, including the basic freedom to access and share information. However, protecting free expression alone is not enough to sustain the news media. Strong legal protections of the press in countries like South Africa and the U.S. have not protected their news industries from financial struggles. Policymakers can help to enable an environment supportive of an independent, competitive press – if they are willing to commit resources to these efforts, prioritize strong governance and protect editorial independence.

Legislation must be sensitive to a country’s context and media environment, which makes replicable or one-size-fits-all approaches ineffective. While early efforts to address the economic sustainability of news media can help inform approaches in other parts of the world, there are also lessons to be learned beyond these narrow (i.e., largely Global North) contexts. Approaches to developing domestic policy must consider the specific country’s media environment and history. For example, histories of governmental press control or low levels of institutional trust may influence some countries’ approaches to or perceptions of government involvement in funding or supporting news media. Other challenges, particularly for emerging democracies, may include less instructive experience, limited support and resources, weakened civil society, and government control of media associations or press councils that would shepherd such changes or existing legal structures (e.g., laws preventing tax revenue from going toward news media).

Holistic solutions for media sustainability may not be possible, or even preferred, but piecemeal responses may make it more difficult to create lasting solutions or to measure success. For instance, despite evidence that countries with well-funded, independent public media consistently have stronger democratic outcomes, public media (as well as local media) are often dealt with in separate policy initiatives from commercial news media. Public service media are, in theory, meant to serve the whole public, meaning that – when truly independent – they can play a key role in providing free public access to information and making attempts to combat disinformation. Countries that address commercial media sustainability but do not address public or local media sustainability risk perpetuating existing inequalities in news access and diversity and continuing to serve audiences who are already better-served.

If a primary concern driving legislation is to address news publishers’ increased dependence on digital platforms, it is especially critical to ensure that legislation does not inadvertently create more dependence on, provide more power to or constrain scrutiny of these companies. Legislative policy that puts platforms in charge of negotiating with news organizations risks decisions made based on commercial interests. Further, if news publishers rely financially on payments from major technology companies, it would be reasonable to worry that publishers may not scrutinize these companies through news coverage as much as they would absent their financial relationships. There is also a question of how sustainable some policies may be if they create financial dependence on digital platforms that may or may not last, as digital habits and interests shift, both among the public and among platform companies who may simply choose to shift away from news content at any time.

It is important that these policy decisions do not jeopardize media independence or introduce new opportunities for undue political influence on publishers. Legislation that puts governments in charge of determining who qualifies as a news organization and how news revenue is structured risks politically motivated decisions and loss of journalistic independence. These risks must be considered even in countries where the current government supports an independent news media, as ruling parties can – and indeed do – change, such as in Nicaragua and Serbia. Policymakers must consider the risks of media capture, including how to prevent political influence from determining which publishers succeed in the media market as well as how to ensure media plurality.

It is unclear to what degree certain policies will actually bolster news reporting or support news innovation and a diverse, competitive news environment. Current policy approaches largely benefit legacy and large news publishers at the expense of smaller independent or local ones. The policies often lack full transparency, equal collective bargaining rights for smaller or independent publishers and other mechanisms that would ensure diverse distribution of funding. While policymakers in some countries have attempted to resolve these issues by allowing for collective bargaining, these policies usually leave smaller or independent publishers and freelancers unequally served. These smaller, typically digital-first startups are often paving the way for news innovation, thus, policies that are destructive to these smaller independent publishers suppress the emergence of new business models which are essential to the success of the news industry as a whole. Further, even among those who agree that technology companies should pay for facilitating access to news on their platforms, there remains a lack of consensus over how or where that money should be spent by publishers.

Content-neutral funding initiatives can undermine efforts to curb mis- and disinformation. Some media bargaining codes risk funding purveyors of disinformation due to a) efforts to maintain neutrality in who qualifies for funding, and b) using publisher reach or traffic as a key criteria for bargaining structures. This challenge is exacerbated by the difficulty of defining or measuring news “quality” (see more discussion of this in a separate issue primer). It is critical that considerations of content neutrality in policy-driven economic support for news weigh the opportunities of promoting a diverse media environment against the threats of potentially incentivizing or directly funding disinformation or clickbait.

State of Research

As CNTI notes in other issue primers, a breadth of research in recent years has emphasized both the global news industry’s continued struggle with the transition to a digital and mobile media environment and publishers’ evolving relationship with, and dependency on, platform companies.

One segment of this research is specifically concentrated around policy-driven economic support for news. Much of this recent work centers on three key areas:

• Systematic evidence of the impact of platforms (and platform changes) on publishers and the public.
• Evaluations of existing cases of media sustainability legislation, including Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code and Canada’s tax credits.
• Evaluations of a broader set of initiatives with the aim of supporting an independent, pluralistic news media environment, including funding public service media or local news publishers.

It is clear across this work that no policy response addressing economic support for news is perfect. However, experts in this field have noted the strengths and weaknesses of various legislative efforts, consistently calling for measures of transparency and public accountability, the protection of editorial independence from undue commercial and political influence and the need to tailor solutions to a country’s specific needs. Further, this work reflects the broad range of tested and broadly supported policy initiatives that exist outside of media bargaining codes, including those that promote media pluralism and support public or local media.

As new policy initiatives aimed at media sustainability – and responses from major platform companies – unfold in real time, future work in this area can uniquely examine the impact of such legislation on media sustainability and independence as well as an informed public. One major obstacle to research in this area is limited independent researcher access to publishers’ closely held internal data (or smaller and local publishers simply lacking such data) as well as to platforms’ increasingly restrictive APIs, which CNTI explores in more detail in a separate issue primer. Related to this is a lack of, and at times conflicting, data on and research into news publishers’ advertising revenue and traffic. Collaboration among publishers, platforms, academics and civil society organizations will be critical to evaluating the success of policy models for media sustainability.

State of Legislation

Globally, policymakers and civil society have tried a wide range of approaches to enable a sustainable and pluralistic media environment with varying success. These approaches have included but are not limited to:

• Funding for public service media via license fees (e.g., the UK), media taxes (e.g., Germany) or from the state budget (e.g., Denmark).
• Direct domestic subsidies (e.g., Denmark, France, Canada) to news organizations or independent funding bodies.
• Indirect domestic subsidies, including Value-Added Tax (VAT) exemptions and tax rebates (e.g., Ghana) or credits (e.g., Canada) for publishers, editorial roles, freelance journalists or digital subscriptions.
• Media subscription vouchers (e.g., France).
• Competitive or selective funds (e.g., formerly New Zealand).
• Emergency relief funds (e.g., during COVID-19).
• International subsidies for public interest journalism.
• Government advertising, though this can become a method of indirect censorship.
• Extended copyright or copyright-like protections (e.g., Germany, Spain, EU).
• Non-legislative approaches such as direct civil society or private-sector funding.

