KGRI Working Papers
No.2

Joint Statement: “Toward a Wholesome Platform for Speech:
Digital Diet Declaration” (ver. 1.0)
Provisionary English translation

Version 1.0

January 2022

Fujio Toriumi
Professor, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo

Tatsuhiko Yamamoto
Professor, Law School, Keio University
Deputy Director, Keio University Global Research InstituteKeio University Global Research Institute© Copyright 2022
Fujio Toriumi, Professor, The Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo and Tatsuhiko
Yamamoto, Professor, Law School & Deputy Director of Global Research Institute, Keio University

Joint Statement
Joint Statement: “Toward a Wholesome Platform for Speech: Digital Diet Declaration” (version 1.0)
Provisionary English translation

Fujio Toriumi(Professor, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo)
Tatsuhiko Yamamoto(Professor, Law School, Keio University; and, Deputy Director, Keio University Global Research Institute)

Summary

We believe that fake news (disinformation) and the “infodemic” (too much information during a disease
outbreak) represent grave social illnesses that can even threaten people’s lives. Underlying this is the fact thatthe “diets” of information that the internet’s development has produced are typified by overconsumption andunbalanced selectivity. Accordingly, we have arrived at a shared awareness that “information health”—that
is to say, an awareness as both individuals and as a society of what is an appropriate balance of information—is extremely important. This joint declaration compiles the results of having investigated from aninterdisciplinary perspective what sorts of initiatives are ought to be pursued for the various stakeholders
involved, including the operators of digital platforms, to achieve this information health.
This statement is absolutely a preliminary version (version 1.0). We hope to solicit opinions fromresearchers and stakeholders in various fields in the future and revise the content accordingly.

Table of Contents
Preamble .…………………………………………………….….2
I. Current Issues ……..…………………………………………4
II. The Orientation of the Joint Statement………………………8III. The Ground Rules for Users…………………………….….12
IV. The Ground Rules for Operators…………………………...14
V. The Ground Rules for the Government………………….….21
VI. Prospects for the Future…………………………………….23* List of Co-Signers* Research Assistants

1Preamble
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the infodemic is not only generating
confusion in the information space,1 but also is an acute issue that hinders infection control measures andthreatens human lives.2 Meanwhile, the digital platforms (DPFs), which are the primary venue for this, havebecome infrastructure-like that supports our daily lives, providing a place to handle everything from everyday
shopping to communicating with friends to reading the news. Their usefulness has improved dramatically.
These two dimensions are intricately connected. The information that we receive has increased explosively,
and it is being delivered to us selectively by specific algorithms that have been constructed to attract ourattention. These, we believe, have caused numerous problems. The balance in the information that we take inhas been disrupted, the power of fake news to influence us has increased, and filter bubbles and echo chambers
are being created.
The option of what information to take in is something that should be left up to the individual’s choice inthe first place, and their freedom to be particular about what information they consume should also be
respected. Nevertheless, as we have seen in the COVID-19 crisis, the spread of fake news and the infodemic
have hindered efforts to control the infection’s spread. When it is already causing chaos in society, it becomesa problem for society as a whole. This applies not only to the COVID-19 crisis but also to democracy itself,
as seen in the chaos in the 2020 US presidential election.
What the issues in particular should be are, under the “attention economy” business model, the facts that(a) most of us are “put into” the position of consuming information in an unbalanced way, (b) we are “forced”
to take in specific types of content in an other-directed fashion because of algorithms that maximize theeconomic interests of business operators, and (c) most people are “made to not fully aware” of the fact thatthey have been placed in such an information environment.3 And so, the most crucial issues are (a) having aclear awareness of both what the information environment is, in which we are placed, and what sorts of
information we are consuming every day4 and (b) providing those people who seek to improve the unbalanced
1

For reference, see Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Information and Communications in Japan 2020, part
1, chapter 2, section 3, (1) The dissemination of misinformation and fake news.<
https://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/rWP2020/2020-index.html >2

According to a survey of 8,001 persons in the United Kingdom and the United States conducted in September 2020 by ateam of researchers affiliated to Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thepercentages of those who planned to get vaccinated after having viewed such erroneous information regarding COVID-19
vaccines as “vaccinations will change your DNA” dropped by 6.2% in the United Kingdom and 6.4% in the United States.
See, L., Sahil, et al., "Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA,"
Nature Human Behaviour volume 5, pages337 – 348, 2021. < https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01056-1 >3

Twitter announced in October 2021 that based on a seven-country survey including the United States, some European
countries, and Japan, its own algorithms were four times more likely to present posts from right-wing politicians andmedia than from those on the left wing. The survey results were presented in the Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the United States of America. See, Huszár, F., et al., "Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter,"
PNAS January 4, 2022 119 (1) e2025334119. <https://www.pnas.org/content/119/1/e2025334119>

4

Public relations company Edelman Japan in its 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer global survey measured “information hygiene”
on the basis of four dimensions: do the people surveyed engage regularly with the news, do they avoid information echochambers and engage with differing points of view, do they verify information, and do they check information veracity before
forwarding the content to others? The percentages of those whose levels of information hygiene was graded as “good” acrossthree or more of these dimensions stood at 26% on average across the 27 countries surveyed; by contrast, for Japan on its
own, the figure was 19%. Conversely, although the 27-country average stood for “poor” information hygiene—meaning
performs well on one or zero dimensions—stood at 39%, for Japan, the figure was 56%.

2

diet of information that they are taking in with the ability to take in various information in a more balanced
way.
This will create a healthy environment for speech in which we will enjoy the advantages that information
communications technology produces, avoid the dangers that fake news brings, and harmonize with thefundamental principles of the Constitution.
Toward that end, what is asked of us now is to create a situation in which we have acquired a certain“immunity” (critical faculty) concerning fake news by achieving a balance in taking in various information—in short, by achieving information health. In turn, it will be necessary for changes to occur among users, DPF
operators, and the existing mass media and also for the government to provide various lateral assistancedirected toward achieving information health.
These issues are also national ones that threaten the fundamental principles of the Constitution such as
respect for the individual and democracy. Still, it would be impetuous for the government to impose strictlegal restraints across the board on DPF operators. A “hard law”-based approach would not only possibly
inhibit the innovations that are the wellspring for development in digital technology but also contain thedanger of leading to censorship and efforts to influence thought by the state. At the current stage, this cannot
be said to be the ideal way to consider the issue.
This joint declaration presents an opinion on what each of the actors involved—users, operators, and thegovernment—should undertake so that everyone who wishes for information health in spaces for public
discourse can enjoy it.

