Fighting harm or silencing dissent?
In recent months, the world has seen growing criticism levelled against social media companies regarding how they moderate user content. These companies often face critical human rights dilemmas: aggressively combating what is viewed as harmful content risks silencing ‘protected speech’: speech that, under international law, should be permitted. Intervening with or removing content affects the rights to freedom of expression and privacy, and can easily lead to censorship. Faced with the need to do more to ensure accountability, many governments have started to regulate online content. Some 40 new social media laws have been adopted worldwide in the last two years. Another 30 are under consideration. It’s a worrying trend, according to UN Human Rights, and has immense consequences for public debate and participation. For Peggy Hicks, Director of Thematic Engagement for UN Human Rights, nearly every country that has adopted laws relating to online content has jeopardised human rights in doing so.
“This happens because governments respond to public pressure by rushing in with simple solutions for complex problems,” said Hicks, speaking at a press briefing last week. “Additionally, some governments see this legislation as a way to limit speech they dislike and even silence civil society or other critics.”
The only way to address these challenges is to adopt a human rights-based approach, she said.
“We need to sound a loud and persistent alarm, given the tendency for flawed regulations to be cloned, and bad practices to flourish.”