More recently, as we note earlier in this primer, adopted and proposed legislation in countries such as Australia, Canada, Brazil and the U.S. has required large platform companies to negotiate commercial deals with news publishers for their content, largely on the basis of antitrust or competition law. To proponents of these initiatives, they represent a much-needed rebalancing of power between digital platforms and the publishers whose content they distribute and monetize. As Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code in particular becomes a popular model for other governments, experts continue to note concerns, evidenced by research cited above, about issues of transparency, a lack of definitional clarity, long-term sustainability and further media dependence on major platforms. Additionally, media bargaining structures, which often primarily benefit legacy and larger publishers, risk becoming the arbiter of what news and information appears online, as well as whether news is carried there at all.

As we discuss in a separate issue primer, in many cases it is unclear how to assess what “quality” news – or even “news” more broadly – is. While some work indicates a certain degree of consensus around how to define ‘news’ across existing legislation in countries like Canada and the U.S., the provisions that structure these definitions (including publisher reach, size, geographic orientation, originality of reporting, etc.) vary and shape the outcomes of these laws.

Notable Legislation

Resources & Events

Issue primers have been reviewed at multiple stages by more than 20 global research and industry expert partners, including CNTI advisory committee members, representing five regions. We invite you to send us research, legislation and other resources. Read more about CNTI’s issue primer and other research quality standards.

The Issue

Manipulated imagery has been around for over 150 years but it has reached a new level with “deepfakes.” The term “deepfake” originated in 2017 to describe audio and videos manipulated with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to resemble a real person even when the person portrayed did not say or do what is depicted in the content. Deepfakes are a subset of “synthetic media” which include audio, images, text and video content created with the assistance of AI. There continue to be conversations about how to differentiate synthetic audiovisual content from deepfake audiovisual content. Like many topics CNTI covers, the definitional clarity of these terms remains a work in progress and is important when considering policy.  

The number of deepfakes online increased tenfold from 2022 to 2023. While some research raises questions about the degree to which harm can be directly attributed to manipulated media, there is certainly some evidence of it in countries such as Slovakia, the United Kingdom and the United States. This is especially alarming amid a record-breaking number of national elections being held in 2024 and as broader global concerns grow about threats to the overall stability of a country. A March 2022 deepfake, for example, depicted the Ukrainian President falsely ordering his country’s military to surrender. 

To date, the highest-quality, most-convincing deepfakes require a large amount of training data and a lot of time to be persuasive. Therefore, most actors intending to cause harm are likely to pursue less resource-intensive means to spread false narratives such as disinformation tactics discussed in a separate CNTI issue primer. But as technological innovations advance, deepfakes are rapidly becoming easier to make and more persuasive.

Alongside the worry about the direct impact of a deepfake is concern about a “liar’s dividend” and the sowing of further distrust in “real news,” the news media and government figures.

Responses to the growth in deepfakes are occurring on several fronts. Many digital and online platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and YouTube) have begun implementing disclosure policies that require advertisements using AI-created content to be labeled. Others are banning certain types of synthetic material, creating training resources to assist in combating these images and working on ways to embed content with tags to confirm authenticity. 

News organizations have also developed online training courses to assist with identifying deepfakes. However, interviews with expert fact-checkers reveal that while deepfakes are a concern, many feel that more critical threats come from text, images, audio and/or video taken out of context (i.e., “decontextualized”) as well as other forms of manipulated media such as “cheap fakes” where information is recontextualized into a false narrative. 

Methods to detect synthetic media have advanced over the last several years. These identification technologies examine the shadows, geometry, pixels and/or audio anomalies of suspected synthetic media and look for hidden watermarks to evaluate authenticity. Detection challenges have encouraged researchers and the public to experiment with new ways to accurately identify deepfakes. While these techniques will almost certainly be unable to fully erase the threats of synthetic media, they do offer steps toward establishing guardrails to protect the public’s access to authentic information. To identify how to best implement detection methods, further collaboration across various sectors (e.g., technology, communications, policy, government, etc.) is needed. 

Most countries do not have specific legislation on synthetic media, but among those that do, policies fall into two general categories: (1) banning all deepfake content that does not obtain consent from the individual(s) depicted or (2) requiring disclosure and/or labeling of deepfake content. Deepfake-related regulation is particularly complex due to many countries’ protections for freedom of speech and expression. 

What Makes It Complex

Clearly delineating what qualifies as a deepfake is difficult but critical. Governments and researchers are confronting how best to differentiate deepfakes from other types of synthetic media content. For instance, there is a question about whether the material depicted must be deceptive in nature to be classified as a “deepfake.” Other definitional considerations revolve around intent, harm and consent. For example, a 2019 synthetic video of soccer star David Beckham speaking nine languages was intended to disseminate factual information about malaria but it used deepfake technologies to make the dialogue sound authentic. The intent of this deepfake was not to be deceptive or spread harm but it is still widely considered a deepfake because of how it was made. On the flip side, altered images have been around for over 150 years – without the use of artificial intelligence – but may be intentionally deceptive, similar to AI-generated deepfakes. The spectrum of synthetic media becomes increasingly complex with the inclusion of “shallowfakes” and “cheap fakes” – forms of manipulated media that do not require advanced technological tools. Better delineating what types of content are classified broadly as synthetic media versus specifically as “deepfakes” (a subset of synthetic media) is crucial to separate the benign and beneficial uses (e.g., for education and entertainment) from harmful uses.

While developing software to detect and counter deepfakes requires strong digital infrastructure and financial resources that only certain countries have available, new labeling and disclosure tools are making methods for addressing deepfakes more accessible globally. Developing independent software for detecting and countering deepfakes is expensive, but tools to identify whether or not media sources have been manipulated are becoming available for wider use. One potential strategy is to use trained human graders in combination with pre-trained AI detection models. Researchers find these combined approaches can have advantages over using a single detection method. In response to the growing number of deepfakes, content creators and the technology industry have also begun developing ways to tag and label manipulated media. These include both direct and indirect disclosure approaches to maintain transparency and assert provenance (i.e., authenticity) as well as different types of content labeling. Watermarking is one technique that can be visible to users or embedded in media to certify its authenticity. Arriving at a global standard for this type of labeling should be a priority. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) is one possible standard which has received support from Adobe, Google, Intel and Microsoft among many other organizations. While technology tools and disclosure and labeling requirements greatly help to address deepfakes, they are unlikely to remove all mis- and disinformation from the news ecosystem so understanding how to mitigate threats from all sources is critical for promoting fact-based news. 

Efforts to regulate deepfake content must be compatible with laws protecting freedom of speech and expression. Governments need to determine where to draw the line between legal and illegal deepfake content. In countries that legally protect free speech, deepfakes present difficult circumstances for determining what is legal or illegal content. To a degree, sharing false statements is a protected right under freedom of speech and expression laws so banning all deepfake content is likely illegal, thus making the regulation of deepfakes particularly complex. 

