Fair Call: PM’s impact
Have Ardern’s efforts after March 15 simply been a talkfest, or are we actually better off?
The tangible benefits may not always be easy to see, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value.
In the days after the horrific shootings in Christchurch on March 15, 2019, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke about the issue that led to the Christchurch Call.
“We cannot simply sit back and accept that these platforms just exist and that what is said on them is not the responsibility of the place where they are published. They are the publisher. Not just the postman. There cannot be a case of all profit no responsibility.”
Social media platforms had — and have — massive global reach, and were so focused on making dollar bills that they were careless about the content they hosted.
It’s now been two years since the Call was created, hailed by Ardern as unprecedented and decried by sceptics as a big talkfest that has achieved nothing.
Which is it? The answer is, it’s hard to tell. It’s easy to equate the stream of press releases echoing limitless good intentions with a big talkfest. It’s also easy to find some horrible video online and declare that the Call has failed to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content.
But these aren’t the right yardsticks of success. The likes of 4chan are never going to oblige the Call’s voluntary commitments, and even if it were to be shut down, something else would replace it.
Ardern gives us a better gauge of the Call’s impact by viewing it through a profit-vs-responsibility lens.
Firstly, there are the platforms themselves — what have they done to self-regulate, even if that meant hurting their bottom lines?
The platforms are now part of response protocols that didn’t exist on March 15 in any effective way.
Social media platforms have also tried ways to intervene if a user searches for white supremacy or neoNazi content.
They have responded with better policing of their content and tightening rules around livestreaming. They could go further, but would they have moved this far without the Call? Probably not.
The main area where progress has been limited is the work on algorithm outcomes, for which Ardern continues to push.
Progress here relies on the tech companies researching and sharing what happens on their own platforms, and although the US joining the Call is hoped to make a difference, this remains very much a watch-this-space issue.
Secondly, there are individual countries’ own laws — what are they doing to force tech companies to behave responsibly?
If an online platform can have legal immunity from the content it hosts then a government can’t step in, and we have to rely on the likes of Facebook and YouTube to do the right thing.
When Ardern made her “not just the postman” comments, there were gaps in New Zealand law about who was liable for social media content — but a change is now making its way through Parliament.
If it had been in place before March 15, Facebook could have been served with a takedown notice and fined $200,000 if it failed to act in time.
In the US, where most major tech companies are based, section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act provides legal immunity. One suggestion is to revoke immunity for online platforms that use algorithms to boost user engagement without the user specifically agreeing to the algorithm funnel.
Any potential reform is still a way off, but the fact that the conversation is ongoing can only be a good thing.
Finally, there are the users themselves — protecting them from the stirring of haters and empowering them to recognise online disinformation, or content that could radicalise. This kind of preventative work to build resilient societies and resilient citizens is no less important, but is not really measurable.
Which, in a sense, is representative of the Call: the tangible benefits may not always be easy to see, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value.