Many of these stories were reported in The Guardian – who is a supporter of Free Speech but also brings the Tech Giants to task on its track history of causing harm to society.
A nutshell precis of each story is attached to the thumbnail – and linked to the story but you may need to search it up elsewhere to read it in full. Click on the image to go to the stories in full.
HOW DO THEY REGULATE/CENSOR AROUND THE WORLD?
Chinese State Regulation (Censorship).
‘There have been almost daily anti-BBC articles in Chinese state media for the last year.
It follows a decision by the UK broadcasting regulator Ofcom to revoke the licence for China’s state-run overseas broadcaster, CGTN. For years, China has broadly criticised Western outlets for reports on affairs in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China, saying they should not intervene in China’s “internal affairs”.
But these latest attacks on Western media are a clear escalation.
Chinese domestic media outlets have praised their government for banning the BBC’s World News channel, although it was only available in some international hotels and residential compounds where foreigners live.’
So Chinese Government censorship of the internet is alive and kicking. Do these actions seem justifiable to protect it’s Digital Sovereignty or is the impact harmful for its citizens?
And China has just banned Grindr ahead of the Winter Olympics for fear or 'sullying' their wholesome family image!
What about The Western Model of Online Regulation?
And you all remember Trump being ceremoniously dethroned by Twitter who argued he was inciting citizens to violent action. This article in Forbes in the USA, argues this was neither an illegal or unfair action. Platforms can ‘dethrone’ whoever they like – terrorists, abusers, extreme political groups – so in this case, it just happened to be the President of the USA!
This is Twitter’s Explanation in a nutshell:
“After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.”
Response
Many Trump supporters were arguing it was against the 1st Amendment and therefore an illegal act – however, platforms can apparently refer to their own terms and conditions and this is exactly what they did.
Trump moved to Parler, an app that encouraged free speech, but Parler itself was taken down by down by Amazon, Apple and Google! The companies pulled support for the “free speech” social network, all but killing the service. Platforms regulating platforms.
This could be a good case study for how internet platforms are endeavoring to tow the line and perhaps do have our best interests at heart. But make sure you put this in context to the fact that in the UK, the new laws on internet harm, won’t be in place to next year and indeed tech giants do not want to ‘police themselves’, Mark Zuckerberg himself is requesting legislation, which at once protects free speech and also regulate against online harm and disinformation.
SPOTIFY CENSOR JOE ROGAN
Many artists began to threaten to remove their music and podcasts from Spotify unless Joe Rogan was removed from the site as he was peddling anti vax misinformation. Spotify have agreed to redirect listeners away from his podcasts in future, to more reliable information.
Spotify has reiterated that “content that promotes dangerous false or dangerous deceptive medical information that may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health” will not be allowed.
AND IN RUSSIA?
Russian authorities have increased pressure on tech firms this year, accusing them of not moderating their content properly, and interfering in the country's internal affairs. This is not Google's first brush with Russian authorities over content laws. In May, Russia's media watchdog threatened to slow down the speed of Google if it failed to delete 26,000 instances of unlawful content, which it said related to drugs, violence and extremism.
Earlier this year, Russia also introduced a new law requiring all new smartphones, computers and smart devices sold in the country to be pre-installed with Russian-made software and apps. So this is nation wide regulation of media through a State that is deciding for its citizens what they can and can't access online.
Google and Meta face the threat of multi-million-dollar fines for failing to delete content that the Russian government considers illegal - but a close look at court papers reveals these are often simply posts about protests in support of jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Alongside it was a short poem, alleging that the eagle was twice as greedy as others, lied twice as much and carried out surveillance with four eyes. It ended with an emotional cry: "When will Russians awaken to remove this contagion?"
The Russian government told Facebook to remove the post because of its "blatant disrespect towards the state, the constitution and the president of the Russian Federation". Facebook did not comply, and the post featured in one of more than 60 lawsuits launched against Western social media in Russia this year, resulting in fines of more than $2m.
AND IN NEW ZEALAND?
Around the world, democracies are facing the tough decision on how to 'limit' access to media content in order to hinder and ultimately hinder radicalisation through social media platforms. New Zealand is the latest country to pledge to try and eradicate this type of content. But can you make maths i.e. an algorithm ethical?
AND IN TURKEY?
Even our very own Deputy Peter Roffey is tweeting locally about the value of a Free Press - the article he is referring to is how Turkey is getting serious
UK ONLINE SAFETY BILL
Taming the Tech Giants is one thing but giving free reign and power to the Censors - is quite another. The other side of the UK Online Safety Bill. Ofcom staff will have rights of entry and inspection and the ability to impose penalties on online companies of £18m or 10% annual turnover, whichever is greater. It is right to control the online promotion for suicide, anorexia and vaccine denial. However, new technologies do not mean that we should abandon the old rules. Before you grant the power to censor, be sure to know who you are giving it too and what they intend to do. Currently a right wing conservative old school tabloid print editor is in charge - will he be able to be be impartial?
The Online Safety Bill - the debate in a nutshell. Advocates of Free Speech are recommending removal controversial section dealing with "legal but harmful" content for adults, which critics had feared could lead to unintended widespread censorship. Another major addition is the recommendation that tech firms must appoint a "safety controller" who would be made liable for an offence if there were "repeated and systemic failings". If they fail to address the safety issues, then they will be fined. It is clear that the Bill, whilst has just intentions, does throw up issues about censoring ideologies that would be legal offline but not online.
WHISTLE BLOWERS V SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
The most recent Whistleblower case involves a former employee of Facebook, Frances Haugen, who has accused the social media platform of gross negligence in the way it constructs its algorithms and how it is set up to harm, divide and polarize society. She alleges that over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money. Click on the link to go to the video.
And Frances Haugen has shown how the algorithms on social media are designed to target often the vulnerable and susceptible in society. This is so that the platforms can show, demonstrate to their advertisers, that the target audience will be targeted in return for their allegiance and business.
THE BIGGER PICTURE
Owen Jones, media commentator and journalist, is questioning the logic behind banning anonymous social media accounts for fear of stifling free speech and democracy although how do you draw the line between genuine discourse and personal threats?
How to fix facebook...remember when they started their mantra was 'move fast and break things'? It is now more 'move fast and fix things' - but how exactly do you put the genie back in the bottle. This year the public saw an alarming side of Facebook, after a huge leak of internal documents revealed the extent of vaccine misinformation and extremism on the platform, a two-tier system of who gets to break the rules and the toxic effects of Instagram for teens.
Facebook’s sheer size and market dominance remain a significant barrier to change, and a growing chorus of lawmakers and others are calling for a simple solution: break it up. Matt Stoller, research director at the American Economic Liberties Project, says Facebook’s vast power is the greatest threat to democracy. “He’s operating like a sovereign,” Stoller says of Zuckerberg. “And that’s what a monopolist is. Somebody who has control, governing power over a market.” In other words, Zuckerberg makes the rules, regulates as he pleases as he can!