Synthetic media create opportunities for journalists to protect their identity in threatening situations, but deceptive behavior runs counter to many news outlets’ codes of ethics on misrepresentation. The technological innovations brought forth by deepfakes may allow journalists and/or their sources to remain anonymous by altering their appearance and voice when working on sensitive projects. However, this goes against many outlets’ codes about journalists remaining honest and transparent during reporting as well as policies about deception. While news organizations may outline rare circumstances for journalists to protect anonymity or to engage in deceptive practices, these are only allowed for matters of public interest or personal safety. Determining when journalists can use deepfakes for their work is an important ethical consideration.

State of Research

While deepfakes are a relatively new technological innovation, much research has explored how individuals interpret false information presented in differing forms of media (e.g., text, audio and/or video). In one recent study, even in the presence of a warning that deepfake content would be encountered, nearly 80% of participants did not correctly identify the only deepfake in a series of five videos. Other work has found that up to half of respondents in a nationally representative sample cannot differentiate between manipulated and authentic videos. These findings indicate that deepfakes are difficult to counter and that correcting false information is needed to support a well-informed public. 

There are also evidence-based areas of hope. Research suggests people can be trained to better detect deepfakes. Interventions that focus on the accuracy of information and the low cost of producing consumer-grade deepfakes (which can now be done in a matter of minutes using apps and websites) show positive results in an effort to counter the negative effects of this type of content. 

To complement training individuals about detecting deepfakes, one strategy is to study how responsive individuals are to informational fact checks and labels on manipulated media: 

• Fact-checking politicians’ false statements has been shown to decrease beliefs that the statements were factual, though further research into how partisanship shapes interpretation of synthetic media is crucial. Developing digital media literacy approaches, like how to spot false information, will likely be important to help individuals recognize high-quality, fact-based news. 
• Findings suggest that tagging information as false, while beneficial, also has consequences for true, authentic information. General, broad disclosures about false information can cause viewers to discount true, accurate news. The public may grow more accustomed to looking for labels and other kinds of disclosures as a way of trusting its veracity but that remains a question for now.
• False information that is not tagged as such is found to be interpreted as more accurate than other false information that has been tagged as false. These findings suggest that labels can be effective but they must be comprehensive and cover all applicable synthetic media.
• The value of asserting provenance, or tracking the authenticity and origin of content, has also been studied. While the public may not widely grasp provenance as a concept, it has been shown to decrease trust in deceptive media when presented to individuals. Further education on the importance of provenance for a fact-based news ecosystem is needed.

Future research should continue to study (1) how individuals engage with synthetic content and (2) how persuasive the public finds this content, which is especially relevant given how realistic and life-like these media are becoming. In response to the increased presence of synthetic media, researchers should also consider what techniques – including labeling and disclosure – are most effective for mitigating the negative effects stemming from deepfake content. Understanding how to respond to and “treat” individuals who have encountered deepfake content is an important consideration that can support fact-based news endeavors. Finally, research should also examine how newsrooms will confront the proliferation of deepfake content and its potential harms.

State of Legislation

Most countries do not have any existing policies that specifically target deepfakes. The existing legislation on deepfakes grapples with how to accommodate less harmful and/or benign uses of synthetic media (e.g., art, education, comedy) while addressing a broad range of harmful uses (e.g., nonconsensual adult content, deceiving consumers). Defining the harmful, illegal uses of deepfake content is critical for effective policy. Legislation attempting to protect societies from deepfake content must decide whether to ban all AI-generated deepfake content or to set restrictions on material allowed in deepfake content and develop regulations on how it is presented to audiences (e.g., labeling). 

Another crucial consideration for public policy is how to best classify deepfake media content. Much of the legislation being debated and passed in U.S. states is about images, videos and audio. However, some pieces of legislation also address text-related synthetic media, while others focus solely on videos – even if generative AI was not used in the manipulated videos. Global standards for what types of media are classified as deepfake content might be helpful but only if they are fully inclusive of the ways people receive information and interact with news and allow for future developments.

Current approaches across several U.S. states, the European Union and China involve implementing disclosure requirements or labeling content that has been generated using AI. These approaches include watermarking, content labeling and disclaimers. The parties responsible for enforcing these types of deepfake regulations have included government agencies but concerns persist that the technology is moving more quickly than legislation and oversight. For many countries, current laws that may be affected by deepfake content (e.g., right to privacy, defamation or cybercrime) do not specifically address synthetic media. These gaps make regulating manipulated content difficult. Enforcement is also problematic in cases where the content creator resides outside of a country’s jurisdiction. 

Experts recommend focusing policies on the general harms of technological innovations rather than on the technologies themselves as it is likely impossible to detect and/or ban all manipulated synthetic media. There are also concerns that deepfake regulation will curtail freedom of speech and expression. Future legislation should consider how to best craft regulations to avoid the costs of such regulations outweighing the benefits. As such, regulations ought to consider the balance between the need for freedom of expression (and an open internet) while also protecting against the harms of mis- and disinformation.

Notable Legislation

Resources & Events

Issue primers have been reviewed at multiple stages by more than 20 global research and industry expert partners, including CNTI advisory committee members, representing five regions. We invite you to send us research, legislation and other resources. Read more about CNTI’s issue primer and other research quality standards.

The Issue

Early forms of artificial intelligence (prior to the development of generative AI) have been used for years to both create and distribute online news and information. Until the recent wave of accessible generative AI systems (such as DALL-E, ChatGPT and Gemini), public debates around the rise of artificial intelligence largely focused on its potential to disrupt manual labor and operational work. These newer systems, however, have raised concerns about their potential for 

• destabilizing white-collar jobs and media work, 
• abusing copyright (both against and by newsrooms), 
• giving the public inaccurate information and 
• eroding trust. 

At the same time, these technologies also create new pathways for innovation in news production, such as generating summaries or newsletters, covering local events (with mixed results), finding stories and moderating comments sections.

As newsrooms experiment with using generative AI, some of their practices are being criticized for errors and a lack of transparency. News publishers themselves are claiming copyright and terms-of-service violations by those using news content to build and train new AI tools. In some cases, they are forming coalitions or striking deals with tech companies. They are also concerned that generative AI tools are changing how people search online, shifting traffic away from news content.

These developments introduce novel legal and ethical challenges for journalists, creators, policymakers and social media platforms. This includes how publishers use AI in news production and distribution, how AI systems draw from news content and how AI policy around the world will shape both.

What Makes it Complex

Lack of agreement about what constitutes AI makes scoping policy a challenge. What comprises “artificial intelligence” is often contested and difficult to define depending on how broad the scope is (e.g., if it includes or excludes classical algorithms) and whether one uses technical or “human-based” language. The widespread definitional disagreement can lead to misalignment in policy conversations (e.g., policymakers working from different but unarticulated definitions) and unclearly scoped policies.

