WEBVTT - ‘Legitimate concern’: Should we regulate YouTube’s algorithm?

0:00:05.240 --> 0:00:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Kilda.

0:00:05.760 --> 0:00:09.080
<v Speaker 2>I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a

0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:16.880
<v Speaker 2>daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Video sharing

0:00:16.960 --> 0:00:21.840
<v Speaker 2>website YouTube began twenty years ago with a nineteen second

0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 2>video of one of its founders at the San Diego Zoo. Now,

0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:31.280
<v Speaker 2>hundreds of hours of content are uploaded to the platform

0:00:31.400 --> 0:00:36.240
<v Speaker 2>every single minute. There has been a huge shift globally

0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:39.519
<v Speaker 2>to rain in the social media giants. The UK has

0:00:39.560 --> 0:00:43.840
<v Speaker 2>introduced to age verification requirements, with Australia to follow suit

0:00:43.920 --> 0:00:47.839
<v Speaker 2>by the end of the year. Other countries like India, Germany, Spain,

0:00:47.960 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 2>Italy and Norway are also investigating exactly how to better

0:00:52.560 --> 0:00:59.320
<v Speaker 2>protect kids online. So should algorithms like youtubes be regulated

0:00:59.800 --> 0:01:01.400
<v Speaker 2>and how would we even do it?

0:01:01.960 --> 0:01:02.280
<v Speaker 3>Today?

0:01:02.280 --> 0:01:06.400
<v Speaker 2>On the Front Page, Victoria University of Wellington Associate Professor

0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:09.760
<v Speaker 2>doctor Peter Thompson is with us to discuss what New

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:13.720
<v Speaker 2>Zealand should do and whether we're already fighting a losing

0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:22.200
<v Speaker 2>battle against harmful online contents. First off, Peter, let's start

0:01:22.240 --> 0:01:25.679
<v Speaker 2>with a relatively easy one. I suppose can you explain

0:01:25.840 --> 0:01:27.280
<v Speaker 2>what an algorithm is?

0:01:27.760 --> 0:01:31.640
<v Speaker 4>Okay? Well, an algorithm is a computer program applied to

0:01:31.760 --> 0:01:36.520
<v Speaker 4>the servers of online content in this context, and so

0:01:36.560 --> 0:01:40.759
<v Speaker 4>it basically determines the priority in which you will actually

0:01:40.880 --> 0:01:44.240
<v Speaker 4>come across and discover content on the platform you're using.

0:01:44.680 --> 0:01:48.040
<v Speaker 4>So on social media, they access our data. They look

0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:50.760
<v Speaker 4>at what we've liked where, what we've looked for, what

0:01:50.800 --> 0:01:54.200
<v Speaker 4>we've searched for, what we've engaged with, and that informs

0:01:54.200 --> 0:01:58.000
<v Speaker 4>the algorithm what kinds of content we're likely to want

0:01:58.040 --> 0:02:01.000
<v Speaker 4>in the future, and so it prioritized is things that

0:02:01.240 --> 0:02:05.320
<v Speaker 4>the algorithm tells the system is the sort of content

0:02:05.400 --> 0:02:08.040
<v Speaker 4>that we're going to spend our time with, because that's

0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:09.200
<v Speaker 4>how they make their money.

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:13.000
<v Speaker 2>How good do you think the algorithm is, like does

0:02:13.040 --> 0:02:15.960
<v Speaker 2>it really know what we want? Or does it know

0:02:16.280 --> 0:02:19.560
<v Speaker 2>what it wants us to want? If that makes sense.

0:02:20.120 --> 0:02:24.960
<v Speaker 4>They're getting more sophisticated, that's for sure, certainly with AI,

0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:28.600
<v Speaker 4>but they don't really know who we are. I mean,

0:02:28.680 --> 0:02:30.840
<v Speaker 4>all they have is a data set based on our

0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:34.400
<v Speaker 4>online behavior that they can access. And that's why data

0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:38.040
<v Speaker 4>is so incredibly important because of course not only informs

0:02:38.360 --> 0:02:41.880
<v Speaker 4>the sort of content that we find on online platforms,

0:02:42.280 --> 0:02:45.639
<v Speaker 4>it also informs advertising and the way that advertisers might

0:02:46.280 --> 0:02:49.440
<v Speaker 4>pitch their particular products to us.

