As the use of social media is increasing day by day, data privacy has become all the more concerned issue in the entire world. On many occasions, at national and international stages, the issue has emerged stages gross misuse of social media is the need of the hour serious and legal frameworks to prevent. However, the concerned companies seem to be ignoring this crucial matter as is evident from repeated apologies by such companies’ CEOs without any check on data misuse or use without permission. For example, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg offered this apology (It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.) to members of the US Congress in March, 2018 on being called to explain how a third party, Cambridge Analytica, used its service to carry out psychometric analysis of Americans in a way that possibly influenced the 2016 US presidential election. Earlier, he has apologised in 2006, 2007, 2011, and 2012 as well.
Each time, the apology is followed by a new abuse of service that Facebook failed to stop, involving ‘fake news, foreign interference in elections, hate speech, threats from developers, and data privacy breaches,’ such as abusive troll armies, individuals inciting rioting, and political support groups, which spread coordinated misinformation to get votes. The company (Facebook) does whatever is in its profit interest by selectively choosing when to censor or otherwise subvert content and, conversely, when to do nothing about it even if it goes viral, as long as the company is commercially justified. This type of adherence to policy subjugates the democratic interest and must be corrected.
Controversy: Factors
The controversies regarding social media reflect the complicated regulatory riddle: What are the rules of online speech? Who should write them? Who should enforce them? These questions are necessary as they will determine the future of the internet and the politics, culture as well as commerce.
Presently, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and such sites are not liable for illegal or hateful content, but the user who posts such materials. However, companies need to act when notified by authorities in order to keep this immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The companies must remain in touch with political power as the businesses are subject to government regulations. Nowadays, social media have made a mess of politics and society everywhere.
- Lack of Transparency: An important reason behind this mess is not fully understanding the rights and obligations involved. Online speech enjoys the same privileges as offline speech in many democratic countries. Primarily, social media websites follow American law. However, they also account for some local legal obligations, because determining jurisdiction and applying filters on global communications is not feasible. Secondly, freedom of expression and civil liberties are also protected by state surveillance and censorship.
Thus, guidelines and policies come into existence, meant for users. Certain rules are specified for social media platforms, which take down content either through algorithms or when they are notified of complaints from users. As for Facebook, it claims to be responsible for 95 per cent of its takedowns. Apar Gupta, executive director at the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), has requested the Indian government to obtain an international human rights audit of how Facebook combats hate speech. Facebook also deploys thousands of contractors who manually review flagged content for moderations besides automated programmes. Therefore, Facebook, YouTube and some other popular content websites are accused of wielding unfairly or inadequately. Problems arise when policies are not consistently followed by the framers themselves.
- Influence of Facebook In case of political leaders or prominent persons, the problem becomes even more acute. For example, Facebook refused to hide a post by US President Donald Trump purportedly inciting shooting as protests over the death of George Floyd escalated. Though Twitter hid the tweet, Facebook decided to let it remain, because the company wanted people see this for themselves, and decide the ultimately accountability for those in power. This illustrates how influential Facebook is in the public debate, and how hard it is to undo harmful statements, spread across the world.
- Facebook’s Biased Approach In scrutinising and censoring comments also, Facebook’s algorithms and contracted moderators, do not play a fair role. For example, hiding of posts and images discussing racial injustice in the US, a ban on a native American tribe leader, deletion of the Facebook pages of seven Palestinian journalists (admitted later as a mistake), and account restrictions on multiple Rohingya activists, etc., are some of the recent developments.
These different approaches depend on the privilege of the voice involved, which are considered above the law. They are fictionally supposed never to do what government constantly forces them to do, but they comply, and intensively moderate all content that passes through their hands in order to maintain their indispensable privilege of civil impunity. The free speech defence has amplified contents that are threat to civil liberties.
Primary Consideration
The problem of handling online speech is similar to offline speech. Legal speeches vary across countries, which also involves a lot of context, often local, which could determine its acceptability. Certain changes are necessary but more regulation will only help censorship by proxy for states. There is no single way-out. There should be a serious rethink not just of new rules but public’s participation in making, interpreting, and enforcing them. Whenever government takes over such practices, they are used to censor political opponents. Therefore, social media platforms are urged to conduct their curation within a human rights framing, namely, the Santa Clara Principles, a set of guidelines that seek disclosure from social media companies of how many posts are flagged, what action is taken, the need for adequate notice before a takedown, and clear avenues of appeals for users. Moreover, companies need to be more transparent with these policies.
In this regard, Section 230 of the American Communication Decency Act should be updated, which is the norm of online speech regulation, particularly, the carve-outs from the sweeping liability shields it affords internet platforms. The mandates of market regulators and the guarantees that supposedly protect the fundamental rights of internet users have no meaning in online environments.
Monopoly of the Company
Today, protections for online and offline fundamental human rights have begun to fail comprehensively, especially in the context of Facebook, which has weathered the controversies with little implication on its earnings or user base. Facebook has become a natural monopoly, whereby it benefits from powerful network effects that organically raise barriers to entry. So, it has to be considered regulating it like a utility.
Courtesy: Hindustan Times