Tom Harrison: Facebook beheading videos expose the problems of Internet regulation

Facebook has become embroiled in another argument about materials that are uploaded on to users’ pages, which can subsequently appear on the news feed of just about anyone. Facebook prides itself on its openness, as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made clear: “fundamentally we view information being open as a very good thing[1]”. However, with the apparent surfacing of beheading videos on the internet, it shows that Facebook is apparently caught between a rock and a hard place – either you allow the videos to remain online amid user protests, or you take the videos down and risk losing the unique selling point of openness, which in the digital age of unlimited choice, could be much worse.

When I first signed up to Facebook, at the age of 14, it was little more than just another social network – following on from Myspace, Bebo and the like. It was not anywhere near the mammoth digital social hub that it has now become. I, along with most of my friends, had registered because it was the easiest way to communicate online, and to create a digital profile for yourself. Several years on, Facebook has been used in numerous online campaigns, petitions and even in the “Arab Spring” revolutions. It’s such an effective tool of political activism and mobilisation that it has been blocked in authoritarian states such as Iran and China. However, this does expose a dichotomy in Facebook’s purpose. It is predominantly a facilitator of communication, but it also wishes to become a place for people to exchange and discuss ideas. Facebook has to make important decisions on its role – as an online platform, or as a publisher of news thereby taking responsibility for its users’ uploads.

The first thing to say is that Facebook is heavily used by young people in the UK, with half of users in the 18-24 age bracket[2]. Meanwhile, 14-17 year-olds account for 18.9 percent of all global users of Facebook, which considering its massive user base of 1.06 billion, accounts for over 200 million people. These data are obviously prone to discrepancies, due to the large number of fake accounts and people putting fake ages on their accounts, but nevertheless, it cannot be argued that there are not a significant amount of Facebook users who would be subject to censorship on films, for example. Popularity among this demographic is what makes the site so valuable to advertisers. Increasing controls on information flow might seriously undermine their appeal.

The second issue at question is whether social media sites are responsible for what their users post. Facebook is not the only social media site which has come under scrutiny for the content of its website, as we saw with numerous questions over Twitter taking action in respect to its users being abusive or being in contempt of court. However, with these social media behemoths, it is near-impossible to regulate every post that a user makes, while the technology simply does not exist to scan through all videos or pictures. The fact of the matter is, internet regulation is costly and almost impossible to enforce. The most highly regulated internet in the world is in China, where there is a government agency purely devoted to online regulation, which oversees several sub-agencies with more overall employees than the whole UK police force. In spite of this expense, China has 87 million Facebook users. Internet regulation does not come cheap, and even then it’s not completely effective.

This leads on to my main point, which is that Facebook is effectively a microcosm of all internet activity. Users can upload a wide variety of distasteful videos, which do not exclusively include beheading videos, but also happy slaps, videos of assault. These are undoubtedly the ugly parts of the internet and we would not wish anyone to see them, especially children. However, removing them from Facebook, does not remove their existence, it just transfers them from one website to another. Facebook cannot prevent childish curiosity even for salacious and disgusting materials. The ultimate responsibility for what children see, must lie with parents and the children themselves. The internet is nigh-on impossible to regulate, and forcing one website to do so through political pressure achieves nothing. It also leads to the question of what is appropriate or inappropriate material, and who should decide so? The only logical answer is that Facebook, as a private company, should be regulated purely by customer satisfaction rather than the taste of politicians.

David Cameron’s comments: “It’s irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents[3],” expose a lack of understanding as well as an unnecessary wielding of his influence. Firstly, Facebook does not post or condone the videos in question, it simply allows users to post the videos, and even then only if they are designed to raise awareness or criticise, rather than celebrate the violence. In recent weeks, my newsfeed has not been plagued by videos of executions; they have been forced on no-one. Secondly, David Cameron as the Prime Minister, is exerting political pressure by making any comment, which in this case is tantamount to advocating interference in the running of a private company, despite it not having done anything illegal. Facebook should be free to censor information as it, not the government, sees appropriate. The public backlash, partly down to political influence, left Facebook in an impossible position, where it then had no choice but to remove the videos.

In terms of protection of children, where possible there should be warnings and restriction so that underage children should not be able to view videos or photos of activities that are inappropriate. However, this is not 100% enforceable, as the problems of the sheer amount of videos Facebook moderators have to check and many fake-age accounts make it impossible to do so. 350 million photos alone are uploaded on to the website every day[4], meaning that properly checking all photos and videos is an insurmountable task. Facebook is perfectly within its rights to post materials that, while unpleasant or downright disgusting, would just be pushed to another website if removed from Facebook. At least there, it can be monitored and criticism, warnings or restriction can be used where Facebook deems it necessary and possible. Governments cannot hold Facebook to account for its users’ posts; the claim that it functions in the same way as a newspaper is to imagine that most newspapers allow upwards of 350 million contributions every day. The internet is impossible to regulate effectively without huge expense; the government should not expect Facebook to foot the bill for regulating what it believes to be distasteful material.

This article was originally featured on The Free Society.

Follow me on Twitter at @tjrharrison