So, I have actually given you some sort of an introduction to pattern recognition where I basically mentioned the uses of pattern recognition now I shall be going into the mathematics before I actually entered into the subject of pattern recognition we need to know a little bit of mathematics preliminary mathematics so that we can actually use those things use the mathematics while developing theorems or other results for pattern recognition. The basic mathematics involves some amount of matrix algebra and basics of probability theory and statistics probability theory statistics and yes I also assume some amount of calculus knowledge some amount of calculus I assume that all of you have this knowledge I assume that all of you know the meaning of what a probability density function is and I assume that you know what a Gaussian distribution is let us just see a probability density function is it may be defined over n-dimensional Euclidean space which I represented by Rn this is a point in n-dimensional Euclidean space this is actually a vector and a column vector it is a column vector it has small n number of components and this belongs to n-dimensional Euclidean space and a probability density function p defined over n-dimensional Euclidean space p defined over n-dimensional Euclidean space it has the following properties it is greater than or equal to 0 for all x belonging to Rn and integral px dx over Rn is equal to 1 this is a probability density function over n-dimensional Euclidean space this dx it means actually d the first component if I call it x1 then dx1 dx2 over dxn okay so that is just represented as dx and there is this underlying underline you will see at all these places this is representing column vector it is representing a vector okay and integral px over px dx over the whole of Rn is equal to 1 so any function satisfying these two properties is known as probability density function over n-dimensional Euclidean space we can actually in the course of these lectures we can assume that we are not going into complex spaces basically we are going to be with real spaces so our probability density function is like this okay and now there are many such functions like this one such function is known as density function for Gaussian distribution or Gaussian density function for Gaussian distribution or that is also known as normal density function it is the definition is this the definition is this 1 over square root of 2 pi to the power n determinant of sigma to the power half exponential to the power minus half x-mu prime means transpose sigma inverse x-mu here it is in determinant of sigma to the power half let me I think since you have got background in matrix algebra determinant of sigma it need not always be positive it can be 0 or it can also be negative right if determinant of sigma is negative and determinant of sigma to the power half you cannot write because then it becomes a complex number and our definition of probability density function not only our definition it is says it must be strictly greater than or equal to 0 so this means that necessarily this should be greater than 0 the determinant of sigma should necessarily be greater than 0 even if it is 0 this whole quantity is not defined right even if it is 0 this whole quantity is not defined so this should be strictly greater than 0 and this exponential means e exponential means e to the power of something here let us just see this x is an undimensional vector mu is the mean vector mu is what is known as mean vector it is the mean it represents the mean of the distribution mean average of the distribution and this is also small and dimensional vector x is also small and dimensional vector both of them are column vectors so when I write the transpose they become row vectors that means this is going to be 1 by n so here let us look at this this is x-mu this will be n by 1 now what is now this sigma sigma is known as there are several names for it it is known as variance covariance matrix or another name for it is dispersion matrix variance covariance matrix or dispersion matrix this will be n by n matrix sigma is an n by n matrix so sigma inverse will also be n by n so then this whole thing will be 1 by n n by n n by 1 this whole thing will be 1 by 1 that is a scalar so e power so any quantity is greater than or equal to 0 right e power any quantity is greater than or equal to 0 and this is a scalar so this will be greater than or equal to 0 anyway I have already mentioned that the determinant of sigma has to be strictly greater than 0 determinant of sigma has to be strictly greater than 0 now how does one ensure it that let me tell you how one ensures that first do you all understand the meaning of dispersion matrix variance covariance matrix do you understand yes or no I think I will explain so I will explain to you what a dispersion matrix is or what a variance covariance matrix is for this one you need to know first the meaning of variance and you need to know the meaning of covariance you need to know the meaning of variance and as well as you need to know the meaning of covariance if you have n observations x1 x2 xn these are points in R these are points in R that means these are n values on real line then the mean of these n values x bar is equal to 1 over n summation i is equal to 1 to n xi this is the mean of these n observations mean of n observations then the variance of these n observations the variance is 1 over n summation i is equal to 1 to n xi-x bar whole square the variance is equal to 1 over n summation i is equal to 1 to n xi-x bar whole square that is from every point you subtract the mean and you take the square like that you do it for all the n points and take the average of this square that is 1 by n summation i is equal to 1 to n xi-x bar whole square in some books you would find some other expression like 1 by n-1 summation i is equal to 1 to n xi-x bar whole square in some books you will find this also this is actually unbiased estimate for variance of the population this is known as unbiased estimate for variance of the population this is a slightly complicated concept in statistics let us not go into those specifics then what is n or n-1 let us not go into the specifics we can just follow one of these things and I would like to follow this but if you are interested you can also follow this n-1 also there will be slight differences in the actual values if you follow n-1 instead of n but ultimately for the decisions it is basically looking at the definition of variance in a slightly different way than if you write 1 by n or if you write 1 by n-1 basically tells you that you are looking at the concept of variance in two different ways there is a slight difference if you just follow one of these things it is fine okay and I am following 1 by n but you can also follow 1 by n-1 1 by n-1 tells you that it is an unbiased estimate of there is something called a population variance for that the unbiased estimate is 1 by n-1 summation i is equal to 1 to n xi-x bar whole square this basically for advanced students of statistics they will use 1 by n-1 okay the advanced students of statistics they will use 1 by n-1 so I am going to follow 1 by n which is what generally in the preliminary level 1 by n summation i is equal to 1 to n xi-x bar whole square is taught in the preliminary level in the advanced level it becomes 1 by n-1 okay this is the basic difference now this is about variance now there is another concept that is covariance what is covariance in order to explain the meaning of the word covariance we need to have two variables let us write the two variables as x and y it is something like x is say height y is say weight on the same individual you are measuring the individual's height say in centimeters individual's weight say in kgs like that you are measuring these heights and weight say for small n number of individuals then you are going to get observations like x1 y1 x2 y2 and you will get xn yn x1 y1 x2 y2 dot xn yn now what you do is that just plot these n values now I shall give here three such plots actually these plots can look in very many ways I am going to give examples of three such plots in one plot the points are looking like this in another plot that is here the x and y variables are such that that xn and yn xi i is equal to 1 to n yi y is i is equal to 1 to n so these x i's and yi's they are looking like this in the third plot in the third plot say xi and yi is equal to 1 to n those points are looking like this now let us see here this is say your x axis these are your x's and these are your y's here as x values are increasing the y values are also more or less increasing so we would like to denote this relationship by some quantity that is greater than 0 we would like to denote this relationship by some quantity greater than 0 now let us look at this here when x are increasing y is decreasing so this is a negative relationship here we would like to represent this relationship by the same quantity but that should be less than 0 now let us look at this here whatever may be the value of x y is more or less in the same range so in this case we would like to get the relationship as something very close to 0 in this case we would like to get it as something very close to 0 so we would like to define a quantity in such a way that that quantity should take positive value here negative value here it should be something very close to 0 here what is that quantity let us see what that quantity is for all the x i's here you find the average of this x i's and you find the average of this yi's also so probably that point will be somewhere here probably that point will be somewhere here so then what I will do is that I change my axis to this so this point is x bar y bar similarly the x bar and y bar here probably is this so this quantity is x bar y bar for this data set and for this data set probably x bar and y bar is this so this is your x bar and y bar is this clear now what I will do is that take a point let us look at the coordinates of this point with respect to new x bar and y bar then for this corresponding value for x is this and the corresponding value for x is this corresponding value for y is this right similarly for a point here the corresponding value for x is this and y is this for a point here the value for x is this and y is this and then so on now you multiply the x the new x and y values that what is going to happen note that this is the first quadrant according to the new axis this is the second quadrant this is the third quadrant and this is the fourth quadrant here axis and y's they are greater than 0 product will be greater than 0 here x's and y's are less than 0 product will be greater than 0. And here the product will be less than 0 here the product will be less than 0 note