Let’s take this bit by bit.
Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft have signed up to new EU rules on taking down illegal hate speech as lawmakers and internet giants try to cope with violent racist abuse and technically savvy terrorists online. The “code of conduct” will require companies to “review the majority” of flagged hate speech within 24 hours — and remove it if necessary — and even develop “counter narratives” to combat the growing problem.
Naturally, terror is given as the rationale.
This push to codify the handling of illegal hate speech online has been led in Brussels by Vera Jourova, the commissioner responsible for justice. “The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech,” said Ms Jourova. “Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and to spread violence and hatred.”
Note how that phrase “illegal hate speech” sails smoothly by, largely unchallenged. The FT report does include some criticism of the EU solution, but that mainly concerns the delegation of power to the private companies conscripted that have agreed to manage the blue cyber-pencil:
[The move] has triggered criticism from some lawmakers, who argue that giving internet companies the final say on what constitutes hate speech effectively privatises one arm of law enforcement.
The principle of freedom of speech gets a nod just at the end:
Karen White, Twitter’s head of public policy for Europe, said: “We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow. However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that the FT is circumspect. It can usually be relied upon to toe the Brussels line, and with the UK’s Brexit vote drawing closer (June 23) the paper may worry about riling up those Britons who still care about free speech.
Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky operates under fewer constraints. Here’s some of what he has to say:
The four U.S. companies have accepted a European Union-dictated code of conduct, which obliges them to “review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content.” The reviewing is to be done by “civil society organizations” and “trusted reporters”: the EU and its member states are to “ensure access” to them.
This arrangement effectively outsources the enforcement of Europe’s hate speech laws to nongovernmental organizations with a direct interest in describing certain kinds of speech as hate-inciting — and to private companies that find it easier to delete a comment or a post than to fight those organizations or governments and risk losing money.
It’s worth adding that the EU’s regulatory and tax enforcers have a long history of going against US tech companies with a track record of doing too well. The EU’s four American accomplices are not particularly committed to free speech, but they do have good prudential reasons to give their ‘voluntary’ assent to what Brussels wants them to do. And to play by Brussels’ rules thereafter.
Back to Bershidsky:
Streamlined, semi-automatic censorship by interest groups should work better than a free-for-all. That, of course, is a problem for “politically incorrect” right-wing populists; the “trusted reporters” are highly likely to classify their utterances as hate speech. Besides, by subscribing to the code of conduct, the Internet giants have also promised to “continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives” — to be proactive in fighting the viewpoints associated with the loose definition of hate speech.
“Independent counter-narratives” sounds so much better than propaganda. “Independent” is a particularly nice touch.
Bershidsky:
The social networks started as neutral platforms where anybody could say anything and be rewarded with admiration or ridicule. As they grew into huge businesses, however, an aversion to getting in trouble with governments took over, especially as European countries have attacked them on other fronts. They could have told the governments it was their responsibility to enforce their laws, obtain proper court orders, prosecute offending users and put in requests for the removal of noxious material. They chose an easier path. Rather than let their users accept or reject the various views that their peers might express, the companies signed up to police them with the help of “civil society” activists.
That is a failure of judgment that probably won’t matter to the vast majority of people who use the social networks to talk to a small circle of friends and relatives. It is, however, important for news media that use these networks as platforms for content delivery. Laws limiting free speech have a tendency to change in response to terrorist attacks, electoral upsets, changes in public attitudes. Russians and Turks can attest to how quickly anti-terrorist legislation can turn into a system of censorship and suppression. Europe is not immune to versions of these developments. The U.S. giants’ willingness to work with governments and advocacy groups to uphold speech limitations makes them unreliable as platforms.
Indeed.
All this said, the gang of four are private companies doing what they believe they must. In the end, that’s their decision to make, however much I might disagree with it. The real responsibility for this shabby little authoritarian stitch-up lies with the EU. And once again Brussels has reminded us that freedom of speech is not a “European value”.
Adventures in Censorship: The EU, Again