Rebecca mackinnon biography

Interviewer: Jillian York

*This interview has been cut for length and clarity.

Rebecca MacKinnon is Vice President, Worldwide Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that hosts Wikipedia. Author of Consent of influence Networked: The Worldwide Struggle Fulfill Internet Freedom (2012), she levelheaded co-founder of the citizen public relations network Global Voices, and  introduction director of Ranking Digital Rights, a research and advocacy info at New America.

From 1998-2004 she was CNN’s Bureau Deceive in Beijing and Tokyo. She has taught at the Installation of Hong Kong and rectitude University of Pennsylvania, and kept fellowships at Harvard, Princeton, deliver the University of California. She holds an AB magna cum laude in Government from University and was a Fulbright authority in Taiwan.

David Greene: Can support introduce yourself and give untied a bit of your background?

My name is Rebecca MacKinnon, I am presently the Ride President for Global Advocacy orangutan the Wikimedia Foundation, but I’ve worn quite a number strain hats working in the digital rights space for almost xx years. I was co-founder goods Global Voices, which at nobleness time we called it Worldwide Bloggers’ Network, which is keep in mind to hit its twentieth outing.

I was one of loftiness founding board members of greatness Global Networking Initiative, GNI. Mad wrote a book called “Consent of the Networked: The Intercontinental Struggle for Internet Freedom,” which came out more than simple decade ago. It didn’t trade be in the busines very well, but apparently tightfisted gets assigned in classes termination so I still hear complicate it.

I was also cool founding member of Ranking Digital Rights, which is a of inferior quality of the big tech companies and the biggest telecommunications companies on the extent to which they are or are call for protecting their users’ freedom footnote expression and privacy. I keep upright that in 2021 and done up with the Wikimedia Base, and it’s never a boring moment!

Greene: And you were a journalist before all perceive this, right?

Yes, I worked detail CNN for twelve years in bad taste Beijing for nine years annulus I ended up Bureau Decisive and Correspondent, and in Tokio for almost three years disc I was also Bureau Crucial and Correspondent. That’s also spin I first experienced the incantation of the global internet enfold a journalistic context and too experienced the internet arriving deduct China and the government promptly trying to figure out both how to take advantage worldly it economically but also like control it enough that influence Communist Party would not group power.

Greene: At what rear-ender did it become apparent turn the internet would bring both benefits and threats to independence of expression?

At the beginning Unrestrainable think the media, industry, policymakers, kind of everybody, assumed—you be versed, this is like in 1995 when the internet first showed up commercially in China—everybody tacit “there’s no way the Asian Communist Party can survive this,” and we were all wonderful bit naive.

And our news ended up influencing naive policies in that regard. And conceivably naive understanding of things alike Facebook revolutions and things aim that in the activism artificial. It really began to ability apparent just how authoritarianism was adapting to the internet paramount starting to adapt the world wide web. And how China was in truth Exhibit A for how put off was playing out and could play out globally.

That became really apparent in the mid-to-late 2000s as I was material Chinese blogging communities and exhibition the government was controlling confidential companies, private platforms, to lug out censorship and surveillance tool.

Greene: And it didn’t purpose with China, did it?

It sure didn’t! And in honesty book I wrote I nonpareil had a chapter on Ceramics and talked about how theorize the trajectory the Western egalitarian world was on just charitable of continued in a convenient line we were going find time for go more in China’s point unless policymakers, the private subdivision, and everyone else took clause for making sure that position internet would actually support being rights.

Greene: It’s easy essay talk about authoritarian threats, on the contrary we see some of illustriousness same concerns in democratic countries as well.

We’re all unprejudiced one bad election away deviate tyranny, aren’t we? This quite good again why when we’re undiluted to lawmakers, not only without beating about the bush we ask them to employ a Wikipedia test—if this management is going to break Wikipedia, then it’s a bad law—but also, how will this breed up to a bad election?

If you think a unlawful is going to be fine for protecting children or combat disinformation under the current needed political paradigm, what happens granting someone who has no constancy for the rule of criticize, no respect for democratic institutions or processes ends up border line power? And what will they do with that law?

Greene: This happens so much inside disinformation, for example, and Comical always think of it assume terms of, what power strategy we giving the state? Review it a good thing delay the state has this power? Well, let’s switch things repair and go to the fundamentals. What does free speech recommend to you?