Note that the place where products are less than 0 the number of such points is small whereas the number of points for which the product is greater than 0 that is large and the values are also large so if you have summation i is equal to 1 to n x i – x bar x y i – y bar which is actually this into this for this point this into this for this point this into this for this point and then so on and then you are just adding them up and again you can have 1 by n or 1 by n – 1 okay I am taking 1 by n here this will be greater than 0 in this case right now what will happen here here the points are in the second and fourth quadrants. So the product will be less than 0 so here this quantity will be less than what will happen to this here the points are more or less equally distributed in all the quadrants so this summation is likely to be very close to this is known as covariance this is known as covariance okay this is known as covariance between x and y okay this is also represented as c o v you only write the variables x, y c o v x, y now if you have two variables you have one covariance term I said that we have points in n-dimensional Euclidean space that means basically we are assuming that we have small n number of variables we have small n number of variables which in pattern recognition language we call them as features okay we have small n number of features or small n number of variable so if you take pairs you have how many pairs you have n c 2 pairs right by the way what is covariance of x with x what is covariance of x with x it is basically the variance is this clear covariance of x with itself that means x i-x bar x i-x bar x i-x bar whole square which is what is the variance here okay so covariance of x with itself is basically the variance okay so if we are in small n-dimensional space that means basically we have the number of features as small n then the variance covariance matrix is like this this is the variance covariance matrix if the n features are x 1, x 2, x n then the variance covariance matrix then the variance covariance matrix of these n variables or n features these n features this is denoted by sigma denoted by sigma is defined as is defined as there are smaller number of variables I am representing them by x 1, x 2, x n since we are in n-dimensional Euclidean space there are smaller number of variables or smaller number of features and those variables are represented by x 1, x 2, x n then the variance covariance matrix is this is an n by n matrix it has n rows and n columns this is an n by n matrix the first quantity here is covariance of x 1 with x 1 which is nothing but variance of x 1 this is covariance of x 1 with x 2 if you look at the definition of covariance whether you write x 1 with x 2 or x 2 with x 1 they are the same thing. So this is covariance of x 1 with x 2 this is x 1 with x 3 x 1 with x n this is x 2 with x 1 or x 1 with x 2 this is x 2 with x 2 and then so on so since covariance of x 1 x 2 is same as x 2 x 1 x 1 x 3 is same as x 3 x 1 this matrix is actually symmetric this matrix is symmetric it is a real matrix it is a symmetric matrix and it is also what is known as positive definite it is it can be shown to be always non-negative definite and in most of the applications it is positive definite I will explain to you the meaning of positive definite probably all of you know the meaning of the word distance all of you probably also know the meaning of Euclidean distance suppose you have two vectors x 1 x 2 x n this is one vector y 1 y 2 y n this is another vector then the distance between these two vectors if I represent this vector by x if I represent this vector by y then the distance between these two vectors x and y is equal to summation i is equal to 1 to n x i – y i whole square and then there is a square root right this is the Euclidean distance which all of us know okay now let me ask you a question my question is like this suppose okay let us assume that the value of small n is equal to 2 we only have vectors in R2 two dimensional space and let us assume that my the first one is representing height the second one is representing weight the first one is representing height and the second one is representing weight now say for a person the height is let me just say 160 cm say the weight is 70 kg this is for one person say for another person the height is say 158 cm say the weight is 73 kgs now you want to measure the distance between these two now would you like to apply this formula for it you will have difficulty if you want to apply this formula then please note that you are going to have difficulty what is the difficulty is that if you want to apply this formula one is say i is equal to 1 you are going to have the difference between there is a centimeter value here there is a centimeter value 163 – 158 this is 2 you will get 2 square and here the next one is 3 square right say I measure height in centimeters weight in kgs my friend here he may want to measure height in millimeters then what is going to happen this will be 1600 this will be 1580 the difference will be 20 and this will be 20 square 400 then there is a difference I mean originally I got 2 square 2 square plus 3 square which is square root 13 whereas if I measure this in millimeters then it is going to be 400 plus 9 409 whereas the two human beings they are the same so the distance should not change just because I change it the units the distance should not change just because I change it the units always Euclidean distance is not useful are you understanding it always the Euclidean distance is not useful then how does one measure the distance let us see let me write this thing as d square xy so I am just removing the square root here I have this I will just write it as x1 – y1 x2 – y2 these are row vector I am writing 1001 and I am writing this one x1 – y1 x2 – y2 I am writing 1001 then x1 – y1 x2 – y2 do you think the product of this thing is actually summation i is equal to 1 to 2 xi – yi whole square multiplication by identity matrix does not change anything right so it is actually going to be summation xi – yi whole square now I said that just because I change the units the value should not change right so now what one so a slight generalization of the distance is instead of 1001 probably we write some weight here w1 and w2 so that here I write wi this depends on the unit the wi values will change if the units change so that the whole thing will remain the same so this is a small change in the definition of distance and you may also have something more instead of this we might have w11 say w12 this is for the present moment let me just take w12 this let me just take w22 this is a I mean much better generalization of the previous one in the previous one I just wrote the previous one I wrote this now I want this thing to give us distance by definition it should be greater than or equal to 0 now my question to you is for what values of w1 and w2 this thing will be greater than or equal to 0 now if w1 is strictly greater than or equal to 0 and w2 is strictly greater than or equal to 0 then whatever may be the values of this w1 and w2 if they are strictly greater than or equal to 0 then the whole thing will be greater than or equal to 0 because this whole thing is nothing but wi and xi – yi whole square and wi are greater than or equal to 0 so the whole sum is greater than or equal to 0 but then if I write a matrix like this note that I wrote basically a symmetric matrix here w11 this w12 I wrote the same thing here and this is w22 and this is a generalization of this okay then for which such matrices this thing will be greater than or equal to 0 I will give you one example in fact you are going to get many such examples let me just say this will be always in fact I will say it is strictly greater than 0 if x1 is not equal to y1 or x2 is not equal to you take any x1 y1 x2 y2 if one of these properties is satisfied then this is strictly greater than 0 you can check in your homes you can check in your home you take any x1 and y1 x2 and y2 one of these properties should hold either this holds or this holds if both of them hold then there is no problem now this is the now I am going to write the definition of positive definite matrix a n by n is said to be positive definite if this is an n by n matrix okay this is an n by n matrix if a prime a a is strictly greater than 0 for all a not is equal to 0 vector this is the 0 vector it has n rows and one column a matrix a is said to be positive definite if a prime a a a is n by 1 so a prime is 1 by n a is n by n then this is n by 1 so the whole thing is a scalar so I can write greater than 0 equal to 0 or less than 0 now this is matrix capital A is said to be positive definite if this is greater than 0 for all a not is equal to 0 vector and there are many such matrices okay and the variance covariance matrix is what is known as let us just see how that another definition a n by n is said to be here it is written positive definite this is positive semi definite in some books this is also written as non-negative definite it is also written as non-negative definite so matrix a is said to be positive semi definite or non-negative definite if a prime a a is greater than or equal to 0 for all a okay if this is greater than or equal to 0 for all a and this strictly greater than 0 usually in matrix algebra you would basically find this definition but you would not know or I mean generally we may not be knowing why this definition is necessary I mean a way of looking at this definition is from the point of view of the distances we want something like this because we wanted this distance to be greater than 0 right we want this thing to be greater than 0 we want this distance to be equal to 0 if this is equal to this and this is equal to this then we want the distance to be equal to 0 otherwise we want it to be strictly greater than 0 right, otherwise if x1 is equal to y1 and x2 is equal to y2, we want the distance to be equal to 0, otherwise we want the distance to be strictly greater than 0, if two quantities are same then there is no distance, then there is a difference then there is a distance, right. So that is what we want to incorporate in the definition which is that is why it is written like this, we want some such definition and such a matrix is known to be positive definite whereas if you include equality then this is non-negative definition. Now the variance covariance matrix is, it can be shown to be non-negative definition, the variance covariance matrix can be shown to be non-negative definition, in fact most of the times it is positive definition and in the case of normal distribution we assume that the variance covariance matrix is positive definite that is why we write it in the denominator determinant of sigma to the power half, if variance covariance matrix is positive definite then some properties follow automatically, what are the properties, probably you are aware that the determinant of the matrix is product of its eigenvalues, the determinant of a matrix is product of its eigenvalues. Now if it is variance covariance matrix then all the eigenvalues because it is non-negative definite they are to be strictly greater than or equal to 0 and if it is positive definite then every eigenvalue is strictly greater than 0, so that the product is also greater than 0, so that you can write the square root determinant sigma to the power half, so variance covariance matrix is positive definite implies every eigenvalue of the matrix is strictly greater than 0, okay. So this is one property that people have used extensively in the literature on pattern recognition, shall we stop here?


