Good morn­ing, every­one. Nice to be here. So, what I want to talk to today is Internet giants and human rights. It’s a research project that I’m cur­rent­ly work­ing on where I’m look­ing at what does it mean for human rights pro­tec­tion that we have large cor­po­rate interests—the Googles, the Facebooks of our time—that con­trol and gov­ern a large part of the online infra­struc­ture? I want to go through four main themes, hope­ful­ly in twen­ty min­utes max so we have at least five or ten min­utes for dis­cus­sion and questions.

First I’ll say a few words about the pow­er of these com­pa­nies, the role that they play. Then I’ll talk a bit about the chal­lenge from a human rights law per­spec­tive of hav­ing them held account­able under human rights law. Then I’ll tell you some of my find­ings from my cur­rent research, based on empir­i­cal stud­ies of Google and Facebook where I’m look­ing at the sense­mak­ing with­in the com­pa­nies. How do they them­selves see their role vis-à-vis human rights? And how is this sense­mak­ing trans­lat­ed into their poli­cies, their spe­cif­ic prod­uct fea­tures, their gov­er­nance struc­tures. And then a few words at the end about chal­lenges and ways for­ward. And maybe I would also love to hear some of your com­ments on that last point. 

The vast major­i­ty of us will increas­ing­ly find our­selves liv­ing, work­ing, and being gov­erned in two worlds at once.
Eric Schmidt & Jared Cohen, The New Digital Age, 2013 [pre­sen­ta­tion slide]

So if we start with the pow­ers that these actors have, this is a quote from two Google exec­u­tives. The vast major­i­ty of us will increas­ing­ly find our­selves liv­ing, work­ing, and being gov­erned in two worlds at once.” I think that’s a pret­ty strong quote. What Eric Schmidt of the Google, and Cohen, a chief exec­u­tive of Google Ideas in New York are basi­cal­ly say­ing here is that in the future we’ll basi­cal­ly be gov­erned by two par­ties. I mean, com­ing from being a for­mer pub­lic diplo­mat a long time ago and now in the human rights field, this is rel­a­tive­ly provoca­tive to me while at the same time I also under­stand why he’s say­ing it. And the more I talk to these com­pa­nies, I get a sense of how they see these issues. So this was to give you one appetizer.

Although dig­i­tal infra­struc­ture frees speak­ers from depen­dence on old­er media gate­keep­ers, it does so through the cre­ation of new inter­me­di­aries that offer both states and pri­vate par­ties new oppor­tu­ni­ties for con­trol and surveillance.
Jack M. Balkin, Old-School/New-School Speech Regulation”, 2014 [pre­sen­ta­tion slide]

Then if we go into acad­e­mia we have Jack Balkin, an American legal schol­ar who’s stat­ing here that he thinks it’s impor­tant that we remem­ber— We’ve had such a strong nar­ra­tive of free­dom relat­ed to the Internet— The free­dom, the way that it has lib­er­at­ed us from clas­si­cal gate­keep­ers. And that has been the nar­ra­tive for a long time. And increas­ing­ly we are rec­og­niz­ing that we are sub­ject­ed to struc­tures of con­trol just by dif­fer­ent par­ties and dif­fer­ent means. And one of these very strong struc­tures of con­trol are the pri­vate plat­forms where we basi­cal­ly con­duct a lot of our pub­lic life.

And the thing about these new plat­forms, these new infra­struc­tures of con­trol— One of the things I think that’s inter­est­ing is that it’s the same infra­struc­ture that gives us the free­dom that we so much cher­ish to express our­selves, to search infor­ma­tion, to find like-minded [peo­ple], to counter gov­ern­ments, etc. That struc­ture is exact­ly the same struc­ture that also pro­vides new means of basi­cal­ly map­ping us, sur­veilling us, retain­ing an unprece­dent­ed amount of data about us. So there is real­ly very lit­tle means of opt­ing out. We are in struc­tures that are both found to be lib­er­at­ing but at the same time also entail new means of control.