<https://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanJapan/2021-246556173/24>

3

I.

Current Issues(1) The Big Bang in Spaces for Public Discourse
Before society entered the digital era, the spaces for public discourse could be more properly termed
privileged circles that were relatively closed. The air waves and page spaces had physical restrictions, and thetransmission of information was unilateral, slow, and in small volumes. Additionally, the people who
delivered the information were basically restricted to the so-called mass media, the professional journalists
affiliated with it, and those intellectuals upon whom the mass media focused.
With the spread of the internet, the space for public discourse has grown explosively akin to a “big bang”
and plunged into an entirely new, heretofore unseen dimension in which information mingles together,moving in both directions, in real time, and without restriction. At the dawn of the internet, there had been
expectations that this big bang would result in an open, democratic world. Nonetheless, presently, what wehave is a world that is awash in an uneven jumble of user-generated content (UGC) being posted under both
real and assumed names by a diverse range of average users. It is a world in which false information of
unknown origin exists side by side with fact-based journalism; such disinformation is disseminated andamplified, aided by a nonexistent fake crowd, such as bots.
Several DPF operators mix professionally generated content (PGC) written and delivered by the mass
media and professionals with content written and sent by people who have received no specialized training or
do not share at an organizational level ethical codes of conduct. These operators present this information inan order ranked by special algorithms. Consequently, the existing mass media—newspapers and magazines—
have also been placed into a situation in which they are compelled to compete fiercely under the logic of theattention economy (see I. (2)), where the momentary impact on readers and users governs viewing numbers.
Recommendation algorithms that use artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies to provide
personalized information have the advantage of making it possible for the users themselves to be able todefinitely get articles and content that is of potential interest to them. Conversely, this means that they willconsume only content recommended to them by the platform’s recommendation algorithm. The result, as has
been pointed out, is the creation of a “filter bubble” (or “information cocoon”) from within which theindividual can only see the information (that the algorithms have judged) they want to. This, for the users,
means the development of a “selective information diet.”(2) Attention Economy
Our existences have become ones in which we are ceaselessly bathed in information from the internet andsocial media even as we produce information ourselves. Accordingly, information is being endlessly andrepeatedly consumed and shared; there is no being starved for information.
In a society with such an information surplus, since the attention and amount of time for consumption that
we can direct toward it will grow scarce in comparison with the amount of information being supplied, thattime and attention have value on the marketplace (attention market) and circulate there. This economic model4

is generally referred to as the attention economy5. With smartphones and other mobile devices having deeply
penetrated into our daily lives, our body is being controlled more and more by the attention economy.
Psychology speaks of the existence of two modes in human thinking, (1) the intuitive and automatic“System 1” and (2) “System 2,” which supplements System 1 and is characterized by careful deliberation(dual process theory)6. In the world of the attention economy, the former—that is to say, stimulating System
1—is said to be the important one. That is because the spinal, reflexive response from the users that is obtainedby providing stimulus 7has economic value. (This “reflex” is assessed on the basis of such factors as pageviews, the amount of time spent at a website, and stickiness and then converted into an economic value.)
This new economic model is causing a decline in System 2 thinking, which when left to take its own course
provides the basis for discussion and mature deliberation. It carries the danger of exposing the democracy thatis premised by System 2 thinking to jeopardy.

(3) Mind Hacking
Profiling generated by using artificial intelligence and the like has made it possible to analyze and predict
with an extremely high level of accuracy a user’s sentiments and psychographic profile, to say nothing of
their political convictions. The work undertaken by British political consultancy Cambridge Analytica in the2016 US presidential election among other contests is regarded as psychological profiling undertaken throughthe use of psychographics. Through political microtargeting applying such technologies, it is now getting to
the point where an individual’s sentiments and thinking can be easily “hacked” and manipulated (mindhacking)8. This enables others to psychologically intervene and manipulate individuals in situations that they
may not or cannot be aware of. It undermines an individual’s self-determination, autonomy, and above all,the democracy that is premised by such abilities.
Moreover, for the sake of their own economic interests, DPF operators have been deploying in various
settings the so-called “dark patterns” in UI/UX interactions that improperly incite user decision making.9(4) Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers
Through profiles and targeting using big data, information deemed as being “profitable” to us is being
5

See generally, Wu, Tim. “The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads.” Vintage, 2017.

6

For reference, see Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2011); trans. Akiko
Murai, Fasuto and suro: Anata no ishi wa dono yo ni kimaru ka (Tokyo: Hayakawa Nonfiction bunko, 2014).

7

For reference, see Ryosuke Nishida, Joho buso suru seiji (Politics armed with information) (Kadokawa, 2018).

8

For reference, see Christopher Wylie, Mindf*ck: Cambridge Analytica and the Plot to Break America (Random
House/Penguin Random House LLC, 2019); trans. Yo Makino, Maindo hakkingu: Anata no kanjo o shihai shi kodo oayatsuru sosharu media (Shinchosha, 2020).

9See, KGRI, “Daku patan” ni tsuite ‘kangeru: Tokubetsu koen “‘Daku patan’ no gijutsu to ronriteki kadai” (held 17 June2021).

5

filtered out from the sea of information that surrounds us, making it possible for us to view information thathas been customized for “personal use.”
Nevertheless, this is not all good. As has been observed, there is a tendency among people for their thinking
to become more extreme when they gather together and talk only with other people who share their views(group polarization).10 “Echo chambers” and “filter bubbles” are the phenomena that are said to be producedby the interplay between this human tendency and the specific character of the internet.
Algorithms analyze user preferences and privilege presenting information that is based on those preferences.
The result of the information being displayed that gives precedence only to information beneficial to the user
is that they wind up only seeing information regarded as what they want to see, as though they have been
locked into a bubble of their own (“filter bubble”). Gathered together inside this bubble is a vast collectionof thoughts and opinions that resemble one’s own, whereas opposing ones are removed (filtered). Because ofthis, even noticing the very existence of such opposing views is difficult.
The same sort of phenomenon occurs on social media. The result of someone following only other users
who have the same interests as themselves is that when the individual expresses a certain opinion, all they
hear back are echoes of the same view (“echo chamber”). Because one hears only the same sorts of opinions
over and over again due to that echo, the individual ends up believing in them that much more fervently as
being correct and unerring (think here of conspiracy theories).
Observers point out that group polarization will accelerate because of filter bubbles and echo chambers.11
People who have made their inclinations more extreme are not accepting of people with different views andreject conversation with them. These two phenomena can induce divisions in society and jeopardize
democracy.