0:02:49.160 --> 0:02:50.040
<v Speaker 2>So you know.

0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:53.280
<v Speaker 4>Is it very effective, well, to some degree, yes. I

0:02:53.280 --> 0:02:56.720
<v Speaker 4>think most of us have had an experience where, for example,

0:02:56.720 --> 0:02:59.120
<v Speaker 4>we've gone online search for something and the next thing

0:02:59.639 --> 0:03:02.520
<v Speaker 4>we know, we're on social media and the thing that

0:03:02.560 --> 0:03:05.320
<v Speaker 4>we were just looking for is being advertised to us,

0:03:05.320 --> 0:03:08.840
<v Speaker 4>and there's a little bit disconcerting. On the other hand,

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:13.200
<v Speaker 4>Facebook is still convinced I have a dog, which I don't.

0:03:13.240 --> 0:03:16.200
<v Speaker 4>It keeps advertising and maybe I'll watch dog videos, but

0:03:16.639 --> 0:03:19.640
<v Speaker 4>it clearly doesn't really know who I am, what I want,

0:03:19.760 --> 0:03:22.600
<v Speaker 4>So it still hits a mess to a large degree.

0:03:22.720 --> 0:03:26.200
<v Speaker 2>When we talk about YouTube, for example, there have been

0:03:26.240 --> 0:03:29.639
<v Speaker 2>some controversies about how it can take kids down.

0:03:29.480 --> 0:03:30.960
<v Speaker 5>These types of rabbit holes.

0:03:31.000 --> 0:03:33.880
<v Speaker 2>Hey, I read some comments from parents talking about it

0:03:33.880 --> 0:03:38.920
<v Speaker 2>in The Guardian. One said he actively fights against the algorithm.

0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:41.680
<v Speaker 2>He watches one video of a gel blaster, for instance,

0:03:41.720 --> 0:03:45.760
<v Speaker 2>then gets fed about one hundred videos of Americans firing guns.

0:03:46.320 --> 0:03:48.760
<v Speaker 2>Is there a fear that this kind of thing is

0:03:48.800 --> 0:03:50.000
<v Speaker 2>happening to our kids.

0:03:50.600 --> 0:03:53.960
<v Speaker 4>I think there's a legitimate concern there. There have been

0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:57.880
<v Speaker 4>a number of studies that have shown the tendency of algorithms,

0:03:57.880 --> 0:04:01.920
<v Speaker 4>and particularly YouTube algorithms, to take people further and further

0:04:02.000 --> 0:04:05.760
<v Speaker 4>down what we might call an extremist pathway. There was

0:04:05.800 --> 0:04:09.120
<v Speaker 4>a study by the University of minister As in Brazil.

0:04:09.160 --> 0:04:11.480
<v Speaker 4>It was a big international study. They looked at hundreds

0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:15.920
<v Speaker 4>of thousands of accounts and they found clear evidence of

0:04:16.320 --> 0:04:19.840
<v Speaker 4>a shift of viewser accessing you know, what they might

0:04:19.880 --> 0:04:25.400
<v Speaker 4>call the relatively light but right wing leaning kinds of content,

0:04:25.720 --> 0:04:29.440
<v Speaker 4>So maybe Fox News and the Daily Mail. Before very

0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:32.599
<v Speaker 4>long you're in the info wars with Alex Jones and

0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:36.200
<v Speaker 4>then going into some even more near dangerous and toxic content.

