Five tech giants, including Twitter and Facebook, have pledged to self-regulate and comply with New Zealand’s new voluntary law aimed at curbing harmful online content. The move, however, was dismissed as “window dressing” and an attempt to pre-empt the regulation.
Google, Meta, TikTok, Amazon and Twitter have agreed to sign up to Aotearoa New Zealand’s Online Safety and Harm Code of Practice, which requires tech companies to “proactively reduce harmful content” on their respective digital platforms and services. Country. The deal includes Google’s YouTube, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms, and Amazon’s Twitch platforms.
The move marks the start of the code of practice, which went into effect Monday after a year of development efforts led by NetSafe, a nonprofit organization focused on online security.
Based on self-regulation, the code outlines principles and best practices to help improve online safety and cut down on harmful content. According to Netsafe, it can be applied to products and services that serve different user communities.
The code focuses on seven themes where content is considered harmful, including cyberbullying or harassment, incitement to violence, misinformation and child sexual exploitation and abuse.
Under the law, signatories will make “best efforts” to fulfill four key commitments: reducing the spread of harmful online content, giving users more control and informed choice, increasing transparency of policies and procedures, and supporting independent research.
Netsafe said: “It enables signatories to innovate and respond to online security and harmful content threats in ways that better match their risk profiles, as well as to adapt strategies to iterate, improve and mitigate evolving online threats.” in real time.”
He added that the code was not designed to replace “obligations” in existing laws or other voluntary regulatory frameworks. Instead, it focused on the signatories’ architecture, which includes their systems, policies, processes, products and tools to combat the spread of harmful content.
NZ Tech has been entrusted with the establishment and management of the code. A not-for-profit non-governmental organization (NGO) representing 20 technology communities and over 1,000 members across New Zealand.
Several digital platforms participated in the code’s launch, including the five tech companies that signed up for it. Comments from civil society groups, interest groups, government and the public are also taken into consideration.
NetSafe says the code is built on Australian and EU online security principles and will be overseen by a “new multi-stakeholder governance” group.
Companies that agree to comply with the new code of practice must publish annual reports on their compliance with the code and face fines if they break their commitments.
According to Brent Carey, CEO of NetSafe, reports of harmful content have increased by more than 25% in online usage fueled by the global pandemic. “There are too many Kiwis who are harassed, harassed and bullied online, which is why the industry has come together to protect consumers,” Carey said.
Code introduces a model that eliminates ‘true liability’
One industry critic, however, argued that the rulemaking was a framework devoid of change and accountability.
Tohatoha NZ chief executive Mandy Henk said in a post that the code appeared to be “a meta-led effort to subvert New Zealand’s institutions”, to claim legitimacy without doing the work to achieve it.
“This is a poor attempt to pre-empt regulation by promoting an industry-led model that removes the real change and real accountability needed to protect communities, individuals and the health of our democracy in New Zealand and overseas,” he said. “This code talks a lot about transparency, but transparency without accountability is just window dressing. In our view, nothing in this code increases the accountability of platforms or makes those affected by their business models fully operational again or protected from the future. It hurts.”
Tohatoha NZ is a non-profit organization that supports public education on the social impacts of technology.
The procedures Henk brought to Aotearoa New Zealand’s code of practice showed that the minds behind it had “no understanding” of the power balance between users and online platforms and had no desire to correct this injustice.
He also pointed out that NZ Tech is an advocacy group that lacks the expertise or experience to manage this type of code of conduct, as well as community accountability. They added that it was not impartial or focused on the needs of those affected by technology platforms.
He called out NetSafe for his involvement in setting up NetSafe when his role as the approving administrator for New Zealand’s Harmful Digital Communications Act raised a conflict of interest. “He agrees. [Netsafe] Harmful digital communications law increases the risk of being too closely tied to and regulated by the affected companies, he said. “This code is a distraction from their core business of administering the law, which is vital. NetSafe’s focus must be on serving the New Zealand public and improving the safety of every New Zealander who uses the internet.”
Henk instead stressed the need for a government-led process to develop online content regulations. This provides the legitimacy and resources needed to establish a regulatory framework that protects the rights of Internet users.
A review of content moderation suggests that it is a right step in this direction.
