Content moderation
Image Source - https://rb.gy/3bcjnx

This article has been written by Priyamvada Singh, pursuing LLB(H) from School of Law, Galgotias University. Here, she makes a non-comprehensive analysis of content moderation and its effects on online freedom of expression.

Introduction

Mark Twain famously said, “Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it”. 

In today’s world, technology has made its way into almost every aspect of our lives: cooking, studying, cleaning, shopping, and so much more. One important aspect of the advent of technology is social media. Social media is certainly a powerful tool when it comes to shaping opinions, and forming new ones- so much so that governments have risen, and fallen because of it. However, with the controversies steaming out of the reckless use of this, including the ones Facebook keeps churning out, the need for content moderation just becomes more and more apparent. To bring this into context, the recent controversy of the Facebook Data Breach involved the company’s data being leaked without consent, by Cambridge Analytica – a British political consulting firm, to build psychological profiles of users, along with the users’ friends. The information was later to be used to sell to politicians, to help them formulate their campaign agendas. The foremost names of such customers were Ted Cruz, and the current President of the United States of America: Donald Trump.

Download Now

Moreover, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently asserted that online platforms like Facebook, Twitter should not be face- checking what politicians post, as they are one of the most sensitive parts of a democracy. He further said that people should be able to see what the politicians have to say. This came after the interviewer asked him about his thoughts on Twitter’s decision to fact check the tweets of US President Donald Trump.

Content moderation

Definition

Content moderation is the practice of monitoring, and tailoring the material available online, according to the preset rules and regulations set by the one doing it. Often viewed to be something meant to curb freedom of speech, content moderation may come in handy in cases of falsified data, or material which may incite violence or communal hatred. In this article, we shall take a look at the same.

https://lawsikho.com/course/lord-of-the-courses-judiciary-test-prep
                               Click Above

Needs

The moderation of online content is integral to avoid involuntary circumstances, and consequences which may impact a person, institution or a country negatively. Since the world of social media essentially functions on a free flow of information, and it is widely known that anything put on the internet once never gets taken down, the moderation of the same becomes more and more important. Moderation also involves cutting and removing sensitive/ horrendous information- which should not be made available so easily as to the touch of a button, lest it may fall into the wrong hands. Classified information needs to be shied away from being made public to prevent wrongful usage. However, this power must be used sparingly. In 2006, MSN abruptly pulled the blog of a Chinese-based journalist using the pseudonym Michael Anti, apparently at the behest of Chinese authorities, citing its policy of adherence to local laws.

Websites like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube need to censor and moderate their information before opening them up to the public and must put them into categories of whom it should be made available to, as well. For example, Youtube’s Community Guidelines prohibit “nudity or sexual content,” “harmful or dangerous content,” “hateful content,” “violent or graphic content,” “harassment and cyberbullying,” “spam, misleading metadata, “scams,” “threats,” videos that would violate someone else’s copyright, “impersonation,” and “child endangerment. After the need for it became clear as day, almost all mega-platforms employed content moderators to do the job. Their job description involves closing down on questionable content, finding out whether they follow the rules and moderation guidelines of their company, and take decisions of whether it should or should not continue to stay up on the website. However, these moderation guidelines still lack clarity and are mostly guided by the local cultures, rather than a unified law- making the whole process quite ambiguous. From videos of people being decapitated to violent pornographic content, to even more atrocious material- the job often even causes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder-like symptoms to the people who engage in such jobs. However, as big as the problem is growing up to be, there is still a lack of methods to tackle it. Since the user base is so wide and extensive- the diversity of the content makes it difficult for lawmakers to find a solution to this problem. 

Limitations

However, content moderation does not come without its own set of limitations and disadvantages. It is easy, perhaps, for the same to take the role of state-sponsored censorship- since the rules of the moderation are heavily guided by the governments of the respective nations. This is why organisations like that of Global Internet Freedom Consortium advocates for the removal of barriers to information. They develop and put to use software that allows for information access through the breaking of firewalls, in nations where they are banned. This is done for a better “free flow” of information in “closed societies”. Similarly, another organisation Reporters without Borders tackles this problem in countries that restrict information, namely: China, North Korea, Iran, amongst others.

