Nalini Elumalai, NGO Article 19’s programme officer, noted that the government’s main concern is the increase of harmful content on social media.
However, she said merely licensing social media platforms and removing or censoring harmful content may not be sufficient to create a safe space online for everyone.
“We believe that addressing harmful content goes beyond just content moderation. The government must address the root causes of hate speech, cyberbullying and gender-based violence,” Nalini told FMT.
She also said there was currently a lack of understanding as to the distinction between protected speech and harmful content.
The current application of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, especially Sections 211 and 233, which regulate offensive content, “doesn’t give us confidence that freedom of expression will not be affected”, she said.
Nalini said that while the government has repeatedly criticised social media platforms for not doing enough to address algorithms that contribute to the spread of hate speech and incitement, these companies cannot be expected to look into the root causes on their own.
“Punishing social media companies for harmful content will only promote over-removal of content, including protected speech,” she said.
Nalini was responding to a comment by former British High Commissioner to Malaysia, Ailsa Terry, who said the licensing of social media companies is unlikely to pose a threat to Malaysia’s freedom of speech.
In an interview with Scoop, Terry said the United Kingdom has taken a similar approach to tackling harmful online content.
Under Malaysia’s regulatory framework, social media platforms and messaging services with more than eight million users will be required to obtain licences to operate, and may be subject to legal action if they fail to do so by Jan 1, 2025.
Commenting on Terry’s remarks, Nalini said the licensing law does not have clear eligibility requirements, giving the minister excessive power to decide whether to grant any individual or company a licence.
These companies could also be required to remove content within unduly short timeframes, which will deprive them the opportunity to review notices with sufficient care.
“We believe solutions based on transparency, data protection and sound competition policies, including the unbundling of hosting from content curation and interoperability of large platforms, would be far more effective in making the internet safer for both children and adults in Malaysia.”
Meanwhile, Gayathry S Venkiteswaran, an assistant professor of communications at Nottingham University Malaysia, said licensing social media is essentially a form of censorship.
She said on top of existing laws such as the Official Secrets Act 1972, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, a licence to host social media is “another avenue of content control and could likely be used to sanction the companies.”
“Tech companies need to take responsibility for content on their platform but a regulation like this will risk companies over-censoring content,” she told FMT.
Gayathry said based on her understanding, the license requirement could be used to bar social media platforms, similar to how the PPPA was used to suspend newspapers in the past.
She pointed out that unlike Malaysia, the US and Europe have over several decades strengthened the fundamental rights of their citizens, including the right to free speech.
Malaysia, on the other hand, is “overly regulated”, she said, and has more punitive laws and rather weak protection for citizens, users and consumers.
Gayathry said the licensing of social media platforms would not address key issues, but would instead focus on content moderation.
“There is no evidence that this approach will actually help stem the challenges we have been talking about,” she said.