Social Media Council: The Ultimate Solution for a Safer Digital Space?

  • 01/07/2024
  • Category: Commentaries
No Comments

Author: M. Irfan Dwi Putra
Editor: M Perdana Karim

Social media has become an integral part of people’s lives. Any individual with internet access can utilize social media to share and receive information, engage with other users, and express themselves freely. On one hand, social media has positive impacts, as it promotes freedom of expression, provides broader access to information, and fosters a more democratic society.1 However, social media also poses several threats, including the rise of misinformation and disinformation, cyberbullying, hate speech, pornography, and online defamation, all of which can be categorized as illegal and harmful content.2 The presence of such content has created unfavorable conditions on social media platforms, potentially jeopardizing user safety.

Social media must be a safe space for everyone. Therefore, the right solutions are needed to address the threats posed by illegal and harmful content on it. A widely-used approach to tackle these threats is content moderation. Content moderation is a process of reviewing and monitoring user-generated content (UGC) on online platforms such as social media. It aims to ensure that the content complies with community guidelines, platform policies, and the law.3 Unlike conventional media, content moderation on social media has become urgent because the content circulating on these platforms is user-generated, without any editorial process to verify its appropriateness. In other words, the decision regarding the appropriateness of content for publication and sharing on social media relies solely on the user’s judgment and discretion. Without content moderation, social media would become a repository for misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and other illegal and harmful content.

Content moderation can involve various parties, including the government and social media platforms. Government-led moderation is typically based on the country’s applicable laws. In cases where content violates the law, the government has the legitimacy and authority to remove it. This type of moderation is sometimes associated with censorship, a practice commonly observed in authoritarian countries such as China.4 The Chinese government has enormous control over its citizens’ lives, including their activities in the digital space. This enormous control has led the Chinese government to enforce a very strict censorship policy. Content deemed disruptive to political stability, national security, and government interests will be removed from the Internet.5 Such moderation has been widely criticized, as the government often uses it as a tool to suppress freedom of expression and maintain political control over social media users.6

Some online platforms establish content moderation mechanisms based on platform policies and community guidelines. For example, Facebook has the Facebook Oversight Board, responsible for reviewing content moderation decisions and providing recommendations to the platform.7 Other platforms, such as YouTube, utilize artificial intelligence to moderate content.8 However, content moderation by social media platforms also has drawbacks, including lack of transparency, bias, and potential violations of freedom of expression. The shadow banning of Palestinian-related content by Instagram and Facebook from late 2023 to early 2024 exemplifies these issues, highlighting the challenges and controversies surrounding platform-based content moderation.9

Amidst the content moderation debate, the Minister of Communications and Informatics made a statement about the plan to establish a Social Media Council (SMC). According to the Minister, this initiative is based on academic studies and recommendations from UNESCO, aiming to ensure and oversee the governance of digital space in Indonesia, making it more qualified, healthy, and accountable. The SMC also aims to protect children in the digital space from the threat of illegal and harmful content.10 Following this announcement, various pros and cons emerged within society. Several civil society organizations criticized the plan, arguing that it has the potential to restrict freedom of expression in the digital space due to the absence of a legal basis.11 Additionally, this initiative lacks a clear framework regarding the structure, competencies, roles, and mechanisms of the SMC.12 While the government asserts that the SMC will be similar to the Press Council, with a focus on social media, several experts express skepticism. They point out that there is no legal foundation for the establishment of the SMC, which is expected to be addressed in the Second Revision of the EIT Law.13

The concept of the SMC was first introduced by Article 19, an international human rights organization focused on freedom of expression, in its proposal on social media councils. According to the proposal, the purpose of the SMC is to safeguard freedom of expression from the dominant influence of technology platforms in content moderation, thereby fostering a more favorable social media environment. Initially, the SMC was planned to be established in Ireland as a pilot program.14 However, as of this writing, there is no available literature detailing the concrete form and implementation of the SMC in the country.

The establishment of the SMC is essential for fostering a safer and healthier digital space. The SMC would play a crucial role in moderating illegal and harmful content, thereby enhancing user safety on social media platforms. However, the plan to establish the SMC must carefully consider several factors to ensure its effective implementation. Foremost among these considerations, the government should prioritize clarifying the definition of illegal and harmful content within existing regulations, particularly the EIT Law and its implementing provisions. This foundational step is essential to provide clear guidance and operational parameters for the SMC in fulfilling its intended purpose. The government also needs to categorize content falling into these categories using stringent criteria that are not open to multiple interpretations. This step is crucial to enable content moderation based on clear and measurable guidelines. Without such clear regulations, there is a risk that content moderation efforts could inadvertently infringe upon freedom of expression and other user rights in the digital space.

