Wildlife use is widespread across the world where animals and their derivates are consumed and/or traded (Ingram et al., 2021). When the use is unsustainable, it is a leading cause of biodiversity loss worldwide, with profound consequences for ecosystem services and functions (IPBES, 2022). In December 2022, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreeing to achieve the sustainable use and management of biodiversity as one of four central goals by 2050. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has focussed global attention on the wildlife trade and potential risk of zoonotic emerging infectious disease spread. From February 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been negotiating drafts of a global Pandemic Agreement, calling for collective action on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, including the need to “take measures to reduce risks of zoonotic spill-over” (Article 4; World Health Organisation, 2024). Given how wholly interconnected these issues are, leveraging approaches that tackle integrated issues around the health of people, animals, and ecosystems, such as One Health and Planetary Health approaches (de Castañeda et al., 2023), will be paramount to addressing the global challenges of biodiversity loss and zoonotic disease emergence.

Managing the use of wildlife can be challenging for many reasons, including the number of actors involved along varied supply chains across rural and urban areas, the complexities around the legality of trade in different circumstances, and the capacities of governments to act (Ingram et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a worldwide initiative to end the wildlife trade (Coalition to End the Trade, 2020), resulting in certain countries banning physical wildlife markets. Yet, it is becoming increasingly evident that digital services platforms, particularly social media platforms, are playing a pivotal role in the legal and illegal trade of wildlife (Morcatty et al., 2021). Yet, little has been done to stem the illegal online trade of wildlife, which undermines efforts to manage the trade effectively, sustainably, and safely (Morcatty et al., 2021). Here, we highlight two major ways in which technology companies running global social media, e-commerce (marketplaces), and content-sharing platforms (hereafter just “tech companies”) can assist in achieving the goals of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

For the latter, examples could include public lists of tech companies, which are not part of groups working to reduce online illegal wildlife trade (Sebagh, 2021), and transparent monitoring of such groups to ensure that activities are taking place and reporting tools are effective. Furthermore, monitored trade should not only include high-value wildlife products such as ivory, or live animals in the trade, but should also include advertisements for traders and establishments that sell the meat of wild animals (i.e., wild meat), where illegal. This has received substantially less attention than the trade in high-value wildlife products. Crucially, member states differ in their resources and capabilities to tackle illegal wildlife trade online and deliver effective pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The latter is acknowledged in the most recent WHO Pandemic Agreement draft (World Health Organisation, 2024). Although the use of certain platforms differs by country (Ghermandi et al., 2023), global tech companies must play a role in addressing some of these inequities by targeting online interventions to countries with high illegal wildlife trade prevalence.

Second, online social media and video sharing platforms have been vehicles for (mis)information dissemination across the world, with social media being described as creating the “climate change of culture” (Harris, 2019). The spread of misinformation regarding emerging infectious disease spread and effective treatment, as was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic (Cinelli et al., 2020), is a significant threat to global public health because it can hinder evidence-based actions designed to prevent or respond to outbreaks. Additionally, on some social media and video sharing platforms, the content recommender algorithms amplify minority extreme content (Whittaker et al., 2021), thus contributing to the polarization of views (Van Bavel et al., 2021), which can drive viewing figures on platforms. This could include extreme views about wildlife and wildlife uses, disease origin, risk, prevention, and treatment that have no evidence base. For example, misinformation about species purported to transmit zoonotic diseases may lead to intentional killing of those species. As already highlighted in Article 18 of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the Parties will commit to “countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation” (World Health Organisation, 2024), which could be more easily achieved through action and cooperation from social media and content-sharing tech companies, such as through minor changes in algorithms to nudge users to consider the accuracy of the information before sharing (Pennycook et al., 2020). Some platforms, for example, use link recommendation algorithms to recommend new connections to users. These algorithms may increase the likelihood of polarization when users preferentially make connections in groups where they share mutual connections; however, evidence suggests this could be curbed by platforms if they adapt link recommendation algorithms to sporadically recommend dissimilar individuals with few common connections (Santos et al., 2021). Similarly, users may engage in opinion amplification, which refers to “the range of behaviours by users that may distort the original opinion with a more positive or negative sentiment”, which can proliferate through networks when the topic is trending (Lim & Bentley, 2022). Platforms could employ two methods which have shown promise in curbing extreme polarization: consistent communication of opinions with “normal range” sentiments and limiting the number of amplifications for users that disobey platform policies (Lim & Bentley, 2022). However, it is likely that content moderation and fact-checking alone will not be enough to address these issues. To be successful, regulation needs to match the complexity of the problem (Harris, 2019), governed by a suitable international regulatory body.

In tropical countries, the situation is likely a perfect storm of high prevalence of wildlife trade and emerging infectious disease risk (Allen et al., 2017), and sometimes lower financial and technical capacities in tackling the online trade in wildlife and managing the spread of disinformation. Recent progress has been made through the EU's new Digital Services Act, which aims to “prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation” through regulating online platforms, thus providing an example for regulation that could be developed in the rest of the world. If tropical member states are to be able to adequately achieve the goals outlined in the Kunming—Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the technology companies running social media, e-commerce, and content-sharing platforms will need to step-up their role in assisting countries to tackle the illegal trade in wildlife and spread of misinformation on their platforms. Tech companies, therefore, have a significant role to play in creating technology that is humane for people and wildlife.

