Self-regulation of Big Tech such as Facebook /Meta, Twitter or Youtube is a trendy concept. However, it denies access to justice (which is a fundamental right), and highlights a lack of understanding of the history of the fight for fundamental rights on the Internet.
Twenty years ago, the European Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce stated that Internet technical operators (hosting providers) were not liable for content published on the Internet if they removed it as soon as they became aware of its illegal nature. It was then understood that it is a judge who determines whether a litigious content is illegal or not.
Then mp3 and peer to peer networks emerged, and cultural industry (music at first, then cinema) decided to change the law to prohibit downloading music from the Internet.
Their lobbying culminated as the the directive was being transposed into French law, and aimed to require hosting providers to judge and censor content posted online, and to be legally responsible if they fail to do so. The conflation between litigious and illicit allowed the music and film industry to impose on hosting providers to supersede justice. And the bill did not differentiate between different kinds of content: music, or articles, all content had to be judged by hosting providers.
However, they were not obliged to monitor the publishing activities. And if some content was hosted outside of France, access providers had to take over by filtering the content.
French internet users strongly opposed this transposition, which threatened their freedom of expression, and denied their access to justice, since hosting providers would have to judge content instead of a legitimate judge. However, in 2004, the French Constitutional Council limited the scope of the law by requiring hosting providers to judge and censor only "conspicuously illegal" content: Incitement to hatred, negationism, paedophile content. To the great displeasure of the cultural industry, since music and films were not included in this list.
Then social media such as Facebook and Twitter started to grow. Little by little, politicians and parliamentarians discovered Internet, until the election of Donald Trump. He was the first president to use social media assiduously. The subsequent presidential campaign became confrontational and controversial, culminating in a challenge to the validity of the results.
Many Americans - in this case Democrats - blamed Twitter and Facebook for spreading accusations of electoral fraud and inciting violence. This movement popularised a new concept: Big Tech self-regulation :
Schematically, if litigious messages are posted on social media, Big Tech should have the obligation to judge and censor these messages. So, once again, to supersede justice.
Obviously, no one remembered the fight of French Internet users to defend their freedom of expression and their fundamental right to be judged by a legitimate judge, and not by a private commercial firm. US Democrats and NGOs preferred to sacrifice access to justice and the right to a fair trial in order to fight against the American right or far right.
Then Donald Trump was censured by Big Tech. And he decided to develop his own social media. At that stage, the problem remained a US domestic problem. But then Twitter censored the Nigerian President. And then Facebook censored the Ethiopian Prime Minister. This highlighted a fundamental issue with the Big Tech concept of self-regulation: it is a cyber-colonial and neo-colonial concept, which threatens the digital sovereignty of democracies.