BackRegulate social media on steadfast principles
A regulatory framework for social media looks imminent now. Let’s focus on clear rules that will grant our citizens the rights to privacy and free speech with riders we deem appropriate
PremiumA government plan to legislate a governance model for social media has been in the works for months. Last year, a new law was expected to be in place by early 2020, after consultations among lawmakers. Covid set that schedule back. But Parliament has re-convened, and the very platforms under public scrutiny appear abuzz with a pressing need for checks and balances. The case for intervention cannot be overstated. Over the weekend, waves were made online by a Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma, which portrays the perils posed by possibly addictive and über-influential apps that keep us in touch. Among others, it cites Soshana Zuboff, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, which raised an alarm in 2018 over “persuasive tech". Several Big Tech insiders have since flagged the risk of a dystopia that features a “futures market" for forecasts of user emotions and actions. No matter how overdone such worries may be, these platforms surely need regulation. The threat that hate speech poses our social cohesion is reason enough. We need a law that assures us all our rights to privacy and free speech, though with safety curbs placed by our Constitution on incendiary stuff. There is a rationale for a ban on yelling “fire" in a closed hall, and a version of it applies to various online settings as well.
On user privacy, those who ticked away their consent without reading an app’s usage terms may not have a legal right to feel ripped off, but reports on the abuse of personal data have stirred valid outrage. Misuse simply has to be stopped. Under consideration, it appears, is a rule that would have apps ask for the explicit go-ahead of users before sharing their data—even if anonymized for a bulk study—with specified third parties for purposes stated upfront. This is good, but does not go far enough. As a basic principle, all ownership of such data must rest with the users who generate it—as a self-evident truth. In other words, a user should be able to bar even the app’s owner from access to it. If that means users must finally pay for the use of a platform, then this option should exist. Apps, though, should be allowed to reward people for parting with their data, so long as verifiable disclosures are made on its use. Also, a public data authority should need at least a judicial warrant to trace messages, pry open private chats, etc; and the security exigencies that may justify such an intrusion should be spelt out.
On content moderation, the sovereign norms that we frame for social media should not fall victim to arbitrary interpretation—be it by a private or public agent—of what is okay and what is not. Regardless of avowals by platforms on the integrity of their own processes, we should lay down the red lines on free speech and hold them accountable for violations. We already have a democratic basis for restraints. Broadly, free speech is fine, but not if it is inflammatory or tramples the rights of others in other ways. Multi-media messages may need special guidelines. Clarity on these would be crucial. With highly polarized views within the country on what is fake and what is dangerous, we cannot afford ambiguity. Legislative action should ideally be the outcome of a public debate aimed at forging a national consensus on harmful content. And, yes, we need a light touch. As we act to rein social media back, we must avoid the pitfalls of both uneven law application and regulatory overkill.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
