• About Us
  • Who Are We
  • Work With Us
Sunday, July 3, 2022
No Result
View All Result
NEWSLETTER
The Globe Post
39 °f
New York
44 ° Fri
46 ° Sat
40 ° Sun
41 ° Mon
No Result
View All Result
The Globe Post
No Result
View All Result
Home Opinion

Diverse World, One Internet: How to Regulate Online Extremist Content?

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson by Dan Jerker B. Svantesson
10/03/19
in Opinion
Facebook logo

The logo of the social network Facebook on a broken screen of a mobile phone. Photo: AFP

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

When a terrorist attacked worshippers in two mosques in New Zealand earlier this year, he live-streamed the attack on Facebook. Some 200 people saw real-time how a white supremacist on a killing spree murdered dozens of Muslims with semi-automatic rifles.

Events like this increase concerns about the internet being used as a platform to spread hate and extremism. Together with a range of other content such as “fake news” style misinformation, child abuse materials, and traditional spam, this may lead to a “junkification” of the web. Over time, this could seriously affect the internet’s usefulness for everyone. It is clear that action is needed, but how?

Many relevant questions are highly controversial. For example, how do we decide what content must be removed? Who should make that decision? And if content is to be removed, should it be removed locally, regionally, or globally?

Developments in US Senate and Beyond

Last week, a U.S. Senate Committee held a hearing on mass violence, extremism, and digital responsibility. Representatives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter were questioned about how they address such content. The problem, however, is that this is an international, cross-border issue. Domestic, uncoordinated measures that are implemented in reaction to incidents are unlikely to be effective.

The fact that no single state or region can effectively regulate the entire internet is both comforting and distressing. It is comforting because there are many states I would not like to see in control over what content is accessible. And it is distressing because it means that fighting clearly undesirable content becomes very difficult due to lacking international coordination, and limited international consensus.

Put simply; the problem is that while we expect our state’s laws to apply effectively online, we do not want to be subject to all other states’ laws. Europeans wanting their defamation laws to apply globally and Americans wanting their copyright regimes to provide global protection may, for good reasons, be reluctant to see Chinese, Russian, and Iranian restrictions on free speech apply globally.

In a decision handed down today, October 3, the Court of Justice of the European Union emphasized the need for courts to act “within the framework of the relevant international law” when ordering content blocking or removal with worldwide effect. The problem, however, is that the framework of the relevant international law is like the combination of a swiss and a blue cheese: it is full of holes and what is there stinks.

Given the diversity of values online, we must carefully avoid a race to the bottom where only content that is lawful all over the world is allowed online. Consequently, the geographical scope of blocking and removal decisions ought to be as geographically limited as possible apart from in a small number of cases such as when the content in question is obviously unlawful globally.

Diverse World, One Internet

The world consists of nearly 200 countries, some industrialized and some developing. All these states have their own history, economy, and culture. They have different social structures, political systems, and laws.

Hands on the keyboard of a laptop surfing the internet
Photo: Issouf Sanogo, AFP

The people who populate these countries are of different ethnicities and speak various languages. They hold different values, religious beliefs, and political opinions. Indeed, even where they hold the same values, they frequently take different views on how those shared values should be balanced in specific cases where they clash with one another. This staggering diversity stands in contrast to the fact that we all – so far – essentially share one internet.

Given this background, there are few types of content that everyone will agree should be removed. This should not prevent us from working towards broad consensus. Initiatives such as the Christchurch Call and the important work of Paris-based Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network will have a harmonizing effect over time. However, they cannot be treated as a quick fix but rather must be supported by a sustained “multistakeholder” effort.

Roles of Online Social Media

Online social platforms play a crucial role and can exercise strong influence. At the same time, their position is precarious because they are exposed to a wide range of uncoordinated national laws. Those regulations sometimes clash to the degree that to comply with one state’s laws, a platform is forced to violate another state’s laws. This must be minimized and where possible eliminated.

In the wake of major incidents of extremist materials circulating online, politicians routinely call on social media to do more. Those calls are not always grounded in the reality of technical limitations. And often, such calls are made despite the same politicians having failed to enact laws against the content in question. In such situations, it seems online social media is treated as a political scapegoat. This is unhelpful and obscures the legitimate calls for needed reform.