In considering legislation, it is unclear how to determine which AI news practices would fall within legal parameters and how news practices differ from other AI uses. What specific practices and types of content would be subject to legislative policy? How would it apply to other types of AI? The proprietary and fluid nature of AI systems introduce new challenges for regulation. As policymakers attempt to legislate AI, they must consider the future risks of each system. These technologies will continue to evolve at a faster pace than policy can reasonably keep up with, and policymakers must determine how best to protect citizens’ and creators’ fundamental rights and safety.

The quantity and type of data collected by generative AI programs introduce new privacy and copyright concerns. Among these concerns is what data is collected and how it is used by AI tools, in terms of both the input (the online data scraped to train these tools) and the output (the automated content itself). Additionally, publishers have questioned whether their articles are being used to train AI tools without authorization, potentially violating terms-of-service agreements. In response, news publishers have turned to both litigation — seeking penalties against AI companies for using their copyrighted content without permission — and licensing agreements — allowing tech companies to pay to use news content to train generative AI models. Another CNTI primer delves into the copyright challenges of AI, which present ethical dilemmas over profiting from AI models trained on copyrighted creative work without attribution or compensation.

Establishing transparency and disclosure standards for AI practices requires a coordinated approach between legal and organizational policies. While it may make sense to address some areas of transparency through legal requirements (like current advertising disclosures), other areas are more appropriately addressed organizationally. In many cases, it will be up to tech companies and publishers to establish their own principles, guidelines and policies for navigating the use of AI within their organizations — ranging from appropriate application to labeling to image manipulation. But these standards will need to both fit alongside legal requirements and be similar enough across organizations for the public to understand them. Newsroom education and communication will also be critical, as both journalists and the public are often unsure of how, or to what extent, news organizations rely on AI. The public generally assumes news rooms are implementing AI without human oversight (which is rare, but gets a lot of attention when it occurs). For technology companies specifically, there is ongoing debate over requirements of algorithmic transparency and the degree to which legal demand for this transparency could enable bad actors to hack or otherwise take advantage of the system in harmful ways.

The use of generative AI tools to create news stories presents a series of challenges around providing fact-based information to the public. Not only do AI tools include false or entirely made-up information, but they are also “confidently wrong,” creating convincingly high-quality content and offering authoritative arguments for inaccurate information. To date, licensing deals have largely failed to improve this challenge. Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate content (or even satire) is becoming increasingly difficult — particularly as counter-AI tools have so far been mostly ineffective. Further, it is easy to produce AI-generated images or content, which can be exploited by spammers who churn out AI-generated “news” content or antidemocratic actors who create scalable and potentially persuasive propaganda and disinformation. While it is clear automation offers many opportunities to improve news efficiency and innovation, it also risks further commoditizing and undermining public trust in news.

Content generators and policymakers need to be aware of inherent biases in generative AI tools and guard against them. Because AI technologies are usually trained on massive swaths of data scraped from the internet, they tend to replicate existing social biases and inequities. For instance, photo-editing apps can produce hypersexualized and racialized images, and other image generation apps (like DALL-E and Stable Diffusion) can be used to amplify stereotypes and produce fodder for harassment or disinformation. ChatGPT has been shown to generate violent, racist and sexist content (e.g. offering less risky and more patronizing financial advice to users with jobs associated with women). Additionally, using AI systems in social and cultural settings for which they were not intended, along with the human effort in places like Kenya to clean up harmful AI outputs, creates problems for labor and data control. Finally, while natural language processing is rapidly improving, AI tools’ training in dominant languages makes it harder for those who speak marginalized languages to access information. Researchers are working to reduce some of these biases, as are participatory grassroots organizations; however, these biases are deeply rooted and the tools are used globally, so fixing these problems will be difficult.

State of Research

Artificial intelligence is no longer a fringe technology. Research finds three-quarters of companies report AI adoption as of 2024. Experts have begun to document the increasingly critical role of AI for news publishers and technology companies, both separately and in relation to each other. And there is mounting evidence that AI technologies are routinely used both in social platforms’ algorithms and in everyday news work, though the latter is often concentrated among larger and upmarket publishers who have the resources to invest in these practices.

There are limitations to what journalists and the public understand when it comes to AI. Research shows there are gaps between the pervasiveness of AI uses in news and journalists’ understandings of and attitudes toward these practices. Audience-focused research on AI in journalism consistently finds that news consumers often cannot discern between AI-generated and human-generated content. Audiences also perceive certain types of AI-generated news as less biased than human writers, despite ample evidence that AI tools can perpetuate social biases and enable the development of disinformation.

There is a growing base of empirical research on AI, although it remains more qualitative than quantitative, which allows us to answer some important questions, but makes a representative assessment of the situation difficult. Theoretical work has focused on the changing role of AI in journalism practice, the central role of platform companies in shaping AI and the conditions of news work, and the implications for AI dependence on journalism’s value and its ability to fulfill its democratic aims. Work in the media policy space has largely concentrated around European Union policy debates and the role of transparency around AI news practices in enhancing trust.

Future work should prioritize evidence-based research on how AI reshapes the news people get to see — both directly from publishers and indirectly through platforms. AI research focused outside of the U.S. and outside economically developed countries would offer a fuller understanding of how technological changes affect news practices globally. On the policy side, comparative analyses of use cases would aid in developing transnational best practices in news transparency and disclosure around AI.

State of Legislation

The latest wave of AI innovation has, in most countries, far outpaced governmental oversight or regulation. Regulatory responses to emerging technologies like AI vary by country and range from direct regulation to soft law (e.g. guidelines) to industry self-regulation. Some governments, such as Russia and China, directly or indirectly facilitate — and thus often control — the development of AI in their countries, allowing them to collect and use individuals’ data. Others attempt to facilitate innovation by involving various stakeholders. Some, like the EU, actively seek to regulate AI technology and protect the public against its risks. 

These differences reflect a lack of agreement over what values should underpin AI legislation or ethics frameworks and make global consensus over its regulation challenging. That said, legislation in one country can have important effects elsewhere. The EU AI Act, for example, inspired legislation in Canada and Brazil. Because of this, it is important that those proposing policy and other solutions recognize global differences and consider the full range of potential impacts without compromising democratic values of an independent press, an open internet and free expression.

Legislative policies specifically intended to regulate AI can easily be weakened by a lack of clarity around what qualifies as AI, making violations incredibly hard to identify and enforce. Given the complexity of these systems and the speed of innovation in this field, experts have called for individualized and adaptive provisions rather than one-size-fits-all responses. Recommendations for broader stakeholder involvement in building AI legislation also include engaging groups, such as marginalized or vulnerable communities, that are often most impacted by its outcomes.

Finally, as the role of news content in the training of AI systems becomes an increasingly central part of regulatory and policy debates, responses to AI developments will likely need to account for the protection of an independent, competitive news media. Currently, this applies to policy debates about modernizing copyright and fair use provisions for digital content as well as collective bargaining codes and other forms of economic support between publishers and the companies that develop and commodify these technologies.

Notable Legislation

Issue primers have been reviewed at multiple stages by more than 20 global research and industry expert partners, including CNTI advisory committee members, representing five regions. We invite you to send us research, legislation and other resources. Read more about CNTI’s issue primer and other research quality standards.

