WEBVTT - Restriction of Speech Online is Solvable 0:00:15.076 --> 0:00:21.556 Pushkin. I'm Mave Higgins and this is Solvable Interviews with 0:00:21.596 --> 0:00:25.276 the world's most innovative thinkers working to solve the world's 0:00:25.316 --> 0:00:29.876 biggest problems. So our guest today is David Kay, the 0:00:29.996 --> 0:00:34.476 United Nations leading voice on freedom of expression. He is 0:00:34.476 --> 0:00:37.556 talking to Jacob Weisberg about one of the more polarizing 0:00:37.596 --> 0:00:42.796 issues of today. So my solvable is democratizing the Internet, 0:00:42.956 --> 0:00:48.636 reclaiming public principles for online speech over the next three 0:00:48.676 --> 0:00:52.596 to five years. Now, being online has never been perfect. 0:00:52.836 --> 0:00:54.876 Even in the early days of the Internet, there were 0:00:54.956 --> 0:00:58.676 some trolls and even some danger, but we used to 0:00:58.716 --> 0:01:03.516 see the Internet as this potential utopia. Today, with so 0:01:03.556 --> 0:01:06.636 many of us living out so much of our lives online, 0:01:07.036 --> 0:01:10.796 and the explosion of disinformation and hate speech and even 0:01:10.956 --> 0:01:14.396 terrorist propaganda, the internet can be a horrible place to 0:01:14.476 --> 0:01:18.476 spend time. Basically, we don't know how to regulate speech 0:01:18.516 --> 0:01:21.876 on the Internet. Here in the US, we hold tight 0:01:21.956 --> 0:01:25.476 to our First Amendment, but we agree that some things 0:01:25.556 --> 0:01:29.436 should be censored, but which things? Right now, we're leaving 0:01:29.476 --> 0:01:32.156 it up to the platforms and the social media companies 0:01:32.156 --> 0:01:35.196 that serve it up. This past decade has seen three 0:01:35.196 --> 0:01:39.276 giant American companies Facebook, Twitter, and Google, which owns YouTube, 0:01:39.636 --> 0:01:42.356 become the way that most of the world experiences the 0:01:42.396 --> 0:01:45.716 Internet and the conveyors of much of its disturbing and 0:01:45.876 --> 0:01:50.836 dangerous material. So how should online speech be governed? What 0:01:50.956 --> 0:01:54.516 law should apply to global companies? Should companies make the 0:01:54.596 --> 0:01:59.236 rules or should governments step in to regulate? Also consider this. 0:01:59.716 --> 0:02:02.916 Freedom in the World is an annual global report on 0:02:03.036 --> 0:02:07.276 political rights and civil liberties, and they reported that last 0:02:07.356 --> 0:02:10.356 year was the eighth consectut it a year of global 0:02:10.476 --> 0:02:15.516 Internet freedom decline. Seventeen governments have approved or proposed new 0:02:15.596 --> 0:02:19.596 laws restricting online media in the name of fighting fake news, 0:02:20.076 --> 0:02:25.196 and eighteen countries have increased surveillance, often skipping any independent 0:02:25.236 --> 0:02:29.876 oversight and pushing to weaken encryption that protects privacy. This 0:02:29.956 --> 0:02:34.636 is nobody's dream Internet. David Kay is working on that. 0:02:35.196 --> 0:02:37.836 For the past five years, he's been the United Nations 0:02:37.836 --> 0:02:41.676 Special Rapporteur of the Promotion and Protection of the Right 0:02:41.716 --> 0:02:45.396 to Freedom of opinion and expression. He has traveled the 0:02:45.396 --> 0:02:49.716 world talking to victims of takedowns and to government censors 0:02:49.836 --> 0:02:54.836 and to platform policymakers. He works to promote human rights law, 0:02:55.276 --> 0:02:59.796 believing that that provides an authoritative global standard for protecting 0:02:59.836 --> 0:03:03.916 freedom of expression online. This is an absorbing conversation on 0:03:03.956 --> 0:03:06.596 a topic that can seem too fraught to tackle, So 0:03:06.876 --> 0:03:09.636 have a listen, David. I wanted to start by asking 0:03:09.636 --> 0:03:12.276 you about your public role. I was delighted when I 0:03:12.316 --> 0:03:14.596 first heard some time ago that the UN had a 0:03:14.676 --> 0:03:17.996 special Rapporteur for freedom of expression. How do you get 0:03:18.036 --> 0:03:20.916 that job and what is it? So the Human Rights Council, 0:03:20.916 --> 0:03:23.516 which is the central body for human rights in the 0:03:23.636 --> 0:03:26.516 UN system, it's a part of the General Assembly. Over 0:03:26.516 --> 0:03:31.436 the last fifty years, basically they've increasingly developed these mechanisms 0:03:31.436 --> 0:03:36.036 of independent experts who monitor different human rights around the world, 0:03:36.076 --> 0:03:38.356 and now it's up to about fifty individuals and a 0:03:38.356 --> 0:03:42.516 few working groups. Some of them handle issues like arbitrary 0:03:42.516 --> 0:03:46.396 detention or summary executions. So mine focuses on freedom of 0:03:46.396 --> 0:03:50.156 expression and I monitor free speech issues around the world. 