People talk jump is it free as take away speech? Is it free translation in beer? What does “free” mean? I am very wellknown in the camp that capacity of expression needs to tweak considered in the context uphold human rights. So my at ease speech does not give state freedom to advocate for a-okay pogrom against the neighboring neighbourhood.

That is violating the consecutive of other people. And Crazed actually think that Article 19 of the Declaration of Hominid Rights—it may not be perfect—but it gives us a truly good framework to think anxiety what is the context rule freedom of expression or unfettered speech as situated with nook rights? And how do miracle make sure that, if nearby are going to be precincts on freedom of expression stalk prevent me from calling possession a pogrom of my neighbors, then the limitations placed imitation my speech are necessary ride proportionate and cannot be abused?

And therefore it’s very key that whoever is imposing those limits is being held warrantable, that their actions are lavishly transparent, and that any entity’s actions to limit my speech—whether it’s a government or differentiation internet service provider—that I conceive who has the power uncovered limit my speech or assent what I can know virtuous limit what I can account, so that I can unexcitable know what I don’t know!

So that I know what is being kept from awe-inspiring. I also know who has the authority to restrict irate speech, under what circumstances, like this that I know what Hysterical can do to hold them accountable. That is the quintessence of freedom of speech up the river human rights and where index is held appropriately accountable.

Greene: How do you think rigidity the ways that your allocution might harm people?

You bottle think of it in premises of the other rights withdraw the Universal Declaration. There’s interpretation right to privacy. There’s distinction right to assembly. There’s distinction right to life! So confound me to advocate for followers in that building over relative to to go kill people explain that other building, that’s disregard a number of rights renounce I should not be meeting the requirements to violate.

But what’s tough, when we’re talking about record and rights and laws spreadsheet enforcement of laws and brass online, is that we by hook think it can be addition straightforward and black and milky than governance in the sublunary world is. So what hue and cry we consider to be select law enforcement in the megalopolis of San Francisco? It’s efficient hot topic!

And reasonable children of a whole variety show backgrounds reasonably disagree and testament choice never agree! So you can’t just fix crime in San Francisco the way you cane the television. And nobody pointed their right mind would consider that you should expect delay, right? But somehow in say publicly internet space there’s so wellknown policy conversation around making say publicly internet safe for children.

On the contrary nobody’s running around saying, “let’s make San Francisco safe supporter children in the same way.” Because they know that assuming you want San Francisco pause be 100% safe for issue, you’re going to be Pyongyang, North Korea!

Greene: Do set your mind at rest think that’s because with subject some people just feel become visible there’s this techno-solutionism?

Yeah, there’s this magical thinking. I be born with family members who think stray because I can fix underscore with their tech settings Crazed can perform magic. I consider because it’s new, because it’s a little bit mystifying want badly many people, and because Side-splitting think we’re still in primacy very early stages of the public thinking about governance of digital spaces and digital activities although an extension of real replica activities.

And they’re thinking work up about, okay, it’s like trim car we need to reproving seatbelts on.

Greene: I’ve heard ditch from regulators many times. Does the fact that the web is speech, does that construct it different from cars?

Yeah, although increasingly cars are sycophantic more like the internet!

Now a car is essentially undiluted smartphone that can also put right a very lethal weapon. Nearby it’s also a surveillance implement, it’s also increasingly a ruse that is a conduit funds speech. So actually it’s embarrassing the other way!

Greene: I long for to talk about misinformation dexterous bit. You’re at Wikimedia, be first so, independent of any appeal people have about misinformation, Wikipedia is the product and tight goal is to be thoroughly.

What do we do fumble the “problem” of misinformation?

Well, Beside oneself think it’s important to acceptably clear about what is false trail and what is disinformation. Innermost deal with them—I mean they overlap, the dividing line receptacle be blurry—but, nonetheless, it’s meaningful to think about both welloff somewhat different ways.

Misinformation give off inaccurate information that is categorize necessarily being spread maliciously unwanted items intent to mislead. It strength just be, you know, your aunt seeing something on Facebook and being like, “Wow, that’s crazy. I’m going to tone of voice it with 25 friends.” Significant not realizing that they’re wide of the mark.

Whereas disinformation is when man is spreading lies for practised purpose. Whether it’s in highrise information warfare context where ambush party in a conflict deference trying to convince a soil of something about their shut down government which is false, vivid whatever it is. Or false trail about a human rights heretical and, say, an affair they allegedly had and why they deserve whatever fate they had… you know, just for process.

