Internal Affairs sets out big plans to regulate harmful content on social media

Thursday, 1 June 2023

Large social media and internet-based content platforms could be fined for breaching rules designed to tackle harmful content under proposals released on Thursday.

Social media platforms including Meta, YouTube and Twitter would be forced to abide by a mandatory code of conduct designed to reduce online ills, under a major shake-up of media regulation proposed by the Department of Internal Affairs.

The proposals would also the alter the way traditional media outlets including television, radio and newspapers and streaming TV providers, films and video games are regulated, but Internal Affairs said it was social media platforms that would see the major change.

Online content platforms that had an annual audience of more than 100,000 New Zealanders or 25,000 registered users here would need to hammer out a code of practice approved by a new “independent regulator”, which would have the power to fine them for any significant breaches.

The regulator could “lead the development of a code” if the industry failed to agree one, and its rules would apply to all relevant companies regardless of whether they were registered in New Zealand or resident here, the department said.

* New Zealand's broadcasting codes being reviewed

The Post's editor Caitlin Cherry and Kate Hannah from The Disinformation Project discuss how disinformation is still present in our community, one year on from the occupation at Parliament.

* New Zealand scooped on regulating Facebook and Google by Australia

Internal Affairs policy manager Suzanne Doig said the proposals were not at this point government policy, but that Internal Affairs Minister Barbara Edmonds had agreed the department should put them out for public consultation.

The department couldn’t say for certain whether it had the legal ability to, for example, fine Twitter for a breach of a code that the regulator agreed but which the company didn’t sign up to, she said.

But she said Internal Affairs was “clear that the platforms are captured by the codes regardless of whether they sign up to them or not”.

The initiative appears to step in over the top of a self-regulatory code brokered by Netsafe last year and backed by Meta, Google, TikTok, Amazon and Twitter that has been criticised by non-profit organisations, including InternetNZ, as weak and lacking legitimacy.

“We'd see that code as an example of industry coming together to develop a code of practice. I guess where it would differ from here is they would need to work with the regulator to establish whether the code they have developed meets expectations,” Doig said.

Internal Affairs said the approach could reduce harmful content, citing material “promoting disordered eating, adult content in video games, and violent misogynistic content” as three examples.

The discussion document appeared to tread lightly over the topics of misinformation and disinformation.

Internal Affairs policy manager Suzanne Doig has played down the immediate implications of the new proposals for established media organisations.

But Internal Affairs said a social media code could include rules “for responsible and transparent design of ranking algorithms like Facebook’s Newsfeed”.

“Consumers could see more warning labels and content advisories, and there could be changes to the way algorithms recommend content so that harmful content is not actively pushed to users.”

Doig said algorithms that led people down rabbit holes could “potentially be viewed as one form of harmful content” but added that “clearly not all disinformation meets that threshold for being harmful”.

“Rather than creating a power for the regulator to say ‘you must take down their posts because it's disinformation’. We'd expect the codes would operate to require the platforms to have in place measures that manage some of that effect.”

Internal Affairs said the overhaul would also make it easier for people to lodge complaints about things they saw online or in the mainstream media by requiring “accessible processes for consumer complaints for particular content”.

In an apparent bid to reassure the public the Government was not overreaching, Internal Affairs said the definition of illegal, objectionable content would not change, and the new independent regulator would “not have any powers over individual content creators who use platforms to share legal content”.

The proposals would also change the way complaints about the mainstream media were handled.

Instead, the platforms themselves would be responsible for ensuring material on their platforms did not breach their relevant code.

Nor would the regulator be involved in “moderating individual pieces of legal content”.

“The new system would not include a take-down power for content that does not meet the threshold for being illegal,” Internal Affairs made clear.

Nevertheless, Jonathan Ayling, chief executive of the Free Speech Union, who obtained an embargoed copy of the proposals ahead of their public release on Thursday, indicated it was vehemently opposed.

“While the intention to address 'safety' and online 'harm' is arguably laudable, the cure is worse than the disease,” he said.

“The proposed structure of a regulator, with a code drafted away from Parliament and political accountability is a censor's greatest dream and will be weaponised to suppress unpopular or disliked perspectives and opinions,” he forecast.

Other content providers, including the mainstream media, would also be regulated by mandatory codes of practice overseen by the new regulator under the proposals.

Those would replace existing self-regulatory schemes such as those run by the Media Council, and the Broadcasting Standards Authority, with the possibility that media firms could be fined for rule breaches.

Doig said that would “potentially” be a change for major media organisations but indicated the expectations placed on them might not change greatly in practice.

“We'd certainly expect the approach for broadcast media and the existing codes of practice to be largely grandfathered and unchanged, initially.”

She would not estimate how many codes would be needed in total to cover the media and online content industry.

Internal Affairs is proposing content providers would fall into different groups with different codes “tailored to their industry”.

News Publishers Association general manager Brook Cameron appeared to question whether a change was needed with respect to its own members, which include Stuff and NZME.

Media firms were “already heavily regulated and worked within New Zealand legislation”, she said.

“The current model for our members’ editorial content has operated effectively for many years, providing New Zealanders with a robust and efficient complaints process via the Media Council,” she said.

The deadline for submissions on the proposals is July 31.