Content policy

Montana Governor Greg Gianforte is asking lawmakers to broaden the bill that would ban TikTok to include other social media platforms suspected of serving foreign interests and sharing data with foreign adversaries.

Recently, Montana became the first state in the United States to pass a bill banning TikTok from app stores. The bill known as SB 419 prohibits mobile app stores from offering TikTok to users in an attempt to prevent it from operating in the state. TikTok is owned by the Chinese tech company ByteDance and has prompted national discussion in the United States on whether social media applications can be banned without infringing on the First Amendment granting constitutional freedom of speech.

The governor of Montana is now looking to broaden the SB 419 bill to include other social media platforms suspected of sharing data with foreign adversaries and hold mobile app stores liable for offering them in the state.

In an unexpected move, Twitter has restored the ‘blue tick’ verification sign for celebrity users without them purchasing it. Numerous celebrities and globally known organisations, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found their accounts re-verified without having requested it. 

Twitter ended its old verification system on Friday, 20 April, but rather than boosting subscription sales, public data shows that fewer than 500 out of 400,000 legacy users purchased the blue tick starting at $8 a month. Soon after, the blue mark became a symbol of privilege and inspired the ‘Block the blue’ campaign prompting users to block those with the purchased verification. 

The re-verification combined with the interim loss of credibility of having the ‘blue tick’ has some celebrities questioning whether marking their accounts as ‘paid for’ is an attempt by the social platform to gain some legitimacy. Others have gone as far as to ponder the legality of the move, its potential for defamation, or a false impression of endorsement. 

German magazine Die Aktuelle, owned by the Funke media group, published on 15 April an AI-generated ‘interview’ with Michael Schumacher. The magazine’s front cover claimed to offer ‘the first interview’ with a Formula One driver featuring a photo of him smiling. The interview text, however, turned out to be AI-generated conversations and quotes. The mixed feelings around the deceptively real ‘interview’ caused the editor-in-chief to be fired after being on the job since 2009.  

Michael Schumacher and his family have been leading a strictly private life without interviews since his skiing accident in 2013. The family is said to be planning legal action against the magazine.

After last month’s Congressional hearing of TikTok’s CEO, the Biden administration has been trying to ban the social platform in the United States. Concerns have escalated about TikTok being the Chinese government’s backdoor into the US, a tool for manipulating American citizens and gathering their personal data.

Focusing more locally, Montana has become the first state in the US to ban TikTok. Governor Greg Gianforte signed the law stating that TikTok poses a security threat of surveillance and encouragement of dangerous activities. The law primarily applies to companies, prohibiting app stores from offering TikTok and not to individual users who already use the app and may continue to do so. Some industry leaders have critiqued the new law, saying it sets a dangerous precedent for the government to ban businesses without clear evidence of wrongdoing.

Attempts to ban TikTok are not new, as the Trump administration attempted a forceful sale to Microsoft in an effort to ban it back in 2020. However, it has now become clear that even the politically unified Washington does not have a clear way of banning TikTok. Attempts to force selling it to an American enterprise have been futile. No precedent exists where a communication tool has been banned before without clear evidence of a national threat. Even if a new law gets passed, the legal battle of banning TikTok will hit a stalemate regarding the First Amendment. A nationwide ban seems impossible also due to the political backlash of more than 150 million users in the country.

In her recent draft report for the proposed European Media Freedom Act, Sabine Verheyen, the EU parliamentarian serving as the rapporteur in the culture and education parliamentary committee (CULT), introduces important changes in content moderation, governance, market concentration and media outlets from outside Europe.

The European Media Freedom Act is the first-ever legislative proposal regulating the EU media sector. While aimed at ensuring media pluralism and independence, the proposal has been criticised by publishers.

The proposal has been modified to include the limitation of content or services and not just suspensions. Platforms would be required to notify media providers 48 hours before the implementation of the restriction. This also applies to situations where the platform’s algorithm reduces the visibility of the content, allowing for a lengthy objection period of two days, a considerable amount of time for online sharing on social media.

The report also calls for establishing a new regulatory body, the European Board for Media Services, to boost cooperation between national media regulators and ensure greater independence from the European Commission. The report limits market concentration to mergers that ‘significantly impact pluralism’. Such wording distinguishes among mergers that ensure the survival of smaller, less financially viable outlets.

This report will be the foundation for the upcoming discussions among lawmakers leading to the legislation’s adoption in September.

Elon Musk has commented on the issue of Twitter taking down content related to a critical documentary of India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, earlier this year.

Musk declared not to be aware of the details of the situation. He added that the rules in India for what can appear on social media are strict, and companies like Twitter must comply with the country’s laws.

In January, the Indian government instructed the blocking of a BBC documentary critical of Prime Minister Modi, including clips via social media. In fact, the government ordered Twitter to block over 50 tweets linking to the video of the documentary. While the documentary was not aired in India, it was uploaded to some YouTube channels.