Ambitious plan to protect internet users abandoned
A Safer Online Platforms initiative that would have forced Meta, Google and X to abide by a mandatory code to reduce online ills ‘won’t be progressed’. By Tom Pullar-Strecker.
The Department of Internal Affairs has abandoned an ambitious initiative to force Meta, YouTube, X and other social media platforms to abide by a mandatory code of conduct to reduce online ills.
A discussion paper, Safer Online Services and Media Platforms, released by the department in June last year also envisaged changing the way media outlets, streaming TV providers, films and video games are regulated.
The centrepiece of the reforms would have been a new regulator, at arm’s-length from the government, that would have had the power to fine big social media and internet-based content platforms for breaching rules designed to tackle harmful content.
Media firms would have had to abide by mandatory codes of practice also overseen by the new regulator, replacing
self-regulatory schemes such as those run by the Media Council and the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
The regulator would have been given the power to force online platforms to take down more kinds of illegal content, such as threats to kill people.
The overall objective of the initiative was to “improve consumer safety for all New Zealanders”, Internal Affairs said.
But a spokesperson for the department said it was not continuing with the project.
Nor was there any indication from DIA that any of the proposed work programme would continue in other guises.
Internal Affairs received 20,281 submissions on its proposals from individuals and organisations by its July 31 consultation deadline.
But it declined an Official Information Act request to provide a summary of the responses it received until last week, when it also hinted at the demise of the initiative by describing it in the past tense.
“The Department of Internal Affairs will not be progressing with the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms programme,” its spokesperson subsequently told The Post.
“Content regulatory reform of the scale proposed by the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms work is not a ministerial priority for the Minister of Internal Affairs, Brooke van Velden,” he said.
Vivien Maidaborn, chief executive of InternetNZ, the non-profit society that manages the “.nz” internet space, said it was very disappointed by the development.
“Stating it is not a priority means it is unlikely there would be anything that would replace or advance this area of work, which is also deeply disappointing,” she said.
Internal Affairs had envisaged that online content platforms that had an annual audience of more than 100,000 New Zealanders or 25,000 registered users here would need to hammer out a code of practice approved by the new “independent regulator”.
The regulator would have been able to “lead the development of a code” if the industry failed to agree on one and its rules would have applied to all relevant
The regulator would have been given the power to force online platforms to take down more kinds of illegal content, such as threat to kill people.
‘‘There is no proven model that business working on its own can do a good job of this.’’ InternetNZ’s Vivien Maidaborn
companies regardless of whether they were registered in New Zealand or resident here.
It would have had the power to fine them for any significant breaches.
Internal Affairs had believed the approach could reduce harmful content, citing material “promoting disordered eating, adult content in video games, and violent misogynistic content” as three examples.
The original Safer Online Platforms discussion document appeared to tread lightly over the topics of misinformation and disinformation.
But Internal Affairs had said it could include rules “for responsible and transparent design of ranking algorithms such as Facebook’s Newsfeed”.
The proposals weren’t official policy for the former government when they were released, but the internal affairs minister at the time, Barbara Edmonds, now Labour’s finance spokesperson, had agreed the department should put them out for public consultation.
That was seen at the time as a relatively weak endorsement of the initiative during a period when Labour had pulled its horns in over interventionist policies in a bid to avoid alienating any major groups of voters.
But Edmonds said that from her perspective, she pushed the project as much as she could in her 10 months in the portfolio, making clear her main concern had been children and others being exposed to graphic content online.
One reason for leaving it to Internal Affairs to front the initiative was to “take the politics out of it”, she said. “Obviously, you rub up against ‘free speech’, and you rub up against the ‘rights base’, so we wanted to strike a balance withit.”
The abandonment of Safer Online Platforms means the focus of internet regulation may switch back to a voluntary code brokered by Netsafe in 2022 that has been backed by Meta, Google, TikTok, Amazon and X.
That Aotearoa Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms has been criticised by some non-profit organisations, including InternetNZ, as lacking legitimacy.
Non-profit advocacy group Tohatoha NZ has described it as a weak attempt by technology giants to preempt regulation.
It was criticised when it was first announced for setting out in only very general terms 45 measures that companies could take to reduce various online harms, and for letting signatories choose which were relevant to their business.
Unlike Internal Affairs’ proposed mandatory code, the Aotearoa Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms has no penalties for non-compliance beyond the threat that signatories could be suspended from the scheme.
Maidaborn said the voluntary code should not be seen as a replacement for the regulation that was being considered by Internal Affairs.
“This is the business sector taking responsibility for doing some of their own work.
“But that’s different from how the internet has so successfully been run, with academics, communities, technical people in business and government meeting on an equal footing to figure out how this thing that none of us own, and all of us depend on, can best work for all of us.’’
She added: “There is no proven model that business working on its own can do a good job of this.”
The majority of the submissions Internal Affairs received from 105 organisations on its proposed mandatory regime – which included views submitted by technology and media firms and regulatory bodies
– were supportive, Internal Affairs reported.
But the vast majority of responses from individuals, mainly comprised of 18,978 responses submitted through a portal provided for that purpose by the Free Speech Union (FSU), were hostile.
The lobby group was at the forefront of opposition to the initiative. Its chief executive, Jonathan Ayling, described it as “just ‘hate’ speech laws for the internet”.
“With most media consumed online, and social media being the new ‘public square’, it’s important for our democracy that opinions are freely shared on the internet,” he said.
Maidaborn said the weight of individual submissions lodged through the FSU portal did not match the results of InternetNZ’s research.
Its surveys had indicated 61% of New Zealanders thought regulation of social media platforms should be stronger, 65% were concerned with content that was “wrong or misleading”, and 74% were concerned about children accessing harmful content online.