The Greens want to make social media platforms subject to laws of defamation and libel just like publishers, newspapers and broadcasters. About time, says our Writer at Large

My concerns around digital technology’s disastrous effects on the media have been known for a long time. Around 20 years ago, a very rich British entrepreneur and I got together to see if we could harness my hatred of Big Tech and his lust for money into a strange alliance which might help the publishing industry.

I was subjected to a lot of love-bombing – helicopter rides to palatial homes for opulent dinners and such – while we tried to find a solution to what at first sounds a rather simple problem. We wanted to develop a business model which allowed you, the media consumer, to make micro-payments for each and every story you read online. You’d pay, say, 0.001p when you clicked on any story, in any publication. Easier said than done, though. How to aggregate every media company in the English-speaking world under one business model? That was the primary problem. Anyway, the man with the money seemed to prefer talking about this particular issue rather than doing, so we parted ways, amicably.

I resurrect this memory, only to make the point that I’ve considered digital technology an existential threat to reliable, traditional media since the internet arrived. Indeed, it’s a triple threat. I recall the late 1990s and the rush by traditional media to put "content" – a word I hate – online for free.

Read more by Neil Mackay

Greens unveil plan to make X and Facebook subject to defamation laws

 Neil Mackay talks to the co-leaders of the Scottish Green Party

I quit Twitter and the world became a much happier place

Anyone with a brain could see this was suicide. Do bartenders give free pints? Do taxi drivers give free rides? Why should journalists work for nothing? That was threat one: the media’s own stupidity.

Threat two came when traditional media realised that giving away stuff for free was indeed totally idiotic, and tried to work out a sustainable alternative. By then, though, social media was stripping stories from traditional media and posting them online for free, so the public had been completely acculturated into paying nothing.

None of this was helped in Britain by the BBC running its "content" free online. The public thought: if the national broadcaster gives everything away then why doesn’t my local newspaper/favourite magazine/national newspaper of choice?

It’s around this time that I buddied up with my multi-millionaire pal. He saw a gap in the market, I saw an attempt to help the industry I love.

Threat three developed over time with the growth of social media disinformation. I’ve never claimed that traditional media is perfect. Mistakes are made. There are scoundrels in the profession – as the News of the World’s demise proved. And many print outlets are biased. However, there’s a limit to bad behaviour by the print and broadcast media.

We’re subject to defamation and libel laws for a start. If I call someone a paedophile and they aren’t a paedophile then the paper I work for will be sued, and I’ll probably never work again. We’re subject to regulation – much tighter for broadcasters than newspapers due to their reach and power. For social media, there is no regulation. Social media platforms aren’t considered publishers – even though they are – so have no responsibility if someone posts a claim that Mr X is a paedophile, Miss Y is a fraudster or Mrs Z a terrorist.

However, social media is now the top dog, and the traditional media – from newspapers to broadcasters – are the underdog in terms of reach, power and audience. It pains me terribly but social media has more impact on public debate in Britain than the press or TV news.

So gathered all together that means that the most powerful voice when it comes to shaping public opinion is entirely unregulated. Social media is also riddled with disinformation and death threats.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any media professional in Britain finds this state of affairs acceptable. Over the centuries the press was subjected to increasing control, first with defamation laws, then later through regulatory bodies, in order to make sure that the public was fairly treated and the truth got a fair crack of the whip. Publishers carried the can for any wrongdoing. And rightly so. Nobody deserves to be called a paedophile, fraudster or terrorist if they’re a law-abiding citizen.

As such, there’s absolutely no reason why social media outlets shouldn’t be treated the same and deemed publishers in law with responsibility for the "content" their platforms carry. That would make them subject to defamation and libel laws, just like the BBC and this paper you’re reading.

Given how obvious this seems – at least to me – I’m stunned that only now are we seeing politicians step forward to promote these ideas. At the weekend, in an interview I conducted with the Scottish Green Party co-leaders, Gillian Mackay and Ross Greer proposed just such a policy.

Scottish Green Party co-leaders Ross Greer and Gillian Mackay are proposing making X and Facebook subject to defamation laws (Image: PA)

I heartily support them – and I think every journalist in Scotland and the rest of Britain, including the National Union of Journalists, should do the same. You don’t need to back the Greens to see the sense in this, if you work in journalism or care about journalism. You can hate the Greens and still believe that on this they’re right.

We either act to rein in companies, like X and Facebook, or we continue a spiral of impunity, disinformation and societal damage. Nor is this simply a pie in the sky proposal from an opposition party. The Greens have been in government before and made legislative demands, so there could be more to this than an attempt to start a very necessary national conversation.

What I would say though, as a caveat to my praise, is that the Greens should lead by example. I asked Greer and Mackay if they were still on X. “Yes,” they both said, “at the moment.” I find this bewildering. If you believe X is so dangerous that it requires legislation to control it, then why remain there?

Politicians still think that they need to be on X to communicate. They fail to understand that X is no longer for communication. Nobody with a brain goes to X seeking facts. X is for spreading disinformation, so if you wish to tackle disinformation and improve the media you do not help your cause by continuing to prop up the Elon Musks of this world.

Neil Mackay is The Herald’s Writer at-Large. He’s a multi-award-winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, extremism, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics

© Herald Scotland