In the aftermath of the Christchurch Tragedy, on 18 March 2019, Swiss Radio conducted an Interview with Daniel Stauffacher, President of ICT4Peace on the role of social media in the context of terrorist activities and how to prevent and counter the use of them, while respecting human rights and freedom of expression.
The interview was conducted in German and can be found here. A version in English reads as follows:
“A man randomly shoots people and broadcasts his crime live on the internet from a first-person perspective. The Christchurch attacker wanted as many people as possible to witness his act.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern emphasized today in the New Zealand Parliament that this platform must be denied to him. That’s why she will never publicly mention his name. “He sought many things in his role as a perpetrator, but above all, he sought notoriety. And that is why I will never mention his name,” Ardern said. He is a terrorist, a criminal, and an extremist. When she speaks of him, he will remain nameless.
The attacker’s message quickly spread through social media. Parts of the video can still be found online.
Daniel Stauffacher, president of the ICT for Peace foundation, advises governments and private organizations on how to use the internet sustainably and in ways that promote peace.
Daniel Eisen asked him if the Christchurch attack was planned according to the rules of the internet ?
Absolutely, he replied. Livestreaming just added a new dimension to the spread, increasing its impact. I believe however terrorists would commit such acts even without the internet. The internet is simply a useful tool for them to quickly spread their goals, strategies, and actions worldwide. Today, we may have reached a new peak, which further complicates the fight against such terrorist content on the internet.
How should such content be effectively combated ?
Of course, the primary responsibility lies with the social platforms, which have been trying for years to remove terrorist content, especially from groups like ISIS. They do this with varying degrees of success, and I believe they are still at the beginning of solving the problem. Much more investment is needed in resources, especially at the national and linguistic levels, to identify and remove such content early on.”
He further emphasized: This requires enormous effort and closer cooperation. There needs to be collaboration on a national level, close cooperation with law enforcement agencies and civil society, as well as on an international and regional level, to get the problem under control. Ultimately, the big companies must work more closely together to solve the problem. Otherwise, they must expect governments to intervene with bans and censorship measures, which could possibly restrict freedom of speech. And we don’t want that either.
If the New Zealand Prime Minister approaches Facebook to negotiate how to remove critical content, that is a first step in the right direction, but not the only necessary one ?
Exactly, and she is doing the right thing by initiating a close dialogue with Facebook at the national level. At the same time, as Prime Minister, she should leverage the increased credibility of New Zealand as a victim on the international stage, for example at the United Nations, to work globally with these companies and introduce a system that can prevent such content. However, it requires investments and the willingness of all partners to collaborate.
The political aspect is also important and can be challenging, as it involves finding a balance between restricting freedom of speech and combating the spread of terrorist propaganda ?
You’ve described the core problem very well, says Stauffacher. Not only the balance between freedom of speech and censorship, but also the dilemma that different countries have different legal requirements for freedom of expression. Major social media platforms are based in the United States, where the threshold for what can be said is much higher compared to other countries. Therefore, finding a global consensus is also difficult. But I believe we must tackle the problem now with even greater seriousness and commitment from all states, including Switzerland.
In conclusion, Stauffacher spoke about the role of the media and users: “The dissemination of these acts through the media is now part of the terror. We all – both readers and consumers, as well as the media – must be cautious not to contribute to this. I deliberately chose not to watch the video. We must collectively say: ‘We will not give this a stage.’ Of course, this is difficult given the public’s curiosity, but we must stand together to prevent these contents from spreading further.
By choosing not to show such content, traditional media could encourage the public to follow suit. It’s important to overcome our own voyeurism, Stauffacher emphasized. That’s sometimes not easy, but it’s necessary. The media can help by saying: ‘This is what happened, but we’re not showing it.’ This could lead some people to decide not to watch it either.
Together with the UN Daniel Stauffacher was also a Co-Founder of the Tech against Terrorism Project (techagainstterrorism.org) pursuant to UN Security Council Resolutions, which helped inter alia to launch the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism.
Sanjana Hattotuwa, Special Advisor of the ICT4Peace Foundation, also wrote two op-eds in New Zealand Newspapers, which can be found here and here.