As infor­ma­tion becomes cru­cial to every aspect of every­day life, con­trol over infor­ma­tion (or lack there­of) may affect our abil­i­ty to par­tic­i­pate in mod­ern life as inde­pen­dent, autonomous human beings
Niva Elkin-Koren 2012 [pre­sen­ta­tion slide]

One last quote also from a legal schol­ar, Niva Elkin-Koren, that basi­cal­ly states here that it’s impor­tant to remem­ber that as infor­ma­tion becomes cru­cial to every aspect of our life—I guess it always has been. But the con­di­tion under which we process and deal with infor­ma­tion, those con­di­tions have changed, and the con­trol over those struc­tures may influ­ence the way we are able to par­tic­i­pate in mod­ern life.

To put it a bit dif­fer­ent­ly, if a lot of deci­sions about us are being tak­en with­in struc­tures where we don’t have access, where we’re not able to see the points that make up deci­sions that affect our lives, then it’s basi­cal­ly a dif­fer­ent kind of demo­c­ra­t­ic soci­ety or open soci­ety from what we’re used to.

Now, if we turn to Google and Facebook for the mat­ter of sim­plic­i­ty. It could be a num­ber of oth­er Internet giants, but I’m focus­ing on those two, and they are

very pow­er­ful. In terms of eco­nom­ic pow­er, in February this year Google was the most highly-valued com­pa­ny in the world. It has lost that posi­tion again now to Apple, but it’s just to say that it’s up there among the three most-valued [com­pa­nies] in the world. I think the net val­ue at the moment is around 550 bil­lion US dol­lars. That’s a com­pa­ny that was only found­ed in 98.

Facebook in com­par­i­son is from 2004. They’ve only been on the stock exchange for four years. And Mark Zuckerberg is now the sixth-richest per­son in the world. So we are talk­ing about an immense amount of wealth. I went to vis­it both of their head­quar­ters in December last year, and I think it was only when I was there in those phys­i­cal sur­round­ings that I real­ly grasped just how rich they are, just how many peo­ple they employ, and more impor­tant­ly that all this mon­ey is basi­cal­ly gen­er­at­ed from adver­tis­ing. I mean, it’s gen­er­at­ed from pro­vid­ing free ser­vices. That’s real­ly amaz­ing I think to think about, and still mind-boggling.

In terms of polit­i­cal pow­er, Google has the strongest lob­by pres­ence of all com­pa­nies in Washington DC now. They spend twen­ty mil­lion US dol­lars a year on lob­by­ing alone in the US and Europe. This is not to put out a strong crit­i­ciz­ing mark on Google. That’s not my main mes­sage here. My main mes­sage here is to rec­og­nize, or to have us all rec­og­nize, that there is huge mon­ey involved and that there is a huge link to polit­i­cal pow­er, oth­er­wise they would­n’t pay such strong lob­by atten­dance to major capitals. 

Also, if we look at the flow of exec­u­tives with­in these tech spaces and the gov­ern­ment, it’s basi­cal­ly peo­ple are float­ing around from from the US State Department, from state depart­ments in Europe, and to these com­pa­nies. So also on staff lev­el, there’s real­ly a great flow. There’s a close link between the polit­i­cal pow­er [?] and these companies.

In terms of social pow­er, they have a huge social pow­er because they have so many users. Basically, the vast major­i­ty of us are using their ser­vices every day. And by and large that user base is pret­ty uncrit­i­cal. We don’t have a huge user/consumer move­ment or any­thing like that. We have cam­paigns here and there, but gen­er­al­ly and espe­cial­ly when you move out­side coun­tries like Germany or France that are a bit more crit­i­cal than the aver­age, that’s not the nar­ra­tive. When you’re in the US, there’s not a very crit­i­cal nar­ra­tive, and in many oth­er parts of the world as well.

