Marcia Diaz - TFGBV Policy Brief

TFGBV Policy Brief

Social media replicates, amplifies and accelerates the real world violence which women, girls and other equity seeking groups experience in the offline world. As digital worlds become more entangled with our daily lives, gender based violence adapts and exploits the tools and vulnerabilities of digital platforms to produce harm. This type of violence has received many names such as “cyber missonginy” and “cyber harassment”. Technology Facilitated Gender Based Violence (TFGBV) has been proposed as it points to the fact that violence is facilitated by technology, indicating the central component of the harm, while not minimizing the fact that it is still violence (Khoo, 2020).

There are different ways in which Canadian law can engage with TFGBV, some laws already apply to acts such as defamation, harassment and threats. However, there isn’t a clear policy regarding the responsibilities of social media platforms as infrastructures which facilitate TFGBV. Beyond the law it's important to keep in mind that TFGBV reproduces the violence of the offline world, its elimination requires a genuine commitment to eliminating all forms of gender based violence and the structures that support it.

Overview

TFGBV is a form of gender-based violence which exploits the affordances of digital technologies to cause harm to women, girls, other equity seeking groups and vulnerable communities (Dunn, 2020). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic people’s lives have shifted to online environments; whether for work, school or entertainment, our lives have become increasingly digitally mediated. Even though this has opened opportunities for education, inclusion and access for some, gender based violence has also shifted to the digital realm, increasing substantially in the last year (Dunn, 2020).

Women, girls and people belonging to other vulnerable communities are the most affected by TFGBV, particularly those who hold intersectional identities; Black, Indigenous, people of colour, as well as members of the LGBTQIA2S community, and people with disabilities, face higher violence directed at their identities (Dunn, 2020). These groups are disproportionately affected by TFGBV especially in its sexualized forms, and other forms of physical, emotional and psychological violence. (Bailey and Mathen, 2019)

Bailey and Mathen (2019) argue that TFGBV “seizes something that is valuable, intimate and personal to the victim, sometimes turning it into a weapon against them”. This can have devastating consequences in the lives of those affected, it also undermines their rights to self-determination and participation in the social sphere.

It’s in social media where we find the most visible forms of technologically facilitated abuse; from hate-speech and intimidation to death-threats and coordinated attacks. The role of social media platforms in facilitating, mediating and reproducing TFGBV can’t be ignored, nor by the public or by Canadian policy.

In Canada expressions such as hate propaganda, threats, intimidation, defamation, assault and harassment are criminal offences (Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code ). Pornography involving children is also a criminal offence (Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code). There is also the Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act, SNS 2017, c 7. In 2015 Parliament criminalized “revenge porn” which applies to both minors and adults, (section 162.1 of the Criminal Code) (Stevenson, 2019). Some of these laws can be applied to content found on social media platforms, but they don’t directly engage with the platform’s responsibilities over this content.

Challenges to current Policy

There are two important issues that are not addressed by criminal law: The first one is that policy mostly focuses on the actions of individuals and ignores estructural oppression. Often the emphasis is in remediation by the state against individual actors, which already targets underprivileged communities. (Bailey and Burkell, 2021)

The second one is the responsibility of platforms, which is largely ignored by the law, even though social media platforms are the infrastructure on which these acts are committed and perpetuated. Khoo (2019) explains that proposals to regulate social media platforms are met with concern about the impact of such regulation on freedom of expression.

Stakeholders

Victims: Even though victims are at the center of this issue, they’re often the most powerless when it comes to influencing policy outcomes. Suzie Dunn (2020) reminds us that not only cis women and girls are affected by TFGBV; transgender, non-binary and gender non conforming people, as well as members of the LGBTQIA2S community are also harmed by this type of violence. These identities also overlap with other forms of oppression such as class, race, age, etc. In Canada for example, Indigenous women are disproportionately more likely to be victims of violence than non-Indigenous women (BB, 2021). Often, the victims of TFGBV are “re-responsibilized” for crimes against them, which undermines their trust in the legal system and reduces the chances of them standing up to this violence (Bailey and Mathen, 2019).

The public: everyone who uses social media has the possibility of encountering TFGBV even if they’re not being targeted directly. Bailey and Mathen (2019) argue that TFGBV does not only impact the individual targets of violence, but it also harms society as a whole by undermining the rights and participation of women and girls.

Perpetrators: Bailey and Mathen (2019) conducted a systematic search of reported cases to identify cases involving TFGBV, they found that in 91% of cases, the accused persons were identified as male. This reflects the patriarchal dynamics of gender based violence which happens off-line. Stevenson (2019) concludes that “Addressing technologically-facilitated VAWG will require a cultural shift that encompasses legal and extra-legal realms.”

