Why new 'public interest' law should govern how companies are allowed to act: Bird Lovegod

The crux of it is this; if you create a digital platform, are you responsible for how that platform is used? The position of Telegram is clear, “It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform.”

They truly believe that, as I expect do Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and the rest of the libertarian ‘free speech is everything’ tech community.

It’s a convenient thing to believe, if your multi-billion dollar business is such an enterprise and requires that worldview to operate.

But it’s not the truth. It’s just an opinion, an ideology. One could easily state the opposite, it’s absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are not responsible for abuse of that platform. One could equally say they are responsible, they just decline to take and accept that responsibility.

Perhaps what is absurd is the degree by which companies and corporations are able to directly cause or indirectly enable vast amounts of pain, suffering, illness, and environmental destruction, without taking any responsibility.

Actually, what’s really absurd is that the directors of the companies are able to take no responsibility for the actions and outcomes of the companies.

For example, the directors of certain water companies have effectively sabotaged the entire infrastructure through neglect, whilst paying billions in dividends, and being rewarded millions in bonuses. How is this not acting against the public interest? It’s acting against the national interest as well. It’s absurd that it was allowed to happen.

Perhaps what’s needed are laws requiring companies to act in the public interest, and preventing them from acting against the public interest.

So, if the water company you find yourself a director of is illegally discharging sewage into rivers and seas and poisoning the environment, you are acting against the public interest, and can be prosecuted, and banned from acting as a director.

If your social media company is enabling the spread of disinformation, sparking riots and violent disorder, you are acting against the public interest, and are accountable for that. If your messaging app is used to conduct drug deals, you are acting against the public interest, and you must remedy the situation.

Should there be a moral imperative for companies to act in the public interest? Ideally, they should, although in practice they tend to be a reflection of the collective personalities of the founders and directors.

If such a legislation were proposed it would cause a revolution of commerce and economics. We would also get to watch companies scrabbling to find justification for their existence, their semi toxic products, for tobacco and vapes, for gambling, for junk food, for thousands of sugar laden soft drinks, for plastic tat that has no function, and so on and so forth.

Privacy heavy messaging apps have their place in this still dystopian world, they provide a safe space for free speech which is outlawed in a great many countries. In this regard, they serve the public interest. But equally, when such apps are used for drug distribution and crimes against children and humanity, they act against the public interest. The answer therefore isn’t too difficult to discern.

The companies themselves need to have sufficient conscience to definitively act against the bad actors on their platforms. Is that really so much to require of them?