Irish Examiner view: Bringing social media firms to heel
There have been concerns that users do not report illegal content because of the perception that social media companies do nothing about such reports. Picture: File
The latest instalment in the long-running saga of giant tech companies versus ordinary people arrived yesterday, with Coimisiún na Meán putting the usual suspects on notice.
TikTok, X, YouTube, Meta, LinkedIn, Temu, Pinterest, Shein, Etsy, Dropbox, Hostelworld, and Tumblr have been given four weeks to tell the media regulator how they are fulfilling specific obligations.
The regulator is seeking details on how those operators approach a particular issue for users of these platforms, how users can contact the platforms, and how they can report illegal content on those platforms.
This may seem a starting point so obvious as to be unnecessary, but Coimisiún na Meán is correct to focus on it. Concerns have been expressed in the past that users do not report illegal content because of the perception that the social media companies do nothing about such reports.
This creates a vicious cycle, of course, in which those companies can claim that there are few complaints about their online content. Putting these companies on notice for information is all very well, but what options does Coimisiún na Meán have if those companies do not comply?
The ultimate sanction the regulator can rely upon is provided for under the European Digital Services Act. Companies which breach their obligations can eventually be fined up to 6% of their global annual turnover.
For some perspective on the sums involved, Facebook and Instagram owner Meta made revenues of €123bn last year. Apple might not be the only tech company fattening the Exchequer in the coming months.
This a serious problem: The gravity of the situation was underlined by a Policing Authority report issued on the same day, stating that online misinformation and disinformation had been “successfully co-opted by the far right in Ireland”.
Social media companies are happy to profit from users whose posts seek to undermine the rule of law in the State. They cannot complain when they are heavily fined by State regulators upholding that rule of law.
And the heavier the better.
Dublin Airport’s passenger cap controversy rolls on, with Ryanair writing to Transport Minister Eamon Ryan earlier this week seeking additional slots at the airport.
Junior transport minister James Lawless said the proposal was “not a runner” but offered a solution of his own, suggesting that tourists coming to visit Dublin fly into Cork and Shannon rather than directly to the capital.
This proposal is so logical in its simplicity that it immediately exposes the narrowness in the mindset of its opponents.
The suggestion pinpoints the thinking which presupposes that Dublin is the inevitable destination of any tourist landing in Ireland — that the capital is, by definition, the starting point of any leisure visit to the country.
Such a viewpoint fails to take notice of a logical counter-argument. If it has been acceptable for decades to see tourists land in Dublin and enjoy the city for a few days before travelling onwards to visit the four corners of the country, what is wrong with that journey happening in reverse?
In the opposite scenario, tourists would land at Cork, Shannon, and the various regional airports in different parts of the country first — and then proceed to Dublin after spending some time in those regions. This is a concept which some in the capital appeared to struggle with. When Mr Lawless made this point, he was asked if he thought tourists coming to Dublin should consider flying in to Shannon and Cork first.
Forget the fact that many of those tourists come from countries where a 150km journey from one city to another is no great inconvenience. Never mind the possible regional benefits of tourists spending money outside the capital.
Consider this another example of a broader failing, the inability to conceive of solutions to national challenges which do not revolve entirely around Dublin.
Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council commissioned the sculpture and said it captured Queen Elizabeth II “in a dignified pose, reflecting her grace, steadfastness, and lifelong dedication to public service”.
Public opinion ranged from comparisons with the title character in the movie Mrs Doubtfire to forthright dismissals.
“Whoever signed this off from the council should be made to pay for it themselves, not us rates payers,” was a fairly typical observation.
The list of statues which bear very little resemblance to their famous subjects is surprisingly long. Celebrity figures as various as model Kate Moss and footballer Mo Salah have been represented, if not quite immortalised, by strange sculptures, while an infamous statue of actress Lucille Ball in a park in upstate New York was nothing short of disturbing.
Many readers will also be familiar with the bust of football star Cristiano Ronaldo designed by Emanuel Santos when Madeira’s airport was renamed as Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport in 2017.
The bust bore little resemblance to the player, recalling instead the crazed villain of a horror film. The public reaction was so negative that it was eventually replaced and put in storage, with Santos invited to try again. His second effort got a more positive response.
Perhaps the artist responsible for Elizabeth’s statue in Antrim should just try again. Without being influenced by Robin Williams this time.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