Freedom of expression

Interestingly, Article 19 of both- the Constitution of India, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, talk about the same thing: Freedom of Speech and Expression. The principle of Freedom of Expression is often used synonymously with the principle of Freedom of Speech, however, the former usually happens to be broader in aspect. Freedom of Expression involves itself in letting any person or institution or otherwise to voice their interest and make their opinion(s) be heard, without any fear of consequences, or coercion, of any kind. It has been listed as one of the thirty fundamental human rights that the United Nations bestows upon a person, albeit they are not legally binding in nature. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) acknowledges the same. However, the same comes with its own set of restrictions. 

Freedom of speech and expression, however freeing they may be in nature, are subject to a few scrutinies and limitations. One practising their freedom must shy away from slander, libel, obscenity, and must respect the right of privacy of others. The crossing of these limits is strictly forbidden. These are a few of the many boundaries placed on freedom of expression, making it not an absolute right. This is where online content moderation comes into the picture. The offence principle is a theory of criminology that talks about morality and contemporary society to decide the gravity of an offence. For example, according to this theory, harming something is much more graver than just speaking defamatory statements about them. And thus, the penal charges for the former should certainly be higher than the latter. 

Since the “offence principle” is employed while bestowing the freedom of speech, it becomes imperative that moderators be employed to make sure of the fact that no sinister ideas materialise. However, it also becomes questionable when the countries employing them use it to their own advantage like was witnessed recently in the case of the Golden Shield Project which is a government-employed organisation, that aims to block away from any data that it deems unfavourable for the government. As technology reaches further and wider each day, making itself the operating system of governments and international politics, the need for the balance to be struck between moderation and freedom makes itself more and more apparent.

Case laws

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

In 2015, a landmark decision was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union Of India. Prior to this case, Freedom of Expression was applied differently in cases of online content, and offline speech- by the legislative. The Information Technology Act, 2000 provided for Section 66A, that asserted for the incarceration of a period of three years, to a person who posed offensive content online. Although well-meaning, this law was widely misused to strike down anyone who tried to question or criticise the government. This was considered to be draconian especially because the ability to voice one’s opinion is the cornerstone of any democracy.  In the case, the plaintiff had posted a status on Facebook alleging the inappropriateness of shutting down the financial capital of India, on the behest of the death of a political leader. The girl, along with her friend who had ‘liked’ the post- were made to spend the night in jail for the same. The police alleged making an arrest under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000. The women were later let go, post which they filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the same in the Apex Court. The Court allowed their motion, and invalidated Section 66A, in light of its vagueness and its intrusion into the freedom of speech and expression, provided under Section 19(1)A.

However, despite the fact that the section was invalidated, it continues to be brought to use. In 2017, the Uttar Pradesh Police arrested a 22-year-old man for morphing the photo of the Chief Minister, compromising the latter’s dignity, under Section 66A.

Google v. SNIL

As was observed in the case of Google v. SNIL, the principle of proportionality must be employed when online content moderation is being brought to practice. This is because the Freedom of speech and expression is not the same worldwide, and depends heavily on the society, the government, and its people. Some happen to be more conservatively closed off than the others, because of which there can not be a uniform online tool for the moderation of the same.

Conclusion

As the internet reaches almost every aspect of our lives because of its multifacetedness, including our romantic alliances, political campaigns, and saving lives in matters of disaster management, the need for online content moderation becomes increasingly imperative. If not done timely, it may manifest itself into a powerful tool for terrorists, human traffickers, and paedophiles, amongst others. However, it needs to be balanced with one’s freedom of expression. The vagueness of the rules and guidelines must be done away with. The nations across the world must come together in a fight against this problem which continues to gain momentum incrementally, with each passing day. The need of the hour is a common organisation that regulates the same, akin to that of the Internet Association of the Software Alliance. This shall also result in a greater placement of trust in the government, and the internet companies, by the general public which has often been let down by the same. It is also time for content moderation to cease to be viewed as a way of censorship, but a tool to provide a safe space on the internet, for its users’ well being and health. They need to be placed on higher standards, as the world economy, world politics, and global citizenship continue to remain under pressure of this advent of technology.

References

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here