The Internet originated from the concept of a free space free from state control. Since its inception, pioneers of the digital Internet have described the online space as a unique electronic frontier that is not controlled or regulated by the government or the state (Epstein, 2013). The founders of social media platforms realized the potential profitability of this online space (Gillespie, 2018), and thus, social media platforms were born. Social media platforms bring the possibility to transcend geographical boundaries and offer users the opportunity to interact with a broader range of people.
With the development of online platforms, the network effect has brought more and more users together in this online space; bullying, harassment, violent content, hatred and pornography have also come from the physical space to the digital platform. Due to the Internet, online hatred has become more radicalized, thus evolving into violence in the physical environment. Almost a quarter of Australian children are experiencing online violence, and the little girl in Australia’s infamous cyberbullying case chose to end her life because of it. There is also an endless stream of violent content, pornography and harassment running rampant on digital platforms. The chaos on the Internet has made this online world less of a utopia than once envisaged.
This is a hot topic that has attracted attention from all sides. As the US Federal Supreme Court has noted, social platforms are a significant source of knowledge and human thought for many users and have the status of a ‘modern public square.’ The exchange of ideas and the shaping of public consciousness in online platforms significantly impact society. It is clear that the chaos of the Internet needs to be controlled and that the state and government are concerned about this chaos, but the protection of freedom of expression in the West seems to be in conflict with the governance of online speech. As a result, the media, the government, the public and academia are all involved in the debate about online governance. In this context, this paper attempts to critically analyzes who should stop the chaos and try to find solutions.
Who should be the one to stop this chaos?
- Government or state
Online platforms differ from the traditional media industry in that users are the creators of content, not the platforms. Therefore, finding provisions in the original law that could be applied to online platforms is challenging. In the mid-1990s, policy makers in various countries became aware of the growing concern about confusion on the Internet. The lack of relevant laws made it difficult to trace illegal acts online, sometimes even anonymously and challenging to locate and identify (Gillespie, 2018). In this context, governments seem to have started responding to some of these online issues overnight, trying to guarantee that citizens can safely and legally operate in the online world. The EU is a series of directives on copyright and related rights, the UK’s Internet Safety Report, Singapore’s Prevention of Cyber Fraud and Manipulation Act, Australia’s Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and many more.
Nevertheless, sometimes government efforts are seen as an intrusion by many in the Internet community, as the Internet was initially conceived as an online realm without government regulation. It was a free and unfettered online world, as described by digital pioneers Jon Postel, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, and Vinton Cerf (Mostert, 2019). It seems likely that the Internet community will resent government intervention, as these arrangements and values are very different from those committed to the early design of the Internet.
Furthermore, managing this diverse Internet community requires global policies. Due to globalization, Internet governance does not lend itself to being determined by one national government, and the governance of the Internet has different requirements in the legal frameworks of different countries (Epstein, 2013). At least in part, the tensions between the US and other governments and intergovernmental organizations over public and technical policy are reflected in the US government’s efforts to clarify DNS authority (Epstein, 2013). Therefore, a balance must be struck between a vision of governance and freedom on the Internet.
- Platform
Social media platforms have long positioned themselves as open, fair and non-interventionist, partly because of a genuine belief in this and partly to avoid liability and regulation. It is this in-betweenness that brings convenience as well as the thorny issue of liability (Gillespie, 2018). It is difficult for the public and policy to deal with illegal online information and difficult to control it.
However, the internet does not only mediate public discourse; they also constitute it. Because the corporate logic of social platforms and the algorithms, affordances and functions inherent in their technology determine the social interactions they bear and influence wider social and political phenomena (Ben-David & Matamoros-Fernandez, 2016). The policies and availability of online platforms guide how users move about online. According to Ben-David and Matamoros-Fernandez (2016), people who want to post illegal information must agree to the platform’s Real identify policy and community standards before they post illegal information through the platforms. Under this circumstance, they can no longer post or upload illegal content anonymously as they have previously done on public websites (Ben-David & Matamoros-Fernandez, 2016). The platform’s intervention, therefore, will play an important role.
However, platform autonomy is not a foolproof solution. The content review systems in the backend of social platforms are rarely monitored. Each opaque layer of the process introduces a significant degree of ambiguity and potential bias by reviewers or companies (Gillespie, 2018). This circumstance cannot help but make the public wonder: is all speech on the platform equal?