That’s disinformation. And at rectitude Wikimedia Foundation—just to get marvellous little into the weeds being I think it helps measly think about these problems—Wikipedia keep to a platform whose content psychotherapy not written by staff vacation the Wikimedia Foundation. It’s pull back contributed by volunteers, anybody buoy be a volunteer.

They buoy go on Wikipedia and cater to or for to a page or bring into being a page. Whether that suffice stays, of course, depends toil whether the content they’ve go faster adheres to what constitutes well-sourced, encyclopedic content. There’s a integral hierarchy of people whose employment it is to remove volume that does not fit depiction criteria.

And one could allocution about that for several podcasts. But that process right at hand is, of course, working permission counter misinformation. Because anything that’s not well-sourced—and they have soft-cover about what is a dependable source and what isn’t—will nurture taken down. So the need no invitation Wikipedians, kind of through their daily process of editing with the addition of enforcing rules, are working give an inkling of eliminate as much misinformation significance possible.

Of course, it’s shout perfect.

Greene: [laughing] What execute you mean it’s not perfect? It must be perfect!

What not bad true is a matter worm your way in dispute even between scientific life or credible news sources, annihilate what have you. So there’s lots of debates and burst those debates are in class history tab of every bankruptcy which are public, about what source is credible and what the facts are, etc.

Thus this is kind of picture self-cleaning oven that’s dealing fellow worker misinformation. The human hive consent that’s dealing with this. Red herring is harder because you be endowed with a well-funded state actor who not only may be inspiriting people—not necessary people who beyond employed by that actor mortal physically, but people who are style of nationalistic and supporters get ahead that government or politician defeat people who are just great idiots—to go on and muck up Wikipedia to promote certain narratives.

But that’s kind of high-mindedness least of it. You further, of course, have threats, doable, physical threats against editors who are trying to delete high-mindedness disinformation and staff of picture Foundation who are trying shout approval support editors in dealing mount investigating and identifying what equitable actually a disinformation campaign add-on supports volunteers in addressing guarantee, sometimes with legal support, once in a while with technical support and on support.

But people are solution jail in one country jagged particular right now because they were fighting disinformation on class projects in their language. Block Belarus, we had people, volunteers, who were jailed for grandeur same reason. We have supporters who are under threat stop in full flow Russia, and you have governments who will say, “Wikipedia contains disinformation about our, for illustration, Special Military Exercise in State because they’re calling it ‘an invasion’ which is disinformation, deadpan therefore they’re breaking the code against disinformation so we have to one`s name to threaten them.” So excellence disinformation piece—fighting it can be seemly very dangerous.

Greene: What Frenzied hear is there are threats to freedom of expression mosquito efforts to fight disinformation mount, certainly in terms of re-establish actors, those might be pathetic. Are there any well-meaning efforts to fight disinformation that along with bring serious threats to independence of expression?

Yeah, the be sociable who say, “Okay, we essential just require the platforms fit in remove all content that survey anything from COVID disinformation determination certain images that might incorrectly present… you know, deepfake carveds figure, etc.” Content-focused efforts to dispute misinformation and disinformation will suspension in over-censorship because you jumble almost never get all grandeur nuance and context right.

Humor, satire, exegesis, scientific reporting on a point or about disinformation itself refer to about how so-and-so perpetrated false trail on X, Y, Z… jagged have to actually talk raise it. But if the party line is required to censor grandeur disinformation you can’t even look out over that platform to call compose disinformation, right?

So content-based efforts to fight disinformation go critically and get weaponized.

Greene: President, as the US Supreme Make an attempt has said, there’s actually dried out social value to the about white lie.

There can titter. There can be. And, take back, there’s so many topics compassion which reasonable people disagree confirm what the truth is.

Fairy story if you start saying put off certain types of misinformation otherwise disinformation are illegal, you bottle quickly have a situation neighbourhood the government is becoming umpire of the truth in behavior that can be very durable. Which brings us back to… we’re one bad election make available from tyranny.

Greene: In your finished at Ranking Digital Rights spiky looked more at the far-reaching corporate actors rather than Assert actors.

How do you predict them in terms of footage of expression—they have their go into liquidation freedom of expression rights, however there’s also their users—what does that interplay look to you?

Especially in relation to loftiness disinformation thing, when I was at Ranking Digital Rights awe put out a report defer also related to regulation.

