An Obituary for Safer Online Services
InternetNZ (officially Internet New Zealand Inc., formerly the Internet Society of New Zealand) is a not-for-profit open membership organisation and the designated manager for the .nz country code top-level Internet domain. It also supports the development of New Zealand's Internet through policy, community grants, research, and events.
It is a registered incorporated society in New Zealand. It is a non-profit society with charitable status and is overseen by a council. It has a subsidiary organisation, the Domain Name Commission Ltd (DNCL). The Domain Name Commission supports the work of InternetNZ including administering an independent dispute resolution service.
Its original focus was the management and operation of the .nz Domain Name Registry but it rapidly became an organization that was dedicated to a free and open Internet although on occasion it made representations to government on legislation that impacted upon Internet activity.
A history of the Internet in New Zealand and of many of the growing pains that InternetNZ underwent are recorded in Keith Newman’s ‘Connecting the Clouds: The Internet in New Zealand’ — a detailed and excellent study of the people, activities and events that contributed to the creation, then growth, of the Internet in New Zealand.
InternetNZ is a registered charity whose charitable purpose is stated in the Charities Register as:
“To maintain and extend the availability of the Internet and its associated technologies and applications in New Zealand, both as an end in itself and as means of enabling organisations, professionals and individuals to more effectively collaborate, cooperate, communicate and innovate in their respective fields of interest.”
In the same Register the activities of InternetNZ are described as:
“Provides advice/information/advocacy, makes grants/loans to individuals, makes grants to organisations (including schools or other charities), sponsors/undertakes research, acts as an umbrella/resource body, provides human resources (e.g. staff/volunteers), provides access to modern information highway”.
The objects of InternetNZ are set out in its Constitution. These are set out as follows:
Internet New Zealand Incorporated trading as InternetNZ (“the Society”) is a non-profit common interest charitable society whose principal objects are to maintain and extend the availability of the Internet and its associated technologies and applications in New Zealand, both as an end in itself and as means of enabling organisations, professionals and individuals to more effectively collaborate, cooperate, communicate and innovate in their respective fields of interest. It is intended that the Society be the principal organisation representing the interests of the Local Internet Community in New Zealand. The Society's charitable objects are:
2.1 To promote the competitive provision of Internet access, services and facilities in an open and uncaptureable environment.
2.2 To develop, maintain, evolve, and disseminate standards for the Internet and its inter-networking technologies and applications.
2.3 To develop, maintain, evolve and disseminate effective administrative processes for the operation of the Internet in New Zealand.
2.4 To promote and conduct education and research related to the Internet and inter-networking.
2.5 To coordinate activities at a national level pertaining to good management of centralised systems and resources which facilitate the development of the Internet, including but not limited to the Domain Name System.
2.6 To collect and disseminate information related to the Internet and inter-networking, including histories and archives.
2.7 To develop and maintain formal and informal relationships with the international Internet community, including the Internet Society.
2.8 To represent the common interests of the wider New Zealand Internet community both nationally and internationally.
2.9 To promote widely and generally available access to the Internet.
2.10 To liaise with other organisations, New Zealand Government authorities, and the general public for coordination, collaboration, and education in effecting the above objects.
InternetNZ has, understandably, an Internet Policy which is set out as follows:
InternetNZ Internet Policy
InternetNZ | Ipurangi Aotearoa does policy work to help government and others make decisions that support an Internet for good and an Internet for all.
We do this through think pieces, discussion papers, submissions, projects, and events that help people to understand and engage with Internet policy issues. Some of our policy work is in response to processes led by government or others, where we aim to help support good decisions informed by an understanding of the Internet. We also work proactively to support an Internet for Good and an Internet for All, and to foster broader awareness of and engagement on Internet policy issues.
Internet for all
An Internet for all is about building a more inclusive Internet.
Under this goal we work to support public and government understanding of digital inclusion, including conversations about what digital equity in New Zealand is and what it requires, and to support effective government investments to address digital inclusion needs.
Recent work:
Digital inclusion five point plan
Solving Digital Divides Together
Internet for good
An Internet for good is about a safe and beneficial Internet, working to understand what that means and what is needed to bring it about.
