When the Malaysian government announced it had plans to require social media platforms and messaging services to apply for licenses earlier this year, there was significant pushback. The proposals by the country’s internet regulator reportedly included “pre-emptive action to prevent offences, a kill switch for content deemed egregious, forced auditing of licensees’ content moderation and algorithm processes, and the requirement to have a local entity in Malaysia that would be subjected to local laws”. There was disgruntled murmuring by some about restrictions on free speech, and potential abuse of rules.
Now it seems, however, that the Malaysian approach, which is due to come into effect at the beginning of next year, has piqued the interest of others. According to the country’s communications minister, Fahmi Fadzil, the UK’s media regulatory body, Ofcom, and the Singapore government have contacted the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission to ask for more details.
“We might be the first mover on this issue because many governments around the world feel that these big technology companies can no longer do as they please to accumulate wealth and not follow rules and laws,” said Mr Fahmi last week. “Those days will soon be over.”
Most people are aware of the tides of harmful misinformation, outright falsehoods and often successful attempts to stir up hatred that have flooded these platforms and services. The recent riots in Northern Ireland and England are just one example of the disruption, terror and destruction that can follow. Across the world, politicians have realised that the big tech companies are not willing, or perhaps sometimes unable, to provide users and societies with sufficient protection, and that governments must now step in.
“We can’t have a situation where it’s seen as some kind of Wild West,” said Irish prime minister Simon Harris last week, after threats to him and his family had apparently remained posted on one platform for two days after the Irish police had asked them to be removed. “The era of self-regulation of these companies is well and truly over. This will be the year in which there will be binding codes, financial sanctions and personal liabilities on social media companies – and that day can’t come quickly enough.”
US Senator Thom Tillis put it even more strongly to the chief executives of Meta, TikTok, X and others at a senate hearing in January. Accusing them of failing to protect children from exploitation, he told them: “We could regulate you out of business if we wanted to.”
For a long time many authorities appeared to think that the big tech firms were just too dominant to be tamed by any local rules. When they were confronted, however, it was clear that the companies would respond to ensure they weren’t shut out of markets.
In 2021, Australia forced Google and Facebook to strike deals with media outlets to pay for content that appeared on their platforms. AI firms are making a series of agreements with media firms whose content they have doubtless already scraped, not least to avoid lengthy legal action. European Commissioner Thierry Breton warned X’s owner Elon Musk about spreading “harmful content” before his livestreamed interview with former US President Donald Trump. Mr Breton may have overstepped the mark by not consulting his colleagues, but the EU’s determination to be at the forefront of social media regulation is clear.
Ireland’s Mr Harris said it was wrong that these platforms did not “come into contact with the same laws and enforcement” as newspapers did. I agree with him, but he also made an important distinction. For as much as there has always been a degree of cynicism about the whole mainstream media ecosystem – “it must be true, I read it in a newspaper” ran the old joke – historically many outlets made huge efforts to get the facts right. To take a personal example, when I worked for UK newspapers, for several years every single word I wrote was read by libel lawyers before publication.
But trust in many of the legacy broadcasters and publishers has been undermined. If you doubt that, you should watch a recent interview by US talk show host Stephen Colbert. Addressing a reporter from a rival network, he said: “I know you guys are objective over [at CNN], you just report the news as it is.” The audience immediately erupted in hysterical laughter, leaving even Mr Colbert looking taken aback.
This is one of the reasons that misinformation spreads so easily on social media. If faith has eroded in what should be the “trusted sources”, suddenly anyone who can string a sentence together can appear plausible to far too many people.
“Just as there is a right of freedom of speech, there is a right for people to have access to accurate information,” Henry Parker of Logically, a UK firm that monitors disinformation online, said this week.
And for information to be accurate it must be complete and provide full context. It is therefore in my opinion an obligation for all the big media companies who are so delighted that Kamala Harris is now the Democratic candidate for US president to explain just why it was that only a few months ago they were describing her as a drag on the ticket and moaned that it was too difficult to dump her.
All those White House correspondents who colluded in the pretence that US President Joe Biden was as “sharp as a tack” also need to come clean about their reasons for doing so; and answer why, if he's mentally unfit to run for office again, he is still fit to have his finger on the nuclear button when he's only “dependably engaged” between 10am and 4pm.
The failure to do so plays into right wing narratives about the "lamestream" media, a term I hate, as it dismisses the work of so many decent, committed people. But the point is that disinformation of whatever kind – and that includes deliberate omission – is too dangerous to be allowed to proliferate. That is one of the main reasons that regulation is coming for social media.
It would ill behove legacy media firms to be too sanctimonious about it, though. Many ought to be examining their consciences and asking if they are truly in the business of providing “accurate information”, or if they too are focused on promoting their own preferred, partisan narratives, which also provoke division and polarisation – just, perhaps, in a less obviously "egregious" manner.