0:03:50.396 --> 0:03:53.996 You think the internet was better before? Maybe there was 0:03:54.036 --> 0:03:57.556 a kind of golden age or healthy on early days 0:03:57.676 --> 0:04:01.796 when expression with free or people felt more empowered, it 0:04:01.836 --> 0:04:05.436 with more democratic. Is that right? I think that's right, 0:04:05.436 --> 0:04:07.396 although I don't want to overstate it, right. I mean, 0:04:07.396 --> 0:04:10.396 there has always been not only a potential, but a 0:04:10.436 --> 0:04:14.556 reality of harassment online. If you go back to online 0:04:14.556 --> 0:04:17.676 bulletin boards of the nineteen eighties and nineteen nineties, there 0:04:17.756 --> 0:04:22.236 was always some sense of a bro culture, a culture 0:04:22.276 --> 0:04:26.836 that excluded women in particular, excluded minorities, that was harassing. 0:04:26.876 --> 0:04:29.796 So that's always been there. Now, back in the old 0:04:29.876 --> 0:04:32.876 days of the internet, this sort of pre social media age, 0:04:33.036 --> 0:04:36.436 we had the blogosphere. So if you had a blog, 0:04:36.916 --> 0:04:39.516 you would write up your blog. You might have let's say, 0:04:39.556 --> 0:04:42.596 fifteen hyperlinks in it, two different people that you also 0:04:42.916 --> 0:04:45.716 like to read, or articles that you've seen, and as 0:04:45.756 --> 0:04:49.036 a reader, you had control of your information environment. You 0:04:49.076 --> 0:04:51.276 would go to a blog and you'd go from one 0:04:51.316 --> 0:04:53.636 link to another to another, till suddenly you won't share 0:04:53.636 --> 0:04:56.076 how you got there, but you had this kind of 0:04:56.076 --> 0:05:00.916 glorious experience of exploration that you've had. It's changed, and 0:05:01.036 --> 0:05:03.516 social media has been a major driver of the change, 0:05:03.836 --> 0:05:07.436 in particular Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or if you think about 0:05:07.516 --> 0:05:11.756 China and Russia, there versions and now we have a 0:05:11.796 --> 0:05:17.116 centralization of the information environment, and that's a problem. It's 0:05:17.116 --> 0:05:19.636 a problem because the companies which have grown to such 0:05:19.796 --> 0:05:24.196 enormous extent, they have control over the information environment. But 0:05:24.276 --> 0:05:27.956 it also gives repressive governments in particular a kind of 0:05:28.076 --> 0:05:33.396 one stop shopping opportunity to impose restrictions on speech. Right. 0:05:33.516 --> 0:05:37.276 So in repressive countries it makes censorship easy. But in 0:05:37.356 --> 0:05:41.196 countries like ours that don't have censorship, why don't you 0:05:41.236 --> 0:05:43.676 have the same sense of freedom. You have these big 0:05:43.716 --> 0:05:49.396 dominant platforms, obviously, and they're filtering things in certain ways, 0:05:49.516 --> 0:05:51.436 maybe to give you more of what you agree with 0:05:51.556 --> 0:05:53.596 and less of what you disagree with. And those are 0:05:53.636 --> 0:05:57.396 all issues, But is censorship per se an issue? So, 0:05:57.516 --> 0:05:59.516 I mean, I think you're hitting on a really important point, 0:05:59.676 --> 0:06:03.756 which is the companies are global and there's extraordinary variation 0:06:03.876 --> 0:06:06.836 among the places where they operate. So in the United States, 0:06:07.196 --> 0:06:10.076 it's not that I'm concerned about sense ship per se. 0:06:10.596 --> 0:06:12.756 I suppose the way I would put it is in 0:06:12.836 --> 0:06:17.716 democratic societies, I'm more concerned about the rhetoric of harm 0:06:18.156 --> 0:06:22.036 on the internet and the sense that these are spaces 0:06:22.036 --> 0:06:24.276 that need to be protected and in which people need 0:06:24.316 --> 0:06:28.316 to be protected from online harms. And think about it 0:06:28.356 --> 0:06:33.516 in terms of speech harms that increasingly narrows the amount 0:06:33.516 --> 0:06:38.996 of information that we're able to get. It increases, or 0:06:39.116 --> 0:06:43.476 let's say it limits our ability to grapple with ideas perhaps, 0:06:43.556 --> 0:06:45.276 and over time it could get worse and worse, And 0:06:45.356 --> 0:06:47.956 that's to my mind, that's the direction things are heading. 