Media Regulation Debate

 

Questions

1. Should media companies be in charge of regulating their own content, or should the government have a bigger role in this, and why?

Regulation from government should be minimal. Government should regulate information that causes harm to individuals, such as misinformation. Government should not censor "controversial" or taboo subjects.

2. How does government regulation affect what we see and hear in the media? Can too much regulation stifle creativity and free speech, or is it necessary for protecting the public?

Too much regulation is harmful because it limits creativity. It hinders innovation in ideas. Lack of exposure of different ideas can reinforce negative and harmful opinions on censored things.

3. Do social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter need more rules and oversight, or should they be left to regulate themselves? How might this impact our online experiences?

For the most part, they should be left to regulate themselves. Facebook and Twitter should have the ability to choose what 

4. Should schools teach students media literacy? How might this help us better navigate the media we consume, and is it the responsibility of educators or individuals themselves?

Media literacy is an essential knowledge that everyone should have in the digital age. By understanding media companies, and knowing why they do what they do would result iin 

Quick Cuts

Here is a post about my experimentation with quick cuts.

Quick cut is an editing technique where cuts are done in very quick succesions. This is done to dramatise scenes. Me and my friend Niki decided to turn a boring trip to the toilet into an epic battle to answer nature's call.

Dominion v Fox News | Third Party Regulation

 

NOV 2020: Biden wins the election. Trump disagrees with the decision and send his lawyers, Sidney Powell and Rudi Giuliani, to share this to Fox News. While being interviewed, Powell accused Dominion Voting Systems for rigging their software and corruption. Dominion sued Fox News for defamation for $1.6 billion. For Dominion to win the case, they will have to prove actual malice, which means Dominion has to prove that Fox News does not believe that the election was rigged but still claims it to be true.

How effective is third party regulation?

In situations where the government don't have the authority to regulate, third party regulation is very important. In this case, it is important for the sake of its reputation and brand image. If it weren't for Dominion, a third party, taking the initiative to sue Fox News for defamation, its reputation could be ruined.

Why didn't US Law Section 230 apply?

US Law Section 230 applies only to the internet, while Fox News is a news organisation, and the interview with Sidney Powell conducted done live on air. Therefore, the law protecting media companies from user generated content does not apply, which is why Dominion was able to sue Fox News, despite the Dominion remarks and election rigging claims being made not by Fox but Sidney Powell.

Should Fox news be held accountable?

Fox News should not be held accountable for what interviewees say but can be held accountable if the hosts show some form of agreement with the statements made by interviewee. News media companies should not be held accountable for facilitating people like Sidney Powell sharing their controversial ideas as it is the job of news companies to share to the world. However, in this case, it is clear that despite fully acknowledging the lie of voting fraud, Fox news and its anchors continue to share stories supporting it. This means they are purposely spreading misinformation, which is extremely harmful, especially due to the fact that most of Fox News's audience live within a media bubble, as Fox News mainly appeal to far right audiences. According to the Two step-flow theory, Fox news anchors like, Tucker Carlson, are trusted opinion leaders in the eyes of its audience, and whatever he says will be absorbed by audiences. If it wasn't for Dominion taking action, we would not have known that Fox News themselves do not believe in Trump's notion of voting fraud.

What are issues surrounding freedom of speech?

This is a breach, however necessary, of freedom of speech. Fox News, along with Sidney Powell and Rudi Giuliani are exercising their right to free speech and are merely sharing their opinion. However, this is a prefect example of how freedom of speech should be regulated. Spreading misinformation, such as comments directed at a party and has the potential of damaging its reputation, should be penalised.

Douyin vs TikTok | US Law Section 230

 

Douyin is a Chinese social media application released by ByteDance in 2016. As of 2022, its daily usage reached upwards of 500 million users logging in. In 2018, ByteDance released the US version of Douyin, TikTok. It has 1 billion daily users and is available in 40 languages. They are very popular amongst young audiences, whose usage can be explained by diversion and surveillance in the Uses and Gratification theory.

When it comes to app regulation, Douyin has more rules imposed for its users, most notably for children below the age of 14. Some of the rules include promotion of educational and patriotic videos by the algorithm. TikTok on the other hand, has no self regulations for children under 14, having only the US Law Section 230 giving some sort of law and order in TikTok. This has proven to be challenging due to the fact. that an overwhelming majority of its users are very young. US Law Section 230 only grants the government authority to penalise TikTok if the content released belong to the exemptions. As a result, TikTok will be free from any responsibility and is protected by the law if any other harmful contents are posted. For example, say someone posts a content promoting self harm. TikTok would not be held responsible for having 'hosting' such harmful content, and it would be up to them to decide whether the user should be penalised.

The laws that both Douyin and TikTok has in place are a breach of freedom of speech, however, Douyin has it worse. Douyin users under 14 are unable to freely express their creativity, instead having to conform to the Chinese government's ideals and propaganda. On the other hand, you could also argue that TikTok is way too free for an app targeted towards young audiences, who are more naive and irresponsible.

60 Minutes | TikTok in China vs United States

Alex Jones | US Law Section 230

 

Twitter bans Alex Jones (2018)

US Law Section 230 (1996)

A media platform is not held responsible for the publicly generated content on its site

Allows platforms to moderate content without losing their immunity 

In 2018, conservative radio host Alex Jones was permanently banned from Twitter for violating Twitter's abusive behaviour policy. Jones is well known for saying some mad stuff, including comments about 9/11, however, the turning point was when he made comments about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, claiming it was a giant hoax.

Twitter had been under fire for not having banned Alex Jones despite other platforms like YouTube. However, Twitter then made the decision hat Alex Jones's comments were against Twitter's abusive behaviour policy, which then permanently suspended Jones's account.

The removal of Alex Jones from the platform sends a message to other users of the platform, that Twitter has a zero tolerance policy for the spread of misinformation and other policies, and will take actions towards such offenders.

Twitter's decision to remove Alex Jones is an infringement of freedom of speech.