0:04:36.480 --> 0:04:39.640
<v Speaker 4>Now it doesn't happen all the time, but the tendency

0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:42.240
<v Speaker 4>is there, and that's been measured. There was another study

0:04:42.279 --> 0:04:45.880
<v Speaker 4>by Bellingcat that found similar things. They looked at a

0:04:45.960 --> 0:04:50.200
<v Speaker 4>number of self identified alt right users and the way

0:04:50.240 --> 0:04:53.880
<v Speaker 4>that they'd become red pilled, that they'd woken up to

0:04:53.960 --> 0:04:58.360
<v Speaker 4>their right wing reality, and a number of them explicitly

0:04:58.440 --> 0:05:02.680
<v Speaker 4>cited YouTube as a key motivator for their journey to

0:05:02.720 --> 0:05:05.440
<v Speaker 4>the far right. Now, of course, if you're on the

0:05:05.440 --> 0:05:07.760
<v Speaker 4>far right, you might think this is all well and good,

0:05:08.480 --> 0:05:10.680
<v Speaker 4>but if you know it possibly works in the other

0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:14.360
<v Speaker 4>direction if you're looking for extreme left or extreme religious

0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:17.159
<v Speaker 4>types of content. But the key thing is that the

0:05:17.200 --> 0:05:21.600
<v Speaker 4>algorithm is there. You know, its proprietary, it's owned by YouTube,

0:05:21.600 --> 0:05:24.920
<v Speaker 4>it's there for YouTube's use, and it's there to keep

0:05:24.960 --> 0:05:27.560
<v Speaker 4>our eyeballs on the screen because that's how they make

0:05:27.600 --> 0:05:30.279
<v Speaker 4>their money. They want us online because that's how we

0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:34.680
<v Speaker 4>get exposed to advertising and marketing opportunities. So the algorithm

0:05:34.720 --> 0:05:38.560
<v Speaker 4>from a commercial point of view, isn't political. It's economic,

0:05:39.000 --> 0:05:41.360
<v Speaker 4>and so it's there to try and keep our eyeballs

0:05:41.839 --> 0:05:45.200
<v Speaker 4>focused on whatever we seem to be wanting to see

0:05:45.240 --> 0:05:48.640
<v Speaker 4>more of. And does that have dangers? I would say

0:05:48.760 --> 0:05:50.080
<v Speaker 4>in some cases yes.

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:55.479
<v Speaker 1>Remember the algorithm is a black box. No one knows

0:05:55.480 --> 0:05:58.039
<v Speaker 1>what it's doing. All YouTube can do is change the

0:05:58.080 --> 0:06:01.440
<v Speaker 1>feedback it's getting, change the signs that say this is

0:06:01.480 --> 0:06:04.920
<v Speaker 1>good or this is bad. If YouTube wants a human

0:06:04.960 --> 0:06:08.000
<v Speaker 1>to watch and categorize every video being uploaded as safe

0:06:08.320 --> 0:06:11.159
<v Speaker 1>or unsafe in real time, they would need about one

0:06:11.240 --> 0:06:14.560
<v Speaker 1>hundred thousand employees working shifts around the clock. Plus that

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:16.480
<v Speaker 1>would expose them to legal issues in most of the

0:06:16.520 --> 0:06:18.600
<v Speaker 1>countries where YouTube has an office. If you let an

0:06:18.640 --> 0:06:21.400
<v Speaker 1>algorithm do the filtering and then manually step in when

0:06:21.440 --> 0:06:24.200
<v Speaker 1>you get a complaint, you illegally flying but if you

0:06:24.240 --> 0:06:26.680
<v Speaker 1>approve everything with a human in the loop, you are

0:06:26.720 --> 0:06:29.560
<v Speaker 1>a publisher and you're opening yourself up to some very

0:06:29.640 --> 0:06:30.839
<v Speaker 1>expensive lawsuits.

0:06:33.560 --> 0:06:36.840
<v Speaker 2>So we're talking about this now, hey, because worldwide there

0:06:36.880 --> 0:06:40.960
<v Speaker 2>have been moves to limit Internet access to under sixteen

0:06:41.080 --> 0:06:44.680
<v Speaker 2>year olds, things like social media in Australia, for example,

0:06:45.279 --> 0:06:49.400
<v Speaker 2>is YouTube a social media side It's not exactly what

0:06:49.440 --> 0:06:52.160
<v Speaker 2>one thinks first straight off the bat.

0:06:52.800 --> 0:06:56.560
<v Speaker 4>It's a very curious environment because the key thing with

0:06:56.600 --> 0:07:01.400
<v Speaker 4>social media is that they're primarily platforms user generated content.