- Civil Society and NGO
Well-established NGOs existed in civil society before governments became concerned with the issue of online content. NGOs have opened up new possibilities for Internet governance. All actors involved in Internet governance have worked and will continue to work within the legal frameworks set by the governments in which they operate, which vary globally (Epstein, 2013). Therefore, just like government governance, these NGOs are faced with the question of how to collaborate in the governance of this globalized online community within different legal frameworks.
Additionally, some governments fear hostility from non-state actors and often want a say in how the Internet works; some NGOs appear to be proxies for political interests (Epstein, 2013). The role that NGOs can play in governing online content is, therefore, limited in some countries.
How to stop it?
Although the Internet was initially conceived as a bottom-up, free, autonomous online community, if privacy, freedom of expression, security, and other important democratic values are not adequately protected by public regulation, society will develop a desire for additional regulation (Gorwa, 2019). Regulation of online content will inevitably occur, and among a range of options, multi-stakeholder oversight and enforcement of online content regulation is perhaps the best option. Different stakeholders have different governance capabilities and constraints. Online platform companies are constrained by their pursuit of profit and, therefore, can never act in the public interest, despite their high level of expertise and ability to change behavior (Gorwa, 2019). NGOs are highly independent and representative and advocate for strict standards; governments can deploy significant resources, expertise, administrative capacity and enforcement mechanisms (Gorwa, 2019). However, governments and NGOs rely on corporate governance to implement regulatory requirements that otherwise have no capacity for enforcement (Gorwa, 2019). Platforms can therefore be regulated based on the involvement of governmental and non-governmental organizations in monitoring and guiding the content on the platform. The participation and collaboration of multiple parties can lead to more effective and monitored governance of the platform, and the public interest will be protected.
Reference List
Acharyulu, M. (2020). Is New Social Media Regulation Pre-Censorship of Online Content? [Photo]. NEWS CLICK. https://www.newsclick.in/Is-New-Social-Media-Regulation-Pre-Censorship-Online-Content
Australia Government (n.d.). Reviews of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and the Online Content Scheme. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/reviews-enhancing-online-safety-act-2015-and-online-content-scheme
Ben-David, A. & Matamoros-Fernandez, A. (2016). Hate Speech and Covert Discrimination on Social Media: Monitoring the Facebook Pages of Extreme-Right Political Parties in Spain. International journal of communication (Online), 1167. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A595026955/AONE?u=usyd&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=b084bbb8
David, L. & Hudson, Jr. (n.d.). Packingham v. North Carolina (2017). THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1529/packingham-v-north-carolina
Dudley-Nicholson, J. (2022, May 16). Aussie parents in the dark about children suffering cyber-bullying. KidsNews. https://www.kidsnews.com.au/safe-kids/aussie-parents-in-the-dark-about-children-suffering-cyberbullying/news-story/39d061da8a9e044579155ffc9c906700
Epstein, D. (2013). The making of institutions of information governance: the case of the Internet Governance Forum. Journal of Information Technology, 28, 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2013.8
EUR-Lex (n.d.). Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (Text with EEA relevance.). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj
Gillespie, T. (2018). Regulation of and by Platforms. In J. Burgess, A. E. Marwick & T. Poell (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Media (pp. 254-278). SAGE Publications, Limited.
Gorwa, R. (2019). The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1407
GOV.UK (2022). Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cyber-security-breaches-survey-2022/cyber-security-breaches-survey-2022
Mostert, J. (2019). To regulate or not to regulate online speech, that is the question. Intellectual Property Law Practice, 14(10), 741–742. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpz098
Noyan, O. (2021). Germany’s push for tighter tech regulation. [Photo]. EURACTIV. https://www.euractiv.com/section/internet-governance/news/germanys-push-for-tighter-tech-regulation/
Pillalamarri, A. & Stanley, C. (2021). ONLINE CONTENT REGULATION: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON. [Photo]. International Law and Policy Brief. https://studentbriefs.law.gwu.edu/ilpb/2021/12/08/online-content-regulation-an-international-comparison/
Sato, Y. (2022, September 1). Online Platforms Like Twitter Are Missing a Brutal Wave of Hate Speech in Japan. Time. https://time.com/6210117/hate-speech-social-media-zainichi-japan/
Singapore Statutes Online (2019). Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/18-2019
The Verge. (2021, March 4). Why the most important internet law is being rewritten. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpbb_2cE9L0
