Deliberation in the Internet – how to secure the privacy and moderate without censorship?

1. Seminar Watchdogs - Working Out Credibility
Association of Leaders of Local Civic Groups & Stefan Batory Foundation
Warsaw 26th - 27th of March 2009
Deliberation in the Internet – how to secure the
privacy and moderate without censorship
Simon Delakorda
Institute for Electronic Participation (INePA)
Ljubljana, Slovenia

4. Starting questions

When should NGOs establish and facilitate deliberative
internet public debates?

What are the necessary communication principles and
rules (on-line moderation vs. censorship)?

How to secure legitimacy, accountability and inclusiveness
of debates?

Which are privacy issues for citizens and NGOs
participating in internet based debates?

How to ensure that policy-makers will include results from
internet debate into adopted legislation?

5. Why bother with Internet public debates?

When is necessary to establish an open space for
exchanging and sharing opinions regarding public
issues among citizens (e-debates).

When formulating experts and interest groups
contributions to a policy or legislative proposal (e-
consultations).

Benefits for NGOs: visibility, legitimacy, transparency,
openness, participation, interactivity and content.

Challenges for NGOs: technical expertise, digital
exclusion, additional (financial) resources, passive
citizens, government & media ignorance, facilitation and
moderation.

6. Internet debate moderation vs. censorship

Active and passive moderation

Relevant issue selection

Starting questions

Following discursive ethics standards

Focusing debate and archiving inappropriate messages
(not deleting them)

Time frame

Additional information and web links

Debate report

7. Legitimacy, accountability and inclusiveness of
internet debates

No restrictions regarding participation

Participation of both internet users and non-internet users

Registration with name in surname (?)

Involvement into policy-making process or public opinion
formation (motivation for participation)

Involvement of decision-makers (feedback)

Non-biased moderators reports

Consensus among participants on final report

Follow up (policy evaluation)

Are numbers important? (participatory legitimacy vs.
representative legitimacy)

8. Privacy issues for citizens and NGOs

Registering with “real” name and surname

Identity manipulation

E-mail database management

Personal data protection legislation

Who is responsible for hate speech and flaming?

How relevant and accountable are contributions from
anonymous users?

9. Including results of Internet debate into adopted
legislation

Secure obligation from decision-makers that the official
feedback will be provided (at the start up)

Non-biased and professionally prepared Internet debate
report

Expert follow up (policy evaluation and informing
participants)

Media promotion

General impression (technical implementation, quality
of debate, level of moderation, connection to live
events, overall professionalism, etc).

10. Conclusions

Internet ultimately is a democratic tool and we have to
perceive it as such in order to use it for identifying,
deliberating and implementing public interest.

The present socio-political conditions are not favouring
full implementation of deliberative potentials of the
Internet.

Examples and cases of good practices overcoming
those limitations are there for crucial!

11. Thank you very much for your attention!
simon.delakorda@inepa.si
Institute for Electronic Participation (INePA)
Povšetova ulica 37
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Tel.:+386 41 365 529
www.inepa.eu