The Issue

Copyright is a type of intellectual property that describes the legal rights a creator has over a wide range of content, including books, music, film, artwork, software and images. Copyrights give creators the ability to prevent others from using their work without permission and to be compensated for approved uses by others. Use of copyrighted works is dependent on copyright laws in the country of origin as well as various international copyright conventions and treaties that have been adopted to provide clearer rights for creators in a global economy.

Journalists and news publishers create original text, photo, audio and video content. They also incorporate copyrighted content into their work by quoting, paraphrasing or providing evidence from outside content. In many countries, “fair use” and “fair dealing” provisions or “quotation rights” allow for limited use of copyrighted material in circumstances such as journalism, research and teaching without the need to obtain permission from the copyright holder. But, depending on the legal system, these allowances vary significantly.

The digital age has introduced new copyright use cases that are not sufficiently addressed in current law. For example, now news aggregators, social media sites and search engines often publish headlines or snippets of and links to a publisher’s news story. Another new use case emerged with the creation of generative AI, which ‘learns’ from amassed digital content created by others to produce its own derivative content, which may or may not be considered original created work. Journalists increasingly use generative AI in news production, and the original content is also used to train AI tools.

Modernizing copyright law and fair use doctrine for the global digital age is increasingly central to an open internet and competitive news environment and raises a slew of new challenges. How will policy differentiate between snippets of licensed content in a citizen’s post or email, a news story, a freelancer’s news column, a search result, a news feed, and more? What elements of building a generative AI tool fall under fair use? How should societies define original work created in a global, digital environment? While questions surrounding AI and its use in journalism are addressed more fully in a separate issue primer, rapid technological developments reflect how important it is that copyright policy is forward-looking.

A “fair use” doctrine has not been fully integrated into international law. In addition to countries (e.g., the Philippines, Israel, South Korea) that have different fair use criteria, and countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, South Africa) that have different systems for copyright exemptions such as “fair dealing”, there are also countries (e.g., Brazil, Mexico) that have no clear fair use or fair dealing frameworks in place. Further, “fair use” largely depends on common law or legal precedent that does not always exist in all contexts, making broad adoption of fair use exceptions particularly difficult.

What Makes It Complex

A “fair use” doctrine has not been fully integrated into international law. In addition to countries (e.g., the Philippines, Israel, South Korea) that have different fair use criteria, and countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, South Africa) that have different systems for copyright exemptions such as “fair dealing”, there are also countries (e.g., Brazil, Mexico) that have no clear fair use or fair dealing frameworks in place. Further, “fair use” largely depends on common law or legal precedent that does not always exist in all contexts, making broad adoption of fair use exceptions particularly difficult.

Copyright restrictions may have unintended negative consequences for independent news consumption. Research shows search engines and other aggregated news lists are major sources of traffic to news stories. If aggregators delisted outlets or opted out of sharing news altogether, news publishers would get less visibility and traffic to their sites. Further, using copyright restrictions as a means of aiding financial support for journalism may favor larger, more established publishers, leaving down-market outlets at risk of shrinking audiences and revenue. That would also leave the public with less access to and consumption of a wide range of quality news.

Determining who and what falls under copyright protection or fair use is complicated and could have lasting implications for fair use protections for journalists and the public. Areas of concern include restrictive rights contracts being imposed upon freelancers who produce a vast amount of news content online, unfair competitive advantages for larger and/or legacy news outlets, and unclear definitions of what legally constitutes “news” or a “publisher.” For example, limiting the digital sharing of news headlines or snippets could mean that any online user sharing these – even with a link to the original content – would be subject to and in violation of that law. It could also limit what journalists themselves could use in their reporting, with particular risks for freelance journalists.

Existing and future news and technology business models clash over copyright. Online news aggregation services and search engines often provide headlines and snippets of news stories in addition to links to the full stories housed on news websites. In the U.S., these headlines and snippets traditionally fall under the fair use rules of copyright law, leaving it up to users of aggregator sites to decide if they want to view the original content. Publishers argue that aggregators should pay them for the use of snippets, saying that tech companies’ use of the media industry’s original content for free undermines publishers’ efforts to develop online news business models. Aggregators and search engine businesses argue that their services provide a substantial amount of reach to publishers: If users follow a link to a full story, the publisher does get the value of a site visit. Part of the debate is over what level constitutes “enough traffic to the site” to count as payment.

New digital technologies (e.g., generative AI or the metaverse) are not adequately accounted for in current law or in debates on ways to modernize it. Debates over modernizing copyright law will need to grapple with legal questions surrounding the training and output of generative AI systems. If you own the copyright for creative content used to train AI, can you have a legal claim over its output? Can you copyright AI output, and if so, who owns it? Allegations claim that AI art software, including Stable Diffusion and Lensa AI, find loopholes around EU and U.S. copyright infringement by developing the technology through nonprofit means to avoid licensing fees. These challenges illustrate how quickly new copyright questions will continue to emerge in the digital realm alongside technological advances.

State of Research

Research on issues of copyright for a free press has largely focused on media policy, with an overwhelming emphasis on U.S. fair use doctrine and European Union (EU) copyright reform. Work in this area has indicated a number of challenges facing intellectual property holders and journalists in the digital age, particularly with the rise of content aggregation, freelance work and changing media business models. Researchers note a lack of clarity around (1) what separates legitimate information-sharing from harmful copyright infringement and (2) how to define news or set professional standards for news aggregation. While protections of creative work will be critical to fulfill the mission of a free and robust press, research also cautions against the effects of copyright protection that is too strong—including press censorship and the restriction of competition, innovation and public access to information. 

In addition to global and comparative research in this area, it would be valuable for future work to explore how digital journalists understand and navigate complex and often opaque copyright regulations, the effects of enhanced copyright regulation on news audience behaviors and the implications of such provisions for smaller and/or down-market publishers and freelance news creators.

State of Legislation

Governments and intergovernmental bodies around the world are working to update copyright laws for the digital age and a global media environment. These efforts present new legal challenges and tensions for publishers, technology companies and those involved in the creation, flow and regulation of digital content. Much of the current work centers around the role of copyright in online searches and news aggregation. At times, copyrights are affected through copyright-adjacent legislation, such as Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, while in others, such as the European Union copyright law, have been updated directly with the aim of increasing protections for news publishers and content creators. 

As research on these policies indicates, both indirect and direct copyright legislation can carry risks to an independent press, citizen journalism and other elements of an open internet. Specifically, research finds important deficiencies in current approaches, including a lack of clarity in defining what constitutes copyright protection, and raises questions about the effectiveness of these laws in reducing online copyright infringement. Further, little has been done yet to effectively address the rise of new technologies, such as generative AI, in online content creation and distribution.

