Social media in modern society
Can the Internet ever ‘forget’ personal details about us?
In this lecture, Professor Sir Richard Sorabji considers free speech in the age of social media, and questions whether legal restrictions on certain speech acts or self-restraint would be the most effective and appropriate means to secure freedoms while protecting against harms.
Jufang Wang, a former news editor in China and academic visitor at the BBC and Oxford University, offers insights into China’s news transformation and Internet governance in the platform age. She argues that the Chinese state has adjusted its Internet regulatory framework to target major digital media platforms such as WeChat, Weibo and Toutiao and requires them to take the “main responsibilites” in governing their sites. Such a new approach leads to what she calls “state governance through platforms”.
LSE media expert and Government adviser Damian Tambini argues that social media companies have a 'duty of care' to protect users from harms caused by content published on their platforms, in response to the government's policy proposals in its White Paper on Online Harms.
He argues that the government is correct to propose a new institution, Ofweb, with the power to regulate online content in order to combat the significant harms caused by hate speech, foreign interference in democracy, images of self-harm, and terrorist content online. Yet he also warns of the potential dangers in the approach of the White Paper, which could inhibit freedom of expression if the harms are not clearly defined.
The policy brief proposes a detailed distinction between harmful but legal content and illegal content, and that illegal content should be met with sanctions including civil fines.
Tambini tackles the central legal and constitutional problem regarding a new code of conduct for legal harms such as political speech that interferes in the democratic process – so-called ‘fake news’. He finds that such censorship-like functions would not accord with the European Convention on Human Rights free speech test on proportionality, legality (parliamentary oversight), and necessity in a democratic society.
Therefore, Parliament must decide if new offences and categories of content require new laws and liabilities and set standards for blocking or filtering the most dangerous content. Given the dynamic nature of online harms, the process for introducing new laws to reflect harms should be more efficient and evidence-based, with advice from the new regulator.
How do we prevent harms caused by online content, and should the state, or internet giants like Facebook and Twitter be primarily responsible for regulating content published on their platforms?
This was the central question addressed by the Foundation for Law, Justice and Society at a workshop at Wolfson College last week to assess in what ways online speech is and should be governed in China and the West.
Earlier this week, a panel of scholars reviewed Elinor Olstrom’s groundbreaking book Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for C
The recent controversy over how Cambridge Analytica manipulated personal data gathered from Facebook has heightened the debate over the dangers of
In this keynote lecture, leading political writer Timothy Garton Ash presents his ten guiding principles for a connected world, and offer a manifesto for global free speech in the digital age.
Drawing on a lifetime of writing about dictatorships and dissidents, Oxford Professor of European Studies Timothy Garton Ash argues that we are currently experiencing an unprecedented era in human history for freedom of expression.
In this podcast, from a workshop entitled What Kind of Society is the Cyber-Society?, Dr Damian Tambini introduces a new stream of research that assesses the influence of social media giants such as Facebook and Google on the political process and the flow of information to citizens through social ‘newsfeeds’.