THE WEEK: The regulation of social media has become essential if democracies are to be safeguarded
NO ONE wants to advance an argument for censorship, but the idea that all communication is positive does not withstand scrutiny. Social media is in urgent need of regulation; Donald Trump’s election, with Russian ‘agents provocateurs’ posting online in his corner, is a watertight argument for gatekeepers.
Fake news helped to manipulate the Brexit vote. In the months before the referendum, one-third of all Twitter traffic originated with automated bots or fake accounts, which were almost entirely pro-Leave.
Following the result, an online petition calling for a second referendum attracted more than 3.7 million new signatures in a single weekend. A change of heart from voters? Some 42,000 of the signatures were from the Vatican City, population 800, and almost 25,000 from North Korea, where internet access is highly restricted.
Like money, the internet is amoral. Those with access can use it to influence outcomes.
Meanwhile, the law is slow to crack down on social media manipulation. A lack of controls means it can be, has been and will be used again as a platform by everyone from white supremacists peddling hate to soccer hooligans rustling up a mob to political strategists steering electorates.
Could fake news and bots have an impact in Ireland? Perhaps we feel we are immune. Well we are not. Already, Ireland has been affected by the Brexit result. The abortion referendum is wide open to exploitation by external influences. Bots could be unleashed there, on both sides of the debate, to drive people to content on websites.
As for the general election, why not? There is no reason to presume that we are immune to such manoeuvring.
Social media sites serve democracy by giving anyone a platform. They also run the risk of undermining democracy by giving anyone a platform. Such is the dilemma: the platforms allow for freedom of expression – but almost without restraint.
Some people discourage any restrictions. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant, they say – let’s have no barriers. But sunlight leads to photosynthesise and some social media users photosynthesise into poison ivy.
While freedom of expression is a tenet of democracy, it cannot be limitless. Some checks and balances are necessary where competing rights arise, such as free speech versus the right not to have groundless slurs cast on somebody’s reputation.
Few people in the public eye can avoid defamatory comments posted online about them, which no newspaper or broadcaster would permit on their platform. Often, the smears originate with anonymous users. It is deliberate disinformation intended to undermine an individual and their message.
On Thursday night, Channel 4 aired a documentary called ‘Angry, White and American’. The journalist Gary Younge met the self-styled leader of America’s alt-right (a synonym for extreme right), the white supremacist Richard Spencer.
Younge was travelling across the US to discover why President Trump resonated with so many of the country’s citizens.
During the interview, Spencer told Younge – an Englishman of African heritage – that black people had contributed nothing to civilisation, had benefited from slavery and that his skin colour precluded his definition as an Englishman. Appalling to watch, their encounter has gone viral.
Despite the personal attack against him, Younge struck it lucky as an interviewer. Spencer’s mask slipped. He was more obnoxious than usual – or possibly more candid. He could not possibly have made converts. He was abusive, not persuasive.
Afterwards, Younge wrote an article for the ‘Guardian’, in which he questioned whether giving Spencer publicity posed a danger in terms of legitimising his views.
He thought it was worthwhile to take the risk in order to expose him.
But the problem is that Spencer has his own access to publicity; with almost 80,000 followers on Twitter, he can reach people.
Traditional media would tend to deny him that contact.
During the US election, trolls and bots (which can generate up to 1,000 posts a day) were used widely. A report from the Oxford Internet Institute described the TrumpClinton presidential contest as “a watershed moment” when social media manipulation was “at an all-time high”. Fake news was shared as widely as professional journalism.
That happened largely because network providers – Facebook, Google and so on – abdicate responsibility for content. They insist on their status as nothing more than platforms and legislators indulge them.
They are allowed to wash their hands of consequences. Meanwhile, traditional media is held liable for what it prints or broadcasts, and must monitor content.
Irish law has not yet caught up with the age of social media. Our libel laws, more limiting and punitive than anywhere else in Europe, are well known to those who write for a living. But the 2009 Defamation Act does not deal specifically with sites depending on user-generated content, such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or LinkedIn.
Who is liable when something libellous is posted? Do service providers owe a duty of care that defamatory content won’t be posted on their website? The courts have yet to decide, but a test case is inevitable.
The sooner the better. The fog of confusion needs to be lifted.
These matters were discussed at ‘Freedom
‘Freedom of expression is a tenet of democracy, but it cannot be limitless – few in the public eye can now avoid defamatory slurs’
of Speech: Where Journalism and the Law Collide’, an event in Trinity College Dublin earlier this week. Contributors included Professor Todd Gitlin of Columbia University, who said social media sites were not taking sufficient steps to address concerns surrounding online content.
“While they said they would double the number of employees they have working to scrub posts, to inspect online content, they just pointed out in a conference call with investors that many of the new workers are not likely to be full-time employees but largely will be third-party, part-time contractors.”
So social media and online hosting sites are free to circulate fake news with no bite-back, while traditional media is held liable for content. This creates an irresponsible culture: supporting the view that digital content can be removed afterwards if it is shown to be wrong, as opposed to encouraging a responsible culture of fact-checking first.
NewsBrands, Ireland’s representative body for newspapers, is seeking clarity on liability for user-generated content, among other reforms to the libel laws.
Currently, media outlets often settle out of court, even if they believe they have a reasonable case, because of the costs and uncertainty involved.
The internet is not simply a useful tool for sharing information, it is also used to distribute disinformation.
Social media? We need to wake up to the fact that it’s not simply about socialising.