Secretary General Casas Amora, Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, and Friends. My name is Jason Latour. Wow, that is bright. My name is Jason Latour. I'm Canada's Ambassador to Sweden. I'm really pleased that you've all joined us here today. I'm delighted to welcome you to today's event on disinformation and its impact on democratic processes. As most of you know, disinformation is Canada's thematic priority for our chairship of idea this year. So why did we pick this theme? A strong democracy relies on access to diverse and reliable sources of news and information so that members of society can form opinions, hold governments and individuals to account, and participate in public debate. However, some states and non-state actors are employing disinformation as one of a number of tactics to subvert democracy and erode the rules-based international order. Hostile actors are exploiting divisive or extremist narratives to spread fear, fan far-right extremism, seed division, and amplify polarization. They are peddling conspiracy theories and casting doubt to erode trust in our rules-based institutions, ultimately to weaken democracies and embolden authoritarian regimes. Effective responses to disinformation are needed at different levels and from different players and can include legislative and regulatory measures by government, industry commitment and action, and civil society initiatives. Canada has stepped up efforts to build societal resilience at home through research, training, and supporting local journalism. We also launched the Plan to Protect Canada's Democracy in 2019 to protect our electoral system against threats. Internationally, we are working with other democracies, civil society, academia, and industry to counter these threats. This includes leading the G7 rapid response mechanism to identify and respond to foreign states' sponsored disinformation. This mechanism is ramping up engagement with social media platforms and civil society organizations to ensure a more cohesive approach to counter disinformation online. Canada is also tackling this issue through its role as chair of the Freedom Online Coalition. We need stronger cooperation among democracies to address this challenge if we are to protect our values and our interests and rebuild the trust needed to help democracies thrive and survive. Canada wishes to place particular emphasis on the challenges created by disinformation on democratic processes, including participation and representation. We also wish to broaden the conversation at the international level around building societal resiliency to disinformation. So this is why Canada has made disinformation the focus of our Chairship of International Idea. Today's session, which is being live streamed, brings together a host of stakeholders and offers an opportunity to hear from experts, share views, and have a dialogue. To help us with that goal, we have assembled a panel of distinguished experts, and I am pleased to introduce each of them now. First, we have Mikael Tovason, head of operations at the Swedish Psychological Defense Agency. He was previously behind Sweden's efforts to counter foreign interference. He also headed two task forces to protect Sweden's general elections in 2018 and the European Parliament election in 2019 against foreign malign information influence. Second, we've got Serge Blay, executive director, Information Integrity Lab at the University of Ottawa in Canada. Serge has been with the University of Ottawa for 30 years, where he now directs the Information Integrity Lab, which brings together a cross-disciplinary international network of experts to highlight actors behind misinformation and provide solutions. And thirdly, online with us today, we have Tin Le Nguyen, a journalist from Myanmar. She is currently based in Rome and has nearly 13 years working as an international correspondent for the Thompson Reuters Foundation. In 2015, Tin returned to Myanmar after many years abroad to set up, launch, and manage Myanmar now, an award-winning bilingual news agency producing in-depth reports on the country's historic elections. You can see that we have an incredible panel based on what I just read out, but not only do we have a highly experienced and impressive panel, but we also have an incredible moderator with us today. In this regard, I'm also delighted to introduce the moderator of today's session, Alberto Fernandez. He's a senior program officer at International Idea. Alberto has carried out research, advocacy, and technical advice projects globally on how technology and democracy relate, both from the regulatory perspective as well as from impact of technology on the state of democracy. He is also a regular contributor and commentator in diverse media outlets primarily on topics related to technology, democracy, and online political campaigns, policies, and regulations. At the end of today's session, we are also delighted to have the Secretary General of International Idea, Kevin Casas, provide some closing remarks. So thank you to Alberto and to the panelists for taking the time to join us here today to share your experience and your insight, and thank you to International Idea for co-hosting today's event with Canada. It is now my pleasure to pass the mic over to Alberto. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you, everybody, for joining us. So, Mr. Ambassador, say we have an excellent panel here to go and talk about the topic of disinformation. And I want to thank Canada for organizing this, but also for choosing this particular topic as a priority for their chairship. So just to run a little bit about on the event, we will be having a conversation with the panelists, and then after that, open the floor for questions from the public. And then at the end, Kevin Casas-Tamora will, Secretary General of Idea, will close the event. So, because everybody's here to listen to the panelists, I'm not going to take more than a minute just to introduce the session of today. And I think it would have been difficult to place an event on disinformation on a better day than today, where all the news have gone a bit crazy about the attempt of the richest man in the world to buy probably the most important social media network on Earth when it comes to politics, Twitter. That is raising the conversation to interesting levels, but not only that. It is also a few days ago that the European Union passed the Digital Service Act, probably the most important piece of legislation when it comes to the regulation of disinformation online. Not enough, but it's one of the most important steps into countering the effects of disinformation. So at the European Union level, we will have a lot of rules that will force big tech companies to actually change the way they behave. And this is probably a trendsetter into different countries adopting similar regulations. So with this background and with all this information, I want to start posting a few questions to our panelists. And I want to start with both of you that are here, Mike and Serge. If you could please explain a little bit, a bit more in detail, what are we exactly referring to when we speak about disinformation? And not only what we are referring to, but also who is behind disinformation? This is not happening coming from nowhere. Somebody is actively pushing this. Why are they doing this? Who is creating disinformation? And what is exactly disinformation? May first? Sure. Oh, come on. Sure. So I would argue that disinformation is sort of, it's a too narrow perspective to use that definition. Because disinformation is when you use information with a harmful intent.  You have an intent and it's harmful. And then in Sweden, we prefer to talk about foreign malign information influence activities. And with that, I mean that you use information as a deceptive tool with a harmful intent to reach your goals and perspectives in other ways to control your environment. And that you can actually do also with correct information. For instance, by influencing the infrastructure where we have information to make sure that your opponent will not be able to come out with a counter argument to come out with facts. If you only will show one side of the situation, then you can actually also deceive your target audience. And therefore it can be a bit deceptive to use disinformation as a perspective. Otherwise we see of course that the foreign malign use of information influence is, disinformation is one of the tools. Propaganda is another of the tools, but also any deceptive activity. I just want to add one more thing for us. And when we look at this and we're a government agency, we're not the agency for disinformation or just deceptive information. It's also about consequences. Disinformation works because we are vulnerable. Because we're talking about information or other disinformation, that is information that is incorrect. And it shouldn't be in our interest to really trust in this. And it should be really easy to actually understand that it goes against our interests to be influenced by disinformation. But if you are vulnerable, then someone can exploit this. And this vulnerability in itself will create consequences. And we usually talk about disinformation in a package where disinformation will have an effect on the safety and security of our population, the functionality of our society, or our fundamental values, freedom of speech, individual rights, the freedom of press and so on. If it has those effects, then it's something we can't live with. On the other hand, and now I'll stick my head out a bit and say that disinformation is something that everyone conducts, everyone lies. And it's probably a part of what makes our world function. We can't be just 100% truthful to each other. But on the other hand, that is a kind of disinformation that doesn't have negative effects. So we perhaps need to live with that. Thank you. Happy to be here. By the way, Monsieur l'ambassadeur, les autres rencontrés, it's always nice to meet our ambassador and make sure that they work hard these guys. Happy to be here. Merci beaucoup de l'invitation. Very well articulated. And I would add to that as a continuation, but you said, yes, lies have existed in biblical times, right? And before that, and propaganda has existed, has always existed. And many years ago, we used to fly airplanes and drop little paper leaflets on towns and cities so that people would be influenced. We'd spread ideology like that. Propaganda has always existed. Lying has always existed. Errors, of course, have always existed. The new thing now is what I call the virality, the spread, the speed of the spread, which is almost beyond human nature to a certain extent. Now, I know that when the train was invented, the British would say, it does make sense. 