Finally, I put down tech­ni­cal pow­er, because when you have so much wealth and so much of that wealth goes into engi­neer­ing, into arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, into robot­ics, into algo­rithm devel­op­ment, etc., of course they also have a huge say in how the future of tech devel­op­ment looks and how it’s put to use.

So this was to give you a pic­ture of these are not just some com­pa­nies. They real­ly have huge pow­ers and huge influ­ences. And then nor­mal­ly we would think that with great pow­er comes great respon­si­bil­i­ty. But the tricky thing here is that the human rights treaties that were set out after the Second World War to basi­cal­ly pro­tect cit­i­zens from abuse of pow­er are all for­mu­lat­ed with the state in mind. They were for­mu­lat­ed, they were draft­ed, they were were sub­scribed to at a time where we were imag­in­ing pow­er abuse or poten­tial pow­er abuse as abuse by the state. Private com­pa­nies are not bound by human rights law. So they might have tak­en up human rights a lot in their inter­nal dis­course. They are part of a lot of vol­un­tary ini­tia­tives. And they do good stuff with regard to human rights, also. But they are not bound by human rights law. You can­not put a pri­vate com­pa­ny before a human rights court. It’s all in the vol­un­tary zone between the legal stan­dards and then cor­po­rate social respon­si­bil­i­ty that’s a more nor­ma­tive baseline.

The strongest standard-setting doc­u­ment that we have in the field is some­thing called the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights that was draft­ed by a Harvard pro­fes­sor, John Ruggie, in 2011 that’s the main standard-setting that doc­u­ment. It’s been wide­ly appraised and adopt­ed across the field. And it speaks to the com­pa­ny respon­si­bil­i­ty to respect human rights and makes the point that all com­pa­nies should take proac­tive mea­sures to basi­cal­ly mit­i­gate any neg­a­tive impact they may have on human rights. So they should basi­cal­ly assess all their busi­ness con­duct and see is there any of the stuff we’re doing in the way our process­es, our prod­ucts, the way we treat our staff, the way that we work in a local com­mu­ni­ty, etc., that may have a neg­a­tive human rights impact, and if so try to mit­i­gate that impact. That’s basi­cal­ly the core mes­sage with regard to com­pa­nies. But it’s not bind­ing. It’s not bind­ing. It’s a rec­om­men­da­tion. It’s wide­ly appraised but it’s still a recommendation.

And then I’ve also list­ed prob­a­bly the most rel­e­vant indus­try ini­tia­tive relat­ed to the tech com­pa­nies, the Global Network Initiative that was found­ed by The Berkman Center for Internet and Society. A few tech companies—in the begin­ning was only like three or four, five— I think they are eight now, but all the main ones are in there. And they’ve also set out a num­ber of base­lines and rec­om­men­da­tions with regard to how they should ensure that their prac­tices are human rights com­pli­ant. However, as I will come back to, there are real lim­i­ta­tions to the way that they think about and imple­ment human rights with­in the Global Network Initiative.

Then now if we go over to some of the empir­i­cal stuff I’ve done, when I start­ed with this research I had a promise from the two com­pa­nies that I would get access to talk to key pol­i­cy peo­ple with­in. However, it has proved quite dif­fi­cult to get access. It’s been a chal­lenge that could deserve a talk on its own. I won’t go into that here, but I’ve man­aged in the end to do around twen­ty inter­views, more or less fifty/fifty between Google and Facebook; a bit more Google inter­views. I’ve also ana­lyzed around twen­ty talks in the pub­lic domain. So that’s the good thing about our age, that you can actu­al­ly find a lot of the cor­po­rate exec­u­tives and oth­er staff talk­ing about these issues at places such as this. And then after­wards you can basi­cal­ly lis­ten to it. And often they are actu­al­ly more frank in pan­el dis­cus­sions and stuff like [that] than when you have them on a to-hand basis. So that has also been very use­ful. And final­ly I’ve attend­ed var­i­ous pol­i­cy events around these spaces and also been able to car­ry out con­ver­sa­tions there.

