"media" by russelldavies is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 
.
In the era of online information pluralism, people can easily access all kinds of information from the Internet and enjoy the right to freedom of expression. However, the dissemination and filtering of information is often difficult to control, leading to the emergence of a “double-edged sword” of freedom of expression and the appearance of a large amount of negative online information on digital platforms, often related to bullying, harassment, violence and other types of negative social activities. It is impossible to ignore the fact that these problematic messages or social activities are criminal and illegal in nature and can mislead the values of users of online platforms.Internet governance, once a key research area in Internet and digital media studies, has been at the forefront of policy debates in recent years (Flew, 2022). As the governance of digital platforms becomes a central part of social discourse, it is important that all groups work together to solve the difficulties. This paper will focus on who is responsible for stopping the spread of negative information on digital platforms and consider how to do so in order to better shape a positive online environment on digital platforms.
Who should go and how to stop the spread of negative content
Digital platforms bring individuals and organizations together, enabling them to innovate and interact using modern software, hardware, and network technologies or other means (Cusumano et al., 2021) Gorwa defines the current state of “platform governance” as a set of legal, political, and economic relationships that structure the interactions between users, technology companies, governments, and other key stakeholders in the platform ecosystem (2019). Gorwa defines the current state of “platform governance” as a set of legal, political, and economic relationships that structure the interactions between users, technology companies, governments, and other key stakeholders in the platform ecosystem (2019).The government should first restrict and manage the digital platform in terms of policy, the platform should carry out reasonable self-regulation and content review, and the platform users should regulate their personal behavior according to the platform rules.
“Social Media Councils.” by podnosh is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 .
Government
Governments should develop regulations related to digital platforms that not only limit the self-regulation of platforms but also regulate the online behavior of platform users. Digital platforms are being used to spread conspiracy speech, hate speech, and fake news with the aim of undermining national democracy and leading people to distrust government institutions, creating a sense of urgency that borders on panic among national governments and global regulators (Feld, 2019).For example, in her article, Jathan Sadowski suggests that the digital platform Facebook is in perpetual crisis mode, with problems that include massive data collection and invasion of user privacy, unbridled hate speech, and the spread of new viral disinformation. Joe Biden declared on Facebook and other media platforms that “they are killing people,” yet Facebook is a modern, well-established digital platform that does not protect its users (2021). When platforms are unable to govern themselves effectively, national governments should set the framework and form of regulation for the platforms.
Australia has established the Australian competition and consumer commission (ACCC) to conduct platform investigations, as well as a wide range of regulatory interventions, such as the Digital Platform Regulators Forum (DP-Reg), which consists of ACMA, ACCC, OAIC and the Office of the e-Security Commissioner. It is an independent regulatory body in Australia. It is an initiative of Australia’s independent regulators to share information and collaborate on cross-cutting issues and activities related to the regulation of digital platforms (Australian Communication and Media Authority, 2022).The adoption of this measure not only protects the public interest of the country, but also defends the individual speech rights of Internet users.
Therefore, the government is one of the links in the management of online platforms to stop the spread of harmful information. It can identify macro issues on digital platforms and set up policies and investigation organizations to manage the platforms.
Digital platforms
The lack of rules in many parts of digital platforms is what leads to the uncontrollability of users as well as the platforms regarding the negative information spread online. If the spread of information is to be stopped, platforms need to set a series of rules to reasonably regulate the behavior of users and to protect their basic rights. The establishment of rules allows the platform to have a standard for content review of published information.On November 15, 2018, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg published a lengthy article on “Content Governance and Enforcement Blueprint”. He claimed that he is “increasingly convinced that Facebook should not be making so many important decisions about free speech and safety on its own” and that he will therefore create a “watchdog” for content review that will allow users to appeal removal decisions to an independent agency (Gorwa, 2019b).
In the Internet, digital platforms are seen as an important tool to connect users and users, between users and organizations, and it is subject to government regulation in addition to the need for self-regulation. In addition to timely removal of erroneous contents, rules can be set up to reflect the transparency of decision making. Platforms can set up intelligent information review systems and set up precise content review methods according to the rules, which can ensure the correctness and effectiveness of content review while avoiding judging controversial nature, thus balancing personal interests and public interests.
“facebook” by pshab is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 .
Users
Users’ right to freedom of expression is protected by rules and regulations, but their behavior and speech content should still be governed and restrained by national policies and platform rules. Particularly noteworthy is the low-quality social views and speech content of some young users that often contribute to the generation and dissemination of spam content.A particularly creepy similarity can be found between the two items shared via Facebook. One comes from the perpetrator of the tragic school shooting in 2022, who wrote: “I went to shoot up an elementary school.” (Keller, 2022)
“Texas Elementary School Shooting: Texas teen shared shooting plan on Facebook” by MION All rights reserved.Retrieved from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0zIsmNAvE
Many opinions or statements are published that do not necessarily violate the law, but there is still a gap between speech that has violated social morality and justice, social norms, and the content of speech that is prohibited by law.Therefore, users should be responsible for their own words and actions when posting information, and post appropriate comments on the appropriate media platforms according to their personal needs. In order to curb the emergence of bullying, harassment, violence and other spam that spreads very fast, users should abide by the law and the operating rules of the platform and post content that is in line with social morality and national laws, so as to better maintain a digital online environment.
“Quotation: ‘You can use social media to praise and support people or you can use it to criticize and hurt people. Which type of social media user are you?’” by Ken Whytock is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 .
Conclusion
In general, with the diversification of information, the dissemination of information on digital platforms gradually appears to be two-sided. In order to eliminate the exchange and dissemination of spam on platforms, it requires the joint collaboration of government, platforms and users. The government formulates policies to manage platform information, protect users’ rights and regulate their behaviors; the platforms make rules to review content and restrain users’ wrong behaviors.While exercising their right to freedom of expression, users should also comply with the rules and regulations of the platform and the government, so as to create a positive and beautiful online information environment.
Reference
Australian Communication and Media Authority . (2022, September 26). Digital platform regulators forum (dp-reg). ACMA. https://www.acma.gov.au/dp-reg-joint-public-statement
Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2021). Can self-regulation save digital platforms? Industrial and Corporate Change, 30(5), 1259–1285. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtab052
Feld, H. (2019, May 8). To regulate digital platforms in the future, we should look to the past. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/digital-platforms-act-regulation-ebook/
Flew, T. (2022). Digital platform regulation: Global perspectives on internet governance. Springer Nature.
Gillespie, T. (2019). CHAPTER 3. Community guidelines, or the sound of no. In Custodians of the Internet (pp. 45–73). Yale University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029-003
Gorwa, R. (2019a). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1573914
Gorwa, R. (2019b). The platform governance triangle: Conceptualising the informal regulation of online content. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1407
Keller, D. (2022, June 28). Lawful but awful? Control over legal speech by platforms, governments, and internet users. The University of Chicago Law Review Online. https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2022/06/28/keller-control-over-speech/
Sadowski, J. (2021, October 6). Facebook is a harmful presence in our lives. It’s not too late to pull the plug on it. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/06/facebook-scandals-social-media