(5) Fake News
Considerable amounts of fake news (disinformation) created with the goals of generating advertising
revenue or causing people to lose trust in prominent individuals, political groups, corporations, and so forth
are circulating in the digital space today. It is being disseminated and amplified, aided by bots and the like.
The creation and dissemination of fake news can also be said to be a “natural” phenomenon intricately
connected with the real nature of human beings as seen in the so-called “social porn hypothesis” (informationthat users affiliated with a specific community want to disseminate and share reflexively among themselves)and slacktivism (social movements that are easy to participate in). Moreover, the attention economy has a10

Refer to the works of Cass R. Sunstein. For example, #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017; trans. DATE Naomi, #REPUBLIC (Tokyo: Keiso Shobo Publishing, 2018).

11

However, careful empirical research will be crucial. For reference, see Tatsuo Tanaka and Satoshi Hamaya, Netto wa
shakai o bundan shinai (The internet does not divide society) (Tokyo: Kadokawa, 2019). For a recent important empirical
study, see Daisuke Tsuji, ed., Netto shakai to minshu shugi (The network society and democracy) (Tokyo: Yuhikaku,
2021).

6

structure that encourages the dissemination of fake news because of its emphasis on stimulation and reflection.
For example, most algorithms for digital advertisements calculate their costs on the basis of how many users
they have attracted (impressions). This has produced the phenomenon of one after another fake news item
being created and disseminated to generate advertising revenue.
Also, as has been noted, fake news is being created and disseminated as part of efforts by other countries
to conduct “influencing maneuvers.”12 These maneuvers can jeopardize national security and nationalsovereignty itself.

(6) Slander and Flaming
Slander has also become a big problem in digital spaces for public discourse today. In recent years, extreme
statements and abusive language have been circulating in large numbers on social media and message boardson the internet. It is becoming a social problem. This, too, is connected to the structure of the attention
economy, with its emphasis on reflexive stimulus. Suicides have also resulted due to flaming, and words onsocial media are turning into armaments and lethal weapons that bring people to death. Today, the situation
is such that slander is something that is becoming a familiar presence not just to famous people but also forthe average citizen; anyone can become its victim or its perpetrator.

(7) The Absence of a “Specific Remedy”
As we have seen thus far, various problems have burst forth in the spaces for public discourse today. Thatsaid, the mechanisms by which they are generated are both complex and structural. Accordingly, no single
remedy exists that could alter this situation completely.
Also, by continuously being exposed to the chaos of the information environment caused by fake news andthe like, there is a danger that we ourselves will find our constitutions weakened by such news. The problems
go far beyond becoming involved with disseminating fake news and getting caught up in absurd conspiracy
theories. The divisions in society could grow further, our tolerance toward others may be lost, and coexistingwith others and maintaining our communities may become more difficult. This is a crisis for democracy andliberty.
In the absence of a remedy, what we believe we can do at present is to seek to obtain information health—that is to say, acquire some immunity toward fake news and the like—by envisioning and being conscious
about taking in a balanced information diet.

12

According to Bradshaw et al. (2021), 81 countries worldwide are engaged in computational propaganda in such forms as
fake news, an increase of 11 countries from the year before. See generally, Bradshaw, S., Bailey, H.& Howard, P.N.,"Industrialized Disinformation 2020 Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation," University of Oxford, 2021.
<https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/2021/01/CyberTroop-Report-2020-v.2.pdf>

7

II.

The Orientation of the Joint Statement(1) Achieving Information HealthToday, when the flow of information in the space for public discourse has undergone a great transformation,
it is indispensable that we achieve a state of affairs in which we have acquired a certain degree of immunity(critical faculties) to fake news—that is to say, information health13—by coming into contact with a wellbalanced variety of information.
For purposes of our physical well-being, we have learned to ascertain what nutritional elements we needfor ourselves and our bodies using the System 2 mode of thinking, and we can unconsciously avoid thosefoods that are dangerous to us using System 1.
Conversely, at this present moment, when we are at the dawn of the age of information excess, we have not
yet learned how to take in from the vast amounts of information out there a well-balanced diet of that
information that we need for our information health. Here lies the problem of the attention economy, whichtakes advantage of this asymmetry and encourages people to consume as much information (related toeconomic interests) as they can.
What is needed is (1) for users to be able to autonomously and independently choose what information totake in through user education and reforms to their own thinking, efforts on the part of corporations, andappropriate (but indirect) government support and (2) for an environment to be established in which anyone
can assimilate basic information in the process of maintaining a democratic society.
This way of thinking has affinities with the right-to-know interpretation under the Constitution. The
Supreme Court of Japan has stated:“Since it is indispensable for the purpose that individuals form and develop their own thoughts andpersonalities and activate them in the social life, and also it is necessary in order to make truly effective thefundamental principle, namely, guarantee of free communication and exchange of thoughts and information
in a democratic society, that individuals have opportunities to come in contact with and take in various
opinions, knowledge and information freely, such freedom as to come in contact with and take in information
etc. is naturally led by the purposes and effects of the provision [Paragraph 1, Article 21 of the Constitution],so to speak, as one of its derivative principles.”14 Although it may seem as the freedom to take in only certain
information (“the freedom to eat selectively”) through one’s own intent and for one’s personal interests isprotected under the right to pursue happiness in Article 13, the “freedom to know”15 that is protected as a

13

The definition of “information health” that we offer here is most definitely a provisional one. We expect to develop a moresuitable definition through interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary debate.

14

Repeta jiken hanketsu (Supreme Court decision in the Repeta case) (Supreme Court decision 1989.03.08, Minshu Vol. 43,
No. 2, at 89).

