In August, for the first time in years, thousands of students protested against the Thai monarchy, demanding an open discussion on the unassailable powers of the monarchy, while chanting “Long Live Democracy” at Thammasat University on the outskirts of Bangkok. “I cannot think of any parallel in modern Thai history to what’s happening right now,” said Matthew Wheeler, Bangkok-based senior analyst for the International Crisis Group. In the face of the rising and unprecedented daily protests, the Thai state has taken a strong stance.
Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-Ocha said student protesters “had gone too far” by demanding curbs on the monarchy’s powers. In Thailand, the monarchy is a sensitive subject, and criticism of the Royals is a punishable offence. Under section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, known as the ‘lese majeste law’, insulting the King is strictly prohibited. Cited as of one the “strictest” laws in the world, criticism of the monarchy can result in a jail term of up to 15 years, and, since 2014, it has been frequently invoked by the Thai military government to arrest dissenters.
In June of this year, the PM issued a warning to protestors not to involve the monarchy, but maintained that King Maha Vajiralongkorn, who took the throne after his father’s death in 2016, had asked him not to arrest anyone under the lese majeste laws. Yet, despite the government’s claims of leniency by the monarchy, human rights lawyer Arnan Nampa was arrested on August 7. He was later released on bail and “vowed” to continue protests “no matter what will happen”.
Away from physical sites of protests, protesters are simultaneously waging an online battle to protect their freedom of expression. An online private group called “Royalist Marketplace” on Facebook, which had become a forum for people to share their concerns about the growing powers of the monarchy, was blocked following orders from the Thai government. Interestingly, within hours of complying with the government’s order, Facebook declared its intent to sue the government. A spokesperson from the online platform said, “Requests like this are severe, contravene international human rights law, and have a chilling effect on people’s ability to express themselves. We work to protect and defend the rights of all internet users and are preparing to legally challenge this request.” This is interesting because Facebook has a track record of having an inconsistent policy when dealing with freedom of expression, hate speech, and spread of misinformation. Hence, the Thai case has emerged as an outlying case, wherein Facebook is trying to challenge local laws while at the same time adhering to them.
The larger question emanating from the Thailand example is, does Facebook now favour, or at least turn a blind eye to, authoritarianism? Simply put, do social platforms aid authoritarian regimes by providing such governments with information on protestors and restricting access to groups? This, of course, runs contrary to the notion of social media platforms being allies of democracy. In recent times, hate speech, fake news, and misinformation campaigns have all gained increasing traction on social media platforms.
During the early part of the previous decade, social media platforms like Facebook were utilised effectively against authoritarian regimes. However, since then—be it through the rise of far-right leaders in Brazil, suppression, student protests in Bangladesh, heightened hate speech against ethnic minorities in Myanmar, and the incessant trolling of critics in the Philippines—Facebook is now being used as a weapon by politicians and authoritarian regimes to promote their agenda and silence and intimidate opposition.
For instance, Facebook was heavily criticised for how it handled the spread of hate speech in Myanmar, which played a crucial role in violence against Rohingyas. In the Philippines, President Roberto Dutere has used Facebook to spread misinformation against his critics to the point that they are jailed, harass news sites that are critical of him, and even halt the renewal of licenses for broadcasters that refuse to air his campaign ads. Similarly, Libya’s “keyboard warriors” are using Facebook and other platforms to not only spread fake news and hate speech, but also share battlefield advice by posting maps and detailed coordinates of enemies to be “bombed”.
Such cases show just how authoritarian regimes are utilising Facebook and other social media platforms to promote their interests. This is a far cry from how authoritarianism engaged with social media just a decade ago, when regimes instead used to block such websites or cut off internet access altogether, as was the case in Egypt during the Arab Spring uprising. Today, authorities are actively using these same platforms to push their own agenda and consolidate power.
That is not to say that authoritarian countries do not use laws to suppress freedom of expression online and monitor content. In Thailand, in 2019, under the guise of protecting the state from cybercrime, a new cybersecurity law was passed which gives sweeping powers to the Prime Minister to “to access private computer systems without any judicial oversight in cases deemed emergencies”.