Under this goal we work to support a broad conversation on defining an Internet for Good, to support effective policy responses to the harms people face online, and to support the benefits of a free, open, and secure Internet to people in New Zealand.
Recent work:
InternetNZ submission on NetSafe Code
The Spinoff article on misinformation
The Spinoff article on security
Internet Openness: What it is and why it matters
Regulatory tools to address harms from content and conduct online
Funding public interest media in the Internet era
Scoping the media review – a discussion paper
Policy engagement
Across all of our work, we aim to help a broad range of people to understand Internet policy issues and share their perspectives.
We host and join events about Internet policy, such as workshops on contact tracing and the Internet and on policy options to address online harms in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attacks. We build collaborative working relationships with people across diverse communities, government agencies, and internationally.
Recent work:
InternetNZ submission on Safer Online Services and Media Platforms (PDF)
InternetNZ submission on Safer Online Services and Media Platforms (Word)
InternetNZ briefing to incoming Ministers Internet Governance 2023
InternetNZ briefing to incoming Minister for Infrastructure 2023
InternetNZ briefing to incoming digital Ministers 2023.
It can be seen that the scope of work and the areas in which InternetNZ is involved are quite extensive. The organisation has grown from what was originally a technically focused one to a wider approach to many matters involving or surrounding the Internet.
Whereas originally InternetNZ was largely content neutral it is clear now that it espouses many content-relevant discussions and policies. These are important discussions but what is just as important is the need for an organisation such as InternetNZ to be politically neutral.
InternetNZ aligned itself with Labour Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Christchurch Call. The alignment of the Christchurch Call — an international initiative — with the content regulatory review conducted by the DIA was made clear by InternetNZ then-CEO Andrew Cushen in a piece entitled ‘Realising the Potential of the Christchurch Call’.
Although the Call as originally conceived was established to tackle terrorist and violent terrorist extremist content online there has been a degree of mission creep.
In a briefing paper to Jacinda Ardern in June 2023, it was noted that NZ was partnering with the US, Microsoft, Twitter and OpenMined to develop an algorithmic tool that is intended to be used by social media companies.
The paper notes, “We have committed to looking specifically at gender-based (including anti-LGBTQIA+) violence/hatred as a feature of the radicalisation journey.”
Indeed Ms. Ardern had a Senior Policy Advisor with the Call Unit whose lead responsibility is “gender issues”. There doesn’t appear to be any advisors with responsibilities covering terrorism or extremism.
In a paper for the Christchurch Call Leader’s Summit one item of business was to establish and continue an improved evidence base on gender-based hatred and radicalisation to violence.
Thomas Cranmer writing on X queried why it was that the Call had moved so far from its original purpose and when it was expected that the NZ public would be told of this.
Andrew Cushen was writing in 2022 which preceded the developments noted above but his article indicated that InternetNZ was closely allied with the Call. In his article he says (and the italics and emphasis are mine):
The Internet should be a safe space for everyone in Aotearoa. Right now, our laws and processes are not adequate for the online world that we live in, and some communities are experiencing hate, hurt and threats of violence.
There is a significant problem with the way the Internet interacts with broader social problems.
We hope that the government’s review of the content regulatory system will help to find a new approach to content regulation that minimises the risk of harms caused by online content including online abuse and misinformation.
We desperately need better systems to address these important issues.
InternetNZ is proud to be a member of the Christchurch Call Advisory Network (CCAN) which includes civil society groups that represent a range of perspectives including human rights, freedom of expression, digital rights, counter-radicalization, victim support, and public policy.
CCAN is a diverse group and is looking to become more diverse going forward. Its membership holds a huge amount of information and expertise, and we encourage governments and companies to take advantage of this resource.
Among other things, CCAN continues to urge the governments and tech companies that have signed up to the Call to centre the voices of affected communities in all Christchurch Call work through meaningful engagement and consultation.
InternetNZ will continue to be part of the Christchurch Call Community.
