As waves of online safety regulation pass through the lawmaking systems of the world, a cacophony of voices has risen in support, and opposition. Within all this noise, it must be difficult for regulators to know which advice to listen to, and which to ignore.
More regulation is coming – bringing with it challenges and opportunities for safety online. This got me thinking about how online safety non-government organisations like the Online Safety Exchange can best participate in the regulatory process, influence the best possible outcomes, and ensure the best advice cuts through amid the noise.
There will be regulation
By accepting more regulation will come, presenting clear arguments based on facts, and by staying true to our purpose – the online safety community can help shape the best possible outcomes. However, the more I considered the challenge, the more obvious it becomes that success relies on a strengthened and more coordinated online safety community.
The Online Safety Exchange sees regulation and enforcement as a critical component of the safety framework. But in any event, as I’m pretty sure Taylor Swift alludes in her song Shake It Off – Regulators gonna regulate, late, late, late, late. They are going to regulate because that is the tool they have in their toolbelt, because is it recognised that the system isn’t working now, and because there is public pressure for them to do so. For lawmakers, the option to not regulate at all isn’t a reasonable one.
This is why arguing against any regulation is unlikely to have any significant impact. It is wasted energy which regulators can simply ignore. Even if a piece of regulation was 100 percent flawed, internet users are be better served by by an online safety community that works to evolve it into something that is somewhat effective.
The purpose of online safety
There is a lot of commentary about safety regulation that is driven by non-online safety ideology.
There are people who distrust government that oppose regulation by default. There are those who distrust big tech who support regulation by default. And there are those that see online safety as a tool to achieve another goal.
For online safety people, our lens is simple. We want to see people and communities benefit from digital technology and to use it free from harm. The public, and stakeholders should be able to trust the online safety community to act independently and in accordance with that purpose. That’s how regulation should be analysed, and that’s how submissions and advice should be framed up.
Admit what we actually don’t know
It is hard to argue specific regulation will or won’t work based on evidence, because there is a lack of evidence either way. There has been a flurry of big regulatory moves over the last year. They haven’t been in effect long enough to claim a direct impact on safety outcomes. But equally – they haven’t been in place long enough to be reasonably described as ineffective.
The digital ecosystem is complex. Sometimes interventions can have surprising unintended and indirect consequences.
I’ve seen more than my fair share of doomsday scenarios presented both for and against regulation that have not eventuated. Making definitive statements about terrible consequences presents as a stronger argument and appeals to mainstream media – but ultimately undermines a submitters credibility.
Keep it simple stupid
It is easy for audiences that don’t live and breath online safety to get lost in exchanges about the interplay between specific technologies, legal, or behavioral concepts – which sometimes combine to contradict “common sense” logic. Lawmakers have to defend and explain their actions to the public. If the choice is between a complex illogical sounding option and a simpler logical one – the simpler logical one wins every time.
It is therefore important to articulate concerns about regulation, and recommended alternatives in a way that any audience can easily understand and act upon. Once the argument is generally understood, then more technical explanations and evidence can be added.
Problems with current regulation
With that in mind, here are my top level concerns with many of the current regulatory efforts:
- They’re focused on the wrong problems. Lawmakers create regulation to address the publics’ concerns – but there has always been a disconnect between the issues causing the greatest concern to the public and the reality of harms online.
- They’re breaking something to fix something. Privacy and security are part of the foundations of trusted online spaces. Undermining them for immediate gains in some areas of safety feels akin to scoring an own goal.
- They’re driving compliance, not safety. Everyone benefits from innovation in safety. A tech industry employing the best trust and safety minds will help solve the difficult problems of safety online. Regulation can divert resources to compliance activity and drive everybody towards a minimum standard at the expense of investing in the science and practice of online safety.
- They’re driving problems into unregulatable spaces. Deleting harmful content from a platform is not the same as solving the harm of that problem in society. The internet allows us to access content from services anywhere in the world – and regulation in one jurisdiction can’t control bad actors in another. Regulation can push a problem out of digital spaces that can be influenced into spaces that cannot.
Find the facts
There isn’t enough evidence to support arguments for or against most specific regulatory efforts, so generating that evidence should be a priority. Independent civil society organisations can play a critical role undertaking and then communicating the impact of online safety interventions.
It is important to know whether the rates of harm are rising or falling. Within each harm category there are subcategories which need to be evaluated as something might be effective against some incident subtypes, but not others.
The rate of harm is just one measure of effectiveness.
Interventions can alter people’s experiences of harm by making it easier (or harder) to resolve. Who or what helped them resolve their incident? And it is important to evaluate how people feel. Do they feel safer? Do they have more confidence in the system?
Capturing and communicating this information will also go a long way to educating the public about the true state of safety online, and generating the right pressure on lawmakers.
Amplify the expert voices
There is so much noise around regulation debates, it can be difficult to know whose advice to listen to. As an online safety community, our purpose is served when the right voices are amplified. Because civil society organisations need to build their profile to attract funding, it can be difficult to forgo opportunities and recommend others when the debate is raging.
However, there are things that can be done outside of the peak times. Online Safety people can lift each other up by simply liking, follow and reposting – sharing content, and inviting those experts to speak at events. That way, when the time comes – it is easier for the expert voices to be heard ,and for good advice to cut through.
Continue to promote the measures that do work
Online safety people have a responsibility to promote the best interventions to technology users. This can put civil society in a difficult position, especially if that best advice is at odds with its government or industry funders.
A stronger and more unified online safety community provides some insurance against any individual entity being punished for not towing the company line.
Community
In fact, the more you explore the challenges for online safety today, the more the solution converges on the value of a stronger more coordinated online safety expert community. This is why that remains a core focus for the Online Safety Exchange.
