In 2012, there
were bills with identical objectives introduced in both houses of the US
Congress. One was the Stop Piracy Bill (SOPA) while the other was Protection of
Intellectual Property Bill (PIPA). Entertainment and publishing firms were demanding
an end to piracy which seemed to be major headache in increasing revenues. The culprits
were ostensibly the online platforms that had mushroomed all over. The platforms
included YouTube, Facebook, Twitter among others. However, it was YouTube which
seem to host maximum pirated videos. The proposals for these legislations was
to hold these platforms accountable for hosting the pirated content.
Unsurprisingly
there was a huge uproar by these platforms. The platforms claimed they were
merely the repositories of user generated content and do not claim
responsibility for the authenticity of the content. They claimed that given the
traffic on their sites, it was all but impossible to monitor each and every
content. Any content flagged as inappropriate would perhaps be policed if it
violates piracy norms. The backlash from the technology firms caught everyone by
surprise. They were least expected to face such a backlash. The entertainment
and media companies beat a hasty retreat. The platforms had claimed refuge and
with success under safe harbour rules.
Under safe
harbour rules, the platforms are not responsible for the content posted on
their sites. The law in the US reads as “No provider or user of an interactive
computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another information content provider”. This is the singular
important factor that has led to rapid growth in social media in particular and
internet in general. These safe harbour principles protect these technology
intermediaries or platforms from the liabilities arising out of the action of
the third party content producers or providers.
The law
distinguishes the platforms of the technology intermediaries from the media. The
media is something that publishes and thus the right to censor content exists. The
platforms do not publish. They merely are spaces for the third party content
producers to post their material for dissemination. The platforms do not have
the resources to judge the content. Even if the resources exist, given the very
nature of the platforms, they are not supposed to interfere in the posting of
the content. In case of objectionable content, they can intervene on the
complaints of other users. However, suo moto censoriship of content is frowned
upon unless it perhaps involves revenge porn or incitement of hate leading to
violence or direct incitement of violence etc.
However, over
the years, these platforms have used these safeguards for their convenience. Each
platform run by a management will perhaps have its own bias and anything
contrary is acted upon. Anything that goes contrary to their philosophy is
sought to be blocked. Yet these blocks have been very selective. In India, many a times, the internet right has
found itself on the wrong side of Twitter, with their accounts getting suspended
or temporarily blocked. Many YouTube videos find themselves taken off
apparently under the guise of offending someone. Yet these takedowns or
punitive actions are perceived as selective. In recent days, YouTube has
apparently taken off videos that were deemed to be anti-China. The YouTube’s explanation
that is was a software flaw that led to the takedown find hardly any takers. In
fact many pro-China videos are given mileage despite offensive content on many
platforms. On Twitter, while pro-India accounts find themselves at the receiving
end, the pro-Pakistani handles often mouthing inflammatory content on India and
the Hindus seem to get a free pass.
Despite, the
apparent bias on the part of the platform to cater to certain ideologies or
schools of thoughts, the authorities have generally remained quiet barring occasional
noises or subtle threats. This has led to these platforms to emerge as sort of
media firms. Furthermore, they seem to think themselves as their actions reveal
as arbiter of truth. Implied is the post
truth is the monopoly of the social media platforms. The Wikipedia is of course
a media platform given the editorial moderation that is exercised. As a matter
of fact, Wikipedia is again to know harbour biases. Its founder Jimmy Wales is
of the centre-left persuasion. Anything contrary and indicative of conservative
thought does invite instant editing. It is more prominent among the Wiki
editors of India among others. There is tendency to be woke despite alleged
neutral stand stated by the Wiki manifesto.
The climax of
this acting as media while pretending to be intermediary platforms came a day
or two back when Twitter decided to attach fact-checker against President Trump’s
Twitter handle. Implied was the assertions by Trump were not normally true and
before one accepts them, there needs to be fact check. This no doubt has
enraged President Trump. The same methodology is not applied to handles of
Democrat persuasion or those handles from China. China peddling falsehood has
caught the world in one of the most severe health crisis it has ever landed up
in. Yet China has gone scot-free and given a free pass. Twitter head Jack
Dorsey is antagonistic to Trump and thus the actions have to be seen in the
context. Moreover, it is an attempt by Twitter to influence the voters in the
run up to the November Presidential elections. Twitter by arrogating itself to
arbiter of truth on content it deems contrary to its stand has decided to
convert itself into a media platform. It is a de facto conversion while
pretending to technology intermediary.
The retribution
might be on the expected lines. President Trump who has been hinting at
measures for conservative reclaiming of the social media platforms will in all
probability sign an executive order against the firms. The order in all probability
will withdraw the safe harbour safeguards that have protected the technology
platforms for intermediary liability all these days. Yet this will come at a
price. The rapid spread of the net through the technology intermediary
platforms will perhaps grind to a halt. The battle will not something be of
short haul but could carry its way to the US Supreme Court, which is
interestingly dominated by the Republicans.
The battles
between the tech industry and President Trump for varying reasons has created
situation wherein the industry has shed its pretensions of neutrality and want
to take on the President. The President will naturally hit back. The government
with the resources in hand will naturally have sufficient levers. It does have
leverage over the points of control. The government technology industry battles
and the models underlying it have been discussed in an earlier post
albeit in a different context. The state preferences in the current context
seem unambiguous. It is about the will to exert the points of control to the
logical conclusion. Similar actions might follow across Europe, India and other
parts of the world. The internet as we know it might soon die. The issue for
the sake of the intenet growth and diffusion has to be sorted. Yet the
arrogance of the Big Tech has to be called out. Given their preponderance in
information production and thus their role in narrative setting, they are
taking on the oldest institution, the state. Companies have exerted significant
influence on the state as numerous instances of regulatory capture have
demonstrated. This is an attempt more so of the ideological differences taken
to an altogether new level in a democracy. The backlash is only to be expected.
How it turns out will determine the future of conversation.
Comments
Post a Comment