 |
| Curbing social media |
Twitter reports it has received a
record number of government requests to remove content. is this a way to
maintain a safe and open internet for all or is it censorship?
State’s throttling media freedom:
Most social media firms have made
the same promise to provide a free and open platform for users to express themselves
but they're coming under increasing pressure to remove content deemed offensive
or illegal. Twitter says it's received a record number of government requests
to remove tweets. In the first six months of last year, just five countries
made 95 of the demands including Japan, Russia, Turkey, India, and South Korea. In 54pc
of cases, Twitter withheld content or ask users to remove posts but the firm
says the request revealed a deeply worrying trend against freedom of
expression. The social media giant has had a rocky relationship with some
governments. Twitter imposed restrictions and warning labels ahead of the US
election. Following the Capitol Hill riots last year, Twitter permanently
banned former US President Donald Trump after he expressed support for the
rioters. In February 2021, India demanded the removal of content saying it was promoting
violence at the height of the farmer's protests against agricultural reform
laws. Twitter also deleted hundreds of tweets but refused to deactivate the
accounts of media outlets. The Indian government responded by threatening
Twitter employees with up to seven years in jail. Last June, Nigeria suspended
the social media firm after it deleted a tweet by President Muhammadu Buhari in
which he promised to punish local groups he blamed for the violence. Twitter said
that violated its policy on abusive behavior and two weeks ago twitter agreed
to register in Nigeria and pay local taxes to end a seven-month ban.
Clamping down on illegal activity?
Twitter says this is a deeply worrying
trend against freedom of expression but the governments are saying they're just
clamping down on illegal activity who's right?
The truth favors Twitter more. We've seen around the world a number of governments who are
passing incredibly vague laws that are designed solely with the purpose of allowing
them to restrict online content well and above the way that they could restrict
content in an offline space or in the regular media. So we've seen an alarming
trend of legislation being passed that allows countries to go back to Twitter
and say look you're in violation of ex-law you have to take this content down
which is completely legal and appropriate under international freedom of
expression standards, though.
Indian government threatens Twitter
employees with seven years in prison. We have seen Twitter being forced to pay
taxes and register locally in Nigeria. This is not only against Twitter but
also on social media in general. Twitter was banned in the country for nine
months and when we talk about physical dangers, they are actually against
Twitter employees in India. Similarly, just a few months ago, Google faced similar
threats to Google employees in Russia. So we are definitely seeing the
government trying to gain control over the information circulating on the
internet and take many different measures whether it is legislation or other
efforts to gain control at all costs. (Melody Patry)
The legal side of this seems to be
down to either the social media giants policing themselves and having a policy
in place that allows them to be the arbiters of what is freedom of speech and
what isn't? Or governments individually cracking down? Is that a tenable
situation?
We see both vague laws by
governments whose interest is more to a rather constrained speech more so than the potentially
legitimate illegal interest of lawfulness. If you look at the data that Twitter
has published targets specific individuals, journalists, or their accounts are
requested to be shut down. At the same time the reason why this is such a
challenging issue of content moderation and also it's overall a question of how
do we regulate this kind of platform. Is it really a
speech or limiting speech? Are we safeguarding privacy, for example, a concern
that's been consistent in the case of the European Union, and oftentimes
obviously a lot of the governments cannot come to an agreement within themselves.
Terms of regulating social media
platforms:
What kind of principles can we agree on, at
least a global agreement? What would be the real code of conduct for the
protection of legitimate interests and what is really an attack on freedom of
expression or the media or other protections that are legitimate in a
democratic society?
To protect the rights of individuals and
freedom of expression, one of the things that have been debated for some time is
almost a United Nations digital human rights charter, which actually codifies
and suggests this is what is protectable and defendable.
One of the things we shouldn't
overlook is the universality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as some of
the softer laws that came from the Human Rights Council on The Internet, there
is a very strong structure that protects these rights. And these structures do
not necessarily distinguish between offline rights and online rights. One of
the things that have consistently been demanded is the recognition of the rights by
an organization that is available to the public in offline standing. Whether
they be freedom of the media, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy be
Respected in an online context. This means that it needs to be translated in order
to move from one place to another, but we should not make a big effort and
create a new rights framework, but rather a strong existing rights framework will
provide protection. (Quinn Mckew)
Would you agree that there are
already systems in place that doesn't need to be codified centrally?
