«Tech corporations make profits, communities pay the price»
From hate speech to deepfakes to child sexual abuse material, the harm perpetrated by a largely unregulated internet has been palpable to us for a while now. Guido Fluri, the man spearheading the Internet Initiative, says tech companies finally need to take responsibility for the damage they’ve done.
«Guido Fluri takes on the tech giants,» proclaimed the headline of a recent Blick article (in German) about the man I’m interviewing. In Switzerland, he’s otherwise known for championing the cause of «Verdingkinder», Swiss children who were taken from their parents and forced into child labour. Although the 59-year-old has plenty of accomplishments under his belt, his mind is far from retirement. Right now, he’s busy drumming up interest in the Internet Initiative.
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Guido Fluri, the Swiss Federal Council has tabled a bill to regulate major communication platforms. You’ve described it as «disappointing and lacking vision». What would an effective law specifically need to include that this bill doesn’t?
An effective law would provide effective protection for children and young people. The Federal Council’s proposal doesn’t do that. It’s unfathomable to me that it doesn’t mention generative AI. Generative AI can be used to quickly create deepfakes that harm or mislead people. Without revisions, this legislation will be toothless.
How did you arrive at this harsh conclusion?
Well, the Federal Council’s bill does contain a risk analysis – but it doesn’t include an obligation to minimise risk. That’s unacceptable. A risk analysis is only useful if it gives rise to binding measures. So it doesn’t make any sense that KomPG (editor’s note: the preliminary draft of the Federal Act on Communication Platforms and Search Engines) doesn’t stipulate an obligation to take countermeasures and report on them. With no obligation to take specific action to reduce risk, this law isn’t just a bit wishy-washy. I’ll go a step further and say it’s turning into a paper tiger.
Your initiative calls for platforms, search engines and AI companies to analyse the risks associated with their services and take steps to mitigate them. Who would police that? Do Swiss authorities even have the means to impose penalties on corporations like Meta or Google?
There’s a consensus among experts on that point. The rules would be enforceable, but only if international tech companies headquartered abroad were required to designate legal representation in Switzerland. When it comes to penalties, I’m mostly thinking of the Federal Office of Communications and potential administrative consequences, including restrictions. Of course, it’d be important to make sure penalties were proportional. We want to see tech companies as partners.
«Netzcourage», a non-profit dedicated to tackling online abuse, recently ceased operations (article in German). Reportedly, they were unable to do what had to be done. Does the organisation’s dissolution validate your initiative to some degree?
«Netzcourage» has its own story. But the truth is we’re seeing a massive upsurge in hate speech, online sexual violence and child sexual abuse material, and we can’t handle it all on our own. We need to hold the tech companies accountable, as they’re ultimately the ones who decide what gets posted on their platforms and what doesn’t. Tech companies have a clear duty of care in this regard.
So you’re saying tech companies should be required to take greater responsibility for content, in a way that’s similar to traditional media outlets. Where do you draw the line between platform responsibility and censorship?
Censorship accusations are the go-to weapon of tech lobbyists who don’t want to change – who privatise all the profits and pass the costs on to the community. Let me be perfectly clear: our initiative has nothing to do with censorship! The initiative is about regulating the companies running these platforms, not the people who use them. Let’s face it, companies that amplify the reach of third-party content through their own system architecture bear a shared responsibility for its societal impact. That’s why they have a duty of care. To put it in concrete terms, anyone who creates or controls something potentially dangerous needs to take appropriate protective measures.
Especially at a time when a powerful politician like Trump has practically made lying par for the course?
Above all, we as a society need to immunise ourselves against lies, regardless of whether they come from the right or the left. This requires media literacy and a healthy media landscape where facts are checked. Once again, our initiative isn’t directed against users. Anyone can write and post their personal opinions, even if they’re harsh, uncomfortable or maybe even factually incorrect. We’re taking a stand against the spread and algorithmic amplification of targeted campaigns. Especially when they specifically target democratic decision-making processes, say, by using deepfakes. Tech companies need to take steps to counter that.