At least three atrocities in 2019 have involved suspects posting hate-filled messages on online forums in advance of an attack, including August's shooting at the Walmart in El Paso. https://t.co/rYMNlcGEfC

— KVIA ABC-7 News (@abc7breaking) September 24, 2019

There are also cases where governments use social media platforms to force their values onto persons in other states. For example, Chinese-owned social media app TikTok now bans pro-LGBT content even in countries where homosexuality has never been illegal. Such actions have far-reaching consequences. At the minimum, it likely undermines the popularity of the social media at issue.

Steps Moving Forward

There is an urgent need to clarify the roles and responsibilities social media holds relating to content such as online extremism. We must strive towards models for international coordination and cooperation in which all relevant voices are heard. Clearer rules that take account of what is technically possible will benefit everyone.

In all this, we must realize that as governments divert responsibilities and decision making to the online platforms – effectively making them the internet’s gatekeepers – authorities are also transferring power to these platforms. This may undermine accountability, transparency, and ultimately, justice.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Globe Post.
ShareTweet
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

Faculty of Law, Bond University, Australia

Related Posts

Facebook hate speech
Business

UN Slams Facebook Decision on Violent Messages

by Staff Writer
March 11, 2022
Baidu
Business

Chinese Tech Giant Baidu Tests Metaverse Waters With New App

by Staff Writer
December 27, 2021
Proud Boys
National

Twitter Admits ‘Errors’ in Picture Permission Policy After Far-Right Abuse

by Staff Writer
December 4, 2021
Instagram
Business

Instagram’s Impact on Children Probed by US States

by Staff Writer
November 18, 2021
‘Very… Meta’: Twitter Cracks Up Over Facebook Name Change
Business

‘Very… Meta’: Twitter Cracks Up Over Facebook Name Change

by Staff Writer
October 29, 2021
Mark Zuckerberg
Business

Facebook Announces 10,000 EU Jobs to Build ‘Metaverse’

by Staff Writer
October 18, 2021
Next Post
A man holding a gun

To Reduce US Gun Violence, Stop Domestic Abusers from Having Firearms

An Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural painted on the wall of the former US embassy in Tehran on November 19, 2011

Why Are US-Iran Relations So Tainted? [Part I]

Recommended

Google logo

Google to Pay $90 Mn in Settlement With App Developers

July 1, 2022
Mexico murdered journalists

Journalist Murdered in Mexico, 12th This Year

June 29, 2022
Spain migrants

Spain Prosecutor Opens Probe Into Melilla Migrant Deaths

June 28, 2022
Afghan refugees

Pakistani Migrants in Afghanistan Caught in Quake No-Man’s Land

June 27, 2022
Joe Biden climate summit

Biden Calls Clean Energy Matter of National Security in Face of Russia War

June 17, 2022
climate change

Developing Countries Left ‘Disappointed’ at Climate Talks

June 16, 2022

Opinion

US President Donald Trump

Owning the Words and the Libs

June 16, 2022
Officers in Uvalde, Texas, stand outside Robb Elementary School near a makeshift memorial for the shooting victims

Child Sacrifice Makes a Comeback

June 3, 2022
A Lebanese election official stands at a polling station

New Group Threatens Lebanese Elections… and Potentially Middle East Peace

May 18, 2022
A man holding a gun

Safely Back in USA, Land of Guns and Burgers

May 2, 2022
China Muslim Uyghurs

Unfair Politicization, Corruption, and the Death of Modern Olympism

April 23, 2022
Ukraine war

The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the Hierarchies of Western Compassion

April 20, 2022
Facebook Twitter

Newsletter

Do you like our reporting?
SUBSCRIBE

About Us

The Globe Post

The Globe Post is part of Globe Post Media, a U.S. digital news organization that is publishing the world's best targeted news sites.

submit oped

© 2018 The Globe Post

No Result
View All Result
  • National
  • World
  • Business
  • Interviews
  • Lifestyle
  • Democracy at Risk
    • Media Freedom
  • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Columns
    • Book Reviews
    • Stage
  • Submit Op-ed

© 2018 The Globe Post