Event report

This debate series focused on the future media landscape from the perspective of the young Danes. All based around 3 online debates on a social audio platform (in Danish). We have chosen to make the feedback in English in order to ensure that the take-aways can be used broadly in the ongoing work on the Future of Europe. The debates had three overall purposes: 1. To involve, inform and make a debate with young Danes on the possible future media landscape seen from a Danish / European perspective 2. To collect knowledge from young Danes to create future scenarios on the future media landscape in 2030 as seen from their perspective 3. To gather experience with the use of social audio-based media (in this particular case using Angle - https://www.angle.audio/about-us) to support the democratic digital conversation. Why? A dramatic shift has occurred in the digital public discourse in recent years, as platforms, social media, and communication methods continue to evolve. How do the young Danes feel about this in a Danish / European media perspective? What's their sentiment about the digitalization and implementation of AI and algorithms? How can we ensure the democratic dialogue between the citizens, and ensure that everyone can have a say in the digital age? What are the aspirations of today's youth? What are they worried about, and what is most important to them when it comes to the development of the future media landscape in relation to democracy? The pandemic has contributed to the unprecedented acceleration of the digitalization of how we interact. It is a challenging period for the public discourse due to the fast changes in the media and the way we interact, as well as the rise of misinformation and more extremist views spreading on social media. The debates were based on megatrends and research from the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, and were facilitated by Futurist and Senior Advisor, Sofie Hvitved. Overall themes for the 3 debates: 1. Debate on how we best support the democratic digital conversation in the future from a Danish / European perspective 2. Debate on future scenarios for the way we communicate in a Danish / European perspective 3. Debate on the future scenarios for the media development in a Danish / European perspective The debates were carried out in February-March 2022. Social Audio as a future tool to support the democratic digital conversation Prior to the debates, we already had the assumption that there is an urgent need for new digital tools to support the democratic digital conversation, especially since the pandemic has accelerated the digitalization of our society. That there is a need to create a new framework for dialogue in a digital world. The longing for the human conversations and the more 'real', intimate encounter has exploded during the pandemic, where people quickly started talking about screen fatigue and the toxic polarization of the commentary fields. In practice, the three debates went really well on Social Audio, and many of the participants that showed up participated actively in the debate. In total about 120 people were engaged in one way or the other in the conversations and dialogue surrounding the debates, apart from the many people engaging with the campaigns on social media (reach around 45.000 young people in Denmark). Part of the project was to test social audio-based media platforms as a new alternative for the democratic debate. The thesis for the debates is that it’s a new way to create citizen engagement in the public discourse that is based on a more intimate conversation where all participants seamlessly have the opportunity to participate in the conversation if they wish, which is controlled by the facilitator. As part of the project, we also involved a range of experts on the democratic debate, amongst others Gerd Maria May (https://roomofsolutions.com) who was adding knowledge on how to ensure an optimal structure for a democratic debate in a social audio perspective. We were using the software ‘Angle’ as an alternative to the many other platforms (Clubhouse, Discord Stage Channels, Twitter Spaces, Facebook Live Audio Rooms, Slack Huddles etc). The reasons for choosing Angle: 1. We would like to include participants that didn’t necessarily wanted to be part of an existing social media platforms in order to participate. 2. We would like to support a platform that emphasizes digital responsibility and the ethical issues when it comes to social audio such as end-to-end encryption and data stored within the EU – and the fact that Angle is working with the Institute for Social Ethics makes their platform even more interesting. Angle - in short - is describing themselves as a company that cares about the future of great conversations and has a goal to change how people interact online. As they write on their webpage: "We build a future where the internet has become more of a place, where you discover such conversations in all types of locations, bump into people, and make human connections. We build a future where there’s no more filter bubbles and the extreme polarization of society has been overcome by the power of dialogue." Key take aways and learnings on Social Audio 1. Creating a psycological safe environment on Social Audio is essential. 2. Engaging the participants early in the debate is essential in order to feel part of the debate. Angle thinks of the engagement as a ladder, and the company is working on audience engagement like quizzes and commenting with text in order to get them involved step by step. 3. Social audio could be used as an effective add-on to existing events, debates and communities, but might be hard to use as a stand-alone place for the public discourse. 