0:06:48.156 --> 0:06:51.836 But that is very different from repressive societies, which are 0:06:51.876 --> 0:06:55.516 in a place like Egypt, for example, or Turkey. They 0:06:55.596 --> 0:06:58.116 might look to Twitter or to Facebook and say to 0:06:58.196 --> 0:07:02.596 the company, your terms of service provide this, They provide 0:07:02.636 --> 0:07:05.116 that there can be no hate speech on your platform. Well, 0:07:05.156 --> 0:07:08.556 we think that this criticism of this minister is hate speech. 0:07:08.716 --> 0:07:11.236 Take it down. So the kind of pressure that's put 0:07:11.276 --> 0:07:14.956 on companies by the repressive societies is very different from 0:07:14.996 --> 0:07:17.996 the kind of pressure we see in the democratic societies. 0:07:18.196 --> 0:07:21.276 But they have changed even in the democratic societies. Like 0:07:21.316 --> 0:07:23.676 a lot of journalists, I'm mainly on Twitter, that's my 0:07:23.836 --> 0:07:27.996 social media platform of choice. And I remember maybe ten 0:07:28.076 --> 0:07:31.596 years ago Dick Costello, who was the CEO of Twitter. 0:07:31.676 --> 0:07:34.116 I remember him saying, he said it a lot publicly. 0:07:34.476 --> 0:07:39.036 Twitter is the free speech wing of the free speech Party, right. 0:07:39.156 --> 0:07:42.916 He meant that Twitter was a place for almost absolute 0:07:42.956 --> 0:07:45.676 freedom of expression short of things that would actually be 0:07:45.716 --> 0:07:48.476 illegal in the United States, protected by the First Amendment. 0:07:48.796 --> 0:07:51.956 They've been under a lot of pressure to not be 0:07:52.036 --> 0:07:55.276 so accommodating a free speech or not to prioritize the 0:07:55.396 --> 0:08:00.556 value of free speech so highly above other values, including 0:08:00.756 --> 0:08:04.756 the important value of not being harassed and not being abused. 0:08:05.036 --> 0:08:08.236 So what's happened on Twitter and other platforms to the 0:08:08.276 --> 0:08:11.996 free speech which they used to at least defend more resoundingly. 0:08:12.476 --> 0:08:14.996 So I would frame it in a way, as you know, 0:08:15.116 --> 0:08:18.556 these were companies that were founded basically fifteen years ago, 0:08:18.996 --> 0:08:22.756 and they were founded by people and then managed at 0:08:22.796 --> 0:08:26.156 sort of the legal and policy level by people who 0:08:26.156 --> 0:08:29.596 were marinated in a First Amendment culture. Right, So they 0:08:29.636 --> 0:08:33.476 came at these issues from the perspective that we need 0:08:33.556 --> 0:08:38.196 robust debate, and think about it also from the business perspective, 0:08:38.676 --> 0:08:41.756 the more content the better, Right, The more content we have, 0:08:42.076 --> 0:08:45.796 the more robust the debate, the better we have an 0:08:45.796 --> 0:08:49.916 opportunity to capture the attention of an audience, which in 0:08:49.996 --> 0:08:55.716 turn translates into more individual users for advertising dollars. So 0:08:55.756 --> 0:08:58.116 there was kind of an alignment of the business model 0:08:58.156 --> 0:09:00.836 with these ideas of free speech. The problem is that 0:09:01.036 --> 0:09:02.956 I mean a couple of things. One is, they were 0:09:03.036 --> 0:09:07.356 extremely slow to recognize that their platforms could also be 0:09:07.556 --> 0:09:11.436 used even in a free sp each environment to exclude voices. 0:09:11.756 --> 0:09:15.596 So there are too many examples to note around journalists 0:09:15.796 --> 0:09:20.076 or celebrities or others with not a great platform being 0:09:20.116 --> 0:09:24.916 harassed off the platform. Basically, that's an exclusion that we 0:09:24.996 --> 0:09:27.156 might not think of in the public square, like if 0:09:27.196 --> 0:09:29.756 you went to a corner in central Park to speak. 