30 miles an hour, our brains are going to bust open. And I feel we're saying the same thing about this information these days because a lot of this information is AI-based, AI-driven, not even spread by human beings, but by machines, by algorithms, by artificial intelligence.  And the work we're doing at the university is specifically that to look at the causes of disinformation or re-examine the causes of disinformation, like we've been doing for many, many years, but also look at ways of countering disinformation. It's become quite clear that it's beyond human to be able to do that, and we have to develop AI-enabled tools. In a moment, I think we'll have a chance to talk a little bit of, you might have heard about the so-called freedom convoy in Ottawa, where 200 trucks, you know, blocked basically the whole parliamentary precinct. And it was obvious, just by seeing the signs on those trucks, that a lot of it was driven by disinformation. And that, I don't want to digress too much, stopped me after two hours, if you're tired. What happened when disinformation kind of infiltrated, if you will, a very lawful protest, you know? It was a legitimate dissent. People didn't agree with the COVID regulation that the government put forward. The truckers in particular were hit with that. Whether I agree with what they said or not, whether the polarized language that I heard made me comfortable or not, is not even the issue, right? They have the right to dissent. They have the right to their own opinion. And as we embark on this initiative of trying to counter this information, we have to remind ourselves several times a day that this is not about censorship. This is not about limiting free speech. Otherwise, we risk creating what we would call a disinformation industry, okay? And already, there is fear that if we use the word disinformation too much, you know, it might lose its impact, its value, okay? Disinformation is something, as you've described, that is ill intent. There's this ill intent, and in some cases, you know, heads into the area of lawlessness, you know? It's prosecutable. Otherwise, it's just an annoyance, okay? Lying is an annoyance. Spin doctors, political spin. You know, I wouldn't call out this information. Errors. Errors are made by newspapers, but they're self-correct if they're good newspapers. Anyway, I could go on for another two hours. I'll stop there because we have another guest, of course. Thank you. Thank you, sir. This is very interesting how we get the foreign perspective, the foreign influence perspective from one side, the Canadian truckers, the national perspective from another side. So I want to go online and ask our next speaker, sorry if I mispronounce your name, Thin, about your experience, how democracy has affected your country. And not only that, it would also be interesting to know from your perspective if you think democracy in your country, but also with your broad experience in other countries as well, if it's a symptom or it's a cause of something else. So the virtual floor in this case is yours. Thank you very much, Alberto. Can everybody hear me? Yes. Very well. Okay, great. Thank you. I have my own question, Alberto. How much time do you have? How much time do you need? No, thanks for the question and good afternoon, everyone. I'm really sorry I can't be there in person. It's Italian bureaucracy, I'm afraid. Look, I guess on a much more somber note in terms of talking about disinformation and Myanmar, I think in terms of impact, what I can say is that this information like the previous speakers have said, shared and spread with ill intent has led to the loss of many, many innocent lives. And surely that is a terrible price to pay. But let's backtrack for just a little bit and I just want to tell you and set the scene a little bit about a time when I was growing up in Myanmar, which was in the 80s and the 90s. And at that time, we only had state run media, which was of course full of propaganda as well as misinformation and disinformation. Right, if we really wanted to know what was going on with the rest of the world, but also within the country, we had to, you know, resort to the Burmese services of the BBC World Service or the Voice of America or Radio Free Asia. So obviously you have to do it surreptitiously or illegally. And I know again that, you know, our previous speakers, the experts have sort of talked about how propaganda and misinformation and disinformation has been around for centuries and I agree. But I think in that kind of atmosphere that I grew up in in Myanmar at that time, it was just very right for rumors of every kind to spread very, very easily. Right for both misinformation and disinformation. And then, of course, things changed suddenly in 2014 that telecoms sector opened up and suddenly mobile phone SIM cards that used to cause a couple of hundred dollars became $1.50 overnight. We've got millions of people in Myanmar coming online, skipping everything from feature phones to going straight to smartphones and 3G and 4G. Right, just as a brief statistics around 2014 before the telecom sector opened up about 1.2% of people had access to internet within five years, about half more than half were already online with multiple phones. And, you know, going on Facebook and social media to share information, you know, there was a sense of hopefulness and expectation of suddenly becoming connected and becoming part of the world.  To talk about whether it's a cause or symptom. I don't know. I just think it's a vicious cycle. Unfortunately, at least in Myanmar, you know, I'll just give you two short examples. So in July, you know, 2014, so pretty soon after the telecom sector opened up, there was an unsubstantiated rumor on Facebook that in Mandalay, which is the second largest city in the country, a tea shop owner whose Muslim had raped a Buddhist woman, a Buddhist employee. That led to a riot in that city, a mob of about 500 people looting and destroying things. And it ended with two people losing their lives, a Buddhist and a Muslim. The impacts were so much bigger and worse in 2017 when the Myanmar military cracked down on Rohingya Muslims and then drove almost, you know, three quarters of a million across the borders into Bangladesh also killed thousands and thousands of people.  And I might add, right, that fear is not just, not just specific to Myanmar, right, they're very, very smart. The people who spread the disinformation, and many of whom were linked to the Hunter, right, they were playing on fears that the international community had around the world with the war on terrorism. And they sort of juxtaposed that and tailored it to the conditions in Myanmar and lit this fire. And what happened was that a huge, a huge percentage of the people in Myanmar actually supported that crackdown because, weirdly, despite knowing that the Hunter had, you know, for years engaged in propaganda, they believed the lies that they were told. I mean, I'm not trying to absolve, you know, sort of blame that the people shouldn't have believed it, but it is, it was amazing to speak to even among friends and some of my close relatives about what they heard then and what they believed. And now seeing the same storyline being played out since the coup last year and realizing that, oh my gosh, what they told us then, they're now doing it to us. So it was really interesting to see the way disinformation has been used in Myanmar. Interesting, perhaps it's not the right way. It was, you know, has very tragic consequences. And I guess I just want to end this by saying, you know, there are a lot more recent examples since the coup. I just want to give this two very specific ones and to say that, you know, in Myanmar, like in many other countries, disinformation has been used to sort of sow doubt on the democratic process and also to actively encourage violence. Thank you. Thank you very much for this. And I think it's very interesting to see both international and the national side of things with what was referring to on these internationalists that were around and then they were contextualized to the Myanmar context. So I would like to ask both Michael and search about the consequences in your countries. You already touched upon the issue of the Canadian trackers, famous Canadian trackers. Whereas you, Michael, talk more about foreign influence. So I would be interested in knowing what exactly is the influence in your countries. Well, one pervasive influence, I think, if I look at it, and I think you will probably relate to that as well in Sweden, what I've seen had a good, good friend of mine was minister of the environment in Canada and not making a political statement, but I think she was one of the best minister of environment we've ever had. Minister and climate change. The disinformation that the wrath of disinformation, I always call it, not just on climate change per se, that made her job a lot more difficult, but it also got very personal. The things that were put out about her was unconscionable. So much so that she resigned. She left her position. Now, of course, she will say that there are many other factors, but one of the key factors was the disinformation, the toll that it had on her personal life, on her family, the violent language about her. And that happens, I notice, a lot. And the consequence of that is that we have some very able, experienced, talented people who will not go into politics anymore. Who would do that?  