[Global Focus] War Against Harmful Content on SNS... "Corporate Responsibility" vs "Freedom of Expression"

Intensified Global SNS Regulation

From Mediators to Accountability for SNS Platform Companies
Strengthened European Regulations... US Also Shows Signs of Change

Calls for Regulation Due to AI Development
Concerns Over Excessive Restrictions on Freedom of Expression

"In Western democratic societies, there has never been a case where the head of a company was arrested for the actions of users within a social networking service (SNS) platform." (The New York Times, NYT)

The incident on the 24th of last month (local time), when Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested upon setting foot in France, suggests that platform companies are no longer free from responsibility for users' deviant behavior on SNS. The reason for Durov's arrest was his refusal to cooperate with French authorities' investigation into illegal activities such as child sexual exploitation materials on Telegram.

As countries around the world wage war against the tsunami of harmful online content, cases holding companies accountable are expected to increase. Although the scale of SNS has expanded and the volume of harmful content has grown exponentially due to advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology, companies are criticized for responding passively. Some voices express concern that companies censoring users may excessively restrict freedom of expression.

Companies Unite in Saying "This Is Not Acceptable"

Following Durov's arrest, influential global company leaders collectively voiced that the authorities' actions were excessive.

Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter) and CEO of Tesla, claimed on X that "soon in Europe, people will be executed just for liking a meme." Chris Pavlovski, CEO of the conservative video-sharing platform Rumble, stated, "France has crossed the red line," emphasizing, "Rumble will use all possible legal means to fight for the universal human right of freedom of expression." David Sacks, former COO of PayPal, even suggested a conspiracy theory that the French authorities' move is part of an effort to shut down popular SNS platforms.

Europe Takes an Active Role in SNS Regulation

Europe is regarded as the most proactive region globally in regulating SNS. For example, when a rumor spread on SNS in the UK that the perpetrator of a random killing of three children was an Islamic immigrant, nationwide far-right violent protests erupted. In Europe, misinformation on SNS has emerged as a threatening tool capable of causing physical harm to society.

There appears to be a growing view that SNS platform companies cannot be seen merely as intermediaries to prevent social chaos. The European Union (EU) implemented the Digital Services Act (DSA) last August to curb the spread of false information and illegal content on SNS platforms and is currently investigating Meta Platforms, TikTok, and X. The UK is preparing to enforce the "Online Safety Act" in the second half of next year, which allows for the personal punishment of executives if SNS platforms fail to remove content that threatens child safety, such as sexual and animal abuse materials.

Rising Corporate Accountability in the United States

The United States, which has emphasized freedom of expression, is also experiencing winds of change. Since 1996, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, platform companies have been granted immunity from liability for illegal content distributed on SNS. Section 230 states that "a service provider shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider." Bloomberg News explained, "In recent years, hundreds of lawsuits alleging that SNS platforms have neglected harmful content such as suicide and self-harm have been filed, but courts have dismissed these lawsuits based on this law."

However, recent U.S. court rulings contrary to Section 230 have caught the attention of platform companies. On the 27th of last month, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia overturned a lower court ruling, stating that the family of teenage Nila Anderson, who died following the so-called "choking challenge" popularized on TikTok in 2021, may have the right to sue TikTok. The three-judge panel, including Paul Matey, reasoned that "TikTok was aware that the choking challenge, which can be fatal, was spreading on the app, and the algorithm encouraged participation in the challenge, resulting in death."

It is expected to take years to finally determine the rights and wrongs of SNS platform companies, but the U.S. legal community views this ruling as significant. It sets a precedent that platform companies are not automatically immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in cases where harmful content on SNS leads to extreme outcomes.

Meanwhile, some U.S. states are also moving to regulate SNS platform companies. New York passed a bill in June banning SNS platforms from providing algorithmic feeds to teenagers, and Florida plans to implement a measure next year prohibiting children under 14 from joining SNS.

Korea Turned Upside Down by Deepfake... Is Regulation Justified?

As AI technology advances, as seen in the recent surge of deepfake crimes on SNS in Korea, there are arguments that regulatory measures to complement these developments are justified.

Of course, longstanding concerns about whether strengthened laws and increased SNS censorship by platforms infringe on freedom of expression have resurfaced. According to the NYT, Meta Platforms and Google are relatively cooperative with government policies to regulate harmful content.

However, not only Telegram but also X has opposed regulations that restrict the realm of expression. This year, X refused a Brazilian court order to block accounts suspected of spreading hate speech, leading to an unprecedented situation where access to X was blocked in Brazil.

The Washington Post (WP) diagnosed, "In democratic countries, regulators currently face the challenge of balancing between freedom of expression and controlling harmful information."