What will the new recommendations and compliance with the new EU regulation bring to the online media space?

Kordalov: The European Union invests constant and great efforts in improving our user experience with digital platforms and media.

In particular, the EU, through the DMA and DSM, i.e. the regulations for the digital market and services that entered into force in November last year, determines the direction in which digital, i.e. online platforms will move in the next decade and provides an additional basis for positive online experiences, more opportunities for users and fair competition which is expected to bring equal chances and opportunities for growth and development in the digital world.

Of course, digitalization and digital transformation make our life easier, learning, working, communicating with the whole world in real time, etc. However, they also bring with them a series of risks that, if they are not recognized in time, if adequate education, regulation and information are not provided by the institutions, may escalate and negatively affect individuals and democratic societies as a whole.

That is why such regulations also aim to create greater freedom of expression and free thought, along with protection against misinformation and fake news. Also, better privacy for every person who decides to be part of the digital traffic, fact-checking, interoperability between different platforms without restrictions and monopolies, moderation policies and rules, as well as emphasizing the legal obligation of full transparency of policies and services to all digital platforms and media.

What should be paid attention to when applying these recommendations in domestic legislation? Are there any specifics to consider?

Kordalov: Literally in all the aforementioned areas, without exception. Because it is important to catch up with the times, and not to be constantly late with the introduction of legal and other novelties and trends that are already implemented in practice in the Western world.

I would add that for us, a particularly important part of the entire process of protecting each individual from negative online phenomena is the fight against hate speech and discrimination, which very often, and sometimes even without measure, spread on digital platforms. Individual, but also broader joint action is also important here because we need to constantly remind ourselves that the internet space belongs equally to each of us and it is our duty to take care of the personal and mental hygiene of other people, that is to contribute to it every person to feel safe and welcome in the virtual world.

But let's go in order. It is important that the Macedonian and other societies in the region first fully recognize the importance and necessity of digitization, accept the challenges, understand that we are getting greater opportunities and expanding the right to choose. And then, that the world is constantly moving forward and improving, that the planet Earth is spinning, and no matter how much we want to stop it or turn it back, it's simply impossible.

How will the EU regulation regarding the big internet platforms (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo...) be reflected in the national regulation? Does this question even reach us? Can the same recommendations apply to our Internet aggregators who are believed to manipulate the ordering of content and positioning of portals?

Kordalov: All these questions completely affect us. I would like to remind you that the percentage of active Internet users in our country, but in general in Southeast Europe, is very high and over 80 percent of the population is active online every day.

This means that all of us as participants in the Internet traffic "make" agreements with which we simultaneously assume obligations when we receive opportunities and privileges in the virtual world.

As for news aggregators, especially in Macedonian society, they play a very significant role in the process of informing every person, because according to all lists, they are one of the most clicked and visited digital platforms.

In my opinion, it is very important for everyone to be partners in the process, that is, for all parties (the media and aggregators, as well as Internet users and the state) to have equal financial benefits in the process.

In addition, as we discussed before, the EU with all new regulations encourages transparency on digital platforms in every sphere, so I believe that this will also encourage news aggregators to constantly continue to improve their algorithms in this direction because their power is really recognized and great in terms of influence on the ways of informing people in this digital age.

Has SEMM's register of professional online media lived up to expectations? Is it time to update according to past experiences as it "works" in reality?

Kordalov: As a human being, but also as a communicator, I deeply and primarily believe in building inclusive societies and relationships, which rely on rational and open communication, trust, joint action and constant work on raising personal and therefore public awareness.

Of course, I also understand the need to create a registry of professional online portals that gives its initial effects, but of course it needs to evolve constantly. In my opinion, any change or evolution should reflect the times in which we live, but also be based on the opinions and expectations of online portals because it refers to them. In addition, I think it is important to work on strengthening the trust and relationship with the providers of commercial advertisements, primarily the business community.

I would note that in this process, much more attention from all stakeholders should be paid to media campaigns during elections. In order to build trust in the institutions, the parties, and the elections in general, it is important for the citizens to believe that care is being taken from all sides how they spend the money during the election campaign, especially due to the fact that those funds are mostly budgetary, and it is precisely the budget that is filled by the citizens and the companies.

