Addressing Government & Corporate Responsibility for Social Media
Preface
This Research Report was drafted by me for a Model United Nations General Assembly Council held by Monash University in 2021. At the time, I selected this topic following the growing discourse on the political, social and economic impacts of Social Media especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. As much of this discourse revolved around issues in transnational policies and cultures, I hoped to elucidate the existing challenges and explore opportunities available for national solutions to be scaled up to the regional or international levels.
Introduction
This Topic is vast and has multiple avenues of discussion available for the delegates of the UNGA. However, within the parameters of this conference and this RR, I will highlight the potential scope of this topic which I have understood to be largely a question of freedom of speech. This RR will thus:
Outline the two main dangers of social media that the delegates must address.
Give delegates a working understanding of freedom of speech within a Mills/Rawls approach.
Highlight examples of Social Media Misuse.
Posit possible approaches currently used by member nations.
Raise further questions for the committee as a whole.
I will reference heavily certain important readings on this topic from a political philosophical perspective and although I understand confusion might arise, I will try to outline and simplify this material as much as possible within this council.
Two Main Dangers
Dangerous Speech
Foremostly, the category of speech which is at the crux of Government Responsibility/Free Speech arguments within social media is speech that dangerously incites the incontrovertible violation of others’ moral rights which within this committee will be understood as Dangerous Speech. This requires some unpacking.
First, What is Dangerous Speech? Simply as a conceptual matter, this RR will utilise Howard’s (2019) understanding. A speaker dangerously incites some conduct Φ if her speech (a) advocates her listeners to Φ or (b) justifies Φ. By advocacy of Φ, this thus refers to speech that involves encouraging, enjoining, imploring, beseeching, or persuading (though not forcing or threatening or inducing by an offer of payment), be it explicit advocacy (“you should kill them”) or implicit advocacy (“they are insects deserving extermination”).
By speech that justifies Φ, this refers to speech that supplies a putative (though not necessarily successful) justification for why Φ-ing is required, permissible, or otherwise to be done. Imagine a speaker who defends the permissibility of honour killings by arguing that rape victims have dishonoured their families and for this reason lack the right not to be killed. Though he may not quite be advocating honour killings, this still qualifies as incitement.
Second, what qualifies the application of “dangerous” to this speech will be borne through a focus on violations of rights that are incontrovertible: it is beyond reasonable disagreement that they qualify as violations of a moral right. For example, while there may be reasonable disagreement over whether physician-assisted suicide or late-term abortion qualifies as a violation of the right to life, there should be no doubt that the vast preponderance of killings deemed murderous by the criminal law of most liberal democracies qualify as violations. (Examples of such cases will be outlined later on)
The rationale for the focus on dangerous speech, then, is for the committee to understand the nature of dangerous speech that can be borne through social media and what degree of enforcement, if any, should be applied to this potential danger of Social Media.
Misinformation
A decade of research addressing news consumption on social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter has produced two consistent findings. First, social media have become a major source of news about public affairs. Second, using social media for news increases individuals’ political engagement. As a consequence, many researchers have lauded the informational value of social media as contributing to democratic processes by means of fostering citizen engagement. Social media, however, can also be used to promote antidemocratic processes. Hate groups, online harassment, hyperpolarization, and state-sponsored propaganda, are all examples of illiberal forces exploiting the informational value of social platforms. Misinformation then is a prevalent issue in social media as it corrodes socio-legal institutions.
Sharing false information online runs counter to the idea of a well-functioning democracy in which citizens base their preferences on accurate information. Thus research on countries like Chile has high levels of social media news use and participation but decreasing levels of confidence in journalism and traditional information gatekeepers. Misinformation within this council can thus be loosely defined as “claims that – unlike information –which are not supported by the majority of societally accepted evidence adjudicators and reflects content that may be inaccurate, uncertain, vague, or ambiguous" (Karlova and Fisher 2013).
There is no doubt social media has transformed our communication, and how we access and engage with information. It is also clear the mediated relationship between politicians, citizens, and journalists, how these groups communicate, engage with and relate to each other, has changed. Thus, the Misinformative perversion of social media is an important issue of debate and delegates are advised to bear in mind the trade-off effect between reducing misinformation and promoting citizen mobilization when attempting to remediate this issue.
Notions of Free Speech
The two most venerable arguments for social media censorship are still very much in evidence and although this section is largely an idealistic discussion, delegates are advised to consider the potential socio-economic spillover effects of varying free speech implementations. (A good starting point would be following the case studies outlined below).
The first, a consequentialist argument, is simply an argument that accounts for the dire consequences of allowing free speech outweighing its benefits. Ronald Dworkin has argued that taking this approach to the rights of free speech seriously precludes balancing them against consequences.