0:07:01.520 --> 0:07:05.560
<v Speaker 4>So third parties provide the content on these platforms, and

0:07:05.600 --> 0:07:09.640
<v Speaker 4>that's very different from say a linear television broadcaster, where

0:07:09.800 --> 0:07:13.640
<v Speaker 4>you know somebody makes the programs or licenses the programs,

0:07:13.680 --> 0:07:16.200
<v Speaker 4>aggregates them and puts them out as a channel where

0:07:16.200 --> 0:07:20.800
<v Speaker 4>there's always editorial oversight, or indeed from a subscription video

0:07:20.840 --> 0:07:24.240
<v Speaker 4>on demand channel, where you know the library of content

0:07:24.360 --> 0:07:27.160
<v Speaker 4>or the atalogue of content has been brought in and

0:07:27.200 --> 0:07:29.560
<v Speaker 4>provided on the server and they know exactly what's there.

0:07:30.120 --> 0:07:33.360
<v Speaker 4>With online social media platforms, you don't know what that

0:07:33.520 --> 0:07:38.280
<v Speaker 4>content is. Now. YouTube's curious because it's not the sort

0:07:38.280 --> 0:07:40.840
<v Speaker 4>of social media site where people just go to share

0:07:40.880 --> 0:07:44.760
<v Speaker 4>the family photographs. You know, or exchange political views. You know.

0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:48.600
<v Speaker 4>It's very very video oriented and it always has been

0:07:48.880 --> 0:07:52.480
<v Speaker 4>so music videos are a big driver of content. Increasingly

0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:56.440
<v Speaker 4>television channels are setting up online, so it's a bit

0:07:56.440 --> 0:07:59.720
<v Speaker 4>of a one stop shop. You can find all kinds

0:07:59.720 --> 0:08:04.200
<v Speaker 4>of content there. YouTube doesn't have complete oversight, you know,

0:08:04.600 --> 0:08:08.200
<v Speaker 4>over the material that's been put out there. I mean, regrettably,

0:08:08.240 --> 0:08:10.840
<v Speaker 4>it was quite a significant host of the christ Church

0:08:10.920 --> 0:08:14.600
<v Speaker 4>terrorist video. Now even months after there were versions of

0:08:14.640 --> 0:08:18.480
<v Speaker 4>that popping up on YouTube. Now it's algorithms do, generally speaking,

0:08:18.640 --> 0:08:20.200
<v Speaker 4>pick that up and get rid of it. And there's

0:08:20.200 --> 0:08:24.160
<v Speaker 4>other forms of content that get policed. But there's so

0:08:24.160 --> 0:08:28.200
<v Speaker 4>so many people putting video material up on YouTube, it's

0:08:28.240 --> 0:08:33.360
<v Speaker 4>impossible to police everything. And therefore there is this potential,

0:08:33.640 --> 0:08:37.160
<v Speaker 4>you know, for children to access content that isn't appropriate

0:08:37.240 --> 0:08:40.480
<v Speaker 4>for them. Now, are there ways to police that, well,

0:08:40.520 --> 0:08:43.720
<v Speaker 4>I think there are, But does it require a total ban?

0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:47.600
<v Speaker 4>I think that would be perhaps a step too far

0:08:47.679 --> 0:08:52.760
<v Speaker 4>because there's also very useful educational content on YouTube, and

0:08:53.120 --> 0:08:55.960
<v Speaker 4>some of that material, you know, if children really wanted

0:08:56.000 --> 0:09:00.000
<v Speaker 4>to discover it, well, they're pretty smart and tech savvy,

0:09:00.400 --> 0:09:02.560
<v Speaker 4>you know, they can probably find ways around it.

0:09:09.880 --> 0:09:13.640
<v Speaker 2>What about YouTube kids. So I've got friends with children.

0:09:13.679 --> 0:09:15.959
<v Speaker 2>They watch a lot of kind of sensory videos on

0:09:16.559 --> 0:09:21.400
<v Speaker 2>YouTube kids. But those accounts, I understand is for kids

0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:24.600
<v Speaker 2>aged up to thirteen, right, and that's in accordance with

0:09:24.640 --> 0:09:29.720
<v Speaker 2>the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. But doesn't that skew

0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:33.080
<v Speaker 2>towards a much younger audience that should we be looking at,

0:09:33.160 --> 0:09:36.319
<v Speaker 2>say a YouTube teen's or something.

