Human Rights by Design: The Responsibilities of Social Media Platforms to Address Gender‐Based Violence Online

Abstract

Gender‐based violence online is rampant, ranging from harassment of women who are public figures on social media to stalking intimate partners using purpose‐built apps. This is not an issue that can be addressed by individual states alone, nor can it be addressed satisfactorily through legal means. The normalization of misogyny and abuse online both reflects and reinforces systemic inequalities. Addressing gender‐based violence online will require the intervention of the technology companies that govern the commercial Internet to prevent and combat abuse across networks and services. We argue that international human rights instruments provide an opportunity to identify with more precision the responsibilities of telecommunications companies and digital media platforms to mitigate harm perpetrated through their networks, and ensure that the systems they create do not reproduce gendered inequality. Finally, we present initial recommendations for platforms to promote human rights and fulfill their responsibilities under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

How Online Content Providers Moderate User‐Generated Content to Prevent Harmful Online Communication: An Analysis of Policies and Their Implementation

“…Possibly due to the characteristics of the Internet such as anonymity (Cho & Kwon, 2015; Lampe, Zube, Lee, Park, & Johnston, 2014), the lack of social or personal context cues (Moor, Heuvelman, & Verleur, 2010), and the absence of compelling legal or ethical responsibilities of Internet intermediaries and OCPs (Suzor et al, 2019), the Internet has been used as a vehicle through which hostile, aggressive, offensive, abusive (and therefore harmful) communication can be widely spread. Scholars and practitioners alike have pointed it out as a pressing social and even global issue to be tackled, and called for national and global regulations, legislation, and social responsibilities of OCPs (Alkiviadou, 2019; Cohen‐Almagor, 2011; Papacharissi, 2004; Suzor et al, 2019).…”

“…Various approaches to address and reduce HOC in general, and online hate speech in particular, are being debated (e.g., Cohen‐Almagor, 2011; Gagliardone, Gal, Alves, & Martinez, 2015; George, 2015; Suzor et al, 2019). At the center of the debate is often governments’ enforcement of national legislation.…”

‘Internet of Things’: How Abuse is Getting Smarter

“…In 2017, Women's Aid published the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Domestic Violence and Abuse report 6 on online abuse, calling for the government, judiciary and relevant agencies to recognise the harm caused by it. In recent years, distinct forms of online harassment and sexual abuse have emerged 7,8,9 , ranging from cyberstalking to surveillance through the usage of spyware (i.e., software that aims to gather information about a person without their knowledge) 10 . The charity Refuge has documented more than 920 tech abuse cases since January 2018 11,12 , with many support organisations having slowly begun to provide guidance and training on the safe use of digital technologies.…”

Taming the Internet Trolls With an Internet Ombudsperson: Ethical Social Media Regulation

“…The right to safety is derived from Article 3 of the UDHR according to which “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” As scholars have previously pointed out, the Internet has an abuse problem. Abuse online refers to the use of telecommunications systems to control current or former intimate partners; stalking and harassment through telecommunications tools and on social media platforms; and exposing personal information or abusive content through social media platforms (Suzor et al, ). Unlike the right to privacy online, which has been evolved into rich legislation, the responsibility of the social media providers in relation to the right to safety is still not clear.…”

“…Second, the article suggests blockchain technology as a potential infrastructure for the Internet ombudsperson, thus contributing to the literature dealing with the different potential uses of this technology in a policy context (Peters & Panayi, ; Swan, ; Ziskind, Nathan, & Pentland, ). Finally, this article offers new practical ways of dealing with social media regulation (Gillespie, ; Kaye, ; Suzor et al, ). We begin by explaining why there is a need for an Internet ombudsperson as an ethical regulator of social media platforms.…”