By Radhika Chauhan
“Big Brother is watching you”, George Orwell.
Social media, with all its content and adverts, is a driving force in almost every campaign (be it political or otherwise). When information is ready to be shared at the click of a button and then fed to a mass audience before their morning teas and late-night goodbyes, some regulations need to be set in order to draw a line between what is ‘real’ and what is ‘fake’, over what is ‘healthy’ and what is ‘extreme’.
Countering fake news
Ministers all around the world have asked Facebook and Google to regulate their content in order to promote content that is free of fake news. According to Facebook’s current algorithm, the posts that come to the top are sorted according to their popularity, catering to the development of ‘trends’ that may or may not possess the truth. These “information bubbles” make it difficult to draw the distinction between what is true and what isn’t, and is a growing cause of concern for many governments.
“Fake news”, a kind of propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation spread via social media or traditional print media, is a rising concern for political parties. Facebook, in particular, has faced a major backlash from many regulators for allowing the propagation of “fake news” on its network. At the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Vietnam last November, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked Facebook COO Sheryl Sandburg to reign in the spreading of misinformation on the platform. Facebook has been asked to identify the origin of ‘partisan news and advertisements’.
Governments in action
While Canadian government is concerned about “fake news”, Germany is concerned about the users getting access to a more diverse information feed. “I want to see real-time timelines again that confront people not with what they want to know, but what they need to know, what is happening at this moment”, said German minister Dorothee Baer to the newspaper Die Welt. She also said that she would open talks with Facebook and Google on the way social media posts are sequenced.
The Indian government is also cracking down on social media sites by developing policies that will keep a strong vigil on content that spreads anti-national propaganda. In a meeting held among the representatives of central security agencies and the home ministry, decisions were made to graduate to full-fledged guidelines as opposed to a currently existing list of do’s and don’ts. The move is inspired by instances where terrorists were found propagating anti-India materials via social media, or when rumours spread on social media resulted in the spread of violence.
As a matter of fact, the European Union has also given social media sites three months to remove extremist content from their feed. Facebook, Youtube, Google, Twitter, and other companies are asked by the EU to remove objectionable content such as hate speech(es) and terrorist propaganda. The deadline has been set for three months to remove extremist content within an hour of being reported. “While several platforms have been removing more illegal content than ever before … we still need to react faster against terrorist propaganda and other illegal content which is a serious threat to our citizens’ security, safety and fundamental rights.”, said the digital commissioner, Andrus Ansip.
Extending to new domains
Not only are Facebook and Google facing backlash for fake news and information bubbles, they are now also under pressure regarding political and sponsored advertising. According to a proposal written by Ellen Weintraub, a US Democrat, online advertisements would be required to carry the same disclaimers from their sponsors as carried by those of radio, television, and print ads. The proposal is drafted keeping in mind not only the political campaigns and organisations that try to influence federal elections but also because of concerns regarding market dominance and sex trafficking of children.
While the issues were reserved to political propaganda, extremism, and misinformation so far, they have now extended to social media influencers as well. In an effort to regulate e-commerce and publishing, The National Media Council of UAE has regulated that social media influencers would also need to secure a media license similar to that of newspapers and magazines. The council says that the new regulations are meant to ensure that the earnings of these influencers are above board and that the standards are high.
Devising mechanisms for regulation
In light of all these allegations and demands of regulations, social media giants are under a lot of pressure from the lawmakers of not one but many countries. It would be unfair to put the entire blame on these sites. Instead, one should remember that while social media is a medium of information, it doesn’t create the information itself. Self-regulation is prevalent and sincerely practised across all mediums pertaining to matters of users’ privacy. There is a list of rules that every social media site abides by and takes necessary action if breached.
When it comes to fake news and any other form of extremism, the social media sites depend on the ability of rational thinking and user discretion. Any inappropriate content deemed unfit by the users is diligently taken down. The boom of social media is only recent and it’s a matter of time before we learn and adapt ourselves to its working. When Twitter and Instagram have come a long way in weeding out accounts which perpetrate misinformation, there’s no reason similar progress could not be made for recognising and removing fake news from Facebook. Such algorithms, which if administered by Facebook, would be more reliable than those implemented by government dictating what’s ‘bad’ and what’s ‘good’.
When it comes to the right to free speech, it seems absurd to limit one kind of information to the favour of another, more so if the content is regulated by the political parties and the government, something which is liable to be misused, especially during elections. While some regulations are necessary (and are already in order), it seems unfair to limit content to an audience which is already deprived of unbiased content from print and broadcast media. While it’s a slippery slope, over-regulation of these networks might just take us a step closer towards the Orwellian future.
Stay updated with all the insights.
Navigate news, 1 email day.
Subscribe to Qrius