A proposal for online content regulation has been scrapped, with the government pointing to a mass of public submissions against the idea. But a closer look shows nearly all those submissions were pro-forma responses generated by two lobby groups.
An image from the template submission tool set up by the Free Speech Union to allow supporters to respond to a discussion document on new online regulations. Photo: An image from the template submission tool set up by the Free Speech Union to allow supporters to respond to a discussion document on new online regulations.
When internal affairs minister Brooke Van Velden logged into Facebook to announce she was scrapping regulations aimed at cleaning up the internet, she made it sound like the move would be almost universally welcomed.
Under Labour, Internal Affairs had proposed setting up a new regulator that could fine social media companies and other internet platforms for publishing what it termed “harmful” content.
Most of the public submissions during consultation were opposed to the idea, Van Velden explained. They’d raised concerns about limits on freedom of expression and the potential for crackdowns on content that’s upsetting but not illegal.
Fair enough. Put the dying and apparently deeply unpopular dog out of its misery.
Her post didn’t get much of a reaction, garnering only five likes and three comments, one of which was complaining about processing times for citizenship applications.
But out there in another part of the world, Van Velden’s message was met with rejoicing.
The anti-vaccine advocacy group Voices For Freedom celebrated the early demise of what they called an “unelected, unaccountable regulator”.
In their words, this was “yet another example of public pressure in action”.
The Free Speech Union said “Kiwis [had] spoken up” and won a “victory for free speech”
"It's clear that censoring the internet would be dangerous for New Zealand and our democracy," said its chief executive Jonathan Ayling.
These groups had some reason to be proud of themselves.
As it turns out, the feedback Van Velden cited as evidence of opposition to the bill came almost entirely from them.
An Internal Affairs summary shows that of the 20,281 submissions on the proposed regulation, 18,978 were pro-forma responses created using templates on the Voices For Freedom or Free Speech Union websites.
Though the Free Speech Union helpfully furnished submitters with seven key themes to choose from, all those submissions essentially said the same thing: this regulation is an undemocratic attempt to censor the internet and introduce backdoor hate speech laws.
If you just looked at those, you’d think there was vehement opposition to these regulations.
But when you look at the other responses from organisations impacted directly by the new rules, a different picture emerges.
Of the 105 unique submissions from groups such as Internet NZ, the National Council of Women, Rainbow Support Collective, Save The Children, and Consumer NZ, more than 50% were positive, nearly 40% didn’t specify a position, and just over 10% were negative.
Tech companies, including Meta, Google, Microsoft, X Corp (that’s Twitter fyi), Reddit, and TikTok, generally delivered positive feedback, as did industry adjacent groups like the Association of New Zealand Advertisers.
There were concerns raised about the wording of the proposals, particularly by traditional media companies, and many submitters said what constitutes “harmful content" needed to be defined more clearly.
But the one thing nearly all these agencies agreed on was that our current pre-internet regulatory framework is outdated and new rules are needed to protect people – particularly children – from online harm.
There's little hope of that now, partly thanks to an upswell of public anger that turns out to be at best engineered and at worst illusory.
This isn’t the first time special interest groups have used template submissions to amplify opposition to proposed legislation.
One person who’s raised concerns about the issue in the past is Van Velden’s boss, Act leader David Seymour.
When his End Of Life Choice Bill headed through select committee, groups opposed to the legislation set up tools to help their supporters deliver pro-forma feedback.
In an op-ed for Newshub, Seymour warned against putting too much stock in copy-and-paste responses from people who’d had – in his eyes – the “fear of God put into them”.
"No doubt the people behind these efforts will claim the sheer weight of numbers proves something other than the fact that if you badger people to do something enough, many of them will do it. Nevertheless, the numbers themselves don't tell us much," he wrote.
Great point. People should, of course, be free to have their say.
But politicians should be wary of giving pro-forma responses too much weight, and more reticent still to insinuate they’re evidence of genuine widespread public opposition.
You certainly wouldn’t want to rely on them as a reason to kill a bill that has support from industry bodies.
Alas, not everyone has Seymour’s wisdom on these things.
Van Velden says the government will not progress with work to regulate online content and will prioritise strengthening internet filtering systems which prevent child exploitation instead.