We had that at the University of Ottawa as well. A professor dared use a word that some of the community did not appreciate. She used it in a scientific context, in a historical context, saying that the word had been used historically to define a certain group and all that, which she thought was an academic expression, an objective observation. The students turned on her within half an hour. They published her personal address. They published her phone number. She also resigned. So there is impact, as we've heard here, when state actors, when states engage in disinformation, there are literally people dying out of that. And we've seen that in Myanmar and elsewhere. But what I see is on a personal basis the toll that it's taking on some very, very competent people who are now just saying, I'm not going to go there. And I'm worried that it's undermining our democracy. So it's one of the ways that it undermines our democracy. Yeah, and first of all, I must say that Sweden is a fairly resilient country when it comes to disinformation. And we're thankful for that. And at the same time, looking at it, it has had a long-term effect on our country too, as most countries. And I would also argue that COVID-19 and the pandemic has really shaped the environment, promoting disinformation, misinformation and other problems in our environment. And where polarization and, how should I say, not so nice information environment is one of the effects. And we could see that, especially last two years with COVID-19, that the people working with communication in the public sector, they were exhausted because there was so much hatred going around there. And this could also be connected to something we've been seeing for several years. And my agency, we work only with foreign state actors or foreign powers. So it could also be a non-state actor, not internally. But we could see in 2015 that certain state actors were trying to create polarization in our society by sowing distrust against the government, against politicians, against media. And more or less the whole system in itself. But we could also eventually, in 2018, see a trend where the foreign state actors didn't produce disinformation themselves anymore regarding these issues. Instead, they were amplifying disinformation and misinformation being produced in our own countries. The same thing actually went for the U.S. election. We saw that trend also in 2020. And therefore, unfortunately, this might be an effect of foreign disinformation that it has created an environment of distrust. And in that distrust, we find polarization and it starts with hate and goes, and that's the slippery slope to threats. And hate is usually not illegal in Sweden. You can be hateful in your speech, but you can threaten someone. And that is actually right now a debate in Sweden.  How good is that? Because it has had an effect on journalists and politicians in our country too. That's a very interesting point of view. I see a lot of differences, but a lot of commonalities between the three really diverse cases that we have here. So there is a lot of, okay, we have shed light upon a lot of issues. There's a lot of questions still, but let's try to move on to the solutions part. And of course, we're not going to find a solution, but if we backtrack a little bit from 2016 where we were suddenly the world woke up to the issue of disinformation with the Brexit referendum, the Trump winning the U.S. elections. Since then, we have had a big impulse of different government actions and legislations from creating new agencies to passing new laws. Some of them questionable in many aspects. So it doesn't seem that they have solved anything. Other, a lot of researchers argue actually that some of these legislation made possible that the U.S., for instance, the U.S. 2020 elections were not massively influenced by disinformation. So there is a lot of questions here. What I want to ask you, and I would like to start with, is what do you think, it's a double question. What do you think is the government role when actually the government wants to be a positive actor? And how do we make sure that solutions respect human rights? A lot of the legislations that have been passed, the case of Southeast Asia is a particular special. Almost nearly every country has passed in the last three years legislation that restricts freedom of expression. With the excuse of fighting fake news. So how do we make sure that we respect human rights with this legislation? And if you have a positive example, that would be excellent. Positive examples, okay. The question just became harder. Absolutely. I guess just very briefly to respond to the part around, you know, not before I start on Myanmar to talk about Southeast Asia, you know, countries that have passed these laws against, you know, what they call fake news. We're always, well, in most cases, we're intolerant of freedom of speech in the first place. It's just that they couldn't really regulate it in the way that they could now by using fake news and disinformation, you know, as an excuse. So I, yeah, that's that's that's my little take on Southeast Asia. I look at the countries and, you know, the neighboring countries to be a mother have enacted those laws and to me it felt like they aren't exactly a response to a worry but actually a way that they have now found an excuse to legitimize the way they want to control speech. In terms of let's, you know, talking about how governments should handle. Obviously, local national governments should be the first line of responsibility right to tackle disinformation but what do you do when it is actually the government who is spreading the disinformation which is the case in Myanmar and I think is the case in so many countries, even in Europe, right and in the US. And, you know, and in Myanmar, that is still the case that has been the case, and it is still the case. And this comment is going to make me extremely unpopular with my fellow countrymen and women, if it hasn't already the disinformation wasn't just limited to the military-aligned government, yeah, during the reign of the National League for Democracy to answer and suit these government, there were also government supported disinformation, or at least they did not do anything to actually manage or crack down on disinformation when it was going on the 2017, you know, programs against the Rohingya Muslims happened under the NLD watch, why all of that disinformation and propaganda and hate speech was going on. They really didn't do anything to reign it in. And I think then you have very little leeway right because you're left only with the civil society who have much less power and resources to tackle this. Having said that, there have been two campaigns that I really respect and really, you know, that I thought was really interesting that came out during those times. One was called Banzaga, which is translated to English as flower speech, but essentially just to say we do not show hatred to each other. And obviously, as many of you probably know, Facebook is the equivalent of internet in Myanmar. So that was a campaign that focused quite a lot on disinformation and hate speech on Myanmar and just essentially getting people to understand and share. And, you know, the whole debate around the silent majority who do not probably like to see this going on, but are too scared to sort of get into these, you know, vitriolic fights, even if it is just online with people who might be bots might just be, you know, or might just be agent provocateurs who might be wanting to get into a fight, but it was a way for people to instead of getting into arguments just to say, No, we do not support, you know, speech that has ill intent. And that was fairly successful. And I think people were really interested. Another thing that another campaign and that's, you know, has a website, but it's very active on Facebook in Myanmar is a page called think before you trust. And what it does, and it is still ongoing right now is to actually look at news, whether it's viral social media posts or whether it's news from the state run media, or even independent media, and essentially fact checking them and saying, Nope, this is not true. This is true. It, unfortunately, does not have the same platform or presence as the ones that are sharing disinformation. But I think it is, you know, and it's again, it's small scale. But I thought it would, you know, it's still a really good way for for for civil society to sort of take back some form of control. There also used to be an organization called Mido in Myanmar, that will end near my tech accountability network and they were very, very good at essentially getting social media platforms like Facebook to take responsibility and to moderate their content. Unfortunately, since the coup right, these organizations are no longer working or existing or have gone underground they just cannot operate that anymore. So again, we have this vacuum in Myanmar at this point in time, where you probably need reliable information the most you, you really have to go and find it because you don't know where the information is coming from who just coming from and what's the you know intent behind it. I guess what one final point I want to make is that you know, international governments, you know, for also has particularly developed nations, particularly home to the big social media platforms like Google and Facebook, but also now new ones telegram TikTok. Okay, some of them perhaps are hosted in countries that we know where democratic principles might not be the most important, but I think, you know, governments in countries where these big social media platforms are based or operate also have responsibility, because you know one really interesting thing that I've discovered when I was speaking to tech experts who've been looking at Myanmar is that a lot of disinformation in Myanmar doesn't come from work quite a substantial amount I don't want to see majority. It's not from political actors. Yeah, but from people in other countries who make money from viral content. Yeah, they're not necessarily disinformation for hire they're not being paid to do it. What they do is they make money off all the algorithms on Facebook and Google through the ads by, you know, repackaging content. That is not true, but it's viral, and they get paid a lot of money from the way these international tech giants, the way you see the incentive structures are created and I think they really need to take responsibility about it because these, you know, again, these people are not political actors, they're opportunistic, there are thousands and thousands of entrepreneurs who are completely about the content, but are more interested in the money that they can make of YouTube and Facebook and other platforms. Thank you. Yeah, that's an incredibly important point to look at the money side of things. Please. Sir, I'd see you. We're Canadians, so we're optimistic. We're utopians. We think the world will end in a good way when it ends. The ending will be good. You know, we're Canadians. There's a good movie right now playing. It's called Lost Illusions. It's based on a book by Henri de Balzac, and it's set in 1789, so, you know, half true, half not true, romanticized, but it's a very, very good movie because when I saw it I said, oh my god, it's about disinformation.   