tip off

Facebook at centre of convergence 
debate

And so, it appears, not all media regulation is an assault on free speech.

Tony Abbott this morning managed to dodge commenting on the “Aboriginal meme” Facebook page by invoking a Coalition taskforce that is looking at social media, including “stronger take down powers for the regulator”.

It’s only three days since Abbott, heroically swinging in to defend free speech, declared that any form of additional media regulation, or even merely encouraging the media to improve self-regulation, would become a “political correctness enforcement agency destined to suppress inconvenient truths and to hound from the media people whose opinions might rattle Phillip Adams’ listeners”. Andrew Bolt would be dispatched to labour in the soy mines while David Marr would be allowed to roam free and offend conservative Christians.

Social media, on the other hand, well evidently that can take a little regulating from a political correctness enforcement agency.

Abbott’s “social media taskforce” is presumably the review of online child safety established in January and chaired by Paul Fletcher, one of the Liberals’ many talents wasted on the backbench and given make-work jobs by Abbott. This was the Coalition’s alternative to Labor’s internet filter proposal, which remains in limbo. The review was supposed to report by the middle of the year but hasn’t been heard of since — rather like the government’s Cyber white paper, which was also promised for mid-year, but which remains, at last advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, “coming soon”.

Putting aside Abbott’s hypocrisy — unlimited free speech is vital for News Ltd but social media needs more regulation — the “Aboriginal meme” matter is located right in the centre of debate about media regulation. Facebook has a dodgy record on taking down pages. Last year it refused to take down a page of r-pe jokes for over a month despite a clear violation of its terms and conditions relating to hateful content. But it is very quick to take down pages the subject of copyright accusations and has a weird hang-up about breast-feeding mothers.

That it took some time to take down such profoundly offensive and hateful content as the garbage on the “Aboriginal meme” page, and first tried to insist it was “controversial humour”, is another example of its peculiar sensibilities.

Stephen Conroy struck the right note, saying he thought the page should be removed, but not insisting Facebook do it. Apart from anything else, Conroy has no power to insist media companies do anything except in relation to limited issues such as the anti-siphoning; it’s the role of ACMA to regulate media content, online and off.

The problem is, as Facebook has become part of a typical family’s media consumption, there’s a consumer expectation that it will be regulated like, and be as responsive to consumer concerns as, other key components of media consumption, like TV networks.

If you had a strong enough stomach to go through the page and look at the people “liking” its nauseating “jokes”, you’d be struck by the number of high school (and tertiary level) students. There’s a common assumption that under-25s prefer Facebook over Twitter, although there’s little data to back it up. In this case, plainly the page was circulated among groups of kids, some of whom were stupid enough to indicate public approval of it, something that, if the page hadn’t been removed, would have remained online and available to future employers and educators.

This is one of the issues that the Convergence Review grappled with. After apparently flirting with the idea of trying to regulate all forms of online content (the review final report insists that it didn’t, but the draft final report is fairly clear), it settled for moving from a broadcasting licence-based approach to regulation that reflected levels of influence, to one in which influence was central, regardless of delivery mechanism. The logic of this, fully extended, is that Facebook, or Apple, or Google, if sufficiently influential in Australia, would be regulated in a similar way to traditional media such as television. As it turned out, the review team’s assessment was that, using a metric of revenue, no one outside our major existing television, radio and newspaper groups was influential enough to warrant inclusion in the new regulatory framework.

The problem that Facebook, like Apple and Google and Twitter, is beyond Australian jurisdiction wasn’t addressed by the review team beyond that “there are legal and financial avenues as well as strong brand and market incentives” for foreign companies to comply. We’ll see about that.

The idea of governments deciding that they should have even greater powers to censor online material, via what Abbott would presumably call a political correctness enforcement agency, leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Australia already has some remarkable restrictions on free speech, such as in relation to discussion of euthanasia and drug use. Our mainstream media gives itself the right to censor inconvenient political criticism on commercial grounds.

But Australians appear to have a growing expectation that the social media they and their kids commonly use will be regulated in some form like old media. Facebook, with its lack of responsiveness and idiosyncratic approach, hasn’t helped the anti-regulation cause in this instance.

Free speech advocates may need to resolve this tension if they’re to successfully fend off further restrictions from governments.

22
  • 1
    CliffG
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Abbott - credibility gap, AAA hypocisy rating. Just swinging about, looking for dog-whistle issues and then changing when he finds he’s lost his mongrel!

  • 2
    Charles Dodgson
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    I’m just tired of Abbott.

  • 3
    John Bennetts
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Well brought together.

    I was aware of Facebook’s issues regarding brea_t feeding and the other issues mentioned, however to get them all together in one place is excellent.

    Abbott has again launched himself blindly into a discussion and has again shown his tendency to shallow thinking and short term goals, such as the 24 hour media cycle.

    If only more of our media didn’t accept that yesterday’s news is stale and instead followed issues through to their conclusion.

  • 4
    floorer
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Abbott talks as his guts guides him.