A second argument covariant to this objection would claim that the right to free speech potentially conflicts with other rights or ultimate values, in particular, with equality. This intractable conflict renders some kind of ordering or balancing necessary, and hence justifiable. It is then claimed that in the conflict between liberty and equality, liberty as manifest in the freedom of expression should give way. Such liberals as John Rawls, however, argue that liberty should be given a lexical priority over other values.
J. S. Mill is surely one of the best exemplars of extreme civil libertarianism, one noted for his uncompromising defence of the freedom of thought and expression. Of course, Mill was also a utilitarian, and it is notoriously problematic to reconcile his conclusions with his justifications; but for our purposes, we can ignore his underlying theoretical commitments. The crucial point is that not even Mill thought that one should be permitted to say anything, anytime. The old canard that you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre should not bother him, nor any other defender of free speech. Mill is quite prepared to accept restrictions of a certain sort on what you can utter and where; as are all civil libertarians. This point is most clear when we consider phonetic acts, of producing sound orally, which are individuated by the particular sound made. Mill offers an example which shows conclusively that he had no ambitions to protect every phonetic act, nor even every linguistic act, of uttering certain words. He held rather that, although no speech should be restricted on grounds of its content, still, No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. ‘An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may incur just punishment when delivered ... to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.'
In summary, there is a utilitarian and a consequentialist understanding of what freedom of speech should encompass and why. Delegates within this committee should have a working understanding of their nation's stance regarding freedom of speech and consequently its implications on social media regulation. Delegates are also advised to understand the reasoning behind such positions.
Case Studies (Dangerous Speech)
The San Bernardino Shootings
On December 2, 2015, a husband and wife walked into an employee Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, and began shooting their semi-automatic rifles, killing 14 people. In his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee a week later, the FBI director assured senators that the couple were not members of any established terrorist organization. Instead, they were inspired by “consuming poison on the Internet”— specifically, through exposure to the normative arguments of the extremist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose YouTube videos advocated the duty to kill Americans.
The Christchurch Massacre
On March 15, 2019, a man entered two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 51 people. He was radicalized online, partly by a widely available manifesto written by the Norwegian white supremacist Anders Breivik, who himself had murdered 77 people in 2012. “We are against Islam,” the manifesto announces, which “poses a mortal danger to the West,” arguing that unless violent resistance is undertaken against Muslims—reviving the struggle begun in the Crusades—all non-Muslims will be enslaved. Encouraging violent attacks on civilians, the manifesto teaches that “it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike.” The manifesto clarifies: “It is not only our right but also our duty to contribute to preserve our identity, our culture and our national sovereignty by preventing the ongoing Islamisation.”
Takeaways: For all we know, had these individuals not encountered websites and online videos that spewed hate and encouraged terrorism, they would not have decided to become murderers. For all we know, had they not been incited by people peddling dangerous ideas, those 14 employees from San Bernardino and 51 worshippers in Christchurch would still be alive. Hence these case studies are important to note as delegates are advised to research how their nations consequently responded to these events and what their relevant domestic and foreign policy is in regards to social media expression.
Case Studies (Misinformation)
Brexit
Twitter is an important part of the changing news ecosystem, through which politicians, journalists and citizens communicate and compete for eyeballs. Users can customise their informational environment, by selecting who they follow or engage with, a tendency amplified by social media algorithms which optimise users’ social feeds with content they may find congenial. However, on Twitter algorithms play only a small role, meaning partisan filtering of news is mostly down to the network of followers users create. Consequently, the social feed of an avid Eurosceptic would likely have been filled with stories about how inimical the EU was to British democracy, with confident assertions millions of pounds would be saved by leaving the EU, the NHS would benefit, and Remainers were scaremongering reach millions directly, unadulterated by pesky journalists fact-checking and contextualising their message on the evening news.
An analysis found Twitter users who supported leaving the EU were more numerous, and Eurosceptic users in general were more active (they tweeted more frequently) than Remain users. Estimated Leave users were more numerous and more active on Twitter by a factor of 1.75-2.3. Other researchers examining Google search trends, Instagram posts and Facebook found similar patterns of Eurosceptic views being communicated with greater intensity by a greater number of users on those platforms (Herrman 2016, Polonski 2016).
US Presidential Elections 2020
Although increased engagement in social media appears to have played a key role in increasing civic engagement, there is also a downside – misinformation and disinformation. In the 2020 US elections, there has been a unique rise in cases of video manipulation where video clips are edited to make candidates appear to be making missteps that they didn’t commit, slurring words or appearing less competent, and some deepfakes, a technique using artificial intelligence to fabricate images and videos most often used for malicious purposes, where videos are computer generated to show false footage.
“While [social media] platforms prohibit this, they often get posted, viewed, and shared millions of times,” Golbeck said on the rise of these malicious efforts. “One of the main manipulation techniques used to add legitimacy to candidates and positions is to use bots or super active accounts to make things look popular - fact-checkers are critical for helping understand who and what can be trusted.”