0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:40.800
<v Speaker 4>I think that would be a great idea. Now, does

0:09:40.840 --> 0:09:43.120
<v Speaker 4>it mean that you're you know, your fourteen year old

0:09:43.200 --> 0:09:47.120
<v Speaker 4>reaccessing sixteen year old content? Well, very likely, But I

0:09:47.160 --> 0:09:51.920
<v Speaker 4>think I think labeling is an underrated exercise in media

0:09:52.160 --> 0:09:56.600
<v Speaker 4>regulation because we know from studies by the BSA and

0:09:56.640 --> 0:10:02.080
<v Speaker 4>the Classification Office that people really do you those labels.

0:10:02.120 --> 0:10:06.920
<v Speaker 4>So if something is labeled R eighteen, well, okay, we

0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:09.760
<v Speaker 4>know that maybe sixteen, maybe even fourteen year olds will

0:10:09.760 --> 0:10:12.160
<v Speaker 4>probably try and access it. But if you have a

0:10:12.200 --> 0:10:15.240
<v Speaker 4>sense of responsibility, and most people do, you're not going

0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:16.959
<v Speaker 4>to let a ten year old or a five year

0:10:16.960 --> 0:10:19.480
<v Speaker 4>old access that kind of content. So if you have

0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:23.320
<v Speaker 4>built in systems, you know, where where someone can only

0:10:23.360 --> 0:10:26.800
<v Speaker 4>access the adult content if they have an account that

0:10:26.840 --> 0:10:29.560
<v Speaker 4>signals they're an adult, well that will cut out a

0:10:29.679 --> 0:10:34.199
<v Speaker 4>very very large range of potentially harmful exposures. It's not perfect.

0:10:35.520 --> 0:10:37.760
<v Speaker 4>If you're a terrorist and you're trying to live stream

0:10:37.800 --> 0:10:40.920
<v Speaker 4>your active terrorism, you're very unlikely to give our dance

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:43.440
<v Speaker 4>notice that you've got an R eighteen video coming up,

0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:46.520
<v Speaker 4>or even an objectionable video coming up. So of course

0:10:46.559 --> 0:10:50.120
<v Speaker 4>it's not perfect. But would we all rest a little

0:10:50.160 --> 0:10:53.120
<v Speaker 4>more peacefully knowing that our children are more likely to

0:10:53.160 --> 0:10:56.280
<v Speaker 4>be playing in a safe soundbox, you know, with those protections.

0:10:56.559 --> 0:10:58.000
<v Speaker 4>I think yes, and it's doable.

0:10:58.120 --> 0:10:58.320
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:10:58.360 --> 0:11:03.600
<v Speaker 2>I quite liked this comment from Australia's Federal Communications minister.

0:11:03.760 --> 0:11:07.800
<v Speaker 2>Her name's Aniica Wells, and she described protecting children from

0:11:07.800 --> 0:11:10.240
<v Speaker 2>internet harm as like trying to teach her kids how

0:11:10.280 --> 0:11:13.360
<v Speaker 2>to swim in the open ocean with rips and sharks

0:11:13.400 --> 0:11:16.600
<v Speaker 2>compared to a local pool. And she said, we can't

0:11:16.600 --> 0:11:21.200
<v Speaker 2>control the ocean, but we can police the sharks. But Peter,

0:11:21.520 --> 0:11:23.559
<v Speaker 2>can we police the sharks?