And as I men­tioned ini­tial­ly, my idea has been to under­stand, to get a bit away from the nam­ing and sham­ing dis­course. To try to get with­in, try to under­stand almost from an ethno­graph­ic per­spec­tive how do they under­stand and work with human rights. What is their sense­mak­ing around these issues? Why is there such a strong dis­con­nect between the way we in my pri­va­cy com­mu­ni­ty or my human rights com­mu­ni­ty or a lot of oth­er com­mu­ni­ties that I know of, think about these cor­po­rate actors and human rights, and then the way they think about them­selves? What’s going on, what’s the beef? And how does that under­stand­ing then influ­ence the way they work?

So, since we don’t have that much time I will go straight to some of the main con­clu­sions that I’ve found. First of all, there is a strong pre­sump­tion with­in these com­pa­nies of doing good. And that actu­al­ly makes a crit­i­cal dis­course a bit dif­fi­cult because they have a strong belief that they are basi­cal­ly lib­er­a­tors. They are very much anchored in the nar­ra­tive of good-doers. And this is not to say that the Google and the Facebookers are not doing good. They also have great poten­tials in many respects. But it’s just that where­as with oth­er old­er and more estab­lished com­pa­nies, there’s a more you could say mature— There’s a dif­fer­ent kind of recog­ni­tion of that as a com­pa­ny. There are var­i­ous aspects where you might have prob­lem­at­ic issues in the com­mu­ni­ties where you oper­ate. It seems that with­in this sec­tor it’s real­ly dif­fi­cult to have that crit­i­cal dis­course. The pre­sump­tion of being good-doers is so dominant.

Also, there’s a strong sense of being trans­for­ma­tive with the use of tech­nol­o­gy real­ly being on the fore­front, and all the time push­ing the lim­its of what tech­nol­o­gy can do. And that means, for exam­ple, that if you raise privacy-critical issues, for exam­ple in rela­tion to some of Facebook’s prac­tices, one response that you will often encounter would be that well, we need to push the use of the tech­nol­o­gy all the time; that’s our role. And then there’s always this sort of reluc­tance to new prac­tices, new changes. But grad­u­al­ly this whole prac­tice of using tech­nol­o­gy, of using social net­works, is evolv­ing. And we are part of that, and our role is to push the user all the time.

So a sense of being at the fore­front, of being very trans­for­ma­tive. Yet when it comes to human rights, there’s actu­al­ly a very con­ser­v­a­tive approach. And by that I mean that there is a sense that the human rights threats main­ly stem from gov­ern­ments. Human rights threats are some­thing that we like to talk about in rela­tion to gov­ern­ments in coun­tries that we don’t approve of. The easy cas­es, so to speak. The China, the Cuba, the North Korea, etc. There are many of these coun­tries, and they can be very right­ly so be crit­i­cized. But it’s just too sim­plis­tic to say that human rights prob­lems and chal­lenges only occur in these places. And espe­cial­ly when we talk about com­pa­nies that have such a strong impact on users’ human rights, it’s impor­tant to have a recog­ni­tion of the role they may play, their own neg­a­tive impact. And that recog­ni­tion is not real­ly there. It’s pure­ly only about gov­ern­ments. It’s about push­ing back, hold­ing back, against repres­sive gov­ern­ment behavior.

So in oth­er words, the Ruggie guide­lines that I spoke about ear­li­er, the UN guid­ing prin­ci­ples on human rights and busi­ness that speak to the need to assess all your busi­ness prac­tices from that per­spec­tive, that is being trans­lat­ed into some­thing that looks at busi­ness prac­tices in rela­tion to gov­ern­ment requests. So there would be a due dili­gence pro­ce­dure if a gov­ern­ment requests the com­pa­ny to shut down a ser­vice. But where­as they take deci­sions in rela­tion to for exam­ple their terms of ser­vice enforce­ment or their com­mu­ni­ty stan­dards, there would­n’t be the the same type of assess­ment. That would­n’t be per­ceived as a human rights, as a free­dom of expres­sion issue.

