UK's Tech Backlash Could Change the Internet
THE UK'S TECH
BACKLASH COULD CHANGE THE INTERNET
·
04.09.19 07:00 AM
BRITISH OFFICIALS TOOK a swipe at global
internet giants Monday, suggesting rules that would require the companies to
proactively remove content the government views as illegal or “harmful,” and
giving the government the right to shut down offending sites.
The proposals, contained
in a 102-page white paper, are aimed at combating the spread of disinformation, hate speech, online extremism,
and child exploitation. If enacted as described, they would constitute some of
the most stringent and far-reaching restrictions on internet speech by
a major western democracy. But critics said the proposals fail to balance
curbing harmful speech with free expression.
Under current UK law,
social media platforms and other online companies are shielded from liability
for potentially illegal content posted by users until they’re notified of it.
Monday’s proposals, drafted by the UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media
and Sport and Home Office, and backed by Prime Minister Theresa May, aim to
change that. They would penalize companies like Facebook and Google that
UK lawmakers believe have turned a blind eye to the spread of harmful content in
favor of maximizing growth, by making companies more responsible for the
content on their platforms.
Companies that allow users to post or share content online
will be required to proactively police content that the UK government deems
illegal—like child sexual exploitation and abuse, the sale of illegal goods, or
terrorist activity—as well as legal activity that the government has
categorized as harmful, such as disinformation, promotion of serious violence,
harassment, and hateful extremist content, among many others.
An as-yet undefined internet regulator would be created to
enforce the rules, with tools that go beyond the typical fines. The regulator
could block offending sites from being accessed in the UK, and force other
companies—like app stores, social media sites, and search engines—to stop doing
business with offenders. The regulator could even hold executives personally
accountable for offenses, which could mean civil fines or criminal liability.
Among the new requirements, the regulator would be expected to specify “an
expedient timeframe for the removal of terrorist content” in cases like the Christchurch, New Zealand
shootings, and outline steps for companies “to prevent searches
which lead to terrorist activity and/or content.” There would be similar rules
for dealing with hate crimes. The rules also would require that companies
“ensure that algorithms selecting content do not skew towards extreme and
unreliable material in the pursuit of sustained user engagement.”
Critics, while endorsing some of the goals of the proposals,
say they may be unattainable in practice. Among other things, they pointed to
the lack of specifics in the definition of “harmful.” In a statement, Jim Killock,
executive director of the UK’s Open Rights Group, a nonprofit that advocates
for privacy and free speech online, said the proposal would unfairly regulate
“the speech of millions of British citizens” and would have “serious
implications for legal content that is deemed potentially risky, whether it
really is or not.”
“Establishing a
relationship between harm and content is in practice incredibly difficult.
Assumptions abound. If the evidence standard is low, we get over-reaction. If
it is set reasonably, it may be impossible for the regulator to require action
despite public demand,” Killock continued on Twitter.
Privacy International cautioned against
any quick decision making on the matter, which it said would “introduce, rather
than reduce, online harms.” The group suggested that lawmakers assess the
privacy implications of proactively monitoring user content, and think
carefully before giving companies more responsibility for policing the
internet. "This would empower corporate judgment over content, [which]
would have implications for human rights, particularly freedom of expression
and privacy,” said the statement.
Monday’s report was the first stage in a process. The
proposals must be turned into legislation, which would have to be approved by
Parliament. The government said it would seek advice over the next 12 weeks
from "legal, regulatory, technical, online safety and law enforcement
experts," and run a series of workshops with civil society organizations
users historically subject to increased online abuse.
The proposals would apply to a wide swath of tech companies, but the report
suggests enforcing them most stringently against bigger companies, to avoid
imposing undue burdens on burgodenging startups. The first order of business
for the internet regulator, the report says, will be to take on “those
companies which pose the biggest and most obvious risk of harm to users, either
because of the scale of the service’s size or because of known issues with
serious harms.”
In a statement received early Tuesday, Facebook said, “New
rules for the internet should protect society from harm while also supporting
innovation, the digital economy and freedom of speech. These are complex issues
to get right and we look forward to working with the government and Parliament
to ensure new regulations are effective.” Twitter said that it “will continue
to engage in the discussion between industry and the UK government, as well as
work to strike an appropriate balance between keeping users safe and preserving
the internet's open, free nature.” Google did not respond to requests for
comment.
Comments
Post a Comment