15

Yodogo haijakku kiji massho jiken hanketsu (Supreme Court decision in the case of redacting newspaper articles on the
Yodo-go hijacking incident) (Supreme Court decision 1983.06.22, Minshu Vol. 37, No. 5, at 793). Under this decision, the“freedom to read newspapers, books, and the like” that are the media for delivering various opinions are held to have beenfrom Article 19 of the Constitution—which protects freedom of thought and conscience—and as a derivative principle of
Article 21, which protects freedom of expression. It also argues that such freedom to read is in accord with the intent of8derivative principle of Paragraph 1, Article 21, has, as a consequence of this decision, been established as the
freedom to take in “various opinions” in connection with one’s own personal development and sustaining a
democratic society. The “freedom to know” in this sense can be thought of as closely related to information
health as a condition in which we acquire a degree of immunity (critical faculty) concerning fake news andthe like by taking in a well-balanced variety of information.

(2) Announcement of Content Categories (“Calorie Chart”)
To achieve information health, users must have the opportunity to make independent and anonymouschoices when taking in content and information on a DPF.
Accordingly, the “components” and “ingredients” of that content and information should be made plain tousers, along with what sort of balance the DPF is applying to present and distribute various types of content.
For their own information health, users should be provided with indicators so they can independently andautonomously decide about the sorts of content and information they are taking in and what DPF to use.
This would resemble the charts that show calories and amounts of nutritional elements that manufacturers
are obliged by the Food Labeling Act to place on their food products. We have come to think of such calorie
charts as one resource to use when deciding whether or not to take in the product in question. In a digitalsociety, it is crucial that the character and substance of content and information be made apparent and thatusers be informed of what sorts of information categories those fall within.
Also, in television broadcasting, specific regulations are in place under the principle of consistency amongprograms in the Broadcasting Act to not allow bias to enter into the creation of content. 16 These regulations
based on the programming consistency principle have been deemed warranted because the airwaves arelimited and because broadcast media has a strong social influence. Today, a small number (and de facto
limited, in the sense that the options are limited) of DPFs have acquired enormous social influence as theprimary channels for information distribution.
Accordingly, concerning some DPFs17, it would be desirable for them to not only recommend specificinformation aimed at appealing to a user’s interest but also create algorithms that can provide users with the
Article 13, which establishes respect for the individual.
16

Broadcasting Act Article 106, Paragraph 1, stipulates that “excluding those based on special business plans, the basic
broadcaster must establish cultural programs or educational programs and news programs, and entertainment programs andmust maintain mutual consistency between the broadcast programs.” At the time that broadcasters were relicensed for
terrestrial television in 2008, based on inspection standards related to the Radio Act the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications, the condition that both the NHK General channel and private broadcasters must allot 10% or more of theirweekly programming to educational programs and 20% or more to cultural programs for purposes of maintaining mutual
consistency between broadcast programs was added. Under the obligations to publicly announce program categories, which
was established in a 2010 revision, every year for six months starting in April, the programs broadcast during the third weekof alternating months by the organizations in question would be categorized as “cultural programs,” “educational programs,”“news programs,” and “entertainment programs.” After the six months had passed, the organizations would then be obliged
to publicly announce the breakdown as soon as possible.

17

DPF here does not necessarily refer to all DPFs. The DPFs for which “balance” is to be particularly expected refers to thosethat are especially large and have a high degree of “publicness.” The definition will be submitted to future discussion.

9

capability of coming into well-balanced contact with content across a wide range of genres. Specifically,certain DPFs should—mindful of the example of the principle of consistency between broadcast programs—of their own initiative settle on specific ratios for the content they provide (for example, how they lay out theirlanding pages according to the balance among the coverage of political news, financial news, entertainment
news, and sports news) and then present it in an easy-to-understand form. Doing so will make it easy for users
to grasp what content is being provided to them and what information biases exist.

(3) Providing an “Information Checkup”
Users should be provided at regular intervals with the opportunity to conduct an “information checkup,” sothey can audit the state of their own information health. By getting such an “information checkup” of theindividual’s own volition, it is expected that this will make it apparent to the user what sorts of information
they are coming into contact with and provide them with the motivation to change how they go about taking
in information.
Information checkups, as presumed, will examine the diversity of the sources from which information is
being taken in (to see if biases are being created) along with the credibility of those sources, and then, theresults of these inspections will be presented as objective data. One imagines that software for calculating thesituation and extent of being “infected” by filter bubble or echo chamber will also be put to use as part of theinformation checkup.
Under circumstances in which attention economies are becoming commonplace, such information
checkups are recommended for people who feel uneasy about biases in the information they are taking in as
well as those who want a balance in their information. Nevertheless, these checkups should not be imposed(the government will not be recognized as the practitioner, either). Also, when it comes to the collection andmanagement of the private data that occur in conducting such information checkups, it will be necessary to
be fully aware of user privacy, and the safety controls for that data must be thoroughgoing.

(4) Providing a Digital Diet
In the case that a user senses that there is a problem with their own information health, it would be desirable
to provide the ability for them to be able to adjust the degree of personalization on a DPF on their own. In thecase that the user becomes aware through the information checkup that there is a problem with how they go
about taking in information and want to transform that behavior themselves, it will be necessary to prepare
some feature for providing information in response. Also, in the case that the user believes that they are facedwith a serious problem, it is possible that they might consult with a specialist18 like discussing dietmanagement during medical consultation and, by their own decision, get the information that they take inunder control.
Certainly, there may also be unsuitable digital diets, as is the case with actual diets. It will be necessary to

18

The specialists conceived of here should be people who are conversant in “information health studies” (see VI.). The
question of how such specialists will be trained and certified will be a crucial issue for the future because of the danger ofhaving their thought influenced by these specialists.

10especially be careful about deceptive remarks in which such language as “think about this yourself” and “yourthinking is biased” is used to lead people into a state of greater unhealth. Also, one must be especially vigilant
about “ideological rectification” and “brainwashing” done in the name of a digital diet (naturally, thegovernment will not be permitted to the practitioners here).
Still, further, the purpose of the digital diet is for users to take in a well-balanced variety of information
and acquire immunity (critical faculty) toward fake news. It should be noted that this is a different conceptfrom the so-called “digital detox,” in which someone cuts themselves off from taking in information.