One guy at one point, a small group of people said, what if we did something different? What if we had a differentiated product? What if we published something that is only truth, okay, and if there's a mistake, we'll correct it. We will have editors who look at this. We will challenge the assumptions before publishing them. What if we did that? And everybody, of course, laughed them away. They said, you know, there's no market for that. There's no market for truth. I mean, you'll never make a living out of that. Well, it just so happened that it worked. And since then, a few newspapers have stuck to that ideal of saying, let's be truthful, and let's admit that we make mistakes sometimes. Mind you, there were maybe, you know, 12 reporters in Paris at the time, you know, so it's fairly easy for them to coalesce around an idea and say, let's stick to that and let's make that our business model. I'm kind of, you know, utopian Canadian kind of way, hoping that there might be a truth network at one point, not what Trump calls his truth social media. I think we should use another term for it, but a space where people agree that if they are going to communicate on that platform, they will have their ideas challenged. If people notice that something is wrong instead of putting a little like, they'll click a little, this is not true. I don't think this is true or this needs validation. Think of the Wikipedia page. As a university guy, I shouldn't even talk about Wikipedia, but it's becoming something that is fairly decently truthful. And why did Wikipedia not go the way of Twitter and TikTok and all that? Well, it's because people are encouraged to point out errors, okay, and collectively people kind of develop truth. And that's how democracies have always worked, right? Democracies develop through a consensus around norms, around rules, around conventions, and of course it slows things down. And people will say, well, you know, freedom is a much better word than control. Well, I'm not sure. I think we need to challenge that sometimes because, you know, when newspapers decided they would control themselves, then they became better newspapers. And stories might take a little bit more time to get published, but they're truthful. The problem with speedy publication is that it is a breeding ground for error, if not disinformation. Michael? Yeah, and I've been writing things down. It's really interesting to hear these things and especially getting me on my perspective. So, and I realize I need to explain how I think because I'm perhaps the old man out here in the room. We work with foreign threats. And why do we do this? Our job is to identify and counter foreign malign information influence targeting Sweden, not internal. And that is for a reason. And that is because foreign states and foreign powers, they are threats in our system. While our population and the media that are also spreading disinformation, we perceive them as vulnerabilities. And why do I say that? Well, first of all, foreign state actors and foreign actors, they're not a part of our democratic system. They're trying to be a part of it and trying to influence it. On the other hand, our population and also international free media and anyone else who is expressing their opinion, they're a part of our democratic process. And therefore, we need to have different toolboxes for these different actors. And the reason behind this, the next phase is actually that if we have freedom of speech, that actually implies the right to be wrong when you're using the freedom of speech. Which means that you have to let everyone use that freedom. Eventually, you will figure out that the person who was wrong turned out to be right or vice versa. So therefore, that is something we need to protect. And I'm going to read something out from our instruction for our agency. So I'll skip the boring part and just go straight for the most important thing. The agency shall, through its activities, safeguard an open and democratic society and free information of opinion. That is one of our tasks. And that in itself implies that if we have an open democratic society and free information of opinion, that is the basic foundation to have a psychological defence. Which means that our government and our parliament has told us that if you protect our democratic system and our freedom of speech, then we will be resilient against disinformation. So therefore, when we tackle this then, because you wanted the solution, and of course we're in Sweden, so you will get the solution. And I started with saying that disinformation, it only works because we're vulnerable. And when we looked at these vulnerabilities, what is it that makes disinformation have an effect on us? That we realise that we are lacking some things. First of all, we lack the awareness that there is a threat. If we know that there is a threat, then we're on our toes. The other thing we also lack is the awareness of our own vulnerabilities. What is it that makes us get controlled by someone's ideas, expressions and so on? The third one is actually a lack of knowledge of our own system, our own society, how it works. So we have nothing to measure the disinformation against. And then also the lack of coordination and cooperation to help each other, to warn each other when there is disinformation going around and when there are vulnerable groups that are being subjected to it. But also to help each other to counter this, and therefore we also need to have a toolbox. We need to know how to act when we see disinformation. And it's just not only source critical thinking, it's also how you operate in the information environment in yourself. And then there are some things that can be exploited also that you need to work on. And that is of course the trust of our system. Trust in itself is something you can exploit if you lack trust for your own system. And also that Tim mentioned here, fear, fear and anger are emotions that are exploitable. So if we are going to build resilience against disinformation, we need to address these issues to create resilience in our society. And the government's role is to support civil society, our media and any institution working with the democratic process and freedom of speech. And to enable these actors to, how should I say, boost up the already existing well-working democratic process that we have in many countries. And the other role of the government will be also to protect against qualified external threats and look at the internal problems as vulnerabilities and not threats. Thank you. This is a very good solution. Not easy to implement, but a good one. So I have had the luxury of posing questions to the panelists, but I want to share that luxury with everybody and open the floor for questions to our panelists. There is a microphone there and I have a question. My name is Rauno Marisari, I'm working as Ambassador for Human Rights and Democracy in Helsinki. For our ministry, thank you Canada for organizing this. This is also the topic among our priorities. Freedom Online Coalition was mentioned in Canada this year and Finland was last year and last year the Coalition issued a statement on spreading of online disinformation and human rights. Very good statement, I must say. And two comments or questions based on that work. The first one is about the role of states. So we discussed very much how much we should focus on state-sponsored disinformation. Our experience in Finland is that if we are some way receiving disinformation campaigns, more or less it has something to do with the so-called troll factories in St. Petersburg, which operates more or less with consent of Kremlin. So shall we somewhere focus on this and to combat states' sponsor disinformation or also looking at the other things, so based on the extreme political movements, criminal organizations for economic gains, etc. And my second remark or question is about data. We, for instance, discussed how much we know about how much disinformation is targeted at women particularly and we realized that there is not so much that kind of specific data. What kind of data we need more to be better in combating disinformation. Thank you. Thank you. Maybe we take a couple of questions. Alistair. Hi there, Alistair Skraden, Head of Communications at IDEA. I could just ask each of the panelists. Imagine that it's not Ellen Musk but you who's in charge of Twitter for one day. What would be the one reform you'd make to Twitter to combat disinformation? Thanks. An easy one. Do we have another question or so we, maybe we can give the floor to the panelists. Well, there's three questions. You can try to answer all of them and just focus on one, two. I will let the tough question for Michael. If I had $33 billion, which is 33 times the budget of the University of Ottawa, I think, again, citing Wikipedia, if the base, you know, I'm a little weary just to take a back step about governments controlling content. It's almost like telling phone companies or postal service you will control the content of communications. And it's a slippery slope. We know that some governments will use the pretext of disinformation to clamp down on the flow of information. If the base, I'm not calling for revolution, but if it comes from the base, if people have a chance and an easy mechanism to point out disinformation, they will. Much like they did again with the Wikipedia example. So the very first thing I would do is put a button on there that says, I'm not sure this is true. We're working with a very, very smart young student. He's an anthropologist actually, not an IT guy at all.  