0:09:30.316 --> 0:09:32.716 That's not necessary, that's not going to happen, and government 0:09:32.796 --> 0:09:35.636 can't do anything about it. But if the platforms really 0:09:35.716 --> 0:09:40.276 did genuinely want to create space for debate, the availability 0:09:40.276 --> 0:09:43.996 of harassment or the enabling of harassment actually undermine that. 0:09:44.596 --> 0:09:46.876 I think that commitment to a First Amendment culture was 0:09:46.956 --> 0:09:49.716 part of that, and it was very different from the 0:09:49.716 --> 0:09:52.796 way people around the world sought these issues. Which around 0:09:52.796 --> 0:09:56.756 the world and now Facebook's eighty five percent of its 0:09:56.916 --> 0:10:00.636 users are overseas. They don't come from that same environment, 0:10:00.676 --> 0:10:03.396 even in the human rights respecting countries. They just have 0:10:03.436 --> 0:10:06.396 a different vocabulary for thinking about these problems, and their 0:10:06.476 --> 0:10:09.756 vocabulary allows them to deal with some of those harms 0:10:09.996 --> 0:10:12.676 in a way that also creates space for speech. So 0:10:12.756 --> 0:10:17.076 if you're schooled in anti trust and anti monopoly thinking, 0:10:17.196 --> 0:10:19.076 you kind of think, well, the problem here is these 0:10:19.076 --> 0:10:22.116 companies are too big, and they have too much power, 0:10:22.236 --> 0:10:25.156 and there's a movement now either to break them up 0:10:25.276 --> 0:10:28.956 or regulate them big platforms, but there's a voice in 0:10:29.276 --> 0:10:31.436 the back of my head saying, I'm not sure that's 0:10:31.516 --> 0:10:35.156 going to help. Would if we had five pieces of 0:10:35.196 --> 0:10:38.676 Facebook instead of one Facebook, would we be better off 0:10:38.716 --> 0:10:42.196 on this issue? Would those smaller companies be making better 0:10:42.236 --> 0:10:44.916 decisions than no one of them would have as much power. 0:10:44.996 --> 0:10:48.076 But on the other hand, when someone comes up with 0:10:48.116 --> 0:10:50.636 a good solution, you don't just have to give in 0:10:50.716 --> 0:10:52.916 Facebook to do it. You'd have to convince lots of 0:10:52.956 --> 0:10:55.156 companies to do it. So, you know, one of the 0:10:55.236 --> 0:10:58.276 questions I have is whether there are ways to think 0:10:58.356 --> 0:11:01.236 about the platforms not just in terms of breaking them up, 0:11:01.516 --> 0:11:04.556 but in terms of breaking them down. So, in other words, 0:11:04.596 --> 0:11:07.316 how do we bring them closer to the users around 0:11:07.316 --> 0:11:11.316 the world who really need to have access to the companies, 0:11:11.436 --> 0:11:13.516 who need to have access to the rules, who need 0:11:13.556 --> 0:11:16.516 to understand the rulemaking. And then the second part that 0:11:16.556 --> 0:11:18.516 we really need, and this is where I think competition 0:11:18.716 --> 0:11:22.796 is useful, is to have a zone in which you 0:11:22.836 --> 0:11:26.076 could have access to different platforms. Some might be more 0:11:26.116 --> 0:11:29.876 restrictive on speech, some might allow more robust speech. But 0:11:29.956 --> 0:11:33.236 if there's more of a choice and they're somehow interoperable, 0:11:33.276 --> 0:11:36.236 so you can choose, but you can also communicate across platforms. 0:11:36.636 --> 0:11:39.516 That's an approach that actually I think diminishes in some 0:11:39.636 --> 0:11:42.596 respects some of the concerns, because people right now feel 0:11:42.636 --> 0:11:45.676 like if they are harassed off the platform, they don't 0:11:45.676 --> 0:11:48.356 really have anywhere to go. If you're harassed on Twitter 0:11:48.356 --> 0:11:51.236 and Facebook, you're probably not going to go to YouTube 0:11:51.276 --> 0:11:54.036 to be a video creator, But where else do you 0:11:54.116 --> 0:11:56.916 go to have an audience and a voice. That's a 0:11:56.956 --> 0:12:00.356 real problem, maybe less so in the United States than 0:12:00.396 --> 0:12:04.356 in places where the platforms really dominate public space. In 0:12:04.476 --> 0:12:09.356 democratic theory, it's recognized that certain decisions need to be 0:12:09.756 --> 0:12:13.836 insulated from politics. Right you don't want a plebiscite to 0:12:13.876 --> 0:12:16.556 decide what interest rates should be. In fact, you don't 0:12:16.596 --> 0:12:20.236 even want the president or the Treasury Department to decide 0:12:20.236 --> 0:12:22.796 what it interest rates should be. That's why we have 0:12:23.156 --> 0:12:26.036 the FED, you know, It's why we have a system 0:12:26.076 --> 0:12:29.276 of laws and courts to decide guilt or innocence and 0:12:29.596 --> 0:12:32.236 legal questions. We don't want those to be political questions 0:12:32.436 --> 0:12:35.356 at these platforms now, pretty much everything is a political 0:12:35.476 --> 0:12:38.796 question in the sense that they're thinking about public relations, 0:12:38.916 --> 0:12:41.676 about what's going to happen in Congress. Are they going 0:12:41.716 --> 0:12:45.116 to be attacked? Is there a way to insulate some 0:12:45.196 --> 0:12:48.436 of these dish decisions, to create a judicial body to 0:12:48.556 --> 0:12:50.316 decide at the end of the day, what you should 0:12:50.356 --> 0:12:53.156 be allowed to post or not post on YouTube or Facebook. 0:12:53.556 --> 0:12:55.996 I think this is a really important part of the 0:12:56.156 --> 0:12:59.436 debate that is not being discussed very often. Governments have 0:12:59.476 --> 0:13:03.156 been increasingly seeking to reclaim this space, not in the 0:13:03.276 --> 0:13:05.476 United States. This is one of the oddities about the 0:13:05.516 --> 0:13:09.756 moment because Washington is basically dysfunctional. The debate hasn't really 0:13:09.996 --> 0:13:12.436 matured in the way that we've seen it in Europe, 0:13:12.836 --> 0:13:15.356 and so what Europe has been doing is really thinking 0:13:15.396 --> 0:13:20.396 about moving towards a regulatory regime that would require the 0:13:20.396 --> 0:13:24.356 companies to apply their rules. Unfortunately, they're not doing the 0:13:24.396 --> 0:13:27.316 insulation that you're talking about. So, for example, there's a 0:13:27.436 --> 0:13:30.916 relatively recent law in Germany that's called nets DG. They 0:13:30.956 --> 0:13:34.396 basically say to the companies, and it's to the biggest companies, 0:13:34.556 --> 0:13:38.276 you need to regulate your space according to German law. 0:13:38.556 --> 0:13:42.236 But they don't involve public institutions in deciding what is 0:13:42.316 --> 0:13:45.636 and is not German law. They basically say to the companies, 0:13:45.916 --> 0:13:49.276 you're now the adjudicators of German law. That is anti 0:13:49.436 --> 0:13:51.876 democratic at the end of the day, and then the 0:13:51.956 --> 0:13:55.756 companies are subject to the political pressures, whether it's in 0:13:55.796 --> 0:13:59.996 Germany or elsewhere in Europe that don't insulate them from 0:14:00.236 --> 0:14:04.076 the ability to actually perform their job in a neutral way. 0:14:04.436 --> 0:14:06.916 So that's fundamental problem, and I think there are ways 0:14:06.956 --> 0:14:09.316 to move forward and to move away from that, to 0:14:09.356 --> 0:14:12.716 move into a space that we in a way depoliticize 0:14:12.716 --> 0:14:15.796 some of these issues. Where do you see examples of 0:14:15.836 --> 0:14:19.716 that happening. Unfortunately, there aren't too many really good examples 0:14:19.796 --> 0:14:23.476 right now. So we've seen some, i would say problematic 0:14:23.516 --> 0:14:27.316 examples in democratic space. We've seen, for example, the UK 0:14:27.436 --> 0:14:29.636 has something called a white Paper which is kind of 0:14:29.676 --> 0:14:33.516 a plan for legislation in the future, and it doesn't 0:14:33.516 --> 0:14:38.316 distinguish between illegal harm and offenses like things that would 0:14:38.316 --> 0:14:41.916 just be offensive online but are not illegal, and so 0:14:41.956 --> 0:14:45.396 it seems to be leading towards requiring the companies to 0:14:45.516 --> 0:14:49.636 make those decisions, which again is not particularly democratic and 0:14:49.676 --> 0:14:53.996 will move them towards highly political decision making. There is 0:14:54.036 --> 0:14:57.796 an example, a current one, but it hasn't materialized yet. 0:14:58.076 --> 0:15:01.156 It is a task force in France that was commissioned 0:15:01.196 --> 0:15:05.196 by Emmanuel McCrone that actually is thinking, I think, in 0:15:05.316 --> 0:15:09.396 very helpful ways about how to use public institutions to 0:15:09.516 --> 0:15:12.236 deal with these kinds of problems. So, for example, could 0:15:12.276 --> 0:15:16.436 you use public law in order to require the companies 0:15:16.836 --> 0:15:20.836 to be more transparent about their decision making? Because right now, 0:15:21.356 --> 0:15:23.556 as you are suggesting, we look at the companies and 0:15:23.596 --> 0:15:25.796 it seems like they're making their decisions on an ad 0:15:25.796 --> 0:15:28.476 hoc basis. But if we had more access to their 0:15:28.516 --> 0:15:32.076 decision making, almost like a case law of their decisions, 0:15:32.396 --> 0:15:36.076 we at least would be on the same information level. 0:15:36.236 --> 0:15:38.516 We know what they took down and why they took 0:15:38.556 --> 0:15:40.636 it down. Yeah, and in some cases they do publish 0:15:40.716 --> 0:15:43.356 that data, don't they. I know, Twitter makes the point 0:15:43.356 --> 0:15:46.796 of doing that in countries that have censorship laws exactly, 0:15:46.796 --> 0:15:49.996 so they do that, although not at the granular level 0:15:50.156 --> 0:15:54.036 that I'm thinking about. But they do publish transparency reports 0:15:54.156 --> 0:15:58.036 about government demands for takedowns, but they publish very little. 0:15:58.516 --> 0:16:00.596 I mean, they're moving in the direction of publishing more, 0:16:00.916 --> 0:16:03.676 but it's still at an aggregate level, and it's hard 0:16:03.716 --> 0:16:07.476 for researchers to understand the specifics of the case law. 0:16:07.596 --> 0:16:11.036 Let's say they publish little about their own terms of service, 0:16:11.196 --> 0:16:14.316 their own regulation of their own space. If you were 0:16:14.316 --> 0:16:16.956 in charge of this at Facebook, instead of being in 0:16:17.036 --> 0:16:22.076 charge of yelling at Facebook for the UN, what standards 0:16:22.596 --> 0:16:26.876 would you fundamentally apply? These companies are not bound by 0:16:26.916 --> 0:16:30.396 the First Amendment. They're private companies, and there are many 0:16:30.396 --> 0:16:32.396 cases in which I don't think people would argue that 0:16:32.436 --> 0:16:35.316 a First Amendment standard would be appropriate. They don't allow nunity. 0:16:35.356 --> 0:16:38.556 They don't even allow naked breasts on any of these platforms, right, 0:16:38.596 --> 0:16:41.876 and people are pretty comfortable with that. But around political 0:16:42.316 --> 0:16:46.356 decisions around hate speech, everything is highly contested. What are 0:16:46.396 --> 0:16:50.556 the rules which you think should be incumbent to bond them? 0:16:50.596 --> 0:16:54.116 Maybe not legally but ethically. So there's actually been a 0:16:54.156 --> 0:16:57.556 move in the UN and internationally over the last twenty 0:16:57.716 --> 0:17:02.156 twenty five years to impose more responsibilities on businesses. It 0:17:02.236 --> 0:17:05.916 actually developed out of the extractive industries in West Africa 0:17:05.996 --> 0:17:09.516 during the wars of the eighties and nineties. There is 0:17:09.676 --> 0:17:13.076 part of this move. The UN's Human Rights Council actually 0:17:13.076 --> 0:17:15.876 adopted a set of what are called guiding principles on 0:17:15.916 --> 0:17:19.116 business and human rights, and it actually provides some very 0:17:19.156 --> 0:17:22.476 good guidance for the companies. So one measure, for example, 0:17:22.916 --> 0:17:26.276 would be for the companies to conduct something like a 0:17:26.356 --> 0:17:30.596 human rights impact assessment. The companies should do an evaluation 0:17:30.716 --> 0:17:33.436 what does it mean for this country. Let's say a 0:17:33.476 --> 0:17:37.676 country like Ethiopia on which significant press restrictions have been 0:17:37.756 --> 0:17:40.996 lifted and that so there's been a kind of robust 0:17:41.036 --> 0:17:43.476 new debate that started just over the last year, which 0:17:43.556 --> 0:17:48.356 also includes threats of ethnic violence. So going into that environment, 0:17:48.756 --> 0:17:53.116 Facebook or YouTube or Twitter could evaluate if our product 0:17:53.196 --> 0:17:57.676 is available to people in Ethiopia, are the risks of that, 0:17:57.836 --> 0:17:59.876 what are the kind of harms that we could expect, 0:18:00.076 --> 0:18:02.196 and what are the ways that we should mitigate those harms. 