Takeaways: The consequences of the aforementioned case studies were highly controversial. Although academics have tried, the full influence of social media misinformation on democratic or socio-legal institutions has yet to have been fully understood. Delegates are advised to research instances within their own countries where misinformation has swayed public opinion and highlight the role governments and corporate entities have played in mitigating such dangers.
Three Possible Approaches
The Free Market for Ideas Approach
Since the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed sweeping protection for speech that advocates criminal conduct. Except for emergency cases in which the speech will cause imminent harm, it must be protected. Because websites and online
videos inciting murder typically do not cause harm imminently, their suppression would almost certainly be deemed an unconstitutional violation of the legal right to freedom of expression.
The Mixed Economy Approach
The position adopted in the United Kingdom is such that encouraging terrorism is itself a
crime, even when done implicitly through speech that “glorifies the commission or preparation” of terrorist acts. Furthermore, it is a crime in the United Kingdom to incite harm by fomenting racial and religious hatred—for example, by expressing the view that citizens from certain groups are morally vile and so deserve to be attacked.
The Nationalist Approach
The Chinese government would be the hallmark for such an approach to Social Media legislation. It has distributed vague guidelines to digital platforms about what they should “censor.” Platform owners are now responsible for obeying and blacklisting any offending content generated by their users. For example, if a platform chooses to blacklist “Hong Kong protest,” none of its users will be able to deliver any messages containing these keywords, sometimes accompanied by a warning sign saying that “Your message contains sensitive keywords, please try again.”
Past Actions and Potential Challenges
The UN Stance
The United Nations chief calls for global rules to regulate powerful social media companies like Twitter and Facebook. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he believes it shouldn’t be a company that has the power to decide whether, for example, then President Donald Trump’s Twitter account should be closed, as a questioner asked. Rather, he said, a “mechanism” should be created “in which there is a regulatory framework with rules that allow for that to be done in line with the law.” I do not think that we can live in a world where too much power is given to a reduced number of companies,” Guterres stressed at a news conference.
He pointed to “the volume of information that is being gathered about each one of us, the lack of control we have about ... the data related to ourselves, the fact that that data can be used not only for commercial purposes to sell to advertising companies ... but also to change our behaviour, and the risks of that to be used also from a political point of view for the control of citizens in countries.”
Guterres said this “requires a serious discussion” and that is one of the objectives of his “Roadmap for Digital Cooperation” launched last June to promote “a safer, more equitable digital world.” It calls for action in eight areas including achieving universal connectivity to the Internet by 2030, “promoting trust and security in the digital environment” and “building a more effective architecture for digital cooperation,”
Takeaways
Two examples reflect the U.N.'s inability to effectively regulate social media.
In 2012, the U.N. hosted the World Conference of International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai to discuss the issue of internet governance. Specifically, the Final Acts recognized that "all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security, and continuity of the existing Internet and its future development and of the future internet." Despite the U.N.'s efforts, disagreement between members resulted in only 89 out of 144 total countries signing the non-binding Final Acts." Countries such as the U.S., Canada, France, the U.K., and Germany did not sign the treaty. With so many countries refusing to sign the Final Acts, the conference shows how an international body is unlikely to resolve internet governance.
Another example is the Convention on Cybercrime, which regulates cyberterrorism. In contrast to the WCIT, various states signed the Convention on Cybercrime. As a result, there is a plausible argument that the U.N. could pass a limited convention that only covers social media. However, cyberterrorism and social media have fundamental differences in the harm they create and the ability to identify violations. Cyberterrorism is easier to identify because any intrusion into a private or public server is a violation. In contrast, social media violations are at the most general level, only speech, which raises the need to balance whether the individual speech is harmful enough to warrant censorship or removal. These differences make a limited treaty on social media implausible.
Thus, any attempt to regulate social media must address collective action problems. While there remain risks that governments will use social media regulation to curb dissent any implementation of a governance structure risks favouring certain countries over others. Delegates within the UNGA must develop an understanding as to what their countries are willing to accept in a resolution and what role the UN should play to best benefit its people.
QARMA (Questions a Resolution Must Answer)
What measures would address the potential dangers of social media without harming social media's ability to integrate perspectives of marginalized populations?
How would countries collaborate to identify, classify and overcome the dangers of social media within an ever mercurial digital landscape?
What level of collaboration is required between public and private sectors in regulating social media and how would countries ensure that multinational companies are held to the same standards internationally?
What are the potential spillover effects of Social Media regulation and how would the UN ensure countries with varying levels of development are equally insulated from such effects?
What were the past challenges to social media responsibility and how have they been overcome?
Hopefully, delegates who have reached this section of the RR will now have a better understanding of why responsibility for social media might be necessary and what considerations governments must have before implementing legislation. This topic is extremely relevant and remains one of my academic interests. I sincerely hope that I have been able to explain why consensus on such a topic remains difficult and that each and every one of you can develop your understanding of freedom of speech and carry that forward in your lives.