0:11:23.920 --> 0:11:28.280
<v Speaker 4>Well? I think we can. I don't think we've tried

0:11:28.360 --> 0:11:30.719
<v Speaker 4>hard enough to be perfectly honest. But if we take

0:11:30.760 --> 0:11:34.400
<v Speaker 4>the christ Church call, for example, and give ct the

0:11:34.440 --> 0:11:37.800
<v Speaker 4>Global Internet Forum for Encountering Terrorism, I mean they've put

0:11:37.840 --> 0:11:41.839
<v Speaker 4>in some incredibly sophisticated software, you know, for picking up

0:11:42.200 --> 0:11:46.800
<v Speaker 4>or on problematic content. It can't stop someone posting, you know,

0:11:47.040 --> 0:11:49.960
<v Speaker 4>terrible material like the terrorist video in the first place,

0:11:50.760 --> 0:11:54.599
<v Speaker 4>but it picks it up incredibly quickly now and through hashtagging,

0:11:54.720 --> 0:11:57.480
<v Speaker 4>she's kind of a digital fingerprint on the way that

0:11:58.080 --> 0:12:01.040
<v Speaker 4>content is represented on the screen. There's be a pixel,

0:12:01.400 --> 0:12:05.480
<v Speaker 4>a series of data points that identify the problematic video,

0:12:05.679 --> 0:12:08.520
<v Speaker 4>and that goes out to all kinds of social media

0:12:08.559 --> 0:12:11.480
<v Speaker 4>and online operators and they all have the same code,

0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:14.439
<v Speaker 4>and they very very rapidly now have protocols for getting

0:12:14.520 --> 0:12:17.360
<v Speaker 4>rid of that content. So you know, there are things

0:12:17.400 --> 0:12:21.160
<v Speaker 4>we can do, and I think there's other other options there.

0:12:21.200 --> 0:12:24.880
<v Speaker 4>We could look at you closer identification of who's using

0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:29.240
<v Speaker 4>these accounts. We could look at age verification. So there's

0:12:29.240 --> 0:12:31.880
<v Speaker 4>a number of mechanisms that could be put in place.

0:12:32.160 --> 0:12:34.000
<v Speaker 4>And I have to say that none of this is

0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:37.040
<v Speaker 4>an affront of free speech, as some people on the

0:12:37.080 --> 0:12:39.880
<v Speaker 4>far right seem to imagine. And I do have to

0:12:39.960 --> 0:12:43.520
<v Speaker 4>question the motives of people that say that, such as

0:12:43.640 --> 0:12:46.560
<v Speaker 4>the threat to freedom of speech, we can't regulate any

0:12:46.720 --> 0:12:51.559
<v Speaker 4>media in any way. I think that's absolutely irresponsible, because

0:12:51.559 --> 0:12:54.520
<v Speaker 4>there are many ways that we can regulate the media

0:12:54.640 --> 0:12:57.720
<v Speaker 4>to protect the younger people in particular and to protect

0:12:57.760 --> 0:13:01.040
<v Speaker 4>the wider community. And it doesn't mean that we don't

0:13:01.080 --> 0:13:04.200
<v Speaker 4>get access to content. It just means that we're unable

0:13:04.280 --> 0:13:07.160
<v Speaker 4>to make more airful and better informed decisions.

0:13:09.360 --> 0:13:11.760
<v Speaker 5>That's it constantly telling us that they're really worried about

0:13:11.760 --> 0:13:14.000
<v Speaker 5>the impact that social media is having on their children,

0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:16.520
<v Speaker 5>and they say they're really struggling to manage access to

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:17.160
<v Speaker 5>social media.

0:13:17.240 --> 0:13:21.560
<v Speaker 3>This bill is about protecting children from online harm, including bullying, addiction,

0:13:21.720 --> 0:13:26.160
<v Speaker 3>and exposure to inappropriate content. By restricting social media access

0:13:26.280 --> 0:13:29.040
<v Speaker 3>for under sixteen year olds, it puts the onus on

0:13:29.120 --> 0:13:32.320
<v Speaker 3>social media companies to verify that someone is over the

0:13:32.360 --> 0:13:35.600
<v Speaker 3>age of sixteen before they access social media platforms.

0:13:35.679 --> 0:13:38.280
<v Speaker 5>This is about protecting our children. It's about making sure

0:13:38.320 --> 0:13:41.080
<v Speaker 5>that social media companies playing their role in keeping all

0:13:41.080 --> 0:13:43.200
<v Speaker 5>of our kids safe.

0:13:44.840 --> 0:13:49.880
<v Speaker 2>Journalists, for example, we do stuff under the Broadcast Standards Authority.

