25 Aug 2026 MD 2026/3 Editorial

In his visionary book La technique published in 1954, French philosopher Jacques Ellul wrote, “Modern technology has become a total phenomenon for civilization, the defining force of a new social order in which efficiency is no longer an option, but a necessity imposed on all human activity.”

Those words were written before the arrival of the Internet, digital technologies, and Artificial Intelligence – whose rapid development in combination with global political and economic upheavals transformed communications and led to a contraction of public spaces for democratic dialogue.

Perversely, despite the technologies available today, many people are still unable to communicate their needs and concerns or, indeed, are forcibly prevented from doing so. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 draws attention (pp. 34-35) to the problems posed by digital technologies, social media platforms, and AI-generated content:

“The advent of new technologies and the increase in user-generated content platforms is leading to a corresponding rise in the volume of content online. Flows of misinformation and disinformation from those creating it are becoming more challenging to detect and remove in an increasingly fragmented media landscape.”

In particular, the report notes that:

“Differentiating between AI- and human-generated false or misleading content – in the form of video, images, voice or text – can be difficult. GenAI lowers the barriers for content production and distribution, and some of that content is inaccurate. Threat actors, state agencies in some countries, activist groups, and individuals who may or may not have criminal intentions can automate and expand disinformation campaigns, greatly increasing their reach and impact.”

Muddying the waters further, between January and April 2025 the US government implemented massive cuts to foreign aid spending. Article 19’s recent report Targeted explored the global impact of those cuts on freedom of expression, the people working to defend it, and on tackling the harm done by misinformation and disinformation. Regarding information integrity, the report’s key findings were:

• Disinformation will further proliferate worldwide: A result of the cuts widening the (already vast) discrepancy between investment in (a) countering disinformation, and (b) creating and disseminating it.
• This proliferation of disinformation – coupled with the reduced capacity of civil society and the media to counter it – is a particular threat to three key areas that are highly vulnerable to disinformation: Free and fair elections; Action to tackle the climate crisis; and Access to life-saving information in conflict zones.
• The cuts will boost Chinese disinformation and propaganda, at home and worldwide: Cuts to disinformation, media, and digital programming are also a major boon to China, increasing its control of the information environment.

The concepts of mis- and dis-information are controversial. Many commentators now prefer “harmful information”, defined by the International Red Cross Movement (ICRC and IFRC) as any information – whether false, misleading, or maliciously true – which endangers people, undermines trust, or hinders humanitarian action. A taxonomy of this kind of harm includes incitement to violence, physical attacks against protected groups, or the promotion of human rights violations; escalating fear, trauma, or distress among vulnerable populations; exploitation of crisis victims, fraud, or the obstruction of economic resources; fuelling discrimination, societal fragmentation, or the stigmatization of specific groups; and obstructing humanitarian aid, undermining trust in life-saving health advice, or escalating armed conflict.

In today’s world, dependency on digital technologies (Ellul’s new social order) is a given. The issues now are how to use them for the common good, how to mitigate their dangers and potential for harm – especially AI – and how to harness them for democratic accountability, inclusion, and genuine social progress. Digital rights and AI accountability are not abstract concepts but rooted in questions of justice, power, and inclusion.

Only a systematic and transparent approach to tackling these questions can advance the shared vision of communication justice. As underlined by Carlos Baca Feldman, Global Learning and Mentorship Lead of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC)’s LocNet Initiative, at the recent WACC symposium “Our Common Future: Advocating for Digital Rights and AI Accountability”:

“Collaboration with civil society, and particularly with community communication and community network movements, offers concrete pathways to advance digital justice. These movements remind us that connectivity is not an end in itself, but a tool to strengthen community life, cultural identity, and democratic participation. Together, we can move toward a more inclusive digital future where no one is left behind – not only in access, but in agency and voice.”

Why is it important for people and communities to have a say in the design and development of digital technologies and the policies that regulate them? To prevent governments and corporations from gaining exclusive and unregulated control – including their monetisation and weaponization – of technological advances that ought to be destined for the common good.

While absolute control of technology is not a formally codified human right, it is directly tied to a set of digital human rights recognised by the UN in its Global Digital Compact (2024). In that respect, the role of civil society is critical. As Patrizia Scannella points out in “Safeguarding Civil Society Space at the United Nations” (March 2026):

“Civil society enables democratic participation by bringing independent information, marginalised perspectives and lived realities into multilateral decision-making, and by helping to strengthen transparency, the rule of law and accountability.”

In short, our common digital future must be determined by the people, for the people: digital sovereignty, no less. That’s the real meaning of communication justice today.