Tribune. Online hatred, but also illegal content of all kinds and fake news are of concern to regulators around the world. According to a recent report from the European Commission, a third of reported hateful content online is not removed by social media. These networks are questioned on a daily basis, either because they do not do enough to control the virality of harmful content, or because they do too much, by eliminating certain content and users without further legal action. Some compare Facebook, with its private “Supreme Court”, to a sovereign state. The major platforms have a structuring role in our public debate and have become, like radio and television, media with a strong influence on society. It is not, of course, to regulate these networks like television, because the role of social networks is different, and too strict regulation would create an intolerable interference in freedom of expression. But the need for a regulatory framework has become obvious, on two fronts.
The first front is to encourage social networks to find solutions, especially algorithmic, to reduce the presence and virality of hate content. The draft European Digital Services Act regulation, currently under negotiation in Brussels, would oblige the platforms to carry out an internal diagnosis of the systemic risks created by their services and to propose solutions to reduce these risks. Ahead of the European regulation, the French law of August 24, 2021 requires social networks to put in place technical and organizational measures to streamline the processing of reports, under the control of the Superior Audiovisual Council (CSA). In terms of content regulation, the State must remain as neutral as possible, in order to minimize the impact on freedom of expression.
Bringing regulation back to life
In the 1990s, it was believed that the multiplication of points of view on the Internet was the best guarantee of a healthy freedom of expression (the theory of ” marketplace of ideas “). US law (Communications Decency Act, adopted in 1996) and European (“Electronic Commerce” directive, in 2000) is built on this laissez-faire theory. Today, we realize that the quantity of points of view is not a sufficient guarantee, because without a minimum of supervision, this abundance can lead to abuses jeopardizing the very objective of freedom of expression, namely the preservation of democratic debate. Hence the need to revive audiovisual regulation, and in France the role of the CSA, to regulate social networks as media with strong influence, while striving to preserve the unprecedented space of freedom created by these platforms.
You have 51.31% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.