0:13:50.000 --> 0:13:52.679
<v Speaker 2>We've also got ethics and things like that. I mean,

0:13:53.040 --> 0:13:57.880
<v Speaker 2>a so called journalist on YouTube just spouting off conspiracy theories,

0:13:58.520 --> 0:14:01.680
<v Speaker 2>what do they have any regulations or anything at the

0:14:01.679 --> 0:14:03.080
<v Speaker 2>moment or.

0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:08.640
<v Speaker 4>Short answer is no, Whether they're whether or not they

0:14:08.679 --> 0:14:12.760
<v Speaker 4>would counter as journalists, I think is the question. Now again,

0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:15.480
<v Speaker 4>this is where I would have some sympathy for the

0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:18.400
<v Speaker 4>argument for free speech. I mean, people are allowed to

0:14:18.440 --> 0:14:22.160
<v Speaker 4>be mistaken. I think there's a case for looking very

0:14:22.160 --> 0:14:28.880
<v Speaker 4>closely at platforms or channels that simply perpetuate disinformation and

0:14:29.040 --> 0:14:33.800
<v Speaker 4>really they're they're just a troll farm pumping out malinformed

0:14:33.880 --> 0:14:36.760
<v Speaker 4>material to a wide population. I think I think there's

0:14:36.800 --> 0:14:40.800
<v Speaker 4>a very strong case for regulating those sources. But does

0:14:40.800 --> 0:14:42.960
<v Speaker 4>that mean that we should all be looking over our

0:14:42.960 --> 0:14:46.120
<v Speaker 4>shoulder because big brothers going to censor us? I don't

0:14:46.120 --> 0:14:49.520
<v Speaker 4>think that would be the case. And so one way

0:14:49.560 --> 0:14:52.320
<v Speaker 4>to deal with that would be to flag content. You know,

0:14:52.840 --> 0:14:55.320
<v Speaker 4>if if a source is proven to be unreliable but

0:14:55.360 --> 0:14:58.120
<v Speaker 4>it's providing something that looks like news, you put a

0:14:58.200 --> 0:15:01.600
<v Speaker 4>label on saying, look, you know, experts consider this to

0:15:01.640 --> 0:15:04.440
<v Speaker 4>be an unreliable news website.

0:15:04.600 --> 0:15:07.720
<v Speaker 2>Facebook did for a minute, yeah that to Facebook did

0:15:07.760 --> 0:15:10.479
<v Speaker 2>do that, and where that people were putting.

0:15:10.240 --> 0:15:15.800
<v Speaker 4>Vaccine skeptic material up on the platform, and they said, oh, look,

0:15:15.840 --> 0:15:19.200
<v Speaker 4>you know that this information is disputed, it's not seen

0:15:19.200 --> 0:15:23.160
<v Speaker 4>as reliable. Here's a link to some reliable information. Now,

0:15:23.160 --> 0:15:28.280
<v Speaker 4>that's not censorship. That's enabling the user to make more

0:15:28.320 --> 0:15:32.080
<v Speaker 4>sensible choices about the sorts of content that they engage with.

0:15:32.480 --> 0:15:35.920
<v Speaker 4>So again, that's not censorship. It's not saying you can't

0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:38.960
<v Speaker 4>have access to this information. It's not saying that you

0:15:39.600 --> 0:15:42.880
<v Speaker 4>can't have an opinion that differs from the mainstream. But

0:15:42.920 --> 0:15:46.080
<v Speaker 4>it is saying that we can enable the audience to

0:15:46.160 --> 0:15:49.880
<v Speaker 4>make more informed and more judicious decisions. And I think

0:15:49.880 --> 0:15:52.240
<v Speaker 4>that's where they go back to the algorithms. I think

0:15:52.240 --> 0:15:55.560
<v Speaker 4>that's where maybe we need to regulate the algorithms as well,

0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:58.200
<v Speaker 4>to make sure that when we're looking for news and

0:15:58.280 --> 0:16:01.560
<v Speaker 4>information that we find the reliable sources at the top

0:16:01.560 --> 0:16:03.600
<v Speaker 4>of our search or the top of our news feed,

0:16:03.920 --> 0:16:06.400
<v Speaker 4>that those sources are going to be the reliable sources

0:16:06.440 --> 0:16:10.200
<v Speaker 4>and not not ones that are of more dubious provenance. Right.

