Japan IGF Bimonthly Event: Mar 2017
Date and time : Thu 23th Mar 2017 18:00-20:00 JSTVenue: JPNIC office meeting room, Tokyo, Japan
Participants : 34 onsite, 1 online
Survey: 24 responses- Gender: Male 79%, Female 13%, No Response 8%- Stakeholders: Internet operations related 46%, Business 17%, Government8%,
Internet Users 13%, Academia 4%, Others 4% No Response 8%- Satisfaction : Satisfied 41.7%, Generally Satisfied 37.5%, Average 16.7%, Slightly
Unsatisfied 0%, Unsatisfied 0%, No Response 4.2%
Program:Fake News and Internet Governance1. Observations on fake news by different stakeholders (15 minutes each)-

Observation by media journalist: Hirokazu Taira (Asahi Shimbun)-

Observation by academia: Hiroyuki Fujishiro (Hosei University)-

Observation by online news platform: Shigeki Matsuura (SmartNews, Inc)

2. Discussions on fake news
-Questions asked at the end to the speakers

3. AOB: Whether to develop a code of Conduct for IGCJ
Next Meeting: 25th May 2017
Summary:
The first part was scene setting, to share an overview of fake news with the audienceby each speaker as media, academia, and news platform respectively. The discussions
which followed covered the following points about fake news.
Distinction of roles of “Intermediary”, “Media Platform” and “Media”. Clarificationof responsibilities for stakeholders in providing news is important.

News platform must have a correct understanding of its responsibilities in theaccuracy of the contents it provides, under the national law.

Discussions on how we can deal with the nature of the Internet in relation to fakenews. e.g., information spreads fast and once spread, it cannot be completely1

deleted on all parts of the Internet easily. A few measures were discussed.
Maintaining good balance in taking measures was discussed: Being too cautious
could ultimately lead to an extreme measure of not using the Internet, and there
was a call for positive preventative measures, with good middle ground.

An observation made that business incentives (credibility, trustable image) could
also be effective measures against fake news.

Two questions were asked to the speakers at the end. They could choose to respondto either one:A) What can you each do as a stakeholder to take measures against fake newsB) Is there an area where different stakeholders can collaborate to address
fake news more effectively?

Additional details:
Points raised in presentations by the speakers
Recent updates on fake news with specific examples such as the recent USelection.

Issues surrounding fake news which are unique from conventional media, and

Countermeasures taken by online news platform.

Responsibilities of news platform
Under the current Japanese law, Provider Liability Limitation Law only
exempts indemnity liability. Violation of rights will not be exempted, even ifyou are not the source and serve as a platform for information online.

Clarification made on how information selected by AI should be treated as toresponsibilities of a platform.

Clarification made on whether responsibilities of platform apply for images,
and not limited to written contents.

Counter measures discussed against fake newsWhether anonymity in information sharing has correlation to credibility ofinformation sharedAn observation made that conducting a professional research in tracking down
how the fake news starts and the paths of their spreads may help understand2countermeasures against fake news.
e.g., There is already a research conducted in the USPrecautions general Internet users can take were sharede,g.,Check the contents of the link before retweet (Many people share links on
twitter without reading), check the news source of news provided by news
platform as a reference of reliability of the source.

Regulation and restrictions may not be the only measures.
There was a recent case where a major sponsor has declared to withdraw its
advertisements from platform, as an example of losing credibility as platform
could have such business impact.

Last words from each speaker.
Fact checks and recovery of trust:・ As someone coming from the media, what we can do are fact checks, what wewould like to do is to recover trust.
First, clarify ambiguity on distinction between “media” and “platform”. Then, raiseuser literacy as well as awareness of corporate responsibilities of those who provide
information online:
・ Online information should be presented in such a way to have clear
distinctions, so that children and elderly can clearly identify the difference.
Today, it is difficult for users to distinguish media and platform for information
online, as they are often ambiguous.
・ Once there is such a clear distinction, readers can make judgments based on
the information source online, and it will be a matter or raising news literacy ofindividuals. Combining measures of “clarifying corporate responsibilities ofinformation provided online (through media and platform)” and “raisingliteracy of online users” could help.
Keep a good balance of preventative and reactive measures. Stakeholders of online
news can do cross-checks between organisations:・ There are both preventative and reactive measures. To accommodate a varietyof feeds on the Internet, reactive measures are preferable where possible.
There are also a range of degrees on preventative measures, and they should
also take into considerations at an adequate level.
3・ Preventions to a certain extent is possible by cross-checks between
organisations providing online information. This is something Smartnews, Incis likely to be able to contribute.
・ Would like to help in awareness raising of individuals for preventativemeasures.

4