4. It’s hard to attract young people to a new online platform they do not know and do not feel any connection to. 5. There needs to be a ‘what’s in it for me’ argument in order for them to participate 6. The participants feel more safe in joining the conversation when they know one or more of the other participants, so trying to get a group of young people to debate that don’t know each other and have now shared history is difficult. The outcome from the debates Apart from the three debates, we also created an online questionnaire in order to collect the opinions from young Danes on the future media landscape. One of the questions in the questionnaire that supported the debate was “What can the EU do to help in the future regarding the media landscape?”, and one of the answers was actually quite striking: “I have no idea, everything is very uncertain at the moment”. The uncertainty of the world is very suitable for describing their view on the future media landscape. Who can you trust? Is the media just trying to catch our eyeballs? Is media algorithmically biased? Or as one of the participants commented: “The media illustrates things very black and white, and this makes it hard to find your own voice. In that way, it can make the democratic conversation difficult." The war in Ukraine occupied them a lot during the debates. What is the role of governments when it comes to regulating media? How is social media used in times of war? In general they were very concerned about how to ensure a media landscape that you can trust, and how the future generation will also be able to tell facts from misinformation in the age of synthetic media, AI and the Metaverse. As one participant responded: "I would be really uncomfortable if the US president were to be in the Metaverse, once it becomes a reality." And as other respondents said: “Both the corona crisis, elections and the war in Ukraine underline the central role of the media. And with that role comes a responsibility - but I’m not sure that they live up to it in terms of sources, nuances and ethics?” and “The media is very polarized and based on sensation and conflict”. Not really the most positive picture moving towards the future media landscape. To give an idea of their thoughts on the future media landscape we asked a couple of questions: "I am generally positive about the development of the media landscape in Europe" 43% agree 31% disagree 30% don’t know "I feel that the democratic dialogue has been strengthened in recent years" 40% agree 40% disagree 20% don’t know "I think Europe should regulate more" 41% agree 11% disagree 48% don’t know Some central themes being discussed: • The role of media in facilitating the public discourse • User created content in the new creator economy • Media literacy / individual responsibility vs. regulation • Synthetic vs. real • Polarization and Individualization • Fake news and misinformation • Manipulation and nudging in media • How will young people get their information in the media Scenarios on the future media landscape 2030 At the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, we work with scenario planning in order to look into the different possible, plausible and desirable futures to understand the impact our actions have today. We have used the input from the debates in order to dive a little bit into the future media landscape and the way we communicate in the future with a focus on the public discourse in the digital age. How will the younger generation engage in the democratic debate? Which platforms and media channels will they use? What will be the incentive to take part in the future debate? Leading the debates on to a discussion on sceneries for the futures, where the following three scenarios seem plausible due to debates. Scenario A: If nothing is done and the development continues as it is, the younger generation will keep feeling disconnected to the media landscape, and therefore they will be less and less active over time in the democratic dialogue. Scenario B: EU will manage to move the democratic debate over to platforms that are used by younger generations and there they will engage more in the debate than today. The drawback from this is that the younger generations will need to be part of the social media platforms in order to have the democratic debate, and that can be creating even more polarization in society and give more control to social media platforms. Scenario C: Can new media platforms, like social audio, be a solution to connect the younger generations with the future democratic debate? Can we actually make solutions that the younger generation would like to use? There is a lot of friction getting people to join in, and that might be difficult to change.The participants are in doubt, but in this scenario we manage to find a solution and to create a new place for the digital democratic conversation which is highly needed in order to support democracy. The democratic debate in a digital age is challenging, especially with the younger generation. As such we need more knowledge, more experiments, more dialog with younger media users. Simply because Denmark and the EU cannot afford to have a society where the public debate doesn’t support our democracy. Ideas from the particpants for what the EU can offer in the future: • The EU should help amplify voices and perspectives from other parts of the world. • The EU should should be a role model when it comes to supporting the digital democratic debate. • The EU should ensure better security when it comes to being protected in and on the media • The EU should ensure security and new technologies in media • The EU should support diversity in the ways of communicating and looking at politics, culture, sports etc. • The EU can offer knowledge and awareness on media (ensure media litteracy) • The EU should ensure cultural cohesion across national borders in Europe - for example through documentaries, TV series and film productions. If we further restrict Europe to the Nordic region, the Nordic countries can strengthen each other in relation to and co-operate on public service traditions - and what the public service concept of the future actually entails. • The EU should dare to be first-mover and put pressure on tech giants, and that we can at the same time educate young people to better understand the media, as well as understand the use of our data.