Plans leaked from the UK parliament this week, and it seems the government has it out for serial offenders like Mark Zuckerberg.
One of the suggestions floated was to hold social media execs personally responsible for harmful content posted on their platforms.
Images courtesy: Reuters
The news comes via The Guardian, which got its hands on internal documents. The plans, expected to be published on Monday, talk about possible new legislature. This would involve an independent regulator whose sole job it is to monitor content on social media and levy fines against them for instances of hate speech, extremism, or violence, like the recent Christchurch shooting that was broadcast live on Facebook.
Until a new body is formed for the purpose, it's indicated that Ofcom, the UK office of communications, would perform the job. Such a body would probably be funded by a tax on these social networks, especially given the discovery in 2018 that they pay very little in taxes.
It's not just social media platforms, but search engines like Google that would be regulated, as well as online messaging and file hosting services. This watchdog group, when set up, would also have special powers to act against things like terrorism and child pornography, would produce annual transparency reports, and would be expected to cooperate with the police regarding illegal activities.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg himself said something like this recently, supposedly as part of pivot to privacy. Of course, his intentions are questionable at best, to put it mildly.
The government will supposedly soon put out a white paper on the topic, laying out the ethical responsibilities of tech companies. Meanwhile, New Zealand is also likely considering similar legislation as well.
But the UK isn't the only country heading this way. Australia yesterday actually went ahead and passed one of the toughest legal measures they've ever introduced against digital organisations. They too decided that executives should be held responsible if they can't police the platforms under their purview.
For Australia the issue is close to home, literally. It's been just a few weeks since the Christchurch shooter massacred 50 people in mosques in nearby New Zealand. This is a country that, despite being very different, the Aussies consider their nearest relative.
The Australian House of Representatives passed a law requiring social media platforms to remove content that shows kidnapping, murders, rape, or terrorist attacks with all haste. Failing to do so doesn't just raise the spectre of a fine, though there is a fine that could be up to 10 percent of the company's annual profit. In addition however, employees can actually face prison time now for not moving fast enough.
It's a strong stance Australia is taking in the matter, even as conservatives and the far right across the world cry "freedom of expression".
Frankly it's the right move, provided the stipulations are rigid. While new laws like this are essential to push social networks into action against unsavoury elements, such a watchdog (and therefore the government) shouldn't be allowed to abuse the laws to censor the public.
For instance, footage of murders are banned, which seems like an obvious decision. But consider such a law in a country like India. What if a "murder" being posted to Facebook is footage of a killing by political forces or cops brutalizing a prisoner? What if the video is essential to a protest for a worthy cause?
Well, that's exactly where the watchdog organisation comes in. Laws like this mean zilch if the group doing the monitoring has no teeth. And just as important, it has to also be truly independent, and composed of people of all religions, races, and ethnic and financial backgrounds.
Without all of these things, the law is just a whip made of wet noodle - soft and with no bite.