0:18:02.316 --> 0:18:04.276 They don't do anything like that right now. They have 0:18:04.276 --> 0:18:08.476 no playbook. If they rooted their rules around human rights standards, 0:18:08.716 --> 0:18:12.196 I think they could better articulate to Ethiopians, for example, 0:18:12.596 --> 0:18:16.436 but also to the world about why their platform should 0:18:16.516 --> 0:18:21.356 be accessible to people in this kind of newly vibrant environment, 0:18:21.916 --> 0:18:24.556 but that it will take steps in order to deal 0:18:24.556 --> 0:18:26.836 with the problems that are naturally going to take place. 0:18:26.916 --> 0:18:31.076 But Facebook just congenitally seems to believe that the solution 0:18:31.156 --> 0:18:33.996 to all the problems caused by Facebook is more Facebook. 0:18:34.196 --> 0:18:35.956 I mean, when you say they should do a kind 0:18:35.996 --> 0:18:39.116 of social impact statement to weigh the pros and cons 0:18:39.276 --> 0:18:41.756 that seems to me what they're totally incapable of doing, 0:18:41.796 --> 0:18:45.156 because they're sort of incapable of seeing how much harm 0:18:45.156 --> 0:18:48.836 they cause, and that on balance, a lot of people 0:18:48.836 --> 0:18:51.196 and a lot of places might be better without it 0:18:51.436 --> 0:18:54.276 than with it. I think what you're articulating in many 0:18:54.276 --> 0:18:58.116 ways is a need for public oversight. So because the 0:18:58.156 --> 0:19:01.996 companies are multinational, and because these are non binding norms 0:19:02.036 --> 0:19:05.956 that I'm describing, there may be a need for government 0:19:06.036 --> 0:19:08.956 to step in and to regulate these kinds of assessments 0:19:09.156 --> 0:19:13.356 actually require them. I actually think that having government regulate 0:19:13.476 --> 0:19:17.236 the content, like having government say to the companies, you 0:19:17.276 --> 0:19:20.116 should allow this kind of speech or disallow this speech. 0:19:20.356 --> 0:19:23.236 To my mind, that's problematic because that will almost always 0:19:23.596 --> 0:19:27.836 move towards repression. However, if there is requirements on the 0:19:27.876 --> 0:19:31.556 companies that are more neutrally oriented, right they're more focused 0:19:31.596 --> 0:19:35.396 on process and on providing information to the public, I 0:19:35.436 --> 0:19:39.956 think that at least pushes the companies to articulate their 0:19:40.076 --> 0:19:44.316 role and to observe their own impact in these countries 0:19:44.756 --> 0:19:47.316 in a way that clearly interferes with their business model. 0:19:47.396 --> 0:19:49.436 But I don't really care about that. I mean, they're 0:19:49.436 --> 0:19:52.436 making enough money as it is they can afford to 0:19:52.436 --> 0:19:53.876 do some of this, and I think they have a 0:19:53.916 --> 0:19:58.116 responsibility to the people and the places that they're engaging. Yeah, 0:19:58.156 --> 0:20:03.356 I mean, India rejected Facebook's Free Basics plan, which is 0:20:03.396 --> 0:20:05.996 a way of providing kind of a minimal Internet i e. 0:20:06.356 --> 0:20:10.916 Facebook only or mostly Facebook only to developing countries where 0:20:11.396 --> 0:20:15.796 most people can't otherwise afford access, and the Indian regulatory 0:20:15.876 --> 0:20:19.596 bology whatever that was, said, no, you can't, you can't 0:20:19.596 --> 0:20:21.996 do it here. It's anti competitive or I forget what 0:20:22.036 --> 0:20:25.156 the exact reasoning was. And that's not only fine, that's 0:20:25.316 --> 0:20:27.796 that might have been a really good move. I mean, 0:20:28.276 --> 0:20:32.756 Facebook is still really quite dominant, especially what's app in India. 0:20:32.796 --> 0:20:35.316 But if you think about Facebook Basics and its use 0:20:35.356 --> 0:20:38.356 in Myanmar, right, So Facebook became the Internet, but it 0:20:38.396 --> 0:20:40.756 was much more than I think. Saying Facebook is the 0:20:40.796 --> 0:20:44.436 Internet understates the role of Facebook. So Facebook was the 0:20:44.476 --> 0:20:47.996 only platform that was available to people basically and everybody 0:20:48.036 --> 0:20:50.916 online was on Facebook, and they were on Facebook Basics. 