  • 5
    floorer
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    re Facebook and breastfeeding mothers comment, a small attribution would been have nice lol. That’s a joke BUT I did mention it yesterday.

  • 6
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    The aboriginalmemes page was shut down, so a new one is up. Clearly this is feeding the egos of a few small-minded idiots. Concerned readers might want to join the facebook group trying to get facebook to comply with its own standards.

  • 7
    The Pav
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Putting aside Abbott’s hypocrisy “……….

    Sorry but you can’t do that with Abbott.

    If you do there’s nothing left…..ZIP ……NADA………NOTHING

  • 8
    Holden Back
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    But he knocked that twitter thingy out of the park #asktony

  • 9
    CML
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Facebook is a menace - full stop.
    Free speech should never be an excuse for denigration and discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, age, sexuality, etc. - NOT EVER!!
    Okay - so Facebook is run by people in that bastion of anti-racial countries, the USA. You say we can’t do anything about that. Well what’s wrong with doing something about the 16 year old grub from Perth, Australia, who started all this in the first place? No doubt a poor little rich kid who is untouchable!

  • 10
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    By the way, I couldn’t believe my ears when I was listening to Conroy regarding Facebook: “The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it”. That’s what people have been telling him since he came out with his censorship plan some years ago. Has he finally seen the light?

  • 11
    Son of foro
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Putting aside Abbott’s hypocrisy

    Why do journalists continue to put aside Abbott’s hypocrisy?

  • 12
    Koshka
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    Given that Australia, unlike most other democracies, advanced or otherwise, has no statutory guarantee of freedom of speech, Abbot’s position would be (only somewhat) less hypocritical if he didn’t oppose a bill of rights…

  • 13
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Some freedom to speak is more equal than others - especially Murdoch’s.”?

    Putting aside Abbott’s hypocrisy ….. ” - what have you got left? An empty vessel?

  • 14
    sherman herman
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    ” so a new one is up”

    wow, banning something didn’t prevent it happening. whoda thunk it? oh well, i’m sure next time’ll work, right?

  • 15
    Sally Goldner
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Why do journalists continue to put aside Abbott’s hypocrisy?”

    A darn tootin’ good question - especially when we couldn’t wait to get rid of Howard - and Abbott was a major player in the tactics and policies of the Howard era.

    (wanders off trying to rev up a chorus of The Who’s “Won’t be Fooled Again…”)

  • 16
    AR
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    I’m with what Stilgherian (sp?) seemed to be saying on ABC news today - the problem is not that the page exists but that so many beetle browed, knuckle draggers are eager to contribute. The progenitor said something along the lines of “i didn’t set it upo for inadequates to express their inadequacies” which might be disingenuous but the point is that these views exist.
    There is a good argument that making loathsome views illegal is a bad idea because they fester in darkness - preferable to note the full eructation, the better to lance the boil, as & when it breaks surface.

  • 17
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    And who’s feeding these “moral maggots”?

  • 18
    John64
    Posted Friday, 10 August 2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    What? People are posting bad jokes online? This is disgraceful. We need to hunt these people down and ban them. We must ban them all. From everything.

    We must stop them thinking.

  • 19
    Oscar Jones
    Posted Friday, 10 August 2012 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    The MSM worldwide participated in the feverish but bizarre over-hyping of the launch of Facebook on the stock market and sadly, punters are losing small fortunes because of it. It was treated like the second coming.

    Malcolm Turnbull has correctly pointed to the fact the Facebook paid a tiny percentage of tax on the $50M profits in advertising in Australia.

    Yesterday it was revealed that in the UK Facebook paid a similar amount of tax on ten times the profits they made here.

    Like that other navel gazing waste of time, Twitter, these tech giants which are leeches on the net employ a tiny fraction of the staff a corporation generating similar income would need to employ.

    The oddest aspect is the slavish devotion meted out to them particularly by hacks.

  • 20
    Bill Parker
    Posted Friday, 10 August 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    CML - you are right Facebook IS a menace. I find I am being forced to have an account to receive comms from one group. I refuse; email is fine, and the actual phone is better.

    I receive emails everyday purporting to come from people “mildred” who want to be friends with me. I do not need that, and in fact I think its spam.

    So anything with @facebook.com etc is now on my blacklist.

  • 21
    Mark from Melbourne
    Posted Friday, 10 August 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    It was another interview of Abbott by the ABC that was so lightweight it challenged fairyfloss. Let him totally off the hook and what his own spokesman had acknowledged about power charge rorting and some how all the increases in the last few years got shifted to “carbon tax”. Sorry, I meant CARBON TAX. Followed closely by Michelle G and Fran basically hanging it on the govt for playing politics with the power charge debate whilst not spending 2 words on the actual merits of the argument.

    Unbelievably crap journalism.

  • 22
    freshly cut grass
    Posted Sunday, 12 August 2012 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    It seems both sides of Australian politics are determined to continue the assault on our freedoms. The quicker, we the people, realise that Abbott, Gillard & co, don’t consider our freedom of expression and speech as sacrosanct the quicker we will be in a position to defend them against a Government (past, present and future) hell bent on telling what to think.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...