(5) Searching and Exploring for an Economic Structure to Replace the Attention Economy
Today, the space for public discourse is almost entirely under the sway of an economic model known as
the attention economy, and it appears that not only DPF operators but also users, the existing mass media, andadvertisers have all been caught up in its vortex. The various issues that we have brought up so far can all besaid to be an inevitable result of it.
Accordingly, we should be groping radically toward an economic model of a sort that would replace today’s
attention economy. Obviously, this would come with considerable difficulties in both theory and practice.
Nevertheless, we should not avoid this kind of radical investigation once it becomes evident that thefundamental reason for the problem lies in the economic structure.
This new economic structure that would replace the attention economy is not clear presently. It’s a topic
that will be explored in a cross-disciplinary debate that includes economic perspectives. What should be done
first is to investigate the structure of the subsystems that basically support the framework for the attention
economy, where content is assessed on the basis of its quality and not a simple indicator like page views, andprices are paid on the basis of that assessment. Also, one can think of building a subsystem with fixed charges
on users on the basis of subscriptions that are prevalent today in every area.

11III. The Ground Rules for Users(1) Understand the Current Information Environment
Users should understand the “attention economy” economic model and be aware of the fact that we areembedded within it. This is the first step toward solving the problem.

(2) Be Aware of Information Health
Users should be aware of their own “information health” like they would be of their physical health. Thismay be thought of as having the following merits.
(a) Not Being Naive About Fake News
When someone is overly selective in their information diet, their immunity to fake news and the like isreduced and their vulnerability grows. By being aware of one’s information health, the individual can take ina well-balanced variety of information that includes opposing opinions and thus acquire immunity to fakenews.
(b) Not Becoming One of the “Information Poor”
People who have certain difficulties when it comes to obtaining and using information are sometimes
described as being “information poor.” By controlling and adjusting oneself the personalization of information
being taken in and coming into contact with various information of the sort that was removed by one’s filter
bubble, it will become possible for that person to also access the basic information they should have been
taking in. This can prevent turning someone into one of the information poor. Also, through this, it will preventthe economic and social losses that information disparities deliver, and lead to improvements in one’s qualityof life.
(c) Improvements in Mental HealthContinuing to take in only specific information makes it more likely for people’s thinking to become
increasingly fixed, rigid, and incapable of accepting others’ ideas. Also, the so-called “Facebook Files” pointout the possibility of someone’s feelings of self-negation increasing and the mental health of the younger
users being worsened by being shown exaggerated body shapes and so forth. 19 One can expect awareness of“information health” to have an effect that prevents any worsening of this sort in user mental health.
Moreover, even slander directed toward specific persons can be seen as a problem created by selective
information diets, including being provided with fragmentary information. Such slander naturally affects themental health of the victim, but it can also harm that of the perpetrator and their life itself. One can anticipate
that by people’s information health having been achieved, this will prevent situations that result in their
becoming slander perpetrators and victims.
(d) Improving the Health of Democracy

19

Regardless of Facebook itself being aware of these effects on mental health, clearly, from the internal documents from
Frances Haugen, the company had neglected taking countermeasures. <https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files11631713039>

12

Our democracy is premised on citizens (sovereign individuals) engaging in “dialog” based on System 2thinking (mature deliberation) and engaging in political participation independently and autonomously.
Toward that end, it will be necessary to achieve a situation in which they can come into contact with diverse
views and opinions and lack bias in the information that is being taken in. The American legal scholar Cass
R. Sunstein argued that the preconditions for sustaining a democracy are (1) being exposed to the different
outlooks of others and (2) the members of the community having shared experiences.20
If the collapse of democracy should go further, there is the danger of a dramatic drop in the level of thefreedoms that we enjoy—for example, we will no longer have control over authority, and our basic humanrights will be threatened. Achieving information health and seeking to make our democracy sound is quite
crucial when it comes to sustaining our freedom in the medium term to long term.
Hence, as the foregoing indicates, awareness of information health has significant benefits from theperspective of maintaining a free and democratic society.

20

Refer to previous footnote 10.

13

IV.

The Ground Rules for Operators

1. The Ground Rules for DPF Operators(1) The Status of Independent Initiatives by DPF Operators
Even until today, the various platforms have already been pursuing their own initiatives conducive towardachieving information health. In Japan, efforts such as Yahoo News’ model for prioritizing constructive
comments introduced for its comments’ sections21 have attracted notice in connection with effectuating aplatform for diverse speech. Moreover, the Safer Internet Association (SIA) industrial group is proactively
engaged in solving problems that face DPFs.
Below, we aim to present some of the necessary basic principles toward encouraging further initiatives by
DPF operators.

(2) Consideration for “Cognitive Liberty”
DPF operators must give full consideration to the cognitive liberty of their users and not apply AI and thelike to “hack” the individual’s thoughts for purposes that are inconsistent with the user’s interests (prohibitionof mind hacking).
“Cognitive liberty” is an idea that was first advocated for in the field of neurolaw. It calls for protecting the
integrity (impenetrability) of the central nervous system in the body, centered on the brain. The debate focusedon such topics as measuring nervous activity through magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalogramsand electromagnetic interventions in the nervous system. Nevertheless, viewing the concept of “cognitive
processes” in the broader sense, the problems that elements of the external environment such as theinformation space and architecture present to an individual’s cognition can also be seen falling within thescope of “cognitive liberty.” From the perspective of a brain’s plasticity, the transformation to the nervous
system that arises because of ongoing exposure to mind hacking can also be a problem. DPF operators must
not take advantage of the dramatically developing knowledge in cognitive neuroscience in ways that infringeon users’ cognitive liberty.
Additionally, the European Union has announced that it is totally prohibiting “the placing on the market,
putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s
consciousness in order to materially distort a person’s behavior.” 2221Yahoo Japan Corporation press release, “Yahoo! JAPAN starts providing free access to API for natural language processing
model (AI) using deep learning introduced in response to inappropriate comments” September 18, 2020.
<https://about.yahoo.co.jp/pr/release/2020/09/18a />22

European Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council: Laying Down Harmonised
Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts,” Article 5(a)<https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=75788>

14

(3) Filter Bubble Measures
Operators should come up with methods for delivering content and other such schemes that would allow
users to come into contact with a well-balanced variety of information.
The provision of personalized content does have advantages both for users, who want to get a hold of only
the information they want from vast amounts of information available, and for operators, who want to raise
click ratios and increase engagement.23 Nevertheless, by coming into contact with only information that has
been personalized for them by operators, there is the possibility that users will be cut off from informationthat has been assessed as something that the user concerned “does not want,” and that they will be prevented
from taking in various information as well as basic information.
Accordingly, the functionality should be created to provide users with various information—such as byrandomly or even deliberately providing them with nonpersonalized information—so that they are not trappedby external forces in a filter bubble.