0:20:51.156 --> 0:20:53.876 But it was also at a moment when the lid 0:20:53.916 --> 0:20:56.676 had come off of the repression of the past, the 0:20:56.716 --> 0:21:02.876 military rule in Myanmar, and the Facebook Basics program became 0:21:02.916 --> 0:21:05.756 the only way people accessed information at all. It became 0:21:05.796 --> 0:21:10.196 the public space, and so in that environment, Facebook had 0:21:10.196 --> 0:21:13.396 an enormous responsibility to deal with the kind of not 0:21:13.476 --> 0:21:16.476 just hate speech in some vague way, but the actual 0:21:17.116 --> 0:21:20.236 incitement to ethnic violence against the Rohinga that the government 0:21:20.276 --> 0:21:23.036 itself was participating in, and they did nothing even when 0:21:23.036 --> 0:21:27.076 they knew about it. So I think imposing some responsibility, 0:21:27.116 --> 0:21:30.836 accountability and framing it around human rights standards, I think 0:21:30.876 --> 0:21:34.116 actually allows us to assess their roles in a fuller 0:21:34.156 --> 0:21:37.956 way and also allows us to measure their ability and 0:21:37.996 --> 0:21:41.556 their willingness to meet these obligations and to protect people 0:21:41.556 --> 0:21:44.716 in the places where they're operating. David, different generations think 0:21:44.756 --> 0:21:48.356 about social media and the Internet really differently. Right, someone 0:21:48.676 --> 0:21:52.516 my age and my mid fifties versus someone in their 0:21:52.636 --> 0:21:56.036 teens to twenties. Absolutely, I mean, I think this is 0:21:56.036 --> 0:21:58.156 one of the points that we need to be thinking about. 0:21:58.316 --> 0:22:01.916 In the sense that social media is dynamic. Right now, 0:22:02.236 --> 0:22:05.156 what we think of as the place for social media 0:22:05.236 --> 0:22:09.916 for social discourse today, which might be Facebook or or 0:22:09.996 --> 0:22:13.596 what's app, it might vary five years from now. So 0:22:13.676 --> 0:22:16.076 I do think that as we think about what principles 0:22:16.076 --> 0:22:19.356 we want to apply, because the principles of what's available 0:22:19.436 --> 0:22:23.316 to people online should be constant, right, they should be 0:22:23.356 --> 0:22:26.676 rooted in freedom of expression values, and if we can 0:22:27.036 --> 0:22:29.756 think of those in a way that allows them to 0:22:29.876 --> 0:22:32.836 transfer as the Internet develops, I mean, that's what we 0:22:32.876 --> 0:22:35.476 need to be aiming towards. Because it's true, it's not 0:22:35.516 --> 0:22:38.436 just the current generations that are using the Internet differently, 0:22:38.836 --> 0:22:43.276 but as time moves on, we're going to see issues, 0:22:43.316 --> 0:22:46.236 We're going to see frameworks, We're going to see platforms 0:22:46.236 --> 0:22:48.716 that we probably can't even envision at the moment. Yeah, 0:22:48.756 --> 0:22:51.516 and the regulators tend to be old and the innovators 0:22:51.556 --> 0:22:54.396 tend to be young. It's very hard to keep up 0:22:54.476 --> 0:22:58.836 with the pace of innovation in this space. Absolutely. I 0:22:58.876 --> 0:23:02.836 mean this is an argument for technologists and for others 0:23:02.916 --> 0:23:06.116 who are really well versed in the technology and in 0:23:06.156 --> 0:23:09.356 the policy around the technology, to be an important part 0:23:09.396 --> 0:23:12.036 of the policy discussion. I mean, they should be involved 0:23:12.276 --> 0:23:15.636 in educating legislators where we've seen time and again, and 0:23:15.876 --> 0:23:20.076 I mentioned a situation in Kenya where a lawyer said 0:23:20.076 --> 0:23:23.916 to me, really accomplished internet lawyer said, it's very hard 0:23:24.236 --> 0:23:28.036 to have these discussions in the Kenyon legislature because the 0:23:28.156 --> 0:23:32.516 legislators don't really understand the technology or the social uses 0:23:32.676 --> 0:23:35.356 of the technology. So we need to have ways for 0:23:35.396 --> 0:23:37.156 those people who understand it to be a part of 0:23:37.196 --> 0:23:41.076 not just the legislature and the legislative process, but also 0:23:41.276 --> 0:23:44.476