At the same time, blame cannot be placed on Facebook alone, as it can be argued that it is simply being forced to abide by local guidelines and laws. For example, Thai digital minister Puttipong Punnakanta made it clear that Facebook must comply with court orders to block content and access to online groups locally, and warned Facebook’s Thailand office of possible cybercrime charges if the order is not observed.
This is not the first time the Thai military-led government has ordered social media platforms to restrict access and content. Back in 2017, Facebook and YouTube blocked over 1800 pages that the government deemed had broken local laws of critiquing the monarchy and threatening national security. At the same time, Facebook cannot be entirely absolved of blame on the grounds of following local laws. In several cases, Thailand included, Facebook has shared user data with governments worldwide, making journalists, activists, and civilians who are critical of regime vulnerable to threats.
Nevertheless, it must be said that it is not just authoritarian regimes that are formulating policies and laws to control social media platforms. Democratic nations, too, are now debating how to regulate such mediums to stop the spread of what they consider to be fake news or hate speech. For example, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order that would allow policymakers to enact regulations that hold social media companies liable for the content posted on their platforms under the Communications Decency Act. This debate in American politics cannot be reduced to just Trump, as it has its roots in the “War on Terror” era under President Bush Jr. However, as seen in the case of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the 2016 US Presidential election, policymakers and leaders are growing increasingly cognizant of the sheer influence of social media platforms, both in terms of the benefits it affords them and also the damage it can do.
Other democracies, such as South Korea, passed real name verification laws in 2007; until it was ruled to be unconstitutional, the law required users to register their actual names and inadvertently encouraged self-censorship. In 2014, France enacted a law wherein social media users now face charges for “glorifying terrorism or extremists views”, both of which are vaguely defined. More recently, Singapore passed “Anti-Fake News Law” in 2019, which, on the face of it, is to prevent the spread of misinformation, but, in reality, is yet another move to curb free speech. In India, Facebook was accused of cooperating with the ruling party and not taking down certain posts inciting hate speech against Muslims.
Therefore, like authoritarian regimes, democracies are also grappling with the issue of regulating social media platforms. While non-democracies are continuing to use their age-old tactic of barring access to certain websites or the internet altogether, they are now also using these platforms to silence dissent and spread their own agenda. Amidst this evolution, critics are asking whether Facebook favours authoritarianism, as seen in its consistent inability or unwillingness to curb hate speech and fake news. For instance, in the case of Myanmar, the United Nations (UN) accused Facebook of withholding evidence of abuse of Rohingyas “despite vowing to cooperate”.
Unlike the common law system, Facebook’s approach to moderating content does not involve independent resolution bodies and courts that issue precedential and written decisions. In essence, Facebook curates content, and unilaterally decides which news should and should not reach a broad audience, thereby functioning as a speech regulator, adjudicator, and publisher all at the same time. According to Kate Klonick, this makes Facebook authoritarian propagating authoritarian constitutionalism that accepts features of democracy but “with the exception of democracy itself.”
Admittedly, Facebook has made an effort to acknowledge the perhaps unintended influence and power that has been placed in its hands. For example, in Myanmar, it has partnered with more translators and fact-checkers to verify the official pages of political parties in order to keep tabs on hate speech. In addition, in Thailand, Facebook has now declared its intention to sue the government for subverting freedom of speech. However, this only came after it initially blocked the online group Royalist Marketplace and shared user data with the government. In fact, Thailand’s digital minister pointedly said, “This time Facebook complied in blocking everything we flagged, which is why I don’t think Facebook will pursue legal action.” Therefore, the need of the hour is for Facebook to formulate a more cohesive content moderation policy which is transparent and uniform, particularly given its massive impact on the normative fabric of democracy.
Does Facebook Favour Authoritarianism? A Look at Thailand and Beyond.
Facebook, while defending the freedom of speech in the US, has simultaneously sided with autocratic rulers around the world.
September 2, 2020
Thai King Maha Vajiralongkorn SOURCE: BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES