Govt swerves from tackling ‘industrialgrade’ online violence
In the UK, it’s illegal to belong to the neo-fascist Terrorgram group. But, writes Kevin Norquay ,nosuch legislative moves have been hinted at here.
Five years on from 51 deaths in the Christchurch mosque shootings, online promotion of graphic harm and violence is at “industrialgrade” levels with the Government either powerless or uninterested in containing it.
That’s in contrast to the UK, which in April made it a criminal offence to belong to the neo-fascist Terrorgram group, invite support for it, or, in certain circumstances, display articles associated with militant ideologies aimed at destabilising social systems.
Terrorgram has routinely published propaganda material designed to incite violence against ethnic and religious communities, called for antisemitic violence, and glorified mass shooters.
In a world first, Terrorgram-related offences in the UK can now be punishable by up to 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
On Friday, New Zealand went in the opposite direction, when Internal Affairs announced it had abandoned an ambitious initiative to force social media platforms to abide by a mandatory code of conduct.
Under the initiative there would have been a new regulator, at arms-length from the Government, with the power to fine large social media and internet-based content platforms for breaching rules designed to tackle harmful content.
In a statement to Sunday News, Internal Affairs said that while regulatory reform was not a priority for Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden, the department remained concerned “about any increase in the volume of objectionable extremist content being shared”.
“Over the past few years there has been an increase globally in the number of individuals and groups promoting hateful rhetoric, extremist ideology and illegal material online. The increase we are seeing is consistent with international levels,” its statement said.
Since 2022, there has been a 25% increase in the number of referrals made to Internal Affairs about illegal extremist content. The department issued 26 formal takedown notices in 2023 regarding 41 URLs, and 245 informal takedown notices. There were 136 instances of a platform removing content prior to a request from Internal Affairs.
“A difficulty we face is that content deemed objectionable or illegal in Aotearoa may not be classified the same way in other jurisdictions, so platforms based overseas may not always respond to a takedown notice from us,” the department told Sunday News.
It seemed the Government was underestimating the dangers, The Disinformation Project research director Sanjana Hattotuwa told Sunday News the day before the announcement.
“There doesn’t seem to be any recognition, oversight, acknowledgement or meaningful [government] response, that I have remotely seen, and I am good at what I do,” says Hattotuwa, a specialist on web activism and digital security.
That Internal Affairs announcement came, despite the Christchurch shooter being regarded as a founding “saint” of the neo-Nazi organisation, along with mass shooters overseas.
Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden was this week contacted by two reporters from The Post. No response was received by either.
The Free Speech Union, meanwhile, welcomed the decision.
“It is increasingly clear Kiwis have no
interest in our would-be-censors’ obsession with trying to control what they say,” says Jonathan Ayling, union chief executive.
“In nations with legislation similar to these proposals, it is increasingly clear that they are used for political purposes to control certain speech, particularly of protests and dissidents.”
Speaking the day before the announcement, Hattotuwa felt the Government was being complacent, saying government agencies tasked with public safety online were among those set for resource cuts.
“News of the digital safety groups’ staff cuts really goes to what is at the heart of the problem, which is that I don't think the Government knows how bad it is. If these cuts go through, and there's very high likelihood
that they will, it's kind of the antithesis of what you should be doing.”
While Terrorgram material is classified as objectionable, it remains easily discoverable in New Zealand, and has spread to groups outside the neo-Nazi fold – anti-vax, anti-mandate, anti-government – Hattotuwa says.
“That's where it gets rather complicated because you cannot classify all of them as far-right acceleration or neo-Nazis. They are however, a very large number – we're talking tens of thousands of people at a basic conservative minimum. They are being exposed, seamlessly every day, to this kind of content.”
For the general public not exposed to what he calls “horrific” content, the prospect of a violent response by others to material they have absorbed is heightened.
“When you have this kind of content it's like a match in a coal mine, right? You don't know when it's going to happen, but that there is a very, very high probability of something happening,” Hattotuwa says.
An attack on the home of Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke in the leadup to the election was an example of how
“When you have this kind of content it’s like a match in a coal mine, right? You don’t know when it’s going to happen, but that there is a very, very high probability of something happening,” Sanjana Hattotuwa
the online world might result in real-world consequences, he says.
The Disinformation Project first captured targeted harassment aimed at Maipi-Clarke, then a candidate, on June 30 last year. On September 29, her home was invaded, and a threatening letter left on the premises.
“Conservatively, it took only 90 days for racist dangerous speech to inform offline violence in this instance,” Hattotuwa says.
Since the terror attacks in Christchurch in 2019, the Classification Office has seen and classified more terrorist and violent extremist publications, and also publications depicting extreme violence, the office told the Star-Times. A lot of online material relates to the Great Replacement Theory, which postulates non-white immigration is deliberately aimed at overwhelming Western civilisations.
As well, online graphic violence, much of it against women, has soared since the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, with both sides using it to promote their stance, says Hattotuwa. He says government agencies with harm mitigation mandates such as the police, the Classification Office, and Internal Affairs are facing “industrial-grade production, and diffusion of content related to the ongoing atrocities”.
“It has completely outpaced institutional frameworks, regulations, laws and responses in Aotearoa New Zealand.”
Hattotuwa is calling on efforts spanning technology, law, research, education, civil society and government to curb the production, spread and impact of graphic harm and violence online, to prevent the spread of anger, anxiety and insecurity.
Bots – AI-driven social media automations that perform repetitive tasks – have been fingered for the rapid spread of much rumour and graphic material. Bots often magnify what other bots post, making it almost impossible to track and contain harmful material.
Even determining what social media material was AI-generated is difficult, which poses issues, given that readers are more likely to believe man than machine
- a US study found participants asked to distinguish between humans and bots were wrong 58% of the time.
“These AI bots are more likely to be successful in spreading misinformation because we can’t detect them,” study author Paul Brenner told Futurity.org.
A malicious bot can influence an election, or manipulate financial markets by exaggerating good or bad news.
While bots are an issue, and difficult to track, humans do a very good job of spreading information on their own, Hattotuwa says.
“Without a single bot being involved.”