You'd like to contest it. You'd like to counter that narrative. You can attach to the URL, you know, whether YouTube likes it or not. I mean, URL is a public. You can attach your own video to that video so that there's a counter narrative. It may play in the other direction too, of course. You know, a truthful video might be countered by a false video, but overall, and with public pressure, if we can call it that, then truth will typically come out ahead of lies. That would be my first move on Twitter. But the tough question, of course, Michael will answer. Or will I? So when it comes to data collection, first of all, one should be very careful about that method in itself. Why do we collect data? What are we going to do with that? So I'll just say a bit about what we do at our agency by saying what we don't do. We don't go into social media to find disinformation and then see if it's a foreign state actor behind it. Because if we would do that, we would actually be at risk registering our own population using the freedom of speech and being anonymous. So instead, we are actually monitoring state-sponsored and directed resources. For instance, Gloveset Internet Research Agency, they are fully directed by the Russian president office, the team in St. Petersburg. And then we try to monitor what are they trying to message, to understand how they are trying to influence our population. And instead, the most important information actually to come out with is to our own population. And that is regarding having a strong narrative about what's really going on. And one of the recommendations we have for agencies, authorities, municipalities when they're being subjected to a disinformation campaign is actually transparency and really communicating it out there. Be transparent on what's really going on because what the aggressors are doing is that they are filling the information environment with their disinformation. And there we have our population. Therefore we need to fill the information environment with correct information and make it available. And I do believe I'm almost as positive as our Canadian friends here that we live in a good environment where people don't want to be fooled, that they want to have the right information. So transparency is one thing. The other thing is education. Through high level of education and media literacy, you gain trust. And in Sweden we're lucky, we have a fairly high level of trust here. If you have that, you are very resilient. And if they continue to do this anyway to attack you, then we actually, Finland and Sweden, we share the same handbook for countering disinformation, where we have a three level response, where the first one is just to be aware and not make a fuss of it because you'll probably help the aggressor. The other way is actually to design your communication so you will reach out to your population so they get the correct information and the facts about the situation. And if that doesn't work, then it's time to go against the actors, to expose their activities, to expose them and actually, but that's the message stuff and that's not the place where you want to be. Thank you. Tim. Yeah, I'll tackle the easy one. Unfortunately, my answer is not going to be very much different from I think what what actually said I was just the first thing that came to my head was, okay, I would probably make it easier to report disinformation and abuse. And I say this because I think just a couple of weeks ago I tried to report a tweet. That is clearly, you know, not not just propaganda or misinformation, but it's actually disinformation.  And it just didn't fit in. I somehow couldn't find fit in to the to the selections that Twitter already gave me as I'm like, Oh, that's that's not a spam. That's actually not a promotion. It's actually, you know, it's harmful but in a slightly different way. And I think it's just the way it's being done at the moment is so narrow and I know that, you know, some of my colleagues in Myanmar as well as outside of the country, sometimes just give up and don't report because it just, it's just so much more difficult to let me let Twitter know that you know this tweet is obviously wrong or is disinformation.  And, you know, we have the same kind of problem like Serge said about, you know, one of the Canadian politicians when it comes to climate and food issues on Twitter there's so much disinformation I would just like. But just make sure that one day perhaps to make it so much easier to identify and report and take action against, you know, intentional disinformation. Yes. Do we have more questions from the public. Yes. Yeah. I'm head of communications at Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, the largest environmental organization in Sweden. And you mentioned civil society and you mentioned climate change and then the Minister of Environment. I would say these issues, environmental issues, climate change in particular, but also other environmental issues are often targeted. This is my experience, of course. And I would say that we could hire lots of staff working full time only responding to various lunatic facts and allegations on what we're doing and what is happening. I'm a bit curious if you have any advice to us as a civil society as an NGO, especially considering that we have an election coming up as part of the democratic system. Thanks. We have another question. Thank you. On this petition on executive director of civil rights defenders. Now that we're starting to get COVID in the sort of rear mirror. What are the major learnings from an academic point of view maybe when it comes to counter the, the disinformation around COVID, which was we've seen used as a pretext to curb civil and political routes around the world to quite a large extent. So what have we learned from that that we'd also could bring into the future. Thank you. We have one more question. Thanks. My name is Kimana. I work for the Constitution building program of international idea. My question is more related to gray zones. I assume or I know that I mean information. There's there's so many gaps in information and there's a lot of play also with possible truths. And to what extent does the whole field of disinformation also deal with those gray zones. Of course, transparency is positive, but transparency can also not be absolute. And and there is always this. Well, there are these games also in terms of playing with with those gaps and with those great zones. As I said, thanks. Thank you. So we're going to have three questions. I will ask you to try to be concise on your answers so we don't overstep our time limitations. So who wants to go first? Okay, just turn off my microphone if I go too long. On the COVID counter narrative.  It's overblown and all that people who disseminate disinformation are not necessarily bad people. You know, my dad is not a bad person, but he lives in an eco chamber. Okay. And eco chambers get created where people and that answers the other question I think where people speak among themselves like we're doing here. Okay. And people have let's call them heroes, if you will, or people that they respect. Okay. It could be, you know, sports figure. It could be politician, whatever. And they share the same views on things which after a while for them becomes fact because there's no counter fact. Okay. The eco chambers are so strong, so airtight that not only will they not tolerate descent from outside, they will not even tolerate descent from inside. You know, if someone tries to be a little bit moderate and say, yeah, but or yeah, perhaps or yes, there's a gray zone. That person will be ejected, you know, excommunicated on the spot. Right. So there's no room for moderate speech. It's either gray. It's either black or white. And yet we know that in general, you know, any topic is great. This is not black or white. And so people disseminate things that they believe are true because they heard it from people they respect. Okay. So as, you know, as to the countering narrative, how do we counter narrative? We can't counter it with facts. I can't tell my dad long list of facts and he doesn't relate to that. But if his favorite sport legend, if his favorite hockey player, you know, were to come and say, no, no, no, no, this is real stuff. Okay. Listen to me. This is real stuff. That is likely to have an impact. So I think let's remember the eco chambers, the people in the eco chambers, the participants or the members, if you will, of the eco chambers are not back. The instigators are, but the people within those, those rooms are not necessarily bad. It's an interesting point. Yeah. And I'll add just fill in there and also actually answer the question regarding civil society. And first of all, don't spend time on countering disinformation. You will only talk about the subject that the people spreading disinformation wants to talk about. And so therefore you're probably just will be helping them that so to having your own strong narrative together with facts to back it up because that can kill.  But and connect to that some, some of the things that we've learned and I worked for two years with disinformation and COVID-19. So there are many things to be learned there, but connected to this. First of all, if you have a strong narrative, you have to be humble about the facts because facts apparently evolve. You know one thing one day and suddenly next day, it wasn't really correct. So therefore be humble when you communicate what you know today and prepare for tomorrow where there are where the knowledge has changed. And you can almost never change an extremists. You're not going to reach out to them. And what we see and what we saw was that people that are vulnerable to conspiracy theorists, they are vulnerable to if you're vulnerable to one, you are vulnerable to others. So that group is a group that you will probably not reach with facts. They want to live in that environment for many sad reasons. And I've spent hours talking to conspiracy theorists, calling me telling me what's going on and not going on and so on. It's been interesting, a lot of sad stories actually behind that also. But what you should do instead is to focus on the people around them. So don't talk, and even if you're in a dialogue with a conspiracy theorist, don't try to persuade them. Try to persuade the people in that discussion, the other ones that haven't decided yet what to believe and not to believe. So think about that when you communicate. So don't embarrass the other, the opponent, if you have any discussion, and put out the facts there that will make the people on the edge actually lean towards your side. I'll stop there. Thank you. Yeah, I guess two very brief points and both actually, you know, touching on both what Serge and Michael have said, I think one, in terms of the civil society, I don't have a lot of advice, but I would like to point you to this really interesting report that I came across at the end of last year, it's called how to talk about civic space, a guide for progressive civil society facing smear campaigns, and you can find it on citizens for Europe. And it's essentially done by a group that's actually telling or civil society groups, working on things like social justice and environmental protection on on how to respond to smear campaigns. And I thought that was really interesting and useful so hopefully they'll be, and, you know, I see a lot of what Michael said just now in, you know, similar tips in that report as well. They have like really good examples of concrete examples of what steps you can take so hopefully that'll be useful. And the second point is also that just to reiterate what the two speakers already said, I think both in our personal and professional lives, I think we can play a role in engaging not necessarily with, you know, the Alex Jones is off the info wars but people who listen to it, some of whom may be our friends and family members I mean I distinctly remember, you know, coming back from the Rakhine state, you know, after visiting the Rohingya camps, who have people who have been displaced and coming back home. And one of, you know, the family members was like saying, Oh, but you know they burned down their own homes. You know, so why are we supporting them or why are you feeling sorry for them. And I was like, Okay, normally I would just like shut down the conversation I would just leave because I was at that point where I couldn't I could no longer deal with all this, you know, this this fake news that was coming at me, but I decided because I love them, and I know that they love me and trust me so I decided to sit down and said, Okay, let's talk about this, you know, where did you hear this where did you hear that they burned down their own homes. Oh, I heard it on MRTV, which is that Myanmar, you know, state television. I said, Okay, how do you know so it's always it was the news they said this was what happened and I said, Okay, when did you ever trust it news from MRTV and they said because it's propaganda and I said, Well, why are you trusting them now.  