The Internet has made a remarkable contribution to the exchange of information and the dissemination of ideas. The Internet is like a huge forum where users can freely communicate and express their opinions on various Internet media platforms. It also contains a lot of violence and pornography, as well as some hate speech and extremist statements, and some users are subject to malicious harassment and cyberbullying when using the Internet. Although the Internet promotes freedom of speech, these inappropriate comments and bad information make the Internet environment worse and worse, and some people are hurt by these information and comments. Therefore, it is necessary to restrict the publication of inappropriate information and speech, and it is also a matter of concern how to regulate the publication of information on Internet platforms.
The harm caused by the spread of extremist and hate speech
Hate speech implies discrimination and violence, undercuts the public interest in safety and security, poses a threat to social peace in the environment, and is a chronic poison that can affect the self-esteem of specific target groups (religious beliefs, color, race, etc). (Eric, B. 2019).
Attacks on refugees have been linked to far-right party Alternative for Germany’s anti-refugee Facebook posts. Researchers Carsten Müller and Carlo Schwartz have noted that an uptick in posts that incite hatred is followed by an uptick in violent crimes like arson and assault (Zachary, L. 2019).
“Protest march against bigotry and hate speech” by Fibonacci Blue is licensed with CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Cyber-bullying and harassment
In order to encourage intentional, persistent, aggressive behaviour by individuals or groups with the intention of harming others, there is a type of behaviour known as cyberbullying. This behaviour makes use of information and communication technologies. (Singh, V & Sonkar, N. 2013). Cyberbullying and cyber harassment can have many negative effects on the physical and mental health of the victim and may lead to depression, depression, loss of information and self-esteem, reduced levels of well-being, and relationships with peers, and in severe cases may even lead to suicide.
According to an ABC News story from October 2012, Amanda Todd‘s YouTube video has received more than 17 million views. The British Columbia youngster utilizes flashcards in the film, “My Story: Struggle, Bullying, Suicide, Self-Harm,” to describe her encounters with extortion and bullying. On October 10, 2012, more than a month after publishing the video on September 7, 2012, Amanda hanged herself in her house.
“Cyber-Bullying” by Travis S. is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://wordpress.org/openverse/image/4c7736fe-c28e-43a5-8923-65df8894d620
Regulation of social platforms by Internet technology companies
With the rise of Internet platforms, all kinds of content and speech have followed one another. In such a context, Internet platforms have been under pressure to constantly adjust their content regulation rules.
Internet social platforms serve as a major tool for advancing the democratization process, and on social media platforms, freedom of expression holds a prominent position. This concept is typically understood as a free and fair exchange of ideas in public forums. As a result, interference with the right to free speech, which prevents some speech from accessing the public debate, is frequently described as censorship. (Kai, R & Sandra, P. 2021).
In order to automate decisions about material removal requests, internet platforms have started to develop artificial intelligence. In a congressional hearing, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg predicted that artificial intelligence (AI) would eventually eliminate bad content, such as fake news and violent extremism. The purpose of algorithms is to store, process, and extract new information from data through the use of mathematical formulas. They now control social media conversations, serving as each user’s “content manager.” (Thiago, D. O. 2020).
“Facebook Screenshot” by codemastersnake is licensed under CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, https://wordpress.org/openverse/image/d5f90fac-6f60-4150-a53c-3396880997a4
As algorithms frequently skew the distribution of information, choosing recipients for messages in a specified, automatic, and opaque manner, algorithmic listening has been challenged as a new form of interference because it restricts the fair and open exchange of ideas. As a result, talks become warped, and thoughts are repressed in an erratic and covert manner. (Kai, R & Sandra, P. 2021). This puts the regulation of social platform content by Internet technology companies at odds.
“Free speech = reason = progress” by sjgibbs80 is licensed under CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, https://wordpress.org/openverse/image/1928cf5a-e024-4c00-8105-db676a822c04
Therefore, the balance between users and censorship is an issue that needs to be addressed first. It has been found through research studies that people are more likely to accept censorship if they find that those undesirable information and inappropriate speech can negatively affect both themselves and others (Martin, J. et.al. 2022). Therefore, when reviewing and regulating content on Internet social platforms, first making users understand that the content that needs to be dealt with is harmful to them will make them more likely to accept censorship.