So if we zoom in a bit on some of the find­ings in rela­tion to free­dom of expres­sion and pri­va­cy that I’ve focused on most­ly because they are the two human rights that I think are most urgent­ly need­ed to address. There are also oth­er human rights for sure that would be rel­e­vant, but these have been my focus. So, a strong free speech iden­ti­ty in both com­pa­nies. I mean, they’re born out of the US West Coast, not sur­pris­ing­ly. They think high­ly about free speech and they see them­selves as true free speech lib­er­a­tors and play­ing a cru­cial role in that regard. Have a strong pride in push­ing back against gov­ern­ment requests. Also issu­ing trans­paren­cy reports where you can see how many times they have accept­ed or accom­mo­dat­ed a gov­ern­ment request and under which conditions.

At the same time, the enforce­ment of their own com­mu­ni­ty stan­dards— I’ve called it com­mu­ni­ty stan­dards here; it’s called a bit dif­fer­ent­ly depend­ing on the ser­vice. So on Facebook it would be com­mu­ni­ty stan­dards, on YouTube it would be com­mu­ni­ty guide­lines, on Google search it’s a more nar­row regime, so there are vari­a­tions. But for sim­plic­i­ty here, I speak about com­mu­ni­ty stan­dards as the kind of terms of ser­vice enforce­ment that the plat­forms do. The vol­ume of things that are removed here are many many many times big­ger than gov­ern­ment requests. 

Facebook told me recent­ly that they have, I think it was one mil­lion items flagged each day, each day, by users who think that Facebook should look at this spe­cif­ic piece of con­tent and poten­tial­ly remove it. Yet the process­es where­by these deci­sions are made, where­by their staff or out­sourced staff look at the request, the deci­sions they make, the cri­te­ria for mak­ing this. How much con­tent is removed for which rea­sons, which con­tent is not removed, all that takes place in a com­plete black box seen from the out­side per­spec­tive. It’s sim­ply not pos­si­ble to get access to that data.

So you have a huge amount of con­tent that’s being reg­u­lat­ed in process­es that are com­plete­ly closed to the out­side. And more impor­tant­ly, they are not seen as free­dom of expres­sion issues. They are seen as a pri­vate com­pa­ny basi­cal­ly enforc­ing its rules of engage­ment. And from a strict­ly legal per­spec­tive, right­ly so. Because very strict­ly legal­ly speak­ing, free­dom of expres­sion is about gov­ern­ment restric­tions in con­tent on the Internet. And even though I think most peo­ple, also human rights lawyers, would agree that of course it has a free­dom of expres­sion impli­ca­tion, how much con­tent a major plat­form removes, you can­not bring it before a court as a free­dom of expres­sion issue unless you could real­ly prove that there were no alter­na­tive means of express­ing that content.

I’ll have to run a bit with the time, I see. So, very high vol­ume. A mix of norms. By that I mean that the norms that decide which con­tent is removed and which is not is a pure mix of some­thing that’s legal stan­dards and some­thing that’s more stuff that we don’t want” because of oth­er rea­sons. Not because it’s ille­gal but because it’s found inap­pro­pri­ate or unwant­ed or goes against the com­mu­ni­ty norms. And it’s based on what they called a neigh­bor­watch pro­gram,” which basi­cal­ly means that we as users are the ones that are flag­ging the con­tent that we find prob­lem­at­ic, and then the ser­vice on the oth­er side makes deci­sions on what to do with that con­tent. From the free­dom of expres­sion per­spec­tive, that’s also pret­ty prob­lem­at­ic because free­dom of expres­sion is pre­cise­ly meant to pro­tect those expres­sions that the com­mu­ni­ty might not like but nev­er­the­less deserve to be there.