So when we look at the scope of operations and areas of interest of InternetNZ, support for the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms project — which grew out of the content regulatory review — is not unexpected. InternetNZ largely supported the DIA proposals.
It is understandable therefore that InternetNZ would be dismayed at the decision of the Government to abandon the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms proposals.
This dismay was expressed by the present CEO of InternetNZ, Ms Vivien Maidaborn, in an article in the Post for 21 May 2024 entitled ‘Despite Government’s Inaction, Internet Regulation is Urgent’.
The article rehearses many of the concerns about what is suggested to be the unregulated environment of the Internet. It overlooks — as indeed did the discussion paper on Safer Online Services and Media Platforms — the current law that is in place to deal with online harms, especially the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
It calls for State action in the Internet space. What seems to have been overlooked is that the Internet is a communications system. Unlike previous communications systems which were often monolithic and involved a “one to many” model, the Internet is a distributed system enabling a “many to many” communications model. Thus any interference with this system is going to have serious implications for the ability of individuals to share information and points of view.
Ms Maidaborn seems to have overlooked individual rights and freedoms. She seems to have overlooked that in the final analysis the responsibility for individual well-being rests with — the individual. It is not the concern of the State. But the tone of the article seems to favour the interests of the collective over and above those of the individual. It seems to assume that the collective needs protection from “harmful” content and this protection can only come from State-based regulation of Internet content and its platforms.
And let there be no doubt about the real target of the proposals. Although they were cast as the “Safe Online Services and Media Platforms” review they were in fact all about a content regulatory system and in the final analysis a content regulatory system involves censorship and interference with individual freedoms.
So there has to be some question about whether support for State intervention in the field of Internet content conforms with the objective of the promotion of an uncapturable Internet environment.
Ms Maidaborn’s article follows. Although I have given a very broad critique above, I have taken the liberty, as I have with other articles in the past, to comment upon the body of the document as the argument progresses. My comments are in roman.
Despite Government’s inaction, Internet regulation is urgent
Vivien Maidaborn
May 21, 2024
Viven Maidaborn asks why government work on urgent internet regulations has ground to a halt.
Vivien Maidaborn is the tumu whakarae/chief executive of InternetNZ, a not-for-profit organisation which advocates for internet accessibility and safety.
OPINION:
The Department of Internal Affairs has stopped a work programme on desperately needed discussion, community engagement and regulation for New Zealand’s internet.
The Safer Online Services and Media Platforms (SOSMP) project began in 2021 as the Content Regulatory Review, and aimed to let New Zealanders decide the next steps.
The important thing to note here is the genesis of SOSMP. It was a content regulatory review. The principal target was the regulation of content. In other words what was proposed was an extended censorship regime.
The government received submissions from civil society groups, organisations and individuals during a thorough public consultation. Work was well underway on SOSMP, which also aimed to refresh TV, radio and other media standards.
There was a consultation with civil society groups, organisations and some individuals before the final paper was developed. That had a lengthy gestation period and called for submissions from the public. The analysis of the submissions was due in September 2023. It was delayed until April 2024 — a week or so before the Minister’s announcement that work on the project was going to cease.
In late April, that all ground to a halt and the impending period of inaction on this issue could lump us with standards written when dial-up internet was cutting-edge.
This is an overstatement. Existing regulatory measures were introduced long after the advent of dial up internet. The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 is one such example. In addition the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the New Zealand Media Council have developed their own Codes and Statements of Principles. In some respects these have their genesis in the “New Media Meets News Media” Report from the Law Commission from 2013. Although the recommendations were not implemented many of the finer and more nuanced recommendations were taken up by media.
The World Internet Report 2023 showed 61% of New Zealanders think social media companies should be more strongly regulated than they are now. This sentiment is a reflection of our significant concerns about children accessing dangerous content online, cyberbullying and harassment, nefarious AI use, and myriad other issues, which subsequent research from InternetNZ have also highlighted. And every person online is exposed.
Statistics can be used to justify anything. The bald assertion that “61% of New Zealanders think social media companies should be more strongly regulated than they are now” fails to specify what the question was that prompted such a response. There may be any number of reasons why citizens responded in that way — perhaps social media companies do not pay enough tax. Perhaps they do not provide the content that the user wants.