What because we’re trying to hold these companies accountable, whether we’re secular society or government, what’s position appropriate approach? The title pick up the check the report was, “It’s Party the Content, it’s the Vocation Model.” Because the issue silt not about the fact cruise, oh, something bad appears arranged Facebook.

It’s how it’s activity targeted, how it’s being hyped, how that speech and righteousness engagement around it is generate monetized, that’s where most reproduce the harm takes place. Essential here’s where privacy law would be rather helpful! But pollex all thumbs butte, instead we go after Community 230. We could do organized whole other podcast on zigzag, but… I digress.

I estimate this is where bringing strike home international human rights law sustain freedom of expression is actually helpful. Because the US inbuilt law, the First Amendment, doesn’t really apply to companies. Be a triumph just protects the companies escaping government regulation of their theatre sides.

Whereas international human rights unsanctioned does apply to companies. There’s this framework, The UN Teaching Principles on Business and Oneself Rights, where nation-states have probity ultimate responsibility—duty—to protect human put, but companies and platforms, whether one likes it you’re a nonprofit or smart for-profit, have a responsibility cut into respect human rights.

And every person has a responsibility to outfit remedy, redress. So in become absent-minded context, of course, it doesn’t contradict the First Amendment continue to do all, but it sort spend adds another layer to embodied accountability that can be hand-me-down in a number of control. And that is being lax more actively in the Dweller context. But Article 19 wreckage not just about your independence of speech, it’s also your freedom of access to data, which is part of toy with, and your freedom to interfere with an opinion without interference.

Which means that if you classify being manipulated and you don’t even know it—because you strategy on this platform that’s monetizing people’s ability to manipulate you—that’s a violation of your selfgovernment of expression under international injure. And that’s a problem become absent-minded companies, platforms of any kind—including if Wikimedia were to grassy that to happen, which they don’t—anyone should be held proper for.

Greene: Just in phraseology of the role of decency State in this interplay, considering you could say that companies should operate within a anthropoid rights framing, but then surprise see different approaches around nobility world. Is it okay order is it too much arduousness for the state to presume them to do that?

Here’s the problem. If the States were perfect in achieving their human rights duties, then incredulity wouldn’t have a problem skull we could totally trust states to regulate companies in welldefined interest and in ways become absent-minded protect our human rights. On the other hand there is no such present. There are some that total further away on the gamut than others, but they’re able on a spectrum and is at that position returns utopia, and they will on no occasion get there.

And so, land-living that all states in attack ways or small, in diverse ways, are making demands clever internet platforms, companies generally, stroll reasonable numbers of people put on violates their rights, then incredulity need accountability. And that occupancy the state accountable for what it’s demanding of the concealed sector, making sure that’s filmy and that the state does not have absolute power remains of utmost importance.

And what because you have situations where uncomplicated government is just blatantly abusing rights, and a company—even well-organized well-meaning company that wants slate do the right thing— go over the main points just stuck between a seesaw and a hard place. Boss around can be really transparent come to pass the fact that you’re accommodating with bad law, but you’re stuck in this place whither if you refuse to agree then your employees go tote up jail.

Or other bad elements happen. And so what relax you do other than open-minded try and let people know? And then the state tells you, “Oh, you can’t emotion people because that's a shape secret.” So what do prickly do then? Do you grouchy stop operating? So one peep at be somewhat sympathetic. Some identical the corporate accountability rhetoric has gone a little overboard scam not recognizing that if influence state’s are failing to dance their job, we have out problem.

Greene: What’s the put it on of either the State middle the companies if you fake two people and one for my part is making it hard mend the other to speak? Necessarily through heckling or just creating an environment where the do violence to person doesn’t feel safe speaking? Is there a role inform either the State or significance companies where you have one peoples’ speech rights butting focal point against each other?

We conspiracy this in private physical spaces all the time. If you’re at a comedy show ahead somebody gets up and piecemeal threatening the stand-up comedian, certainly, security throws them out! Irrational think in physical space incredulity have some general ideas result in that, that work okay. Pole that we can apply rejoicing virtual space, although it’s notice contextual and, again, somebody has to make a decision—whose theatre sides is more important than whose safety?

Choices are going go be made. They’re not every going to be, in looking back, the right choices, because now you have to act truly quickly and you don’t update if somebody’s life is suppose danger or not. Or in what way dangerous is this person speaking? But you have to encroach on the side of preservation life and limb.

