The legal realities of making social media liable

There was an article in the economist today titled ‘Internet firms’ legal immunity is under threat.' It was examining the recent growth in social media companies and their accountability to the general public. It pointed to internet giants such as Google and Facebook who are highly successful in their non-physical domain.

They claim that they are not responsible for any harm that occurs outside of the internet because it is not within their control. The article suggests that this legal exceptionalism can no longer continue because the various governments and courts of the world are attempting to grow into this internet space and make claims that these medias have to police more efficiently.

Just think, several years ago
a girl writing a blog about her
academic persuasion was not just
socially strange - it was technologically
impossible!

Referencing the historical reasons for the legal immunity that social media programs were awarded, such as a 1995 defamation claim that was later dropped, the article suggests that it was too early then for anyone to imagine these online companies being so prominent in the world's economy. This is understandable as it was once unimaginable that every individual would own a computer – let alone computer, phone, iPod, and iPad.

The most recent shift in the use of the internet has meant that the previous minimal safeguards against online criminal activity are becoming too small to police this particular part of the internet. Of course, the article relies on the negative media attention given to freelance services like Uber and Air BnB to substantiate the point that these online firms are enterprising giants with more money and power than sense. 

It is important to recognize that while these internet firms have somewhat impacted the economies of the countries where they physically manifest such as Air BnB driving up the cost of affordable housing in a particular area or Uber cluttering the streets with cars.

The idea that these businesses cause more harm than good it not especially novel. The Guardian did a piece on air BnB pointing out the protests against Airbnb in New Orleans where the city council attempted to regulate the industry.

However, grassroots campaigns have not overridden the fierce determination to leave the internet a neutral space. The 1988 International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) grew to attempt to control the global community that built as a result of the internet. It attempted to give priority to health and safety regulations and control the flow of traffic between network operators.

The issue is that these treaties are completely ineffective. It is essentially creating one single police force to regulate the entire globe.

Some may argue that the advent of modern technology has meant that police automation is now possible,  which would allow governments to enforce a series of regulations on the global community.  However, it is important to recognize that malware has grown in tune with this new regulatory ability.

The internet is no longer a single dimension universe where websites and consumers exist in perfect harmony. Nor do scammers, trolls, and bullies use the Internet in the way that they did in 1988. Several internet gangs – most notably ‘anonymous'- have built themselves up to a point at which they are virtually untraceable by use of the usual internet.

Research all you can -
this internet phenomenon is not
getting any simpler

Several different ‘layers’ of the internet are now available for use by those with varying levels of programming and technical abilities. These new layers all have some association with criminality – and the issue is not these simple businesses making a profit off the neutrality of the open access internet, but the developing software that has created a chain of criminality that sits beneath the surface of the everyday internet.

So, while it is perfectly fine to discuss the liability of Facebook for not taking enough of interest in regulating the pre-election news and evaluating its trustworthiness, it’s entirely unreasonable to run away with this policing concept and suggest that there are automated methods by which we can create a utopian online environment. The fact of the matter is, that beyond what we can see through basic access on Google Facebook or other popular websites - the government’s ability to control how, when and why the internet is used is all but gone.

The neutrality of the internet exists not simply because of an agreement in the 1980s but because it is a virtual land in which our legal systems struggle to connect. Through the use of physical headquarters, there is some ability for the courts to connect liability to creators of products, copyright, and criminal enterprise – but this is quickly lessening as the mobility of businesses increases.

Using the average Etsy user as an example, their headquarters would usually be where they work. However, many of these sellers choose to travel frequently, meaning that their only set office space is their suitcase. Meaning that policing those sellers requires a disembodied legal authority that has no attachment to a country, government or other authority. A virtual impossibility in this nationalistic environment.

 Anyone would then realize that online neutrality is not under threat – because the ‘legal immunity' given to businesses is not a kind hand out from world governments – but an acknowledgment of the fact that human kind has a space that they are not yet able to police effectively.