Notable Legislation

Resources & Events

Issue primers have been reviewed at multiple stages by more than 20 global research and industry expert partners, including CNTI advisory committee members, representing five regions. We invite you to send us research, legislation and other resources. Read more about CNTI’s issue primer and other research quality standards.

The Issue

The internet is enmeshed in virtually every aspect of modern life. Most often, the public’s online experiences flow through digital platforms, which serve as intermediaries between the content being delivered and the individuals consuming it. That provides convenience but also raises serious concerns. A central one is how much control digital platforms have, or should have, over what people see, especially when it comes to news and information, and how transparent digital platforms’ decision-making processes, typically conducted through the use of algorithms, needs to be.

Each digital platform, and its algorithmic infrastructure, operates under its own rules and conventions to determine which content is and is not allowed as well as what content is prioritized on the platform. Algorithmic choices have far-reaching implications ranging from determining user experiences by selecting one news story over another to facilitating hate speech, disinformation and violence. 

Policymakers, journalists, social media researchers, civil society organizations, private corporations and members of the public are raising awareness of and questions about what are often-opaque digital platform practices related to content selection and moderation processes. The global news industry in particular – which relies to a significant degree on digital intermediaries to reach audiences – has articulated the need for a better understanding of how algorithms rank, boost, restrict and recommend content (including, but not limited to, news) and target consumers. Without a better understanding of how these algorithms are currently built, it is difficult for publishers to work within their constraints to reach audiences or to play any role in determining how algorithms should be built to promote an informed public.

Thus, in addition to ensuring that algorithms are designed to identify fact-based, independent journalism (a topic CNTI addresses in a separate issue primer), it is critical to enhance transparency in and accountability for how digital platform algorithms function.

The key challenge is that regulating or mandating transparency is more complex than it appears, with many elements that need to be thought through. What forms of transparency are necessary and most likely to be effective for protecting and promoting access to high-quality, diverse and independent news? What does transparency mean to policymakers, journalists, researchers and the public? How can we enable algorithmic transparency in ways that protect against political and commercial manipulation or abuse and ensure user privacy? What are its limitations? What systems or entities should be beholden to these levels of transparency? And who should be empowered to set these rules? 

Addressing the questions introduced in this primer is a critical first step toward developing approaches to algorithmic accountability that support an independent, competitive press and an informed society. Policymakers and other stakeholders can benefit from a more nuanced understanding of what transparency can, and cannot, accomplish as well as what new risks could be introduced. Policymakers must be forward-thinking about how and where algorithms may be used in the future, what data could be exposed and who could ultimately gain access to it as a result of increased transparency.

What Makes It Complex

One hurdle in creating valuable algorithmic transparency is being sure that those on the receiving end are armed with the necessary knowledge to assess these processes. A good deal of tension has arisen over how technology companies have responded to requests for independent researcher, journalist and public access to algorithmic processes or their digital trace data. Transparency policies must take into account each stakeholder’s differing needs, aims and interests and consider what forms of transparency are necessary and appropriate for each. Because the algorithmic processes are complicated and often rely on technological jargon, there is the risk that even with increased transparency, a lack of understanding of these processes will endure for some stakeholders.

“Open-source” transparency is not enough to achieve an understanding of algorithmic processes or solve the problems of platform accountability. This is true in two different manners. First, some tech leaders have suggested “open-source” algorithms as an answer to transparency and accountability issues, but algorithmic processes require a level of technical knowledge most stakeholders do not possess in order to understand their complexities. “Open-source” transparency requires individuals to have the time and capacity to learn the complexities of data governance and content moderation. Context is critical in learning how algorithms work; without a clear understanding of the internal policies dictating algorithmic behaviors or access to their underlying training data, raw information is not interpretable.

Determining the parameters of transparency is challenging to do in a single policy. There is broad agreement that transparency is a critical component of digital platform governance and content moderation, and that “more transparency is better,” but, it is not always clear what, and where, transparency is being sought. Collaboration between experts is critical to addressing the multifaceted impacts policy on transparency may have. Further, the aim of transparency differs in market-based versus state-led models, with the former aiming to empower users and the latter aiming to empower regulators. Policymakers, researchers, the news media and civil society must work together to weigh stakeholders’ needs against platforms’ capabilities and consider what regulatory structures will serve to enforce this legislation. Finally, as we address in a separate issue primer, addressing transparency on its own does not address disagreements over how to ensure people see fact-based, independent news content on digital platforms, nor does it address the choices individuals themselves make about what they click on or what kind of information they seek out.

Digital platform regulation needs to protect against political and commercial manipulation as a consequence of algorithmic transparency. As discussed in our issue primer on addressing disinformation, algorithmic transparency (and researcher access to digital trace data) can both help experts understand the spread of online disinformation and how to counter it and, at the same time, introduce new risks for manipulation and abuse. Governments in many parts of the world increasingly pressure platforms to make content decisions that benefit their own political interests. There is also the risk that commercial actors or institutions manipulate algorithms to exploit virality, amplifying large quantities of clickbait and problematic content over fact-based, independent information – particularly by using new technologies like generative AI. Both introduce threats to an independent press and an informed public. Policy must safeguard against these risks and insulate regulation from political and commercial manipulation, both by ensuring oversight remains independent from governments and by separating regulatory bodies from direct involvement in content moderation decisions.

Platforms’ commercial structures are real factors to be considered, both in the way they can negatively drive internal decisions and in the value they bring to our digital environment. Technology companies are private business entities that operate in a competitive marketplace with a certain level of value placed on their proprietary information and intellectual property. The current concealed nature of algorithmic selection and ranking, however, risks commercial incentives negatively affecting the work of journalists and the content the public receives. Crafting the best transparency policies will require a balance between these two elements, including consideration of potential unintended consequences for innovation or competition, such as deterring startups or smaller players from participation due to costs associated with adhering to regulation.

Debates around transparency introduce important opportunities and risks for the relationships between governments and platforms. This is particularly important when it comes to who oversees or regulates algorithmic transparency and what can be asked of platforms when it comes to content moderation. Legislation that does not address these critical questions can threaten an independent press and freedom of expression (for instance, via “jawboning” practices or other legal demands of platforms). This is a consistent complexity across many of CNTI’s issue areas and speaks to the importance of considering the balance between legislative and organizational policy (including government-enforced organizational policy) in addressing these challenges.

Policy must balance transparency and accountability against user privacy concerns when applicable. Digital platforms’ efforts to improve transparency, when they exist at all, are at times negotiated within the contexts of user privacy concerns and data security concerns. While this does not affect all approaches to algorithmic transparency, questions about what user data digital platforms would be obligated to share and what personal information would be contained in that data will inevitably lead to trade-offs between digital platform transparency and user privacy.

State of Research

Over the past decade, questions surrounding digital platform governance have moved to the forefront of political, legal and academic debates. Recently, a breadth of interdisciplinary research has focused on social media platforms and messaging apps central to global journalistic work as well as on the broader range of software companies and sharing or gig economy apps central to contemporary online commerce. 