And then the writer goes on to suggest that the sentiments are a reflection of our (InternetNZ or the respondents noted in the World Internet Report?) concerns about children accessing dangerous content. The responsibility for that problem does not lie with the Government nor with Nanny State. It lies with parents and with users.
So why does the Government want this work to grind to a halt? The simple answer is because doing nothing keeps the onus directly on each individual to keep themselves safe online.
Exactly! It is the responsibility of individuals to look after themselves. I am not sure how one stays “safe” online. I realise that staying “safe” is something of a buzzword these days but what really does it mean? The elimination of risk, perhaps. Ms Maidaborn should be aware that there is risk in everything. But if she means being confronted by unpleasant material there are a number of options. One is to navigate away from the platform. Another is to switch the machine off. A third is not to go to questionable platforms in the first place. A fourth is to develop some resilience — something that is lacking in these feather-pillow days. But it is not the responsibility of the State to protect people from content that may be questionable.
The Government is expecting, in a rudderless way, platforms like X, Google and Meta, and myriad smaller platforms, to regulate themselves. That approach has not worked internationally and it won’t work here.
This assumes that there is a need for regulation. But it is unclear what sort.
Canada is the most recent country to make steps towards regulation. It has just introduced the Online Harms Act, inspired by other countries and jurisdictions who are also moving ahead. The UK’s Online Safety Bill makes the bolshie claim it will make the UK “the safest place in the world to be online by placing new duties on social media companies”.
Why can’t we show the same urgency, resolve, and bloody-mindedness about protecting our people? Fines issued to platforms of up to $100 million for breaking the rules, which the European Union has introduced, would send a clear signal that New Zealand expects safer online spaces for New Zealanders.
Just because Canada and the UK decide to put regulatory systems in place does not automatically mean that New Zealand should follow suit.
And it’s not just the every day user who stands to lose out. If the work to regulate this space is halted, we can expect to continue to see a rise in the spread of extremist content online. Regulation could help protect us from acts of violence being broadcast by a perpetrator and, surely, sanctions against the broadcaster would deter this from happening here in Aotearoa.
There is law in place to deal with extremist content that advocates imminent physical harm to citizens. What was proposed by SOSMP was a wide-ranging regulatory model that in the final analysis was a censorship regime. The Films Videos and Publications Classification Act provides for classifying certain content objectionable and has done so. The Crimes Act provides other avenues as does the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
As for “acts of violence being broadcast by a perpetrator” I wonder if — unless it is a video of a massacre like those taken recently by Hamas on October 7 2023 — this is a reference to the “language can be an act of violence” thinking that is used to quell robust forms of expression.
We’re already behind Canada, Ireland, the UK, Australia, and the EU. That list will grow in the next few years, leaving us looking like little old “scared to grow” New Zealand.
If we’re not going to go forward with SOSMP as a way of addressing that, we need to discuss how we want to create safer online spaces. The status quo harms some people online and excludes others from participating in the internet.
I fail to see how the status quo harms people and excludes others. There are remedies for harmful content and I have noted those above. The Internet can be of benefit to everyone. Perhaps the author is concerned that potential users may hesitate to go online. That is understandable. Like any environment it has its good spots and its bad spots. It is not nor will it ever be entirely risk free. If people don’t like what they see or read or hear there is always the “off” switch. We don’t need some bureaucrat telling us what we can and cannot say or hear.
In the next 10 years there’s going to be an increased uptake in AI and artificially generated content that can increase the volume of harmful content that’s going up online. It’s likely to become an even bigger challenge. We also need to work out how to deal with the once science-fiction concept of non-humans posting harmful content.