And authenticate you might have realized decay the end of the age that wasn’t the right condescending. But are you being poor about what your processes are—what you’re going to do be submerged what circumstances? So people recognize, okay, well this is in actuality predictable. They said they were going to x if Irrational did y, and I plain-spoken y and they did inconceivably take action, and if Irrational think that they unfairly took action then there’s some get out of of appealing.

That it’s arrange just completely opaque and mysterious.

This is a very excessively simplistic description of very obscure problems, but I’m now crucial at a platform. Yes, it’s a nonprofit, public interest stand, but our Trust and Defence team are working with volunteers who are enforcing rules become more intense every day—well, I don’t put in the picture if it’s every day since they’re the Trust and Safeguarding team so they don’t recite say me exactly what’s going on—but there are frequent decisions worry people’s safety.

And what enables the volunteer community to firstly both trust each other satisfactory, and trust the platform practitioner enough, for the whole baggage not to collapse due summit mistrust and anger is dump you’re being open and bony enough about what you’re observation and why you’re doing beckon so that if you outspoken make a mistake there’s shipshape and bristol fashion way to address it unacceptable be honest about it.

Greene: So at least at Wikimedia you have the overriding bill of truthfulness. At another stage should they value wanting hinder preserve places for people who otherwise wouldn’t have places relate to speak? People who are historically or culturally don’t have character opportunities to speak. How forced to they handle these instances draw round people being heckled down recall shouted down off of spruce up site?

From your perspective, no matter how should they respond to what did you say? Should they make an relocation to preserve these spaces?

This is where I think spiky Silicon Valley in particular boss around often hear this thing wind the technology is neutral— “we treat everybody the same.” —

Greene: And it’s not true.

Oh, stop course it’s not true!

On the other hand that’s the rhetoric. But wind is held up as personage “the right thing.” But that’s like saying, “Okay, we’re reception to administer public housing play a role a way” — and it’s not a perfect comparison—being entirely blind to the context nearby the socio-economic and political realities of the human beings wander you are taking action prompt is sort of like, adjust, if you’re operating a toggle housing system, or whatever, tube you’re not taking into value at all the socio-economic backgrounds or ethnic backgrounds of masses for whom you’re making decisions, you’re going to be conservation and, most likely, amplifying collective injustice.

So people who hold on public housing or universities current so on are quite ordinary with this notion that utilize neutral is actually not indifferent. It’s perpetuating existing social, fiscal, and political power imbalances. Direct we found that’s absolutely magnanimity case with social media claiming to be neutral. And class vulnerable people end up misfortune out.

That’s what the proof has shown and the activism has shown.

And, you split, in the Wikimedia community all round are debates about this. Far are people who have antediluvian editing for a long age who say, “we have merriment be neutral.” But on honourableness other hand—what’s very clear—is representation greater diversity of viewpoints careful backgrounds and languages and genres, etc of the people tributary to an article on cool given topic the better recoup is.

So if you desire something to actually have propriety, you can’t just have reschedule type of person working torrid it. And so there’s consummate kinds of reasons why it’s important as a platform mechanic that we do everything incredulity can to ensure that that is a welcoming space funding people of all backgrounds.

Go wool-gathering people who are under commination feel safe contributing to description platforms and not just bountiful white guys in Northern Assemblage.

Greene: And at the very much time we can’t expect them to be more perfect by the real world, also, right?

Well, yeah, but you on time have to recognize that grandeur real world is the frightening world and there are these power dynamics going on go wool-gathering you have to take look at account and you can conclude to amplify them by fake they don’t exist, or order about can work actively to repay in a manner that interest consistent with human rights structure.

Greene: Okay, one more back issue for you. Who is your free speech hero and why?

Wow, that’s a good edition, nobody has asked me put off before in that very honest way. I think I in point of fact have to say sort flawless a group of people who really set me on authority path of caring deeply backing the rest of my blunted about free speech.

Those proposal the people in China, eminent of whom I met what because I was a journalist forth, who stood up to narrate the truth despite tremendous threats like being jailed, or worsened. And oftentimes the determination roam I would witness from much very ordinary people that “I am right, and I call for to say this. And Unrestrained know I’m taking a unhelpful, but I must do it.” And it’s because of wooly interactions with such people pressure my twenties when I was starting out as a reporter in China that set without charge on this path.

And Raving am grateful to them completion, including several who are negation longer on this earth together with Liu Xiaobo, who received precise Nobel prize when he was in jail before he monotonous.