Social media platforms: In the past years Internet platforms and social media companies have been forced to recognize their role in the propagation of violence (not only TFGBV), and their obligations to ensure the human rights of people who participate on these platforms (Stevenson, 2019). Many of these social platforms argue that the cost of regulating and monitoring content on their platform is very high.

Lawmakers: Stevenson (2019) affirms that “in comparison to other jurisdictions internationally, Canada walks a valuable, middle road of legal compromise between privacy and freedom of expression on the one hand, and equality on the other”. Despite this, there has been hesitancy from lawmakers to regulate platforms as this could result in violations to freedom of expression.

Law enforcement: Often victims of TFGBV go to the police to report the violence they’re experiencing, but in these interactions they find a lack of willingness on the part of law enforcement agents to investigate and press charges (Bailey and Burkell, 2021). This discourages victims from pressing charges, as they might be dismissed or in some cases re-victimized by law enforcement.

The importance of the issue to information/communication/digital policy and the wider public interest

Stevenson (2019) affirms that “the days of the neutral platform are coming quickly to an end”. Our understanding of these platforms has motivated more scrutiny on the regulation processes inside them. Some platforms have proposed using AI to moderate content, but this is still mostly done by workers in the global south, with very dire consequences to their mental health. This also raises questions about the ability and ethics of platforms to judge and censor content.

It’s also important to understand why TFGBV is so damaging to victim’s lives, and what this means for everyone who uses the internet and social media platforms, Bailey and Mahen (2019) explain that “The internet is iterative, with boundless capacity for reproduction, dissemination and publicity. The consequences for victims are correspondingly staggering”. This means that this violence is constantly reproduced and sometimes impossible to get rid of, this poses many questions around information issues, for example, the right to be forgotten.

Politics and conflicts around the policy issue

Two main issues surround the policies around TFGBV: The first one is the tension between freedom of expression and victim’s rights. Often protection of freedom of expression is valued more than protection from harm. Khoo (2020) explains that in the Canadian charter of rights the right to freedom from discrmination is as fundamental as freedom of expression, she invites us to think about these rights as part of a matrix, and not a hierarchy.

The second one is the lack of liability of platform companies in the prevention of TFGBV. Social media companies portray themselves as neutral stakeholders unable to moderate all the content posted on their platforms. In reality they are motivated by the profit made by the engagement generated by outrageous and sensationalized content, even if it’s TFGBV (Khoo, 2020).

Policy Recommendations

Survivor centered outcomes: Avoid the re-responsibilization and revictimization of victims. Center the outcomes not only in punishments to perpetrators, but also in reparations to the victims, for example facilitating the deletion of unwanted material from platforms.

Response from the Law: Responses from policy play a fundamental role in the public understanding of TFGBV as a social and public wrong. Bailey and Mathen (2019) argue that Canadian policy can, and should respond to cases involving TFGBV. But the Law shouldn’t be the only answer, the government should also fund organizations serving victims, research around TFGBV and educational initiatives (Bailey and Burkell, 2021)

Platform responsibility : Impose responsibilities on platforms as facilitators of TFGBV, which would be different from the responsibility of the direct perpetrator (Khoo, 2020). Also demand that platforms make it easier for victims to report instances of TFGBV.

Bibliography:

Bannerman, S. (2020). Canadian communication policy and law (47-78). Canadian Scholars.

Bailey, J. & Mathen, C.. (2019). Technology-Facilitated Violence Against Women & Girls: Assessing The Canadian Criminal Law Response. Canadian Bar Review, 97(3), 564–.

Bailey, J. and Burkell, J. (2021) Tech-facilitated violence: thinking structurally and intersectionality, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, vol XX, no XX, 1–12, DOI: 10.1332/239868021X16286662118554

Dunn, S. (2020). Technology-facilitated gender-based violence: An overview. Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/technology-facilitated-gender-based-violence-overview/

Khoo, C. (2021). Deplatforming misogyny: Report on platform liability for technology-facilitated gender-based violence.Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). https://www.leaf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Full-Report-Deplatforming-Misogyny.pdf

Stevenson, M. (2019), Technologically-Facilitated Violence Against Women and Girls: The Canadian Compromise- McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism. International Human Rights Internship Program Working Paper Series. Vol 7 | No. 1 | Fall 2019. https://www.mcgill.ca/humanrights/files/humanrights/ihri_v7_2019_stevenson.pdf