(4) Dealing with Fake News
Operators should work up effective measures for dealing with fake news. With those measures, they must
be mindful in particular of the following points.
(a) The Definition of Fake News and Fact-Checking Organizations
The number one issue when it comes to measures for dealing with fake news is how does one define andidentify “fake news”? For example, the question of whether something is “fake” is not clear at the moment
when that information is released. Furthermore, it should be noted that because of cognitive bias, inconvenient
facts that users do not want to accept are seen as overlapping with fake news.
The second issue is that of who determines what fake news is. Presently, there are fact-checking groups
that function as the judges of fake news, but the trustworthiness of those groups themselves can be a problem.
Guaranteeing that fact-checking itself is sufficiently impartial and transparent through the monitoring of suchgroups is essential.
In this connection, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) has presented the following fiveprinciples for its own network.24
1. Nonpartisanship and Fairness
2. Transparency of Sources
3. Transparency of Funding and Organization
4. Transparency of Methodology
5. Open and Honest Corrections Policy
23

According to data Facebook released in 2013, the total number of posts that users received from friends and followers stood
at 1,500 per day on average. Nevertheless, algorithms filtered down those posts to display approximately 300 on average. In
short, what is displayed is 20% of the total posts. See, Backstrom, L., "News Feed FYI: A Window Into News Feed,"
Facebook, 2013. <https://www.facebook.com/business/news/News-Feed-FYI-A-Window-Into-News-Feed>.

24

See, International Fact-Checking Network, "The commitments of the code of principles."<https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/know-more/the-commitments-of-the-code-of-principles>15

(b) Effective Display of Fact-Checked Articles
Fact-checked articles are most effective when they are shown to people who have actually seen fake news.
DPF operators should build algorithms that privilege showing fact-checked articles on the news item
concerned to people who have seen fake news on the topic. In this case, it will be necessary for fact-checked
articles to be provided as free content.
Understandably, another aspect of fake news is that it is also disseminated through conversations in the realworld. Accordingly, in the case of fake news that has been disseminated widely through the world generally,
operators should investigate means for widely presenting the relevant fact-checked articles to people otherthan their readers.
(c) Showing Media Credibility
One can conceive of constructing a mechanism for letting people know about certain media whose
credibility has been evaluated, such as by clearly indicating ownership and how the entity’s editorial structureis organized. Nevertheless, such evaluations should be entrusted to neutral third-party organizations and theirstandards for judgment publicly released. They absolutely should not be selected arbitrarily by DPF
operators.25(d) Architecture-Based Measures
It will be necessary to investigate introducing architecture (“nudges”) of the sort that encourages selfcontrol in the easy dissemination of information and operation of the careful System 2 mode of thinking.
Examples of this are the measures Twitter has implemented to display the links to articles in retweets thatencourage users to view the site in question,26 as well as features that display alerts when someone attempts
to make an offensive post and encourage the user to alter or delete the post (these have already been introduced
to the English-language versions of Twitter and TikTok).
(e) Rules for Removal
For those instances in which slander or grave disinformation is being displayed or for when a series of posts
are being repeated over and over by the same account (including bots), measures for removing it will benecessary, such as having that information deleted and placing restrictions on the account in question.
Nevertheless, these removal measures should be limited to those cases in which the problem cannot be
resolved even after less-restrictive means have been attempted such as architecture-based countermeasures(see item (d)) and direct warnings to users.

25

The Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI)—a project led by Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) whose objective is to create a healthinformation space—has created a framework for indicating the trustworthiness of media as determined through selfassessments and making it public after it goes through an external audit conducted by a certifying organization. The selfassessments consider such factors as (1) disclosing information about ownership, including the members of its board of
directors and revenue sources, and (2) disclosing what its editorial guidelines are, who are the editorial contacts entrustedwith this, and what their accountability processes are. The standards for evaluating this credibility were released in 2019 as
the CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA), which does not have the binding power of the European Committee forStandardization (CEN). See, CWA NO.17493 <https://www.jti-app.com/footer/cwa>

26

Twitter Japan, 2020.9.25 <https://twitter.com/TwitterJP/status/1309289971690348545>.

16

(5) Securing the Freedom to Choose Algorithms
Excluding those exceptional periods (such as elections) discussed in (6), DPF operators should make itpossible for users to freely select the degree of personalization in the display algorithms. The freedom to selectalgorithms in this fashion is crucial to users independently maintaining and managing their own information
health. Moreover, when it comes to choosing algorithms, DPF operators must have user-friendly UX and UIdesigns.
Additionally, as one of the premises of these choices, DPF operators should create conditions in which theusers can also view and comprehend the degree of personalization in their current display algorithms.

(6) The Obligation to Switch Algorithms
In the cases in which the following exceptional situations are deemed to be in effect, DPF operators will beobliged to switch their display algorithms.
(a) Elections Mode
There are particular demands for user information health during periods when crucial events for sustaining
democracy are underway such as elections for public office and popular referendums on constitutional
revision. DPF operators will need to guarantee and privilege a certain space when it comes to information thatis necessary for appropriate voting behavior, such as materials related to policies of parties and candidates
and the major issues of contention in the election.
The Public Offices Election Act has already laid down various regulations when it comes to electioneeringsuch as restrictions on the use of campaign sound trucks and a ban on door-to-door canvassing. These
restrictions are based on the understanding that election campaigns “should be considered not as opportunities
in which candidates having diverse arguments can freely compete with each other under minimum necessary
constraints but as opportunities in which candidates conduct campaigns in accordance with rules that are set
to ensure the fairness of the election.”27 Moreover, certain broadcast operators are obligated to transmit
campaign broadcasts so that eligible voters can attempt to freely and equally obtain information regarding
political parties and candidates.
DPF operators should also separate themselves from the logic of the attention economy and prepare“election mode” algorithms and UI/UX designs that emphasize the fairness of elections for those specificperiods when an election or popular referendum on constitutional revision is taking place. Specifically, they
will be called upon to give thought to how information about parties and candidates will spread widely andimpartially akin to campaign broadcasts; privilege the display of information from media deemed highly
credible; implement an architecture that controls the easy spread of information (i.e., restrictions on sharing
features such as retweeting); restrict microtargeted advertising and the like with political objectives; andestablish and monitor compliance with concrete guidelines for “election modes.”(b) Disasters Mode

27

Kobetsu homon kinshi kitei hanketsu (Supreme Court decision on the provision prohibiting door-to-door visits), Masami
Ito concurring opinion (Supreme Court decision 1981.07.21, Keishu Vol. 35, No. 5, at 568).

