By Alicia Ceccanese / CPJ Global Technology Researcher
The UK took a further step towards regulating social media in December when a parliamentary committee Recommended major changes to the Online Security Law of the country to hold Internet service providers responsible for the material published on their platforms. “We need to end time in the Wild West online,” said committee chair Damian Collins. “What is illegal offline must be regulated online.” The bill, which will be presented to the British Parliament in 2022, aims to sanction companies that allow content related to crimes such as child abuse and online bullying; News reports and free speech groups have pointed to similar efforts in Kazakhstan, Australia, Indonesia, chili, Y Canada, among other countries
The regulation of social media is important for journalists who use platforms for work, especially when the legislative focus is on information or speech. In 2021, U.S. nonprofits Liberty house found that at least 24 countries sought to govern how platforms regulate content. States such as the United Kingdom, which set out to prevent platforms from censoring journalistic publications in the security bill, are facing thorny questions about which positions deserve protection and how regulations should be enforced.
Many journalists are demanding that governments regulate social media to help solve problems that affect the press, such as online abuse, disinformation, or drop in ad revenueBut there could be other unforeseen consequences. Legislators in the U.S, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Y Mauricio are among those who discourage platforms from offering encrypted messages, helping journalists communicate safely. Legislation that requires platforms share data with the police It would be bad news in countries that jailing journalists for social media posts. Some social media laws, such as TurkeyThey also affect news websites and search engines. Others have implications for news websites with comment sections.
At worst, authoritarians can jump on the regulatory train to stifle information. In 2020, a report by Danish think tank Justitia found that 25 countries had been inspired by Germany Network Enforcement Act of 2017 to “give coverage and legitimacy to digital censorship.” Such laws leave social media companies with a difficult decision: comply or Leave the country.
CPJ’s Alicia Ceccanese spoke with Kian Vesteinsson, research analyst for technology and democracy at Freedom House, and Jacob Mchangama, executive director of Justitia, about their respective investigations.
Each told CPJ how social media regulations can incentivize platforms to remove more news:
Prohibition of broad categories of content
Governments are “outsourcing the monitoring of online content that [they] they don’t like platforms themselves, “which basically requires tech companies to” do their dirty work for them, “according to Mchangama.
In 2018, David Kaye, former United Nations Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, noted restrictive and broad-drafted laws on topics such as extremism, profanity, defamation and fake news that are used to demand that companies suppress legitimate discussions on social media.
A troubling example: Journalist Dung Le Van, right, broadcasts live on Facebook at a coffee shop in Hanoi, Vietnam, on May 15, 2018. (Reuters / Kham) Short kill windows app
Germany requires platforms to remove “manifestly illegal content” within 24 hours, or up to seven days if the legality is unclear, and other countries have followed suit without adopting the same rule of law protections, according to Mchangama.
“Typically [it takes a court] more than a year to process a single case of hate speech, “he said. “Some of these states require social media companies to perform roughly the same legal assessment in 24 hours.”
Under pressure, platforms remove more content, according to Vesteinsson. “Companies correct too much,” he said.
Tight deadlines incentivize companies to use solutions like artificial intelligence to automatically filter posts for something that might be illegal, according to the Washington DC-based agency. Center for Democracy and Technology. But a recent analysis of leaked internal Facebook documents indicates that such filters have been ineffective, especially in certain languages, as have poorly-trained human moderators, according to The Associated Press and international non-profit journalism Rest of the world.
A troubling example: the information technology rules introduced in India in February require content removal within 36 hours of receiving a notice from a government agency or court, according to the digital rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation. In the past, CPJ has documented restrictions on sharing accounts on social media. Kashmir news and opinion through an opaque process. Indian travelers walk past a Google billboard in Bangalore, India, on April 6, 2018. (AFP / Manjunath Kiran) Eroding intermediary liability protection
Better practices protect intermediaries, such as social media companies, from legal action over someone else’s content, which [companies] moderate and remove content on their platforms and protects them from legal liability for the activities of their users, ”Vesteinsson told CPJ. Accountability makes them less likely to reject demands for censorship and surveillance, he said.
Mchangama agreed. Laws that erode liability protections provide an “obvious incentive for platforms to say,” Prevention is better than cure “when governments make requests, he said.
A troubling example: On December 24, a Russian court fined Google nearly $ 100 million in the largest of several recent fines for major platforms accused of failing to remove prohibited content, according to the The Washington Post. Local access to Twitter has been slowed down for the same reason under a law. it happened in july, according to Reuters. The nature of the content involved in each case was unclear, but regulators separately warned journalists and other social media companies not allowing information about the protests against the government at the beginning of the year. The logo of Russia’s state communications regulator Roskomnadzor is reflected on a laptop screen displaying Google’s home page, on May 27, 2021 (Reuters / Maxim Shemetov).
Localization laws require social media companies to host staff, often local citizens, and data in the country under the supervision of local authorities. Representatives run the risk of being taken to court if the company fails to comply with government rules, according to a recent analysis by Rest of the world.
“Companies [will] Think twice if you want to challenge these governments. [and] risking the freedom and safety of their employees on the ground, ”Mchangama said.