A grand gesture
The Prime Minister’s vague demand that social media companies remove content from their platforms is concerning.
Jacinda Ardern will fly off to a global meeting without consulting New Zealanders or appearing to know what her government’s position is. What will she propose on our behalf?
As with oil and gas and gun reform, the PM is more worried about a global audience than making good policy. She will make a grand gesture on the global stage without understanding any of the detailed implications of her public statements.
Will every video that is uploaded to social media need to be vetted? Or will platforms need to change their algorithms and, in the process, remove legal content? The PM doesn’t appear to know, and isn’t concerned if her demands are impractical.
In any case, social media companies are already self-regulating. For example, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are now removing 75 per cent of ‘hate speech’ within 24 hours.
We can either allow companies to develop sophisticated AI tools to remove specific content, or governments can intervene, creating overzealous social media platforms that push illegal content into the dark corners of the web.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister’s call will be well-received at the G7, where member countries have already begun forcing social media companies to act as their censors.
German law requires social media companies to promptly remove illegal content or face massive fines of more than $80 million. UK lawmakers want to follow suit. Human Rights Watch has said German the law is “vague, overbroad, and turns private companies into overzealous
censors to avoid steep fines.”
The UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression said the law was at odds with international human rights standards.
Of course, there is no excuse for Facebook to continue to host footage of the Christchurch terrorist attacks. But even if this is a genuine attempt to fight terrorism, a global push to restrict online activity could set a dangerous precedent and be abused by governments seeking to censor other content.
Indeed, this is already happening. We are starting to see a domino effect, with Singapore, the Philippines, Russia, Venezuela, Kenya and the EU all demanding that social media companies remove content.
We need to remain particularly vigilant when it comes to restrictions on freedom of expression. It is vitally important that we retain an open society in which free thought and open inquiry are encouraged. We cannot solve our most pressing problems if we are not able to try new ideas, discard those that don’t work, and look for better ones.
That’s why the PM’s vague call for new restrictions on social media activity is so concerning. DAVID SEYMOUR
Leader, ACT A funny antidote to your April 30 editorial is Bill Maher’s six-minute video of the same name, Christianity under attack? on YouTube (www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ybH66U72xd0).
The American context is proportionately more Christian (70 per cent) than Aotearoa New Zealand’s 50 per cent, but both nations being founded on ‘Judeo-Christian principles that underpin ‘Western’ civilisation’ provides ample relevance.
On YouTube we can also watch that icon of the Alt-Right, Jordan Peterson, assert: “Jesus Christ is the foundation upon which Western civilisation exists.”
Western civilisation is, essentially, ‘white’ privilege based on Christian colonisation — Toynbee’s “Western Christendom” — so I suppose any critique of one facet automatically critiques the others. According to Peterson, free speech allows me to say this despite the risk of offending. So if, like him, the reader is antipolitical correctness, please follow his advice and “get over it.”
Divestment from Christianity, colonisation and ‘white’ privilege — which according to you qualifies me as a “fruit loop” (I find this offensive) — is apparently mirrored today by “an accelerated retreat from the idea of universal knowledge” warned about recently on Newsroom (April 24) by Prof Elizabeth Rata, citing, among others, Sir Peter Gluckman.
Reason — first-born, most privileged child of Western ‘enlightenment’ — is being challenged by those who believe “that the world is not independent of the person who knows it . . . is always tied to who we are, and who we are comes from our culture.”
Frightening stuff if you’ve ruled the planet for 500-plus years, using unimaginably appalling violence justified by warped ‘reasoning’ — convincing yourself that your religious beliefs, your skin colour and your ‘advanced civilisation’ — your ‘culture’ — is superior and hence entitles you to do so. “Prejudice and ignorance” do indeed “have no limits,” as the history of Western Christendom and Christianity — and other church religions — proves beyond doubt.
This country may or may not be “at risk of succumbing to fascism,” but if it does, I have no doubt it will be right-wing Christian conservative fascism in its many guises, from OneLaw4All to Destiny Church.
Really your editorial is just another scaremonger’s ‘either/or’ polemic to sell newspapers, when in reality only an ethic that encompasses both universal and culture-specific knowledge, reason and emotion, logic and feelings can span the divide of a world as we sense, process or ‘know’ it — the world of phenomena — and the real world in itself. Natural ethics.
Perhaps that’s ultimately why such diverse societies as Ma¯ ori and Pa¯ keha¯ have met here in Aotearoa New Zealand. WALLY HICKS
Kohukohu