Government Regulation of Social Media Platforms
Government regulation of social media platforms is also essential. However, sometimes the laws introduced by the government do not satisfy everyone, and even different parties have different opinions on the provisions of the law.
The Online Enforcement Act, which stipulates that platforms may be subject to significant fines if they refuse to cooperate with demands to delete “manifestly illegal” content within 24 hours, was adopted by the federal government in Germany, for instance. However, it has been argued that the bill is excessively broad. The bill has also drawn criticism for being unconstitutional, particularly regarding freedom of expression, and hostile, particularly in regard to complaint processes. Several political parties have put forth proposals to change or repeal the law since it went into effect (Library of congress).
And sometimes the public interest and the interests of new media companies do not always coincide, so government regulation of the Internet has had little success.
Technology companies use media platforms for media lobbying, Both corporate and public sector lobbying has been supplanted by electronic lobbying. E-lobbying has developed into a brand-new category of pressure group that uses public opinion to subtly sway decision-makers. In lobbying, pressure is applied on legislators to support laws and policies that benefit the clients of the lobbyist (Pawel, P. 2018). The use of influence tactics by any individual or group of individuals for their own personal gain is referred to as “e-lobbying.” (Gargouri, I. 2020).
In the first half of 2020, major technology corporations including Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google spent more than $20 million lobbying on legislation aimed at preventing the economic collapse brought on by the coronavirus pandemic (Brian, S. 2020).
There is no debate that internet platforms ought to be under government supervision. It might be possible to increase user alertness before utilizing the legislation to impose restrictions on and influence Internet technology businesses. The majority of those impacted by harmful content are children and the elderly because they lack awareness of social media and how it functions.
Through formal schooling and lifetime learning, the Estonian government has made media literacy and cyber security a major policy objective. By giving these skills top priority, Estonia has advanced significantly in digital competency. To win over the public and maybe facilitate long-term Internet regulation, the government must create a strategy to increase public awareness of social media regulation.
Not only that, but the government needs to pass legislation to give greater power to the agencies that regulate social media and improve the loopholes in its laws to set uniform regulatory standards for Internet technology companies.
Conclusion
The development of the Internet has brought a lot of convenience to people’s lives, and people’s lives have become integrated with the media. However, the development of the Internet has also promoted the spread of undesirable information and content. It requires the joint efforts of Internet technology companies and the government to stop the spread of these contents in order to protect users from being affected by these contents when using the Internet.
Reference：
Barendt, E. (2019). What Is the Harm of Hate Speech?, Ethical Theory and Moral Practical, 22(3), P539-553
Zachary, L. (2019). Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons, Retrieved 12 October, 2022, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons
Rafal, U., Michal, P., Patrycja, T., Gniewosz, L,. Maciej, B. & Michal, W. (2022), Personal attacks decrease user activity in social networking platform. Computers in Human Behavior. 126, p. 106972
Singh, V. & Sonkar, N. (2013). Cyber bullying: Experiences, impacts and coping strategies among young adults, Indian journal of health and wellbeing, 4(8), p. 1582
Kai, R. & Sandra, P. (2021). Algorithmic audiencing: Why we need to rethink free speech on social media. Journal of information Technology. DOI: 10.1177/02683962211013358
Pawel, P. (2018). The Tech Lobby: Tracing the Contours of New Media Elite Lobbying Power. Communication, Culture and Critique P.566-585.
Thiaggo, D. O. (2020). Content Moderation Technologies: Applying Human Rights Standards to Protect Freedom of Expression. Human Rights Law Review. P607-640
Gargouri, I. (2022). Social Media: A New Form of Lobbying. DOI: 10.53373/ REDS.2022.55.2.0060
Martin, j., Riedl, K. N., Whipple & Ryan, W. (2022). Antecedents of support for social media content moderation and platform regulation: the role of presumed effects on self and others. Information, Communication & Society. 25:11, 1632-1649, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1874040
Brian, S. (2020). Big Tech spends over $20 million on lobbying in first half of 2020, including on coronavirus legislation. Retrieved 12 October, 2022, from: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/31/big-tech-spends-20-million-on-lobbying-including-on-coronavirus-bills.html
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, (n.d.). Germany: Network Enforcement Act Amended to Better Fight Online Hate Speech. Retrieved 12 October, 2022, from: https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-06/germany-network-enforcement-act-amended-to-better-fight-online-hate-speech/