This is the same issue that faces newspapers, publishers and TV stations. At some point the scale of reach and influence come into conflict with public policy and governance.
Newspapers are horribly regulated and most TV stations can say what they like within reason - especially in the US where being fair and balanced is no longer a requirement to run a news service.
This jurisdictional problem affects all media and isn't just limited to social platforms.
The difference with TV and Newspapers is that they can have their licenses revoked. So there is a degree of power wielded by the government over what is acceptable locally.
In contrast, social media infringes on sovereign power by existing and influencing on a global scale without being regulated on a local one. A great example is name suppression during trials, it might be illegal for a newspaper in France to publish a name, but that doesn't stop one in the UK from doing it, and because the paper has a website, that foreign paper inadvertently breaks local law in France because anyone can look it up, but it can't be held accountable.
Sovereignty and global digital media do not intersect well without an interface - and that just doesn't exist.
Expect more balkanisation of the Internet in the future as govts take back some control over media within their borders.
And no, I'm not advocating for dictator-like suppression of free-speech, but a mechanism of accountability for foreign firms breaking local laws.
It's a shame that the real-world example has to be Trump, if this had happened to Malala, or Thunberg, or the Pope, the advocacy for oversight and accountability would be a lot easier to digest.
Newspapers are horribly regulated and most TV stations can say what they like within reason - especially in the US where being fair and balanced is no longer a requirement to run a news service.
This jurisdictional problem affects all media and isn't just limited to social platforms.
The difference with TV and Newspapers is that they can have their licenses revoked. So there is a degree of power wielded by the government over what is acceptable locally.
In contrast, social media infringes on sovereign power by existing and influencing on a global scale without being regulated on a local one. A great example is name suppression during trials, it might be illegal for a newspaper in France to publish a name, but that doesn't stop one in the UK from doing it, and because the paper has a website, that foreign paper inadvertently breaks local law in France because anyone can look it up, but it can't be held accountable.
Sovereignty and global digital media do not intersect well without an interface - and that just doesn't exist.
Expect more balkanisation of the Internet in the future as govts take back some control over media within their borders.
And no, I'm not advocating for dictator-like suppression of free-speech, but a mechanism of accountability for foreign firms breaking local laws.
It's a shame that the real-world example has to be Trump, if this had happened to Malala, or Thunberg, or the Pope, the advocacy for oversight and accountability would be a lot easier to digest.
reply