01 Dec Why legislating against online harm will struggle to prevent real-life harm.
Social media has become integral to our technically influenced lives; algorithmic amplifications can now impact our thoughts, actions and feelings, adversely affecting perspectives and decisions. Recently there has been much discussion regarding the highly anticipated Online Safety Bill. The act includes fines of up to 10% of the annual global turnover of social media companies, with penalties levied for failing to remove harmful content swiftly. In addition, the bill claims to include legislation aimed at protecting children online, decreasing cyberbullying, spreading misinformation and helping users filter out harmful content. Algorithms are now manipulating most of what we see, so should we further filter out content online, and how will restricting ideas affect polarisation, critical thinking and diversity of opinions? What’s more, while rightly there has been a focus on protecting children, it is now apparent that adults and youth, 14–18-year-olds, are also affected by our online behaviour. Mental health stats are rising across all demographic groups; while this cannot be blamed entirely on social media, researchers have found significant and alarming connections.
Germany was regarded as one of the countries leading the way in legislating social media companies. In response to overwhelming challenges monitoring digital content, policymakers designed the Network Enforcement Law (NetzDG); this policy reform took effect in Germany in October 2017. NetzDG was created using 22 statutes of existing policy from the German criminal code to hold social media companies responsible for their regulations rather than the state having to police the unrealistic task of the overwhelming volume of online hate. NetzDG has been described as the most ambitious attempt to counteract online harm. However, it has met with significant disapproval, including how regulation affects the business model of social media, the policing of opinions, inhibiting the freedom of speech and the challenge of identifying and removing harmful content from billions of posts at an impossible speed.
In comparison, mainstream media has been subjected to layers of legislation that have evolved over the years; however, social media is fundamentally different for several reasons, i) the speed at which social media has progressed, ii) the infinite audience and reach, and iii) the lack of editorial oversight. While mainstream media is restricted from pushing extreme content by editorial standards and consensus, the business model of social media seeks out recipients, with algorithmic amplification actively encouraging the spread of polarising content. In addition, social media companies have long and detailed privacy settings that often fail to address ownership issues; although internet users may have consented to their posts’ public use, they may not be fully aware that their shared content is not private. There is an ongoing debate over the legality of social media companies and whether they are considered publishers or platforms. Representing as a platform, companies such as Twitter can avoid legalities that publishers are legally obliged to conform to, such as the regulation over defamatory content. The question often arises over who claims authorship and content regulation.
Parents, lawmakers and journalists have now been left asking what to do. With endless articles, reports and statics highlighting the problem’s scale, some call for online harm to be addressed as a national emergency. As journalists across the political spectrum argue the pros and cons of the new Online Harms Bill, addressing digital damage may lie elsewhere. If we empower young people with the knowledge and tools to understand the manipulations, disinformation and offensive material online, we can build resilience in our young people. Armed with the correct guidance, when presented with the facts, individuals can make healthier choices and develop strategies to manage their online behaviour. There is no silver bullet; nevertheless, appropriate education could significantly support parents, educators and future generations. We have placed our children on a Wild Mustang, giving them no training, limited rules, no accountability, and coping strategies; meanwhile, our governments are trying to lasso and control the animal. It’s too late; the horse has bolted; let’s teach them how to ride.
Links:
thelightbulblearners.com
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.