Okay I’ll rush through some of the find­ings in rela­tion to pri­va­cy. So, the taken-for-granted con­text of these com­pa­nies is what they call the per­son­al infor­ma­tion econ­o­my. That’s a new type of econ­o­my that’s basi­cal­ly based on per­son­al data as the key source of income. I mean think about it, all that wealth basi­cal­ly comes from tar­get­ed adver­tise­ments based on all of the things known about the users. That’s what cre­ates the wealth. That’s the per­son­al infor­ma­tion econ­o­my. That’s the taken-for-granted con­text. That’s not some­thing that’s questioned.

And that basi­cal­ly means— So, when you pose ques­tions about that, the answer will be, Well, it’s a free ser­vice, right? Someone has to pay. So, the adver­tis­ers pay that so we can pro­vide a free ser­vice to the users.” And up till now, alter­na­tive busi­ness mod­els, for exam­ple where users paid some­thing, a month­ly rate or some­thing, has­n’t real­ly been in the dis­course. The pre-setting is a free ser­vice and the per­son­al infor­ma­tion econ­o­my. And that means that when you talk about pri­va­cy, they will list all these increas­ing mea­sures where­by users can con­trol their pri­va­cy set­tings. And there are increas­ing means of con­trol­ling your pri­va­cy set­tings, but pri­va­cy con­trol with­in this con­text basi­cal­ly means that you can con­trol how you share infor­ma­tion with oth­er users. It’s what I call front stage pri­va­cy control.” 

So, I can con­trol which users are to see which infor­ma­tion about me to some extent, but the back stage pri­va­cy con­trol, the flow that goes on behind my back between the com­pa­ny and between oth­er affil­i­at­ed part­ners of the com­pa­ny, that’s not framed as a pri­va­cy issue. That’s the busi­ness mod­el. So you have the busi­ness mod­el that’s the back stage pri­va­cy han­dling, and then you have pri­va­cy as front stage user con­trol, the way that we can nav­i­gate our infor­ma­tion between oth­ers like our­selves using the ser­vice. That’s real­ly impor­tant to under­stand, because that basi­cal­ly means that pri­va­cy is not lim­its on data col­lec­tion, which is a key prin­ci­ple in European data protection.

Okay, I’ll fin­ish up. I just list­ed some of the key chal­lenges. One, the busi­ness mod­el, that I real­ly think we need to ques­tion and to chal­lenge and to dis­cuss with these partners. 

The corporate-state nexus, I haven’t addressed that very much today but basi­cal­ly the inter­change of data between state pow­ers and cor­po­rate pow­ers that we know so very lit­tle of, still.

Then there is— I mean, all these major actors, they are US com­pa­nies. And there is a sense, at least from the peo­ple I’ve spo­ken to, of European pri­va­cy,” of Europeans being over­ly con­cerned with pri­va­cy in a way that’s a bit incom­pre­hen­si­ble to most Americans, at least the ones I’ve spo­ken to. Because it’s just a very dif­fer­ent con­cep­tion of pri­va­cy. And the way that many Europeans have pri­va­cy is some­thing that’s real­ly essen­tial­ly linked to our iden­ti­ty and auton­o­my. It’s quite dif­fer­ent from a US per­spec­tive, and I also think we need to get that up on the table and speak to that more open­ly and address that more open­ly. Because with these glob­al data flows, these under­ly­ing pre­sump­tions, these under­ly­ing zones of con­tes­ta­tion need to be addressed if we are ever to get some kind of more glob­al agree­ment on these issues.

Then we have the con­sent­ing users. Data pro­tec­tion is basi­cal­ly based on user con­sent in the European mod­el. And prac­ti­cal­ly all users con­sent as a premise for using these ser­vices. That also puts some lim­its on what we can then demand after­wards in terms of data protection. 

Then there’s the very state-centered approach to human rights that are found with­in these cor­po­rate enti­ties. And final­ly, what I call the black box. The black box of inter­nal pro­ce­dures around espe­cial­ly con­tent reg­u­la­tion, that is almost treat­ed as trade secrets, means that we can’t we can’t real­ly get into a dia­logue on that.

Okay, I think I’ll fin­ish here. Thank you.

Further Reference

Session page at the re:publica 2016 site

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.