Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My thanks to the company representatives for being here today and for the answers we have received. Last week we heard a good deal about the precautionary principle. When it comes to this, I believe the horse has bolted with regard to the use of social media. Advertising is no longer what influences political discourse. Rather, it is the posts and the use of social media. Where we increasingly regulate paid advertising, what we will see is an increase in the non-paid activities and activities that are encouraged by the platforms represented here today and other platforms. The more outrageous content is and the more eyeballs the companies get on screen, the easier it is for them to make sellable advertising for micro-targeting, even outside of the political arena. There is a business model at the back of all of this. We have heard all the platitudes and the niceties about political discourse but behind all of this is a business model that drives as many eyeballs on screen as possible to sell advertising. I believe that this section of the Bill is fiddling while Rome burns, to be honest.

Professor Nathanial Persily of Standard University has written extensively on the idea of the dangers posed by social media and the things valued by the companies. Velocity, that is to say, the speed of communication is one. This has a tension with democracy. A well-timed lie immediately in advance of an election can gain a national audience long before it can have the opportunity to be rebutted.

The second is the idea of things going viral. The primacy of what goes viral is what is emotive and outrageous. Consequently, democratic discourse is not well served where there is a chase for the outrageous. The outrageous is less well regulated, and positively encouraged in some instances by suggesting that people join other groups or join groups of similar interest. We have incentivised eyeballs on screen and what we have overall is a coarsening of public discourse as a consequence.

Anonymity is another point. It is some years since I set up my Twitter account so I had forgotten the process. Last night, for the craic and to see how easy it was, I set up a Twitter account under a different name. All that was necessary was a mobile telephone. In doing that there is no accountability in place. There is no obligation for me to identify who I am. There is an opportunity to spread lies, misinformation and disinformation from within and without the jurisdiction and, consequently, influence political discourse in advance of an election. The professor goes on to speak about the monopoly held by platforms and the challenge to the circumstances where social media posts are made worldwide. We have seen that in social media being managed from other countries. That is a problem for sovereignty and a problem of oversight and of governance. In light of this, Twitter says it is encouraging civic participation and dialogue. Facebook is a flag-waver for free speech. To be fair, Facebook is taking positive steps. However, cyber-scientists have shown maps of trolling and pile-on activity and have confirmed that there are instances where this is co-ordinated or orchestrated for political purposes with a view to suppressing content, silencing people and influencing discourse. Both platforms represented before the committee promote that or sit by and allow it to happen. How do the companies expect us to regulate that? What are the comments of the company representatives in response to that? The provision in this Bill is absolutely not fit for purpose. It is too narrow and does not protect our democracy.