PM Jacinda Ardern's 'Christchurch Call' falls short of the scale of terror online

Tuesday, 7 May 2019

The 'Christchurch Call' launched by Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron falls short of dealing with the scale of hatred online, new social media research says.

The call to action seeks a global agreement to attempt to stop platforms like Facebook being used to promote terrorism.

But content moderation alone won't be enough, researchers behind the Digital Threats to Democracy report have warned.

The 'Christchurch Call' launched in April by Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron seeks a global agreement to attempt to stop platforms like Facebook being used to promote terrorism.

'It is critical that the Prime Minister and her advisors look beyond immediate concerns about violent extremism and content moderation', lead researcher Marianne Elliott said.

**READ MORE:

Police stand guard outside the Al Noor mosque following a Call to prayer and peace vigil. (File photo)

* The devil will be in the detail of the 'Christchurch Call'

* Mark Zuckerberg defends Facebook after Christchurch terror attacks

Ardern will head to Paris this month to co-host a forum and reach an accord on social media and online extremism.

* PM Jacinda Ardern talks to Facebook CEO**

'[They need] to consider the wider context in which digital media is having a growing and increasingly negative impact on our democracy.'

The Al Noor mosque on Deans Ave in Christchurch was the scene of New Zealand's worst terror attack on March 15.

Facebook was heavily criticised after the shooting in Christchurch was livestreamed on Facebook and the video remaining available on a range of platforms.

The research, published on Wednesday, said citizens needed to be mobilised to rein in social media giants.

Researchers proposed tech and digital media users could use their leverage to demand more ethical online media.

New Zealand's conversation about protecting the right to safety alongside the freedom of speech had been 'overly simplistic', the report says.

So far, the conversation ignored some 'real life' harms, including the laundering of extreme views, the psychological harm of encountering hatred online and the influence of racist views.

'If the open web is to be saved, it's salvation will lie in a broader public understanding of the critical role of open and diverse internet governance … rather than the current focus on a narrowly defined, and widely misunderstood and misrepresented, concept of freedom of expression.'

Elliott said privately-owned platforms had so much power over people's lives.

The study pointed to the influence of 'opaque' algorithmic engines which had little transparency about how they work.

It also outlined the 'attention economy', where major players prioritised attention-grabbing content while avoiding responsibility for its impact on wellbeing and democracy.

Elliott said when combined, the lack of transparency and the attention economy posed serious threats.

It was critical that the response to terror online didn't further undermine democratic institutions, she said.

'The history of digital media has shown that good intentions can cause more harm, if not informed by the diverse experiences of users and the research evidence.'

Victoria University media studies professor Dr Kathleen Kuehn said neither automated nor manual classifications systems can ever be 'neutral' or free from human bias.

Automated systems were already identifying inappropriate content, but the combination of automated classification and deletion systems and human efforts was the most effective content moderation strategy currently on offer, she said.

The report was made by policy and communication think tank The Workshop, backed by $56,660 in funding from the New Zealand Law Foundation and $24,000 funding from The Luminate Group.

*Comments on this article have now closed.