0:16:10.280 --> 0:16:14.480
<v Speaker 2>So, lastly, Peter, what should the New Zealand government do

0:16:14.680 --> 0:16:17.080
<v Speaker 2>if they were to do something tomorrow. It kind of

0:16:17.120 --> 0:16:19.480
<v Speaker 2>seems like at the moment they're sitting back and just

0:16:19.600 --> 0:16:21.760
<v Speaker 2>kind of checking out what the rest of the world

0:16:21.880 --> 0:16:23.200
<v Speaker 2>does and see what's working.

0:16:24.240 --> 0:16:28.200
<v Speaker 4>I think that's often the default position. There's a there's

0:16:28.240 --> 0:16:32.640
<v Speaker 4>a value in aligning whatever regulatory framework we you know,

0:16:32.760 --> 0:16:37.680
<v Speaker 4>we adopt here with the regulatory frameworks overseas, and i'd

0:16:37.720 --> 0:16:41.080
<v Speaker 4>be looking at Europe and the UK perhaps there. I mean,

0:16:41.120 --> 0:16:44.960
<v Speaker 4>Australia has got gone quite a long way towards blocking

0:16:45.000 --> 0:16:48.240
<v Speaker 4>social media for for for younger people. I don't think

0:16:48.280 --> 0:16:51.800
<v Speaker 4>you can ban it outright. I think that's going to

0:16:51.840 --> 0:16:55.080
<v Speaker 4>be quite difficult. But there are steps, as I say

0:16:55.160 --> 0:16:59.160
<v Speaker 4>to to looking at ways of flagging content or introducing

0:16:59.200 --> 0:17:03.400
<v Speaker 4>age verify and restricting the sorts of content available to

0:17:03.480 --> 0:17:06.840
<v Speaker 4>people in those age categories. Now they're not perfect, but

0:17:07.280 --> 0:17:10.040
<v Speaker 4>I think they would go a long way to protecting

0:17:10.119 --> 0:17:12.040
<v Speaker 4>younger people, and I think we should be looking at

0:17:12.040 --> 0:17:14.960
<v Speaker 4>those measures. I happen to think that the government made

0:17:15.119 --> 0:17:18.880
<v Speaker 4>a very poor decision to abandon the Safer Online Services

0:17:18.880 --> 0:17:22.920
<v Speaker 4>and Media Platforms proposals. They weren't fully formulated as a bill,

0:17:23.440 --> 0:17:26.439
<v Speaker 4>but there were some very sensible ideas there, none of

0:17:26.480 --> 0:17:31.280
<v Speaker 4>which included advancing censorship on free speech. They were all

0:17:31.280 --> 0:17:34.840
<v Speaker 4>about trying to make the public more able to control

0:17:35.119 --> 0:17:38.320
<v Speaker 4>the sorts of content that they're exposed to. So as

0:17:38.320 --> 0:17:40.679
<v Speaker 4>a first step, I go back to that and have

0:17:40.760 --> 0:17:43.600
<v Speaker 4>a look at what those proposals were because I thought

0:17:43.600 --> 0:17:45.639
<v Speaker 4>there were some very sensible ideas there.

0:17:45.800 --> 0:17:52.679
<v Speaker 2>Thanks for joining us, Peter, very welcome. That's it for

0:17:52.720 --> 0:17:56.000
<v Speaker 2>this episode of the Front Page. You can read more

0:17:56.040 --> 0:18:00.680
<v Speaker 2>about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzerld dot

0:18:00.720 --> 0:18:04.600
<v Speaker 2>co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane

0:18:04.680 --> 0:18:08.480
<v Speaker 2>Ye and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm

0:18:08.560 --> 0:18:12.800
<v Speaker 2>Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or

0:18:12.840 --> 0:18:16.359
<v Speaker 2>wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for

0:18:16.440 --> 0:18:18.240
<v Speaker 2>another look behind the headlines.