How can social media be made social once more?

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg grills in front of the 2018 US Congress. Xinhua News Agency All rights reserved
series

Freedom of expression series, episode 1:

Fake news, incitement to violence, conspiracy theories, censorship: the reputation of social media seems to be at an all-time low. Is it possible to make the internet a boon for democracy again?

This content was published on May 6, 2021 – 9:00 am

Jonas Glatthard

Studied political science and film studies at the University of Zurich, where he discovered his passion for data analysis and international films. He came to SWI swissinfo.ch in 2020 to work on data-driven stories and visualizations.

More about the author | multimedia

See in another language: 1

Social media platforms have become indispensable channels for public debate, yet they are seldom seen as an unconditional benefit to democracy. Rather, they are viewed more as delivering fake news, conspiracy theories, and hatred. There are also growing fears that private technology companies are wielding too much power over and with social media and suppressing unpleasant voices. Unbound information has become a means of polarization.

Let your voice be heard!

SWI # Freedomofexpression series

Basically everything should be crystal clear. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the freedom to seek, receive and transmit information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of boundaries, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other medium of one’s choosing. “In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) confirms freedom of expression as a legally binding right (Article 10). Switzerland enshrines this fundamental freedom in Article 16 of its 1999 constitution.

In practice, however, much remains controversial. Many governments around the world do not protect the right to freedom of expression, but increasingly undermine it. Elsewhere in the world, individuals and groups wave the term “freedom of expression” to justify discriminatory and hateful language. Although it is a universal right, freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Ensuring and applying it is always a tightrope walk.

In a new SWI swissinfo.ch series, we deal with these various aspects, challenges, opinions and developments relating to freedom of expression in Switzerland and around the world. We offer citizens a platform to express their opinion on this topic, offer analyzes by renowned scientists and highlight developments at local and global level. And of course, readers are invited to join the conversation later in the spring and have their voices heard.

End of insertion

What must be done so that online exchange is perceived as a blessing for democracy again? Who should take responsibility for containing growing polarization? While politicians are desperate for solutions and social media operators seem overwhelmed by their own creations, the answer could be in the hands of civil society. Should the impetus for change come from below, from the users – in other words, democratically?

State regulation

Different countries around the world are trying to solve the problem by passing new laws and regulations. Germany has taken on a pioneering role with its NetzDG (Network Enforcement Act), which affects all platforms with more than two million users in Germany, a country with around 80 million inhabitants. Such platforms must ensure that complaints are carefully examined and that all illegal content is removed within 24 hours. In 2019, Facebook was fined EUR 2 million (CHF 2.2 million) for violating these requirements.

German law was successfully exported (see map). In October 2020, the Danish think tank Justitia counted 25 countries that discussed or had already enacted laws inspired by the NetzDG.

But there is a catch. The concept on which the German model is based can easily be misused by less democratic governments. As Justitia stated in her report, the NetzDG contains legal guarantees and provisions to protect freedom of expression, which, however, have not been adopted to the same extent by all countries.

India, for example, is seeking new rules to ban content seen as a threat to “the unity, integrity, defense, security and sovereignty of the country” – a phrase that seems to silence unwanted voices. Russia also explicitly refers to the NetzDG model in its regulations against fake news. In 2020, a legal framework was created that enables the Internet to be completely paralyzed in the event of an (undefined) “emergency”.

Hungary and Poland: profile-blocking spit

While most countries are busy preventing dangerous or harmful content from appearing on the Internet, Poland and Hungary are taking a different approach. They want to stop Facebook and Co. from the blocking of user profiles, as long as the contributions of these users do not violate national laws. In February, the Hungarian Justice Minister wrote (on Facebook) that the big social media companies were trying to “limit the visibility of Christian, conservative, right-wing opinions”.

In Poland, meanwhile, there is a longstanding stalemate between Facebook and politicians from the ruling party PiS, who have repeatedly spread anti-LGBT messages on social media and have therefore been banned from the platform.

What is perceived by some as a necessary fight against hatred is clearly perceived by others as censorship. Petra Grimm, Professor of Digital Ethics at the Stuttgart Media University, is adamant: Freedom of expression doesn’t just mean that you can say what you want. “Like freedom as a whole, freedom of expression is always linked to certain limits.”

Need for action in Switzerland?

In Switzerland there are still no regulations specifically for social media. The web activist Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin is a pioneer in efforts to change this and fight hate on the Internet, mainly with the organization Netzcourage. She sees an urgent need for action: “A cabinet minister should decide: It is time to set up a working group and draft a law against hate speech,” she says.

According to Spiess-Hegglin, it’s just too easy to get away with discriminatory or malicious statements by alleging that you were hacked or someone else was using your computer.

Not only politicians have a duty here, stresses Grimm. “Tech companies also have a responsibility to regulate themselves.” In some countries, Facebook and Twitter are now demanding clearer regulations themselves. But Spiess-Hegglin is not convinced: “When companies demand clearer rules from the state, it’s like a murderer saying: ‘You shouldn’t sell me a knife, otherwise I’ll just go and kill someone!'”

Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin. © Keystone / Gaetan Bally
series

More clicks, more money

However, it is unlikely that commercial social media platforms will change significantly on their own. According to Grimm, the basic problem is of a structural nature. “Messages that are very spectacular and expand the truth a little or, even better, arouse the feeling, are clicked particularly often. And of course, clicks are where social media make their money. “

Spiess-Hegglin puts it in a nutshell: “Social media enable hate speech because it generates more clicks and thus more income.”

What is the solution? “We need an alternative social network that works according to the principles of public law and enables communication without commercial use of any kind,” says Grimm.

What she’s up to already exists. In Taiwan, the PTT platform, often referred to as Taiwan’s Reddit, is funded by the National University and operates independently of advertising funds and shareholders.

In an interview with SWI swissinfo.ch, Taiwan’s digital minister Audrey Tang described this system as a “prosocial” model in contrast to commercial providers, which she sees as increasingly “unsocial”.

Professor Petra Grimm. Radmila guy

“We need a new narrative”

In order for social media to change for the better, civil society needs to exert pressure, Tang says. In Taiwan, civil society has already successfully called for more transparency in politics. “Hard-won, radical transparency about funding political campaigns has become the norm”. Facebook is also bowing to such new norms and is now publishing real-time political advertising data. “We haven’t passed any law on this. It’s based entirely on social sanctions, ”says Tang.

According to Fabrizio Gilardi, a political scientist working on digitization, the time has come to fundamentally rethink the way we shape our interactions in the digital world. “It’s not primarily about laws, but about how we as a society want to relate digitally,” he says.

Spiess-Hegglin also believes we need to rethink how we conduct our direct interaction. “We have to learn to encourage communication so that it doesn’t get out of hand,” she says. She believes that “social media is basically a good thing, especially for activists who are barely heard in traditional media.”

“We have to build a virtuous social media culture on behalf of the users,” says Grimm. “We need a new narrative, a more optimistic and value-oriented one.” And it will take serious effort and political support to create alternatives to the commercial tech giants. “All measures taken should at least be Europe-wide” – and that includes Switzerland, says Grimm.

Freedom of expression series

Comments are closed.