There are many protections and lots
of safeguards in international law that guarantee these rights. The challenge
is to enforce the fundamental rights that exist, but also to hold companies
accountable. Because as much as governments are responsible for upholding and
enforcing fundamental rights, companies sometimes avoid scrutiny and
accountability when it comes to enforcing certain regulations in the digital
world or even enforcing some of our human rights, For example, it is really
difficult to find a comprehensive code of conduct around the world, especially
for social media companies. But we know that there are many possible mechanisms
for them to be more transparent, to be truly accountable, and to be more responsive.
So there are definitely mechanisms that can be put in place. While some of
these global regulatory frameworks are necessary, we have seen the success of data protection in Europe, GDPR is an example and we can think of other
similar measures that are being offered to protect human rights online.
Definition of social media:
Often we see social media companies as conglomerates, businesses, and corporations which
means they have escaped the scrutiny of what is called public broadcasters, for
example, Ofcom in the UK, the regulatory laws in the US and the UK that govern
what can be on-air and what can be printed, etc., because we see them as
corporations. Is there a need to change the definition of a social media
company?
Let's say the GDPR was welcome in the sense of its ambition to regulate and to
put the interest and the consent of individuals and privacy at the forefront,
it still fundamentally does not challenge the business model under which these
corporations operate. In fact, many scholars have argued that the center of
the problem is a kind of law to deal with such problems that are outdated given the
current technologies, and corporations are presenting. That's precisely what
we're seeing also in the US and some to some extent in Europe as well.
Can we implement the old
mechanisms, the traditional legal framework that we have? This is where
regulators somehow fail because they are constantly returning to potentially
either non--innovative or bold enough reforms to really create a different
playground. Because I totally agree that what is being said is not about the
moderation of the content or the question of exclusive rights or whether we
have enough international instruments at stake but the basic problem is that we
face globally, at the moment, is a lack of understanding.
Question of the Nexus between the
government and social media:
Is there collusion between governments and
social media companies that really prevents any real regulation from coming?
After all, if they are corporations, they get tax benefits, they have the
freedom to do whatever to make a profit. So is this ambiguity good for social
media companies and governments?
One thing we all need to keep in mind is that
at the end of the day, these are for-profit entities. No matter how much they
try to protect freedom of expression or talk about freedom of expression, at
the end of the day, they need to do something from their corporate point of
view to protect their company, their staff, and their profits. This raises the
question of whether they need to be treated as other corporations do because
corporations have their own interests. And some of the things we've seen in
particular are how India has threatened some Twitter staff with non-compliance
with certain Indian rules or regulations. We are increasingly seeing that
governments have absolutely no compunction to
hold staff hostage to compel these companies to have offices and staff in certain
locations. We see that in Russia with their landing law which came into force
this year. We see this in Turkey with some of the legislation they have passed
and companies need to build houses and have offices there. Those are ways of trying to exert pressure on companies.
So it is a bit difficult to say that they are in cahoots with the governments.
They are in a place where they are trying to protect their best interests and
we should never turn a blind eye to them as we sometimes rely on them to help
protect human rights. They also have their own interests and their own interests
do not necessarily align with the protection of human rights. (Quinn Mckew)
Individual privacy and the role of
social media:
Let's just leave alone the
corporation and the idea of social media giants just for a second. It also affects individuals as well. People have often been asked to give their social
media passwords. So governments are using this on an individual level. How
alarming is that for you?
If we put it in the context of
increasing online surveillance and the illegal targeting of journalists, human
rights defenders, and lawyers around the world, it is very worrying. In the last
few months, there have been several revelations about such surveillance
processes. So this is really worrying because we see that governments have
their own agenda and sometimes their own agenda is not justified. As much as this
information is a problem, it needs to be addressed because it is a threat to
our democracies. Similarly, incitement to online violence, sexual harassment,
racist abuse, etc., are issues that really need to be addressed both offline as
well as online. We are also seeing a trend towards intensifying control,
surveillance, an erosion of our civic space, and erosion of our rights and our
democratic values. Some of these threats have come directly from some governments
and sometimes from some governments which are not so-called authoritarian or
which can take some good intentions. So that's something we can't deny. As we
face many different challenges, we need to tackle them. The attacks on the
media, surveillance of the press and online human rights defenders, and attempts
to censor the Internet have become major issues in recent years. (Melody Patry)
Subscribe to our website and allow notifications for more in-depth analytical articles.
0 Comments