This is what I have seen these other people.  But I have tried to do my best with people I care about. And I know people who trust me. So I think both in terms of professional and personal, if we can do it. I think that is one small way of, you know, combating disinformation. Thank you. Thank you very much. There is a lot of stream interesting things. I want to thank all the panelists for the incredible contribution but also because I haven't needed to tell them to shut up, which is a first in my life. And I will have the honor to sit my seat to Kevin. You need a microphone, I think. So sit here, please. Okay. Well, thank you so much. I mean, that was, that was phenomenal. And I really, I really mean it. I want to thank the panelists. And I want to thank Canada for convening this discussion with the support of International Idea. And this is, of course, one of the challenges of our time. It has become evident in the course of this day of discussions that we are all following this discussion very, very closely. And, you know, upon listening to this discussion, to this panel, you know, one thing kept ringing in my head, which was this question posed by Tin, I think, as to whether disinformation is a cost or a symptom. And I think the easy answer is to say that it is both. And I think it's true. Yet, I have the nagging feeling that it's not simply the availability of technology that is creating the problem. It is not simply the fact that we have technologies that viralize, you know, the bad information that we see out there. And here I go to, you know, this connects to some of the issues raised by Michael, which is the question of vulnerabilities. I mean, why is it that we are seeing the spread of this information the way we are just now? And again, it's not simply a question of the availability of technologies. There are several pieces to this answer. And here I will speculate. I mean, part of the reason why we're seeing this proliferation of this information is because trust is in short supply. Interpersonal trust and trust in institutions. And this is something that predates, by a long margin, the arrival of social media. I mean, when you see the global opinion polls, you can see that in the West, which is for, you know, the place where we have most data for, trust has been declining since the 1950s, almost continuously. Why? Well, I mean, there are many reasons. One reason I suspect is the fact that the media landscape had changed dramatically before social media came along. And had it changed in ways, I mean, with the 24 hours news cycle and this kind of thing and cable television, we all of a sudden found ourselves in an environment in which the flaws of democracy were easier to uncover. Therefore, undermining trust. We found ourselves in a place where leaders and institutions were cut to size.  We are all too aware of the flaws that afflict them. And, you know, one of my mentors used to say, used to use this wonderful phrase that when you don't believe in anybody is when you're more willing to believe anything. And that's exactly what's happening. And up to this toxic brew, the fact that the world has become much more complex, much more volatile, much more difficult to understand in a way that leaves us, with a sense of dislocation and with a sense of loss of control over our fate. And that's the moment when conspiracy theories and scapegoating become useful devices to understand a reality that beats us. And if you're an angry person that has seen your economic prospects diminish, it's much more difficult to understand the workings of globalization, of the workers of the financial system that, you know, end up with a, you know, with a merger of companies that lead to your dismissal. It's much more difficult to understand all that than to embrace the great replacement theory and blame immigrants. And of course, countering lies and conspiracies with truth is very difficult to do for exactly the reason that you were saying. Because lies are just much more attractive. The truth is bound by reality. For lies and conspiracies, the sky is the limit. So what I'm trying to get at is that the factors that are behind and underneath this discussion about this information are very, very structural. So if we focus on regulating the technology or the messages, we will not solve the problem. Something else will come along. So we need to deal with the underlying issues, the lack of trust, the sense of this location and loss of control over our fate. And that poses, of course, very thorny, very uncomfortable questions about what we need to do about corruption, what we need to do about obscene levels of inequality, what we need to do about the breakdown of social contracts all over the place. What we need to do to change this idea that is prevalent in many places, that we simply accept that there are losers in our economic and political structures, and that's part of their lot. Well, no.  And I do believe that all things consider there are more winners than losers in globalization, but there are a hell of a lot of losers. And the practical implication of this is that for all the problems that they may have, societies that are better integrated, where everybody has a dignified place under the sun, where institutions and authorities are accountable, do better when it comes to this information and do better in general. So let's not kid ourselves believing that there are quick fixes to this information or to the challenges of democracy. There are none. And we should acknowledge this and act accordingly, and this is what this discussion is about. How we act together and with a sense of urgency before this information and the issues that it prays upon, destroy the democratic project, which is one of the pinnacles of the human adventure. We do have a collective responsibility, and at least in my case, I thank Canada and the panelists for reminding me of that responsibility. Thank you. I think that closed down. Thank you to Canada and to all the speakers. Thank you. Thank you, also online. Thanks for having me. Have a good evening, everyone. Bye-bye.


If you want a premium convertible without spending that much on an HP Spectre, the NBX 360 13 comes in as a very good alternative. It has efficient hardware with good performance and a fantastic selection of displays. Don't go anywhere to hear all about it. The laptop has a stylish aluminum chassis with black finish that weighs only 1.3 kilograms, while the profile is measured at 16.1 millimeters. The device is incredibly durable, as both the lid and base don't even budge. The lid is a bit difficult to open due to the stiff hinges, while the rounded edges don't allow you to grip it properly. However, once you find the strength to open the lid, you see a keyboard with long key travel and clicky feedback, which is very surprising considering the thickness of the machine. The touchpad is great as well as the surface is large and smooth, while the pad itself is very accurate. The laptop gets generally good input-output coverage with an audio jack, a microSD card slot, and a full-sized 10 gigabit USB port on the left. On the opposite side, there are two Thunderbolt 4 ports and one more full-sized USB port. Both ports are jawed to shave some extra millimeters off the profile. The NVX360 13 comes with three display options, all with a 16-10 aspect ratio. The first two use IPS panels with either FHD Plus or QHD Plus resolution. Lastly, there's a 2.8K OLED panel. We went with the FHD Plus option, which is excellent for both daily work and creator work. The unit reaches 413 nits of brightness, while also covering 98% of the sRGB gamut. The color accuracy reaches really good levels with our design and gaming profile, with a Delta E value of 0.8. We'll have links to our profiles in the description below. The 66.5Wh battery pairs really well with the Core i7-1250U, lasting for 17 hours and 51 minutes of web browsing, or 17 hours and 13 minutes of video playback. These are exceptional results. Only 2 per 100 people watching this video are subscribers. If you decide to just start following us, we'll be able to reinvest more in our laboratory thus making even more helpful videos for you. Thank you, you're awesome. While the Core i7 is very efficient, with a base TDP of 9 Watts, it also manages to deliver good performance. It still gets outperformed by the i7-1255U and the i7-1265U in 3D rendering, but the chip is very competitive in 2D rendering, trading punches with the aforementioned CPUs, while being much faster than the Ryzen 7 5800U and Ryzen 7 6800U. The laptop keeps itself cooled with only one heat pipe and one fan. Despite the low-profile cooling, the Core i7-1250U runs really well, maintaining a sub-25W power limit in long runs at only 74°C. As for comfort, while the hotspot does go to nearly 49°C, it's isolated in one spot so it doesn't affect your use. Noise isn't a problem at all even during an extreme load. Like most other tiny laptops, the memory is soldered, so any configuration is final. You can get up to 16GB of LPDDR4X RAM. Storage-wise, you have 1M.2 slot with support for ultra-fast generation for SSDs. You can check out our teardown video in the description below. The HP NVX360 13 is a compact and powerful convertible that can be used for a variety of scenarios, including simple office work or design and rendering tasks, thanks to the beautiful display. It also runs really cool and quiet, so you can quickly transition into tablet mode and relax by reading a book whenever you want. For more information about the laptop, go over to our website, where we have a bunch more tests that cover the entire device from head to toe.