Much of this research fits into two categories: governance of social media and governance by social media. Research focused specifically on digital platform algorithmic transparency represents one small segment of work in this field. 

To date, this research has been far more theoretical than empirical, largely due to a lack of data (as we note in greater detail below) and the slow-moving nature of legislative policy, but it still sheds light on the varying forms of transparency different stakeholders expect. For instance, public transparency via disclosures looks different from, and accomplishes different aims than, research transparency via data access. 

Research findings have also noted the limitations of algorithmic transparency alone as a means of establishing digital platform accountability as well as the challenges various legislative efforts face in addressing algorithmic transparency, ranging from potential free expression violations to individual privacy infringements. These limitations have led some experts to call for forms of digital platform accountability beyond algorithmic transparency. 

Collectively, this work also reveals how little has changed, both via research and policy, in almost a decade of calls for algorithmic accountability.

Looking forward, there is much that we do not yet know about digital platforms’ algorithmic infrastructures. Research in this area is critical to inform current debates about internet governance. Experts have called for independent researchers and civil society to be granted more access to the inner workings of digital platform technology companies, the algorithms they develop and the trace data they collect – particularly as digital platforms steadily move away from more open models of free data sharing through their APIs. Of course, what access to give to whom is itself part of the debate about transparency. Still, access, when it has the appropriate safeguards, can help to better inform policy-making and contribute to democratic processes as a form of checks and balances on government and corporate power.

State of Legislation

Content moderation is the element of transparency that has, to date, received the most policy attention. A wide range of policy initiatives around the world have begun, albeit slowly, to regulate content moderation processes and/or government takedown requests on digital platforms, which introduce opportunities and risks. We address some of these in a separate issue primer. 

Legislative policy around addressing algorithmic transparency and accountability more broadly is still nascent. While some technology companies have taken steps internally to improve organizational transparency, governments are beginning to consider policy initiatives that require specific forms of platform accountability, with a focus on (1) supporting research access to data, (2) protecting user data privacy and (3) disclosing certain content moderation practices. 

Some experts have cautioned against the risk that poorly designed transparency laws could become a mechanism for state intervention in and control over platforms’ editorial policies. In contexts like the U.S. with strong constitutional protections of free expression, it is unclear whether the government can mandate transparency. 

The establishment of international ethical frameworks for platform accountability is complicated by the fact that most institutional structures for oversight, such as review boards or ethics committees, vary greatly by country. Nonetheless, policymakers, particularly in Europe and the U.S., have called for international cooperation when it comes to facilitating transparency and access to cross-platform research. Experts have also called for multi-stakeholder and (supra-)national legislative efforts to govern digital spaces.

Even if not intentional, policymakers need to consider that a legislative framework in any one country has the potential to influence regulation globally. For example, a rule-of-law-based approach, while effective in stable democracies, could later serve as a blueprint for suppression elsewhere.

Notable Legislation

Resources & Events

Issue primers have been reviewed at multiple stages by more than 20 global research and industry expert partners, including CNTI advisory committee members, representing five regions. We invite you to send us research, legislation and other resources. Read more about CNTI’s issue primer and other research quality standards.

The Issue

The display of news content on digital platforms deviates from the traditional news model by decoupling news production from news distribution. In addition to news organizations’ own digital distribution, technology companies’ algorithms distribute news by selecting, filtering, ranking and bundling news for consumers. News organizations increasingly depend on digital intermediaries to reach audiences through these means, and the public, in turn, relies on digital intermediaries to access news. Social media platforms, search engines, news aggregators and video-sharing services are becoming the dominant means for news consumption across the world. While these pathways increase news access and reach, they also introduce two challenges: the algorithmic selection process is usually opaque to news publishers and the public (who both rely on it), and the algorithmic selection results have the potential to expose the public to lower-quality news and information.

In addition to addressing transparency in how digital platform algorithms function (a topic CNTI addresses in a separate issue primer), there is a need to understand how to ensure fact-based, independent journalism rises to the top on digital platforms. Both publishers and digital platforms face challenges over how to determine the newsworthiness of editorial content. In particular, how can algorithms find, select and prioritize accurate, evidence-based content? This is important in enabling:

• An informed public. News reporting remains critical to supporting an informed public. With the digital environment open to both well- and ill-intended actors, algorithmic selections risk delivering lower-quality or erroneous content to the public. In addition, it is possible that amid declining revenues, some publishers may attempt to prioritize and elevate content selected and amplified by platform algorithms over coverage driven by public interest.
• Journalism’s sustainability. News publishers increasingly rely on digital platforms to reach a broader audience, to drive more traffic to their own websites or apps and to increase subscriptions and donations. Less than a quarter (22%) of news audiences say they prefer to start their news journeys with a news website or app, down 10 percentage points since 2018. Instead, social media platforms play an increasingly critical role in news consumption. Amid efforts to seek more revenue from algorithmically driven news consumption (discussed in a separate CNTI issue primer), the opportunities digital platforms provide for exposure and reach to fact-based, independent content remain critical for many publishers. There is also the real possibility of platforms shifting away from news altogether which, at least in our current structures, would almost certainly harm publishers’ ability to reach audiences and inhibit the public’s ability to access legitimate news sources and information. 
• Digital platforms’ relevance, trust and revenue. Although news content typically makes up only a small portion (according to Facebook, around 3-4%) of digital platform content, platforms that provide independent and fact-based news content reap the benefits of increased relevance, credibility and some revenue when they display ads next to links or snippets and collect user data for targeted advertising. News generally improves the quality and range of content on digital platforms, whose aim is to entice users to spend as much time as possible in their “walled gardens.” 

Behind the challenge of ensuring that algorithms identify and promote fact-based, independent journalism, is the influence digital platforms possess through subtly guiding how society creates and discovers content. Digital platforms have evolved beyond the role of distribution channels to exert direct and indirect editorial influence (though some have begun to shift away from news). For example, in the past decade, digital platforms have incentivized particular types of content (e.g., live video, short video) and set design standards (e.g., subscription policy, anti-cloaking). As a result, editorial decision-making in a competitive, data-driven news market is increasingly based on third-party choices, resulting in newsrooms optimizing online editorial content for clicks, shareability and engagement. 

These dynamics signal the growing importance of ensuring that platform algorithms are structured in a way to identify and promote fact-based, independent journalism. There is a clear need for both legal and organizational policy when it comes to algorithmic transparency. There is also a critical need for cross-industry conversation and collaboration. There is evidence that collaboration leads to increased visibility of fact-based journalism by, for example, changing algorithms (and including human validation) to prioritize and elevate original reporting over standard ranking considerations. Is there a role for news publishers in shaping these algorithmic processes? And, what do publishers need from digital platforms to be able to serve the public and make effective and informed decisions about digital news content?