野生动物的利用在世界各地都很普遍，动物及其衍生物被消费和/或交易（Ingram 等人， 2021 ）。当使用不可持续时，它是全球生物多样性丧失的主要原因，对生态系统服务和功能产生深远影响（IPBES， 2022 ）。 2022年12月，《生物多样性公约》缔约方通过了《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》，同意将到2050年实现生物多样性的可持续利用和管理作为四个中心目标之一。此外，COVID-19大流行引起了全球的关注关于野生动物贸易和人畜共患病新发传染病传播的潜在风险。自2023年2月起，世界卫生组织（WHO）一直在谈判全球流行病协议草案，呼吁在流行病预防、准备和应对方面采取集体行动，包括需要“采取措施减少人畜共患病蔓延的风险” （第 4 条；世界卫生组织， 2024 年）。鉴于这些问题之间的相互关联性，利用解决人类、动物和生态系统健康综合问题的方法，例如“同一个健康”和“行星健康”方法（de Castañeda 等， 2023 ），对于解决全球生物多样性丧失和人畜共患疾病出现的挑战。

管理野生动物的利用可能具有挑战性，原因有很多，包括农村和城市地区不同供应链中涉及的参与者数量、不同情况下贸易合法性的复杂性以及政府采取行动的能力（Ingram 等人） ., 2021 )。 COVID-19 大流行促使全球发起一项终止野生动物贸易的倡议（终止贸易联盟， 2020 年），导致某些国家禁止实体野生动物市场。然而，越来越明显的是，数字服务平台，特别是社交媒体平台，在野生动物的合法和非法贸易中发挥着关键作用（Morcatty et al., 2021 ）。然而，在阻止野生动物非法在线贸易方面却几乎没有采取任何措施，这损害了有效、可持续和安全地管理贸易的努力（Morcatty 等人， 2021 ）。在此，我们重点介绍运营全球社交媒体、电子商务（市场）和内容共享平台的科技公司（以下简称“科技公司”）可以帮助实现昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架目标的两种主要方式和世界卫生组织流行病协议。

对于后者，例子可以包括科技公司的公开名单，这些公司不属于致力于减少在线非法野生动物贸易的团体的一部分（Sabagh， 2021 ），以及对此类团体的透明监控，以确保活动的进行和报告工具的有效。此外，受监控的贸易不仅应包括象牙等高价值野生动物产品或贸易中的活体动物，还应包括非法销售野生动物肉（即野生肉）的贸易商和企业的广告。与高价值野生动物产品贸易相比，这一点受到的关注要少得多。至关重要的是，成员国在打击网上非法野生动物贸易以及提供有效的流行病预防、准备和应对方面的资源和能力各不相同。后者在最新的世界卫生组织大流行病协议草案中得到了承认（世界卫生组织， 2024 ）。尽管某些平台的使用因国家/地区而异（Ghermandi 等人， 2023 ），但全球科技公司必须通过针对非法野生动物贸易猖獗的国家进行在线干预，在解决其中一些不平等问题方面发挥作用。

其次，在线社交媒体和视频共享平台已成为全球（错误）信息传播的工具，社交媒体被描述为造成“文化气候变化”（Harris， 2019 ）。关于新出现的传染病传播和有效治疗的错误信息的传播，正如在 COVID-19 大流行期间所显而易见的那样（Cinelli 等人， 2020 年），对全球公共卫生构成了重大威胁，因为它可能阻碍旨在预防的基于证据的行动或应对疫情爆发。此外，在一些社交媒体和视频共享平台上，内容推荐算法会放大少数极端内容（Whittaker et al., 2021 ），从而导致观点两极分化（Van Bavel et al., 2021 ），从而推动观看人数在平台上。这可能包括对野生动物和野生动物的利用、疾病起源、风险、预防和治疗的极端观点，这些观点没有证据基础。例如，有关声称传播人畜共患疾病的物种的错误信息可能会导致故意杀害这些物种。正如世界卫生组织《流行病协议》第 18 条所强调的那样，缔约方将致力于“反击和解决错误信息或虚假信息”（世界卫生组织， 2024 年），这可以通过社交媒体和内容共享的行动与合作更容易实现科技公司，例如通过算法的微小改变来促使用户在共享之前考虑信息的准确性（Pennycook 等人， 2020 ）。例如，某些平台使用链接推荐算法向用户推荐新连接。 当用户优先在共享相互连接的组中进行连接时，这些算法可能会增加极化的可能性；然而，有证据表明，如果平台采用链接推荐算法来偶尔推荐几乎没有共同联系的不同个体，这种情况可能会受到平台的遏制（Santos 等人， 2021 ）。同样，用户可能会进行意见放大，这是指“用户可能以更积极或消极的情绪扭曲原始意见的行为范围”，当话题流行时，这种行为可以通过网络扩散（Lim＆Bentley， 2022） ）。平台可以采用两种方法，这两种方法在遏制极端两极分化方面已显示出希望：以“正常范围”的情绪一致地传达意见，并限制不遵守平台政策的用户的放大数量（Lim＆Bentley， 2022 ）。然而，仅靠内容审核和事实核查可能不足以解决这些问题。为了取得成功，监管需要与问题的复杂性相匹配（Harris， 2019 ），并由合适的国际监管机构进行管理。

在热带国家，情况可能是野生动物贸易高发和新出现的传染病风险的完美风暴（Allen等， 2017 ），有时处理野生动物在线贸易和管理野生动物传播的财政和技术能力较低。虚假信息。欧盟新的《数字服务法案》最近取得了进展，该法案旨在通过监管在线平台“防止在线非法和有害活动以及虚假信息的传播”，从而为世界其他地区可以制定的监管提供了范例。如果热带成员国要充分实现《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》和《世界卫生组织大流行病协议》中概述的目标，运营社交媒体、电子商务和内容共享平台的科技公司将需要加紧努力他们在协助各国打击野生动物非法贸易和平台上错误信息传播方面发挥着作用。因此，科技公司在创造对人类和野生动物人道的技术方面可以发挥重要作用。