17

When a disaster occurs, the display algorithms must be switched and the DPF operator must strive topromptly report accurate information and information that helps toward encouraging appropriate evacuations.
Specifically, they must promptly release highly credible information from the government, local public
entities, and news organizations and also broadly communicate the information needed for evacuations suchas the issuance of evacuation directives and orders as well as information regarding evacuation sites. Also,
they will need to prevent the rapid spread of malicious disinformation that piggybacks on the confusion, as
well as information of the sort that will invite panic and make suitable evacuation efforts difficult.
(c) Pandemic ModeIn those cases when a severe problem emerges in the area of public health such as the spread of infectious
disease, operators will need to switch their display algorithms and strive to promptly deliver accurate
information and encourage appropriate behavior. As with the Disaster Mode, it will be necessary to clamp
down on the spread of disinformation and information that lacks scientific backing. Conversely, in settings
where individual decision making is emphasized such as over getting vaccinations, as with the Elections Mode,
the operator must distribute as relevant the information necessary for individual decision making.
(d) Minors Protection Mode
Concerning minors, when it comes to their own efforts to take in information, it is quite possible that theylack adequate capacity to make judgments and will be exposed to various risks. Accordingly, for minors,
operators should investigate implementing paternalistic algorithms that consider their information health.
Particularly, given the capacity of minors for judgments, operators will need to consider the displaying of
sexual content and speculative content.
Conversely, minors’ right to know should also be considered. DPF operators should make it possible toswitch gradually through various algorithms corresponding to the age and attributes that the minors
themselves or their guardians have registered. For example, the algorithms that are used should change forjunior and senior high school students.

(7) Algorithm Transparency
DPF operators must use appropriate methods to make the algorithms that determine how content isdisplayed (for example, the ranking for displaying news articles and user comments) transparent. This will
make it possible to make plain what each DPF operator’s way of thinking and stance is concerning information
health and could stimulate marketplace competition over information health (for example, the DPF operator
that has been ascertained as using malicious algorithms that poisonously lure users may be weeded out in themarketplace). Also, it will become possible for the media and journalists to independently decide which DPFs
they provide their own articles to.
Moreover, DPF operators should regularly draft reports on the algorithms’ rules and operational status andmake them available to the public to guarantee transparency regarding how they display content and manage
advertisements. These reports should be made in conformity with the frameworks that private groups havenormalized and standardized (see V. (5)).

18

(8) Systems for Taking Responsibility and Governance(a) Keeping Management and Editorial Separate
The provision and delivery of content by DPF operators are handled in collaboration among various
departments, such as the department that develops and builds algorithms, the departments that select articles
and advertising, and the department that designs UIs. Accordingly, the places where responsibilities lie caneasily become unclear. For this reason, DPF operators should make the persons responsible for editorial
content independent from those persons responsible for the management and clarify where responsibilities lie.
Doing so will build a firewall of sorts between management and editorial and make it possible to prevent
unwarranted interference by management and external stakeholders in the provision and distribution ofcontent.
(b) Establishing an Ethics Committee
DPF operators should form ethics committees composed of outside experts who will check to confirm that
nothing inappropriate is present that infringes on human dignity and respect for the individual when it comesto their collection and analysis of personal data and the “nudges” made by their UI/UX design. Also, such
ethics committees should ensure that psychology and cognitive neuroscience are being applied ethically andappropriately.
(c) Establishing a Content Committee
DPF operators should establish internal content committees composed of outside experts. Such content
committees would administer and monitor such matters the display or nondisplay of articles and content on
the DPF; the soundness of the screening done on sources of content (the so-called media screening); thesoundness of the advertising screening done by that screening department; and the suitability of how PR
content is presented.
Furthermore, when it comes to how individual matters are handled such as stopping distribution and theresults of media screenings, if the operator who is a content source issues a complaint, the content committee
should have certain powers to adjudicate the matter.
(d) Obligation to Ascertain Actual Conditions
DPF operators must appropriately grasp the realities of problems that arise in connection with their own
platforms. Also, the results of the surveys they have conducted to get a sense of the facts should be regularly
made public, as long as they do not infringe on business secrets. Also, concerning the details of the survey
results (including raw data), to the extent possible, these should be shared with news organizations andresearchers.
Moreover, DPF operators should strive to quickly discover and quickly deal with the risks they face bydeveloping systems for whistle-blowing.

2. The Ground Rules for the Mass Media

19

(1) The Principles of Mass Media(a) Guaranteeing the Credibility of Mass Media
Recently, the decline of public trust in the mass media has become a problem. Given that “in our democraticsociety … news reports offer important materials for the people to make their judgments in participating in
the government,”28 the mass media that are the carriers of those reports must continue to have a presence thatthe people rely on order to attain a healthy democracy. To gain and restore trust, the mass media should notlose sight of the substance of their coverage, in guaranteeing quality through fact-based reporting and editorial
work (peer review).
(b) Securing Distance from the Attention Economy
Within the logic of the attention economy, even among the mass media to get page views, we can see atendency to emphasize articles with high entertainment value that will catch the eye as well as articles of ahighly stimulating nature that will evoke a System 1 response. Consequently, they fall into a vicious cyclethat invites a decline in the quality of the articles that get carried and reduces the credibility of the mass media.
The mass media must consider their own publicness and, in their coverage of areas of significant public
interest, work hard to distance themselves from the logic of the attention economy.
(c) Preventing Feedback Loops
Previously, the dissemination of fake news and the like had been thought of as occurring mainly over social
media. Nonetheless, today, it has been observed that reporting by the mass media of fake news on social media
has produced a synergistic effect and further accelerated the dissemination of fake news (feedback loop). 29
The mass media must be conscious of how much power they have to influence society and strive to prevent
this sort of fake news feedback loop.