One of the characteristics of the Digital Paradigm — and one that many people do not understand — is that of continuing disruptive change. In the past change has proceeded at a less frenetic pace. There was time to adapt before the next new thing came along. Now change is a constant and the development of AI is one example although, to be fair, it has been around in various forms. It has been the advent of large language models like ChatGPT that has developed a focus upon AI. Underlying the comment is an assumption that AI will develop harmful content. And if so, how do we regulate it? By the time an answer — if there is an answer — is available the next new thing; the next new challenge will be upon us. This doesn’t mean that we should do nothing. But I would rather identify a real harm than worry about a potential or undefined one, and attempt to regulate against it. Rather than a prospective regulatory system I favour a reactive one where there is clear evidence of a harm that justifies interference with individual rights and liberties.
A common misconception about regulation is that it would take away people's rights to freedom of expression. SOSMP wasn’t about making any new laws on what content is illegal, it was about holding platforms accountable for allowing criminal behaviour on their websites.
To describe regulation as a “common misconception” misunderstands the full impact of the SOSMP proposals. Every form of regulation amounts to an incremental erosion of individual liberties. To suggest it was about “holding platforms accountable for allowing criminal behaviour on their websites” is an oversimplification. The proposal was far more nuanced than that. It involved a single regulator. It involved the establishment of codes. Codes could be developed by platforms. They had to be approved by the regulator. If platforms could not develop codes the regulator would do it for them. And there would be censorship and take down powers vested in the regulator that went well beyond simply addressing criminal behaviour. The depth and invasiveness of the proposal was significant.
By not regulating, we lose a chance to do a better job of dealing with things like harassment and threats to kill or injure that haven’t been taken as seriously in the social media space in the last 20 years, and particularly the last five.
This is more a criticism of the enforcement of existing law than identifying a need for a more invasive regulatory system. It is not a matter of not regulating. It is a matter of not applying existing law.
In our previous submission to DIA, InternetNZ acknowledged the ways in which wāhine Māori are particularly impacted by harm on the internet. We supported the urgent need to better protect tāngata whenua and other disadvantaged communities. Over the last six months, there has been research into the growth of harmful content online in New Zealand, particularly towards Māori and LGBTQIA+/takatāpui communities.
Throughout the article there have been references to harmful content. In relating this issue to gender, race and disadvantaged groups and no doubt to other minorities this issue seems to be one of discriminatory content as well as harmful content. The question must be whether or not the rights of the majority have to be curtailed to satisfy the particular needs of minority groups, especially in an area such as freedom of expression. Once again the issue may be around what groups don’t like to hear rather than what is immediately harmful.
That said, there is an argument for extending the scope of the Harmful Digital Communications Act to include groups. This may provide a solution rather than the institution of an overarching invasive regulatory system.
Aotearoa deserves the best standards and InternetNZ and others will keep advocating to the government for what the bulk of the public wants. Instead of enduring the harms of our online spaces, we could still be ironing out the terms of our own set of Aotearoa-specific regulations. Let’s hope this can isn’t found kicked too far down the road.
In October 2023 the New Zealand public voted out the government that instituted the Content Regulatory Review. To impose a system of content regulation was quite consistent with Labour’s focus upon messaging and the marginalisation of contrary views and dissent. So to assert that such regulation is what the bulk of the public wants is indicative of an unwillingness on the part of the Left to accept that by voting Labour out the public clearly stated what it wants. It is sad that an organisation like InternetNZ has chosen to align itself with a contentious political policy that had serious implications for the freedom of expression rather than remaining politically neutral.
ARTICLE ENDS
In the interests of transparency I should disclose that for many years I have been a member of InternetNZ. I do not support their position on the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms programme and I am uncomfortable with their involvement with the Christchurch Call especially given that President Macron — one of the co-founders of the Call — moved to block access to TikTok in New Caledonia. But the French have been leaders in trying to regulate the Internet since the Arab Spring and the statements of President Sarkozy in the Deauville G8 Summit in May 2011. President Macron’s action shows how easy it is for the State to censor online platforms.
Thus it is that history teaches us that there will always be zealots as Macron has demonstrated and that we must be constantly vigilant in the protection of our hard-fought freedoms.
No government or agency should ever have the power to completely control the narrative on any topic.
This article was originally published on David’s Substack, A Halfling's View on 28 May 2024. Subscribe to David’s Substack to read more.
Our Contributor
