The topic of internet intermediary liability is currently a hot topic in internet governance. Simply put, an internet intermediary can be defined as a platform that facilitates communication or interaction among its users via the internet. Examples of internet intermediaries that we frequently use in our daily lives include e-commerce platforms and social media. However, beyond this simple description, defining exactly what constitutes an internet intermediary—along with the responsibilities and obligations attached to them—remains a significant challenge in its own right.

Social media, as one of the internet’s platforms, has also sparked much debate. One particularly interesting question is whether social media should be treated as a publisher or a non-publisher. As a publisher, social media is automatically responsible for the content created by its users, whereas as a non-publisher, this responsibility remains a matter of debate.

To that end, at the 2021 Southeast Asia Internet Governance Forum (SEA-IGF)—facilitated by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology of the Republic of Indonesia—the Tifa Foundation hosted a discussion titled “Responsibilities of Internet Intermediaries: Social Media Governance (Publisher vs. Non-Publisher) in Asia.” This discussion featured Roxana Radu (Center Associate, Oxford Media Law), Shita Laksmi (Executive Director of the Tifa Foundation), Amrita Choudhury (Director of CCAOI, India), and Pirongrong Ramasoota (Professor of Communication, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand) as speakers. This virtual discussion was moderated by Dinita Putri, a representative from Luminate.

The Tifa Foundation, as an organization that continues to promote improvements in data management accountability, recognizes that internet platforms—particularly social media—play a vital role in the digital democratic ecosystem. Social media has evolved not only as a form of entertainment but also as a source of information and a channel for freedom of expression. It also enables us to participate in public discourse and monitor government performance. However, the continued presence of sensitive content—including issues related to ethnicity, religion, race, and intergroup relations (SARA), hate speech, child exploitation, and digital terrorism—on these platforms underscores the need for comprehensive social media governance.

The discussion began with an explanation by Roxana Radu regarding three key issues related to the responsibilities of internet intermediaries, particularly social media platforms. These three issues are the history and evolution of regulation, content moderation efforts, and European Union regulations governing internet intermediaries.

When it comes to moderation, there are several approaches that have long been standard practice among social media companies, namely the use of artificial intelligence, leveraging user-driven initiatives to flag content that violates community standards, and employing staff to manually verify and filter harmful content. From this moderation perspective, greater attention should be paid to the need for social media companies or internet intermediaries to adapt their community standards to local content and context so that filtering can be carried out more effectively. Furthermore, the working conditions of content reviewers, which are still far from ideal, are another issue that must not be overlooked in this discussion.

Returning to the regulatory sphere, if we look at the European Union, discussions are currently underway there regarding regulations governing digital services. These regulations will encourage internet intermediaries to be more transparent and accountable for the content displayed on their platforms. How internet intermediaries mitigate risks from such content will also be audited under these regulations. Furthermore, the transparency aspect of these regulations will require internet intermediaries to disclose how their algorithms work.

Continuing the discussion, Shita Laksmi from the Tifa Foundation outlined the regulations in Indonesia relevant to the issue of internet intermediaries, ranging from Law No. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications, Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright, the ITE Law, and other regulations. In Indonesia, internet intermediaries can be defined as operators of electronic systems that include public and private platforms, content providers and creators, individuals, and businesses that conduct their operations via the internet. The scope of issues related to internet intermediaries in Indonesia is quite broad, ranging from copyright, hoaxes, and defamation of state institutions to the protection of personal data.

After discussing issues and regulations in Indonesia, the discussion continued with Amrita Choudhury from India. Amrita explained the common problems that arise as our lives become increasingly integrated with the digital world. For example, issues such as misinformation, hoaxes, and fake news have become part of the alarming global issues in the digital age. Amrita added that despite having a large internet user base, India is still struggling to control the power of major internet intermediary companies. Furthermore, regarding the governance of content on internet intermediaries and social media, the government there is also still working to encourage companies to comply with regulations in force in India.

Like Indonesia and India, Thailand, according to Pirongrong Ramasoota’s presentation, has also established regulations governing internet intermediaries. Regarding regulations targeting internet intermediaries, local intermediaries have generally complied; however, some large social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, tend to selectively choose which regulations to follow. Another concern in Thailand is the government’s ongoing efforts to censor social media content, particularly during the current political conflict and pandemic.

In this discussion, all speakers generally agreed that the topics of internet intermediaries and social media governance will continue to evolve and require collective action to address their challenges. A global discussion is needed to clarify the scope of these internet intermediary issues before we can formulate practical approaches and steps to further manage internet intermediaries. Granting users greater access and authority is also a distinct need in this context. With sufficient authority, users are expected to participate in and contribute to policy-making in the future.

A recording of the discussion on "The Responsibility of Internet Intermediaries: Social Media Governance (Publishers vs. Non-Publishers) in Asia" is available via the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_pHK05hYNk