New Zealand’s Approach to Online Content Regulation: A Shift in Priorities
Introduction:
In recent years, the issue of online content regulation has gained significant attention globally. While Australia has taken a firm stance by implementing a mandatory code of conduct for social media platforms and establishing an independent regulator, New Zealand has chosen a different path. This article explores the contrasting approaches of these two countries and delves into the reasons behind New Zealand’s decision to abandon its proposed regulatory framework.
New Zealand’s Proposed Regulatory Framework:
Last year, the Department of Internal Affairs in New Zealand proposed a mandatory code of conduct for social media platforms such as Meta, X, and YouTube. The objective was to ensure that these platforms adhere to certain standards and take responsibility for the content they host. Additionally, the department proposed the establishment of an independent regulator with the power to order the removal of objectionable material and impose fines on Big Tech firms for significant breaches. The proposed model mirrored Australia’s approach, which had garnered attention for its effectiveness.
Jurisdictional Challenges:
One of the key concerns raised during the proposal was the jurisdictional challenge. Suzanne Doig, Internal Affairs Policy Manager, acknowledged that it was unclear whether they had the authority to fine companies like X if they were not signatories to the code of conduct. However, she emphasized that the proposed regulations would apply to all relevant companies, regardless of their registration or residence.
Public Response and Changing Priorities:
The proposal faced negative public response, which contributed to its eventual abandonment. Over 20,000 submissions were received from individuals and organizations. The majority of individual responses, comprising 18,978 submissions, expressed opposition to the proposed regulations. These responses were mainly submitted through an online campaigning site established by the NZ Free Speech Union. Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Union, described the proposal as “hate speech laws for the internet” and emphasized the importance of freely sharing opinions online for a healthy democracy.
While individual responses were largely against the proposed regulations, 105 organizations, including technology, media, and regulators, showed support. InternetNZ, a non-profit organization managing the “.nz” internet domain, expressed disappointment with the decision to abandon the proposal. CEO Vivien Maidaborn lamented that without a replacement or advancement in this area of work, the focus would remain on a voluntary code brokered by Netsafe in 2022.
Criticism of the Aotearoa Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms:
The voluntary code of practice, known as the Aotearoa Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms, has been endorsed by major tech companies such as Meta, Google, TikTok, Amazon, and X. However, some non-profit organizations, including InternetNZ, have criticized it for lacking legitimacy. This criticism highlights the need for a comprehensive and enforceable regulatory framework that addresses online safety and harms effectively.
Conclusion:
New Zealand’s decision to abandon its proposed regulatory framework for online content regulation reflects a shift in priorities. The negative public response and the election of a new government with different focuses played a significant role in this decision. While the voluntary code brokered by Netsafe provides some level of regulation, concerns regarding legitimacy remain. As the issue of online content regulation continues to evolve, it is crucial to strike a balance between preserving freedom of speech and ensuring the safety of online platforms.
