The billionaire boss of Twitter - who flew in this week to update the Christchurch Call - couldn't keep his own account free of extremist stuff from hackers recently. Six months after social media was weaponised in Christchurch, is it time for rules to block extremist posts on online platforms in New Zealand?
Twitter's boss had extreme stuff sent from his own account by hackers recently. Photo: screenshot / CNBC
Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey dropped in on the PM in Wellington for their first catch-up since the pair first met in Paris back in May to draft the Christchurch Call - the voluntary framework committing tech companies and governments to preventing the spread of terrorist content online.
That’s easier said than done.
Jack Dorsey found that out himself just a fortnight ago when his own Twitter account was among many hijacked by hackers called the Chuckle Squad who tweeted racial slurs and antisemitic messages from it.
His flying visit here went a bit better, according to his own Twitter account.
Met PM @jacindaardern at the Beehive today for a followup discussion on the Christchurch call. Also my first time in New Zealand. Kind folks and beautiful environment. pic.twitter.com/XQWdPrHrf4
— jack (@jack) September 9, 2019
But we’ll have to take his word for it. All requests for interviews from New Zealand media went unanswered.
The same day, National Party leader Simon Bridges told reporters that “everyday New Zealanders” didn't care about the The Christchurch Call. He said it was “nebulous feel good stuff” and a waste of money.
"Social networks put a number of new safeguards and restrictions in place, but have largely resisted sweeping changes in the six months since the mosque massacres," New Zealand Herald tech writer Chris Keall concluded this week.
Tech commentator Paul Brislen told Newstalk ZB Twitter was not the problem anyway.
"It doesn't get into the same realms of promoting content and getting paid to share vile and extremist content in the way Facebook does. Facebook is the real problem here," he said.
That was certainly what the editor of Newsroom Pro Bernard Hickey reckoned on The Panel on RNZ when he sheeted the blame for anti-vaccination fears to Facebook.
If they can pick up copyright abuse, he argued, they can pick up attempts to weaponise misinformation. If not, they should be sued, he said.
That would be a legal long-shot vigourously defended by formidable lawyers, but other ways of screening extreme stuff out of lives online are being pondered right now.
Putting the block on
New Zealand's ISPs call on Twitter, Facebook and Google to step on distressing content on social media. Photo: screenshot
Soon after the 15 March attack, four of New Zealand’s biggest ISPs jointly blocked an unknown number of websites circulating the Christchurch attack video and manifesto. Leaks from telcos staff on online tech forums named at least 10 sites - including the notorious forums 4Chan and 8Chan where the attack was announced.
Visitors trying to get to these forums through Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ and Vocus NZ saw the message: "The URL has been blocked for security reasons".
It was an unprecedented move driven by what the companies’ bosses said was the global online companies’ failure to stop the spread of the propaganda.
The New Zealand Telecommunications Forum chief executive Geoff Thorn said the blocking was “absolutely necessary to ensure that New Zealanders can’t access the harmful content".
The government applauded the move and even asked the ISPs to extend the blocking until after the memorial service a week later.
Internet and media freedom advocates argued legitimate use of the internet could be curbed by such moves and it should not be up to ISP bosses to decide a crisis merited such extraordinary action.
Last month, Spark announced a permanent ban on 8Chan after a shooter in El Paso Texas posted a racist manifesto on it.
"It's much like Telecom-of-old deciding which phone calls you can and can't make," tech commentator Paul Brislen told RNZ.
"We need a regulator rather than a commercial operator to make these calls," he said.
Spark itself agreed.
"Appropriate agencies of government should put in place a robust policy framework to address the important issues surrounding such material being distributed online and freely available," Spark said in a statement.
In Australia, the government tackled the issue head on after 15 March, passing laws to penalise social media sites hosting extremist content.
This week, Australia’s e-safety commissioner issued fresh orders blocking eight sites - including 8chan. Australia’s communications minister Paul Fletcher and The Communications Alliance, which represents internet service providers in Australia, welcomed the move.
Photo: supplied
This week umbrella group Internet NZ argued that more online blocking could actually damage the internet infrastructure as well as disrupting legitimate use by New Zealanders.
In a paper called To Block or Not to Block (PDF) the non-profit organisation - which campaigns for an open and secure internet for New Zealand - said blocking dodgy sites and services might even make the problem worse.
Content shared on social media platforms can cause immeasurable harm, and the platforms themselves can be utilised for mass diffusion of harmful content to a wide audience, but blocking access to these platforms as a whole is not an acceptable remedy.
- InternetNZ report
Photo: AP
"It encourages reckless behaviour and circumvention, and with regards to the Christchurch Call, may incite blow-back from extremists who believe they are owed a platform,” the report said.
If even the billionaire boss of Twitter can’t keep racist stuff off his own Twitter account, don't we need some power to filter out the worst online content when we find it here in New Zealand - like the big telcos did straight after 15 March?
"No one was thinking of the case they were faced with on that day because it was unprecedented and the harm was extreme," policy advisor Nicola Brown, author of ‘To Block or Not To Block?’ told Mediawatch.
"What we need is robust policies and a road map if this happens again," she said.
What's the harm in short-term blocking during an emergency?
"The harm is in ISPs making the decision on their own. It's a bunch of people whose job is to sell connectivity to the public making decisions about what people can see on the internet," said InternetNZ’s chief executive Jordan Carter - who chaired the Christchurch Call conference in Paris in May.
Internet NZ policy advisor Nicola Brown launching the report 'To Block Or Not To Block' this week. Photo: PHOTO / RNZ Colin Peacock
He points out that they could have taken the decision to block Facebook - the original source of the alleged gunman's live-stream video - for all their customers.
Why would it have been a bad move to exercise sovereignty over this global outlet on our soil in a crisis?
"Parents whose children were in lock-down and might only use Facebook to communicate with them might be really upset by that," said Nicola Brown.
"People rely on the internet in a crisis to find out what's happening, communicate with loved ones and to understand what is happening," she said.
"The internet was designed to prevent effective central control," said Jordan Carter.
"I'm pleased we didn't follow in Australia's footsteps jumping into an extreme legislative response," he said.
But blocking already exists for spam, scams and child exploitation.
“Restricting content at the infrastructure level is ineffective and causes collateral damage to people, processes and core internet infrastructure,” said the report.
"If you take out an IP address you could damage an entire webhost's business. These are very blunt tools," Nicola Brown told Mediawatch.
Jordan Carter said most blocking methods - disabling domain names, blocking URLs - can be "easily overcome by people with IT skills".
"Some people will still be able to access the net as usual. Others will be completely halted because they lack the digital skills," she said.
InternetNZ says internet filtering should be employed "only at the edges".
