The EU Terrorist Content Regulation shows that we still don’t know how to regulate online hate

By Emma Olsson

Published Sep 20, 2019 at 07:00 AM

Reading time: 3 minutes

3679

Lately, it has become difficult to understand who’s regulating our online behaviour. Social media users may be aware of the dos and don’ts of posting—no live-streaming acts of terror, no reckless posting of female nipples—but do we know where these restrictions are coming from? The platforms themselves? The law? Both?

On 17 April 2019, the European Parliament passed a measure to tackle terrorist usage on internet hosting services. The proposed law (referred to as the EU Terrorist Content Regulation, TCR) will give platforms one hour to remove terrorist content. Those who persistently refuse to abide by the law may face a significant financial backlash, risking a 4 percent sanction of their global annual turnover. The law is mainly targeted at the largest, most ubiquitous platforms (Facebook and Twitter) who have the financial resources required to hire content moderators or implement filters.

The passing of this rule appears to be a great victory for anyone worried about terrorists using social media to communicate or spread violent images. But what does it mean when platforms and governments join forces in regulation? Though platforms would not be required to build filters, as it was originally feared by those claiming the regulation would violate EU digital law, they would be subject to government regulations in a different way. 

There are a couple of issues with the regulation itself. Firstly, what constitutes terrorist content? The legislation makes vague references to content that incites terrorist acts, but public concern today seems more geared towards the mass spread of terrorist footage via social media. The live-streaming of the shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand no doubt contributed to the regulation being revisited in April (it was originally proposed in September 2017). Live-streaming would broaden the definition, though any definition of terrorist content is troubled by the term itself. In 2019, we still struggle with crafting a cultural consensus surrounding terrorism (what its definition is, who perpetrates it, and how we should handle it).

Second of all, filters will not be forcibly instituted, nor will moderation. What would, then, a feasible alternative look like? How will platforms be expected to uphold these rules without some combination of filtering or human moderation? In other words, if we want to keep certain types of content off of our feeds, we need to decide how this could be done in a way that won’t straight out censor users, nor push away smaller platforms that can’t afford robust moderation services. The proposal is admittedly vague, and not just in its content, but in everything surrounding it. 

The desire to regulate terrorist content contributes to a large scale conflation between platform guidelines and supra-national law. Moreover, we see user guidelines merging with government mandates. The same phenomenon could be noted in the Tumblr case from December 2018, in which Tumblr’s guideline change to censor nudity fit snugly into the narrative provided by the U.S. government’s Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) regulation. Fearing a potential legal breach, it would be favourable for Tumblr to just ban nudity altogether. On the surface, Tumblr is the enforcer. But there are more factors at play.

The EU Terrorist Content Regulation represents a similar tug-of-war between platforms and governments, each factor attempting to exert its power over the other. One side will pull, the other may fight back, but eventually acquiesce—until we are no longer sure which side to lodge the blame to. The loser is the average platform user, the person on the receiving end of this new brand of content moderation. Much like Tumblr’s nudity ban, the Terrorist Content Regulation is content moderation for our modern digital period: vacillating, often biased, and evading blame.

The Terrorist Content Regulation is another example of how our enlivened expectations of platforms manifest in practice. We feel that platforms are failing us, their fingers itching to smash the censor button on nudity, but unwilling to remove content that spreads hate or incites violence. What it really proves is that platforms and governments aren’t so much failing to do their jobs as they are scrambling to figure out what those jobs are in the first place.

So what comes next? Trilateral meetings between the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament are expected to commence in October 2019. Apart from that, not much can be gathered. What can be gleaned from the proposal thus far is that the line between platform guidelines and government regulation is blurred. The identities of those in charge of the internet are blurring, too. Content moderation today occurs in the back-and-forth between platforms and governments; a frenetic movement that renders platform users passive. Sometimes, to end a of tug-of-war, you need to cut the rope.

Keep On Reading

By Abby Amoakuh

Alabama Barker denies claims she has had a lot of plastic surgery in major clapback

By Jack Ramage

Who is Estee Williams? Meet the Gen Z tradwife taking TikTok by storm

By Charlie Sawyer

How much money does tradwife influencer Nara Smith make from TikTok? Someone did the maths

By Charlie Sawyer

Gun safety expert warns how crucial Gen Z’s vote will be in 2024 US presidential election

By Alma Fabiani

American Pie star reveals he slept with sex worker as wife watched and ate crisps

By J'Nae Phillips

On TikTok, Gen Z are Jane Birkinifying their luxury bags like there’s no tomorrow

By Abby Amoakuh

The central feminist issue for the UK general election? Nudify apps and image-based abuse

By Charlie Sawyer

Lily Allen creates an OnlyFans account to sell feet pics for $10 per month

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Shocking last words of young vape addict before he went into coma

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Tokyo launches official dating app with single status verification to combat Japan’s birthrate decline

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Why was Melania Trump not at the Manhattan courthouse with her husband?

By Charlie Sawyer

Woman who claimed to be Madeleine McCann breaks silence months after DNA test

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

World’s bravest rapper, Toomaj Salehi, sentenced to death in Iran for supporting women’s rights

By Abby Amoakuh

Will Jenna Ortega return for season 5 of You? Fans share the wildest theories for the show’s finale

By Charlie Sawyer

An acoustic guitar and the first chords of Wonderwall aka every girl’s worst dating nightmare

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Who is Timhouthi Chalamet? The Yemini mystery man touring captured cargo boats in the Red Sea

By Charlie Sawyer

Poison seller who promoted death kits on suicide forums tracked down by BBC

By Abby Amoakuh

Mother-daughter pole dancing class sparks uproar over concerns of child sexualisation

By Abby Amoakuh

Marjorie Taylor Greene clashes with reporter over Jewish space lasers conspiracy theory

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Dear Naomi Campbell, nobody asked for your opinion on Gen Z’s lack of maternal instinct