The Ditchley community debrief, from the conference on Freedom in democracies: navigating the collision of identity and freedom of expression in the digital age, was held on the 28 January 2022. The main themes to emerge from the discussion were:
How do we each define ‘psychological harm’? The Online Safety Bill wants to protect people from ‘psychological harm’ but does this mean that free speech is at the mercy of subjective claims which can be easily abused?
The role of law. There are high hopes for the Online Safety Bill, but how do we maintain a common sense approach between criticism and offence on the one hand and threatening hate speech on the other? Are there existing laws - around incitement of hate speech or advertising - that can be applied in order to achieve a light-touch regulation?
The case for. Regulation should mirror the offline world online and should be your point of reference. Laws off the internet work - take road safety regulation and the decreased fatality level as an example. We now need to put the same laws on the internet.
The case against. Affairs of the mind depend on free exchange of ideas including repellent ideas. Regulation could threaten to derail this freedom of exchange.
Can we keep up? Given the lightning speed progress of tech and how often legislation might need updating, is our current legislative system agile enough? Similarly, how do we teach digital harms to children quickly enough? Is it best to teach children how to conduct a conversation and debate respectfully and with tolerance? Universities have a key role to play in encouraging students to think and act candidly and civilly. The idea that universities should be banning discussions that should be lawful might require active steps to prevent that from happening.
Free speech implications through a regulatory approach. Who gets to speak and who gets punished? Does everyone enjoy the same rights of free speech? Are these categories racialised? In the US people are being cancelled from being able to say things; critical race theory and books are being banned in states. This can be argued as an assault on democracy but perhaps more worrying is that free speech advocates don’t seem to be speaking out against these measures. Access to free speech is not equal if the cost or consequence of speech is higher for some than others.
The role of leadership. The importance of top-down behaviour as standard setting is critical. Leadership affects entire institutions and it can be argued that our institutions - media, publishing, universities, the police - have failed to take collective responsibility on this issue.
Tech companies as the ‘drug dealers’. The internet distorts what should be a free market for ideas through algorithms which feed you what you want to read and hear: ‘filter bubbles’. Some EU countries are using GDPR to stop tech companies from gathering the data to fuel the algorithms.
Can we penalise tech platforms proportionally? Some of the most powerful companies appear to make money out of fermenting conflict or ‘psychological harm’. On YouTube, for example, 70 per cent of content is pushed rather than being searched.
Is anonymity the problem rather than algorithmic responsibility? Facebook, for example, switched algorithms to trusted news sites, but its consumer engagement went down. The platform reversed the changes. Should people be held directly responsible in a public forum, in a bid to curb abuse?
Tech companies as the force for change. Can we use technology to model policy ideas? If we use technology to facilitate the right policy choices, we could use the speed of tech to progress policy quicker.
The wall of China. China is increasingly exporting its own approach to technology governance through a vision of ‘cyber sovereignty’ that entails tight control of internet gateways, data and robust restriction of online freedoms.
Collective responsibility. The balance of opinion suggests careful legislation (which won’t be a one size fits all) is required, and that civilised debate between all stakeholders should continue.
Click here for a link to the terms of reference for the conference.