At the same time, I would like to remind in this context that it is already becoming more than evident how much investment in human and professional staff plays an important role. In other words, today, it depends on the signature of the journalist, videographer or photographer whether readers, viewers or listeners will consider certain content or media as professional or not.

Also, what we persistently neglect as a society is to invest in criticism and critical thinking, which, brutally speaking, must be forced to be the most important part of the educational system from the earliest age of children.

In the area of ​​education, the principle of learning by example is very lacking in people, which will develop creative individuals from an early age, who will receive education and basic rules that will further know how to independently upgrade and adapt to any change and new social context that in the future will follows.

Does fake news really have as much power as it is given credit for and can it really shape human behavior today? When a person forms attitudes and opinions about new phenomena, is he more guided by his already acquired knowledge and convictions, or does the 20th century maxim that "if it was said on television, it must be true" still apply?

Kordalov: Fake news is a big problem primarily for each individual and only then for societies as a whole. Because the harm from the spread of fake news is ultimately borne by the individual or each of us.

My position on this matter remains consistent. In all societies, but especially in societies like the Balkans that are not inclined to trust between social actors and citizens, it is first important to demonstrate that every person has the right to his own personal attitude, opinion and speech. The only brake here is if your right threatens someone else's right.

Furthermore, as people, but also as a system, we must have truly transparent and accountable institutions and politicians. Not half or incompletely open to the public ie. to the citizens and the media.

Thirdly, it is necessary to distinguish that there is scientific and non-scientific truth, as well as to distinguish between an institutional position (the position of a public institution that we all pay for and is specialized in a certain part) and the position of other parties. Instead of leading a bilious polemic until now, belittling and insulting who is right and who has a monopoly over the truth.

In the part of television, i.e. traditional media, which includes credible online portals and other digital platforms, I would say that they really put in a lot of effort and are perhaps the most important and persistent fighter in the battle with fake news, conspiracy theories and misinformation.

The reason for this is of course the legal basis and monitoring, but primarily the standards in the journalistic profession that they themselves have set, as well as the quality of staff that is the backbone of every media.

In my opinion, we need even more freedom and support from the budget, as in European countries, intended for all professional media, so that they do not have to look for the profit component at all costs, that is, to chase clicks and ratings at the cost of survival. Because, if due to social interest we fund analytical centers or media campaigns of parties during elections, I think we have a much greater social interest in civic financial support of the media, free from any political pressure and influence!

How do you comment on the decision of the USA, Canada and the EU for greater control of Tik-Tok?

Kordalov: I would like to remind you at the beginning that the issue of privacy and data protection, i.e. control of whether social media care for users, does not apply only to Tik-Tok. Although the US started to deal with the security of TikTok data a few years ago, in the past Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram, all of them were investigated by the US and the EU institutions to prove that they care for users and security. It was especially expressed in the period after the presidential elections in the USA and "Brexit" in Great Britain.

In the area of ​​control and the ban on Tik-Tok, three aspects are crucial: geopolitical relations, the protection of people, that is, their data, and the protection of children.

The reason for the ban on the use of Tik-Tok on official, i.e., government phones in several countries from Europe and the United States is the concern of possible misuse, theft of data, misuse of content, etc.

Another point is whether Tik-Tok sufficiently protects children and young people from exposure to dangerous content. We have witnessed this in the past period with the ever-increasing number of cases in the world of a fatal outcome from the tiktok-mania for creating and recording life-threatening contents. And, unfortunately, we also had cases of young people with a tragic end in the region. Also, some people of different ages, through the content they created to publish on Tiktok, endangered their lives or others' lives or violated laws, because of which they later faced punishments.

In this regard, the proposal of the law in France, which provides for the so-called ban on the use of TikTok, Snapchat or Instagram for children under the age of 15 except with permission, under parental supervision. This means that what should be established a long time ago is being legally regulated, which is the cooperation between social networks, institutions and parents in the new era of social media, something that is of great interest to children and their comfort and safety in the virtual world of age when they acquire the rules of the game in the online space.

*Bojan Kordalov is a communicator who has been actively working in the field of communications and marketing for more than 20 years and actively advocates the digital transformation of society, e-commerce, media and digital literacy

Source: Racine