What’s your take on the fact that, in the last few years, platforms have essentially scrapped their already fairly limited content moderation efforts?
Let me put it this way: profit ranks above all else at the moment. The thing is, a liberal regulatory framework would really benefit tech platforms. No platform, search engine or AI company benefits from child sexual abuse material, fraudulent advertising or targeted disinformation posing a threat to democracy being disseminated through its communications infrastructure. The Internet Initiative, which establishes clear guidelines, can help restore trust in the platforms.
In that case, doesn’t the market regulate itself? X, formerly known as Twitter, is a good example of that. It seems to have been losing a massive number of users for some time now.
I think this has more to do with Elon Musk, who’s become a polarising figure, especially in left-wing circles. X is still significant when it comes to public discourse. At the same time, the things being shared there should give us pause. The size of a platform says nothing about its impact.
You’ve mentioned the radicalisation of young people, child sexual abuse material and government disinformation all in the same breath. Aren’t these very different problems requiring different solutions?
We’re talking about an initiative that’s making a fundamental statement at the highest level – in the Federal Constitution: «The Confederation shall enact provisions on the protection of fundamental rights and democratic decision-making processes in the digital space.» That’s the crux of the matter. That’s what matters to us. Adapting laws to the digital reality.
AI-generated deepfakes are making disinformation increasingly difficult to identify. What kind of regulatory measures do we need on that?
Parliament is currently considering a proposal regarding deepfake porn. Under a motion tabled by Raphaël Mahaim (linked page in German), companies behind generative AI tools would be required to conduct risk and harm assessments aimed at sexualised deepfake content prior to launching their applications. They’d also have to implement protective measures if their applications were capable of generating sexualised deepfakes. It’s worth giving this some more thought.
Anyone who calls for regulation – especially in Switzerland – is quickly branded a leftist set on taking away people’s freedom. Don’t you believe in personal responsibility?
I’m an independent, and I’d describe myself as liberal. I’m against unnecessary laws too. But every high-rise building gets inspected before the tenants move in. When we get into a car, we put on our seat belts. We have regulations on the sale of tobacco and alcohol. Where there’s risk, there are laws. I’m a citizen and a father. I see the dangers posed by the internet, as do most people. Ask the people around you. That’s also why our initiative is getting so much support. We’re collecting signatures at a record pace. Representatives from every Swiss political party – the SVP, SP, Mitte, FDP, the Greens and the GLP – have joined the Internet Initiative’s steering committee. The question of what kind of internet we want isn’t a question of left or right.
Source: Internet Initiative
Why does Switzerland need its own initiative instead of simply adopting EU law?
Because Switzerland isn’t a member of the EU. This initiative provides an opportunity to build on positive experiences elsewhere and improve upon where our own approaches are needed.
Your initiative focuses on social media and search engines. However, Swiss e-commerce platforms such as Galaxus and Digitec also feature user reviews, comment sections and, increasingly, third-party marketplace listings. Do you also see a problem with disinformation there, for example, as a result of fake product reviews or misleading information from retailers? Or does that fall into a separate category?
Goodness, no. The Internet Initiative is about requiring communications platforms to take action that’d protect the public from cybercrime being committed on said platforms. What you’re talking about would mostly relate to deceptive ads, which certain platforms earn billions from. I imagine that doesn’t really apply to Galaxus and Digitec.
Disclosure: I conducted the interview with Guido Fluri in writing.
Journalist since 1997. Stopovers in Franconia (or the Franken region), Lake Constance, Obwalden, Nidwalden and Zurich. Father since 2014. Expert in editorial organisation and motivation. Focus on sustainability, home office tools, beautiful things for the home, creative toys and sports equipment.
Interesting facts about products, behind-the-scenes looks at manufacturers and deep-dives on interesting people.
Show all