What Makes It Complex

Policy in this space will need to grapple with what quality means and how it gets assessed. What content algorithms should promote, as well as who or what defines news “quality,” can be difficult to determine or to articulate in policy. And it often means different things to academics, to news publishers and to the public.Historically, the term “quality” was used by broadsheet newspapers and public broadcasters to distinguish their coverage from the more quantity-driven, sometimes sensationalist tabloid headlines as well as from commercial channels – though whether this distinction was ever true is questionable. It can be difficult, if not outright impossible, to label many news publishers entirely along a binary measure of “quality.” (Further, research suggests that such labels don’t measurably improve people’s news diets or reduce misperceptions.) In some contexts, the question of who determines the quality of news content can open the door to governmental overreach or abuse. Governments’ involvement in decisions around what qualifies as “quality” news content can lead to them serving as the arbiters of what does or does not appear online, potentially threatening an independent press and free expression.

Even if algorithms prioritize fact-based and independent journalism, people may still choose to consume content that is not fact-based or independent. For instance, tabloid publishers have often argued their popularity guarantees that their content is what the public wants. The disconnect between what information publishers and the public deem relevant or valuable is a challenge for legal and organizational policy attempting to address algorithmic content recommendations. For instance, should the public be compelled to see content they don’t want to see if governments or others determine it is good for them? Efforts must strike a balance between prioritizing fact-based content and protecting the public’s right to make their own decisions about how, or to what extent, they are informed. This disconnect is explored in more depth in a separate CNTI issue primer on news relevance.

Even if we can agree on the standards of quality journalism, the challenge of how to choose among sources remains. For instance, many news stories repeat, repackage, aggregate or comment on previously published content. How can policy or other approaches disincentive these practices in favor of original reporting? What role might platforms perform in this? Further, in today’s attention economy, as algorithms sift through and prioritize content from an ever-growing number of news publishers and freelancers, smaller brands are often at a disadvantage amid the prioritization of publishers’ reach and quantity. Further, because of their assumed public and economic value, legacy and upmarket publishers often have more access to digital platform and search engine representatives and may receive more guidance on what types of content will perform better in algorithms. Meanwhile, smaller and often local news organizations may not be able to afford the same level of digital expertise needed to best navigate news algorithms. A large proportion of digital subscriptions already go to just a few big national brands, reinforcing a “winner takes most” dynamic in the online media industry.

Much like their audiences, news publishers generally have a limited understanding of how algorithms target news consumers and rank, boost, restrict and recommend news content. To journalists, the metrics used in these algorithms range from opaque to obscure, despite some efforts to improve transparency. When proprietors strategically make regular and unannounced changes to their algorithms, ensuing decreases in traffic often lead newsroom, SEO and social media teams to feel at the mercy of major technology companies. These knowledge gaps make it difficult for news publishers to participate in decisions about how platform algorithms should be built to promote an informed public by recognizing and encouraging fact-based, independent journalism.

Platform algorithms are entangled with broader human choices and user preferences, so they are not necessarily designed to prioritize news content. Platform algorithms are generally built to respond to people’s broader interests, which may or may not include news and current affairs. Individuals see customized search results and feed pushes, and it is unclear whether the public desires more uniform results and pushes.

State of Research

The impact of algorithms on news media has been recognized as a critical area of research. The central academic debates focus on the risks and opportunities algorithmically ranked news presents to individuals and society, digital platform accountability and the shift from mass media distribution to personalized recommendation systems. Scholars across a range of fields have increasingly analyzed the critical relationship between those who manage algorithms and those who produce news. 

Researchers have found evidence of publishers adjusting – even lowering – editorial standards to boost their position in ranking and recommendation systems. Researchers have also expressed concerns about accessing, understanding and evaluating the algorithms that govern a range of news-related processes. These concerns involve the opaque, “black box” nature of these algorithms as well as the increasing suppression of researchers’ access to digital trace data (which CNTI addresses in detail in a separate issue primer).

While it is clear that platform algorithms subtly guide trends and drive how people discover content, there is little evidence of exactly how they work or what they reward or amplify. Thus, it is important to differentiate between what the data firmly reveal about algorithms and news and what there is not yet evidence to support:

• In spite of public attention to fears of algorithmic “filter bubbles,” studies in the UK and several other countries consistently find that algorithmic selection by digital platforms generally leads to slightly more diverse news consumption (though self-selection may hinder this, particularly among political partisans). 
• Algorithmic rankings can exert influence over how people engage with and evaluate news.
• Some work suggests that emotional language and out-group animosity are more likely to go “viral” or be shared on social media – trends that rely on user behavior alongside platform and algorithmic design. 
• Historically, social media platforms like Facebook overwhelmingly weighted comments as more important than other types of interactions, leading posts that explicitly or implicitly encouraged commenting (e.g. divisive content) to gain more popularity. But transparency around algorithms has limitations because the code is not static: Platforms’ formulas for engagement are frequently changing.
• Research demonstrates that platforms are frequently changing algorithms and investing in both manual and algorithmic moderation processes to minimize the spread of disinformation. At the same time, problematic or extremist content is more likely to be amplified by certain digital platforms’ recommendation systems than by others.
• News consumers are generally skeptical of algorithmic selection of online news but are equally wary of news selection by editors and journalists. Similarly, people often perceive news produced by algorithms as equally or more credible than (or simply not discernible from) news selected by human journalists. 

There is opportunity for future work to serve as an intermediary between digital platforms and news organizations, pushing for more transparency to fully understand the complexity of algorithmic mechanisms and where the balance may lie between demystifying processes to promote fact-based, independent news and information while protecting against political or commercial manipulation. On the policy side, the effects of recent digital platform legislation on newsroom practices and reach are unclear. Establishing best practices, both in digital platforms and editorial environments, will depend on the findings of research in this area.

State of Legislation

Legislative approaches to address platform algorithms in regard to news content and distribution range from direct government intervention to self-regulation. While laws and proposals vary by country, they face a common challenge: the “pacing problem” – technology moving faster than the law.

We discuss two key groups of approaches addressing the impacts of algorithm-driven services with policy in separate issue primers. The first group appears in countries where the emphasis is to protect citizens against safety risks and to increase algorithmic transparency and accountability. The second group appears in countries like Australia, Canada, Brazil and the U.S. where the aim is to require large platform companies to negotiate commercial deals with news publishers for their content. Within both sets of approaches, it is unclear how to assess what “quality” news is. 

Legislation in these areas can greatly impact – and even supersede – what news publishers and technology companies can do to promote fact-based, independent content. In some cases, media bargaining structures, which often primarily benefit legacy and larger publishers, would have determined these actions. Thus, legislation may end up being the arbiter of what content appears online. Empirical evidence is needed to better understand how regulation impacts the algorithmic information landscape in practice, with intended and unintended consequences for fact-based editorial content and news consumption.

Notable Legislation

Resources & Events

Issue primers have been reviewed at multiple stages by more than 20 global research and industry expert partners, including CNTI advisory committee members, representing five regions. We invite you to send us research, legislation and other resources. Read more about CNTI’s issue primer and other research quality standards.