(2) The Duty of Journalists
Individual journalists are the core actors in reportage and are an indispensable presence in covering stories.
This profession has publicness in the same way that the mass media do as organizations. Journalists should
dispassionately examine the attention economy model as creators and distributors of information, and execute
their duties as autonomous professionals with publicness.

28

Hakata-eki jiken kettei (Ruling upon the case of the so-called Hakata railway station case) (Supreme Court decision
1969.11.26, Keishu Vol. 23, No. 11, at 1490).

29

Claire Wardle of the US nonprofit First Draft News in her “Trumpet of Amplification” graphic showing the process by whichfake news spreads puts the professional media at the last step. See, Wardle, C., "5 Lessons for Reporting in an Age ofDisinformation," First Draft, 2018. <https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/5-lessons-for-reporting-in-an-age-of-disinformation/>

20

V.

The Ground Rules for the Government(1) The Constitutional Obligation to Provide “Lateral” Assistance to Initiatives Aimed atInformation Health
The government has to help the people maintain “the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living”(Constitution Article 25) and ensure their “right to know” (Article 21) by maintaining diversity in the media
and helping to distribute varied information. On the basis of these facts, one can presume that it hasconstitutional duty to create a competitive environment that will support a plurality of media and provide“lateral” assistance to varied initiatives undertaken by DPF operators, all to support and improve the people’s
information health.
During those special periods when the elections for public office and popular referendums on constitutional
revisions that are at the core of democracy are being held, there are particular needs for the people to be able
to come into contact with a well-balanced variety of information and opinions and to have immunity (criticalfaculties) toward fake news. During these special periods and unlike at other times, the government would becalled upon to work toward maintaining healthy and deliberative spaces for public discourse by, for example,
encouraging DPF operators to give special consideration to the information health of their users.

(2) Prohibition of Direct and Excessive Government Intervention
The government should not intervene directly over the public’s information health or impose such healthon them. Also, the government must not define what such health means. There are concerns that such directintervention could invite “information health fascism” and instead distort democracy. This point cannot be
stressed enough.
Also, excessive interventions concerning DPF operators will not be permitted. The DPF operatorsthemselves are private businesses that enjoy the freedom of expression (Article 21) and freedom to choose
their occupation (Article 22). There is concern that if the government were to domesticate DPF operators
through excessive intervention, it could lead in real terms to censorship.

(3) DPF Operator Guarantees of Transparency and Accountability
As has already been noted, DPF operators must guarantee transparency in their businesses and be
accountable to the public (see IV.1.(7)). The government should design systems that would effectively
guarantee that DPF operators would fulfill these obligations. Basically, although the autonomy of DPF
operators should be respected, legal involvement should be considered exceptionally if it is deemed necessary.

(4) Maintaining an Environment for Just and Fair Dealings
To prevent the spaces for public discourse from becoming wholly devoted to the attention economy andcreating a growing glut of stimulative content designed to elicit reflex responses, content provided by21

newspapers and other existing media in which people can trust must be distributed substantially on DPFs andbe put into a situation where users can take it in. Toward that end, the existing media must have a certain
degree of bargaining strength concerning DPF operators. In cases where it is acknowledged that in reality, an
existing media organization does not have the bargaining strength, the government must arrange anenvironment for just and fair dealings between DPF operators and the media.

(5) Carrying Out Information Literacy Teaching and Awareness Raising Activities
As III.(2) indicates, to achieve information health, users must be information literate. Accordingly, thegovernment must proactively engage in information literacy education in primary and secondary education.
Furthermore, the government should encourage initiatives to enhance information literacy among adults.

22

VI.

Prospects for the Future

The contribution of specialist computer scientists is vital toward constructing the algorithms that bringabout information health. Computer scientists should direct their efforts not toward creating systems
connected toward buttressing the attention economy but rather those that will be conducive toward creating
information health, such as the “information checkup” and “digital diet.”
Also, specialists from other fields (for example, legal studies, economics, social psychology, andpsychiatry) will need to participate in interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary discussions directed towardmaking informed health a suitable reality.
In the future, it is also presumed that based on cooperation among these specialists, a field of “information
health studies” will be established to create an information environment that is healthy both for individualautonomy and democracy. In terms of the scholarly issues concerning “information health studies,” for the
moment, the following items may be raised:(a) Refine the definitions of “information health” and “information ill-health”(b) Clarify what the “nutritional elements” are in the information(c) Normalize and standardize what and how “nutritional elements” are to be displayed(d) Identify the specific evils produced by “information ill-health” and the specific merits that
“information health” produces(e) Elucidate the appropriate methods for providing information for “information health”(f) Develop specific methods for conducting “information checkups”(g) Explore specific methods for ameliorating “information ill-health”(h) Construct an advertising system that accords with “information health”(i) Classify and sort the diverse range of DPF operators, and examine which of those are DPF operators
who should have special responsibility for “information health”(j) Examine economic models to replace the attention economy

23

*List of Co-Signers (as of January 6, 2022)

Haluna Kawashima (Project Associate Professor, Keio University Global Research Institute)Tonghwi Soh (Smart News Media Research Institute and Attorney)
Teppei Koguchi (Professor, College of Information, Academic Institute, Shizuoka University)
Kazuhiro Taira (Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, J. F. Oberlin University)
Katsue Nagakura (Journalist, Nikkei Business Publications)
Yusuke Narita (Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Yale University)
Hiroyuki Fujishiro (Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, Hosei University)
Asako Miura (Professor, Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University)
Eijiro Mizutani (Associate Professor, Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University)
Shinichi Yamaguchi (Associate Professor, Center for Global Communications [GLOCOM], International
University of Japan)*Research Assistants
Masatoshi Kokubo (Doctoral Program, Graduate School of Law, Keio University, and a member of Keio
University Global Research Institute)
Haruki Kadotani, Nozomi Jinnai, and Ryotaro Soma (4th-year students, Department of Law, Faculty of Law,
Keio University)24