The Argument for Social Media Regulation

Social Media Regulation:
  • The world's richest man, Elon Musk has bought Twitter in late April this year, and since, there has been a division between those who advocate for unfettered free speech - such as Elon himself - and those who believe some platforms hold too much power and influence
  • However the ultimate outcome for Twitter may depend heavily on social media regulation
  • Chris Philp, the UK minister for technology and digital economy, gave a speech about the government's plan for digital regulation through its proposed online safety bill which supports a thriving democracy. Now the government has warned Musk that Twitter will have to comply with the new UK legislation

  • After Facebook and Twitter removed Russian state media from their sites at the end of February, the Russian communications regulator Roskomnadzor blocked access to the platforms, citing discrimination

  • With concerns mounting about state influence on media and information, we need to understand what democratic social media regulation should look like
  • The key insight is that political freedom depends on public debate


Old media and new platforms:

Traditionally, the public sphere was made up of media like newspapers, radio and TV. Now, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and TikTok are part of the fabric of our political debate too. These new online platforms have a mixed record when it comes to knowledge and participation.

On one hand, they enable certain audiences to hear voices that were historically excluded by media 'gatekeepers' in the press and TV. E.g., the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements creatively use the internet and social media to spread their messaging.

However, digital communication is also frequently blames for online bullying, fake news, polarisation, loss of trust, foreign manipulation of national debates and new forms of silencing.


Government stepping in:

In June 2021, a press release said "New Zealanders will be better protected from harmful or illegal content as a result of work to design a modern, flexible and coherent regulatory framework", implying that the government was going to step up and regulate social media platforms. After this announcement, it was confirmed that one intended outcome of the review was a legal framework that would guide companies like Facebook in making moderation decisions about material covered by NZ law.

InternetNZ chief executive Jordan Carter supported this move, saying "The principle of government regulation is fine on this stuff. Government regulates content on all forms of media one way or another, and there isn't any reason or principle not to do that online".

The review has a wide scope, taking in broadcasting and advertising standards, the Harmful Digital Communication Act, the classification system ad Chief Censor's office and areas not covered by existing laws, like misinformation and disinformation.

Chief Censor David Shanks outlined some of his thoughts about a future review:

This would include guidelines for dealing with borderline content which might not violate the law or be subject to regulations but which needs addressing nonetheless.

"Internationally, we have seen this type of issue has increased attention to categories of content that may be seriously misleading and even harmful, but which fall short of illegality"

"What to do about content that may be harmful but which is not illegal, and which may be subject to propagation or amplification by platform algorithms, is one of a number of issues that would be able to be explored in a fundamental review of NZ's media regulation."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CCR Evaluative Essay

CCR Draft Notes