Secondly, according to the Article 19 proposal, the SMC is envisioned as a multi-stakeholder forum rather than a government agency or body.15 This structure is intended to uphold the independence, neutrality, and transparency of the SMC, preventing it from being utilized as a tool for government censorship that could suppress freedom of expression in the digital space. Maintaining the SMC’s independence is crucial to ensuring that content moderation operates on objective and equitable principles, free from undue influence by political or commercial interests of dominant parties. Thirdly, as a multi-stakeholder forum, the SMC should include diverse elements of society, including civil society organizations, academics, researchers, social media platforms, and government representatives. It is crucial that these stakeholders are equally represented in the composition of the SMC. This balanced representation will foster neutrality and mitigate the risk of governmental or technological platform dominance, thereby safeguarding user rights in content moderation processes.

Fourthly, if the SMC is intended to have the authority to directly moderate content, it should include an appeal mechanism for users who believe their rights have been infringed as a result of moderation decisions. This appeal process is crucial to ensure that moderation decisions are subject to review and conducted in accordance with principles of due process of law. Lastly, content moderation should adhere to international human rights standards, particularly those concerning the protection of freedom of expression, children’s rights in digital space, the right to privacy, and other user rights. Upholding these international standards is essential to ensure that content moderation operates within the framework of respect for human rights.

  1. Tucker, J.A. et al. (2017) ‘From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media and Democracy’, Journal of Democracy, 28, pp. 46-59. ↩︎
  2. Yar, M. (2018) ‘A Failure to Regulate? The Demands and Dilemmas of Tackling Illegal Content and Behaviour on Social Media’, Journals and Campus Publications, 1, pp. 5-20. ↩︎
  3. Langvardt, K. (2018) ‘Regulating Online Content Moderation’, Georgetown Law Journal, 106, pp. 1353-1388. ↩︎
  4. Liu, J. (2024) ‘Internet Censorship in China: Looking Through the Lens of Categorisation’, Journal of Current Affairs, pp. 1-16. ↩︎
  5. Ibid. ↩︎
  6. Rusnandi (2022) ‘Restrictions on Freedom of Expression Under Chinese President Xi Jinping in the Globalization Era’, Papua Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 2, pp. 81-94. ↩︎
  7. Klonick, K. (2020) ‘The Facebook Oversight Board: Creating an Independent Institution to Adjudicate Online Free Expression’, The Yale Law Journal, 129, pp. 2418-2499. ↩︎
  8. O’Connor, J.F. and Moxley, E. (2023) ‘Our approach to responsible AI innovation’ Available at: https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/our-approach-to-responsible-ai-innovation/ (Accessed: 25 June 2024). ↩︎
  9. Human Rights Watch. “Meta’s Broken Promises: Systemic Censorship of Palestine Content on Instagram and Facebook’ Available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and (Accessed: 25 June 2024). ↩︎
  10. Puspitalova, A.T. (2024) ‘Polemik Dewan Media Sosial, Ini Kata Menkominfo Budi Arie dan YLBHI’ Available at: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1876794/polemik-dewan-media-sosial-ini-kata-menkominfo-budi-arie-dan-ylbhi (Accessed: 25 June 2024). ↩︎
  11. Faturahman, A.A. (2024) ‘Kelompok Sipil Kritik Rencana Pembentukan Dewan Media Sosial, Persoalkan Tak Ada UU sebagai Landasannya’ Available at: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1872626/kelompok-sipil-kritik-rencana-pembentukan-dewan-media-sosial-persoalkan-tak-ada-uu-sebagai-landasannya (Accessed: 25 June 2024). ↩︎
  12. Ibid. ↩︎
  13. Purba, P.G.T. (2024) ‘Dewan Media Sosial, Independen atau Dikontrol Pemerintah?’ Available at: https://www.dw.com/id/dewan-media-sosial-independen-atau-dikontrol-pemerintah/a-69222436 (Accessed: 25 June 2024). ↩︎
  14. Article 19. (2021) Social Media Councils: One piece in the puzzle of content moderation. London: Article 19. ↩︎
  15. Ibid. ↩︎