Online ‘trolling’ of celebrities, or even regular non-famous people has never been scarce on social media, which is why there have been many campaigns, notably by Katie Price, to attempt to combat this.
Following England’s loss in the final of the Euro 2020 tournament on Sunday against Italy, the three players who missed their penalties in the most nerve-racking final moments of the game were subject to countless instances of online abuse, notably targeted at their race.
This resulted in a petition being circulated on social media demanding identification for social media users so that those who are found to be writing abusive messages, are held accountable. The question regarding this debate is whether this measure would be too much of a bar on the freedom of expression, knowing that every person’s social media account would be linked to their governmental identification.
What is unfortunate is that this issue was already considered by parliament and a response given on 5 May 2021 that this will not be a requirement, but instead the Online Safety Legislation will address the problems caused by these internet trolls who attack people in cyberspace. Despite this decision, there is still a big question as to whether these laws proposed will actually do anything to combat this abuse, therefore this post considers the arguments both for and against the proposal for ID being necessary for a person to use social media.
For: ID should be necessary to use social media
In the wake of the mass of racial slurs posted on Marcus Rashford’s, MBE, Instagram account, many users teamed together to report every abusive comment, emoji or slur on his page to enable Instagram to take action, remove the comments and/or suspend the users accounts. However, it seems this was not done and the racial slurs reported were not ‘against community guidelines’. The government proposal for response instead of using ID was as follows:
Companies will also have a duty to ensure they have effective and accessible reporting and redress mechanisms. These will need to allow users to report abuse, including anonymous abuse. Appropriate responses from the company might include removal of harmful content, sanctions against offending users, or changing processes and policies to better protect users.
Quite clearly, it would seem that this duty of care has not been followed, with the reported comments not being removed and the accounts still available and active, which does not adequately protect anyone, apart from those writing the abuse.
In addition, ID could perhaps ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the social media site if the user is held accountable. This means that if the user did partake in aby abuse on social media, the social media platform will know who they are, and therefore this could deter them from spreading hateful messages in the first place. This will also mean that any bans or sanctions put in place by the social media platform will be effective, because there would be no way for the abuser to create a new account with their ID, as the ban would be linked to their ID.
Against: no ID should be necessary
Notably, there is also a petition to the opposite effect, asking for no ID to be necessary for opening a social media account. The justification for this is that it could negatively affect LGBTQIA+ teens who have not yet come out to their families. This was noted in the government response to the petition, including the freedom of expression of whistle blowers and journalism sources. The response stated that a requirement for ID would only prevent these citizens freedom of expression and would not stop any abuse from occurring online.
There is also a problem with regards to hackers. This is still a big problem in social media, and if you were to be hacked and your ID is linked to your social media account, that increases the risks of identity fraud and further hacks of accounts such as online banking.
Finally, there is an issue where not everyone has access to an official government ID such as a passport or driver’s license. This could then alienate these people, whose background is predominantly in low income households, which is obviously not the aim of social media.Notably, there is also a petition to the opposite effect, asking for no ID to be necessary for opening a social media account. The justification for this is that it could negatively affect LGBTQIA+ teens who have not yet come out to their families. This was noted in the government response to the petition, including the freedom of expression of whistle blowers and journalism sources. The response stated that a requirement for ID would only prevent these citizens freedom of expression and would not stop any abuse from occurring online.
There is also a problem with regards to hackers. This is still a big problem in social media, and if you were to be hacked and your ID is linked to your social media account, that increases the risks of identity fraud and further hacks of accounts such as online banking.
Finally, there is an issue where not everyone has access to an official government ID such as a passport or driver’s license. This could then alienate these people, whose background is predominantly in low income households, which is obviously not the aim of social media.
Conclusion?
There are quite clearly points both for and against the introduction of a verified ID being needed in order to open a social media account. The strongest argument against the use of ID is perhaps that it would not prevent people from posting online abuse and trolling, however there is an equally strong counterpart to this that even if there is still abuse, those who write these comments could be held more accountable, knowing that the social media platforms know who they actually are.
The tricky part about this is to balance the freedom of expression with the morality of causing so much hate through comments on social media, which is clearly so damaging, having indirectly taken the lives of many celebrities in the past few years alone. It is this balance that needs to be struck, and unfortunately only time will tell whether or not the government proposals will be successful in the long term. In the short term however, the comments to the three footballers clearly have not been dealt with adequately in the past week, but perhaps there will be legal intervention with regards to this, against the likes of Instagram and Twitter, however, again, only time will tell.
Either way, the whole of the UK is behind the Three Lions and all of the joy they have brought to the British public throughout the entire Euro 2020 tournament.
Conclusion
There are quite clearly points both for and against the introduction of a verified ID being needed in order to open a social media account. The strongest argument against the use of ID is perhaps that it would not prevent people from posting online abuse and trolling, however there is an equally strong counterpart to this that even if there is still abuse, those who write these comments could be held more accountable, knowing that the social media platforms know who they actually are.
The tricky part about this is to balance the freedom of expression with the morality of causing so much hate through comments on social media, which is clearly so damaging, having indirectly taken the lives of many celebrities in the past few years alone. It is this balance that needs to be struck, and unfortunately only time will tell whether or not the government proposals will be successful in the long term. In the short term however, the comments to the three footballers clearly have not been dealt with adequately in the past week, but perhaps there will be legal intervention with regards to this, against the likes of Instagram and Twitter, however, again, only time will tell.
Either way, the whole of the UK is behind the Three Lions and all of the joy they have brought to the British public throughout the entire Euro 2020 tournament.
Comments