Photo: RNZ
Online safety campaigners say Netsafe is too close to the big tech companies and an independent regulator is required to improve online safety.
Netsafe is a charity but is also the government-appointment agency which investigates online abuse under the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA).
Netsafe chief executive Brent Carey told RNZ the charity gets between $100,000 and $200,000 of its funding from tech platforms, such as Meta, X and Tiktok, but said that did not mean it pulled its punches.
"We're taking their money and we're also saying they actually should be doing a lot more in relation to online safety."
Carey said Netsafe received about 90 percent of its $7 million funding from government contracts and that the social media companies did not fund any of its work under the HDCA.
In 2022 Netsafe and NZ Tech launched the Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms, which was signed by tech firms Meta, Google, TikTok, Twitch and X.
But critics say the code is too weak and no one is holding the social media platforms to account.
RNZ revealed that Netsafe and NZ Tech, which is the administrator of the code, took aggressive legal action against the Human Rights Commission (HCR), after it called out social media giants for failing to protect Dame Jacinda Ardern from vicious online abuse.
In October 2023, Paul Hunt - Chief Human Rights Commissioner at the time - wrote to NZ Tech saying X and Meta had left Arden exposed to hatred, misogyny and violence.
The HRC was also highly critical of the online safety code signed by the big tech firms, saying it wasn't fit for purpose.
In response, a barrister acting for Netsafe and NZ Tech hit back at the HRC chief, saying his advisors were biased; that he was acting unlawfully and threatening to call in the Auditor General and Public Service Commission.
Anjum Rahman, who was part of the HRC's group which reviewed the code, said Netsafe should not be taking money from big tech companies regardless of whether it was a small proportion of their funding.
"It's not so much the value of the money they're taking, of $200,000, but they should place themselves to be seen as independent," she said. "If it's such a small amount of money then they certainly should be able to survive without it."
But Carey said building strong relationships with the tech companies was part of its brief and the code for online safety had forced the platforms to be more transparent and provide New Zealand data about online harm.
"I think New Zealand is taking a step forward where the government isn't. It's obviously a voluntary code and so we know we need to bridge the gap between doing nothing and doing something," he said. "Netsafe would agree that the platforms should do more in relation to online abuse."
NZ Tech chief executive Graeme Muller also wanted more government involvement.
"I personally think that online safety is not improving. I'm proud to be involved in one little initiative that's trying to do something to improve it."
He said the social media platforms themselves wanted government intervention. "What we are missing in New Zealand is we keep sitting back and hoping it'll fix itself," he said. "The platforms would much prefer clarity. That's what I've heard them say. They get hammered if they take something down, and they get hammered if they don't."
Suzanne Manning, speaking for an online safety coalition led by the National Council of Women, said the abuse meted out to Dame Jacinda was just one example of women being targeted online.
Documents obtained by RNZ show the HRC told New Zealand's internet safety agencies that over 48 hours in September 2023 an X user with more than 400,000 followers made a series of posts which amounted to a harassment campaign of "gender-based violence" against Dame Jacinda.
"We need to step up our game," Manning said. "So when you get people like Netsafe saying, 'Oh, look, we just can't do anything,' it's like, this is our country, right? We can change the rules, right? So why don't we?"
Manning said New Zealand needed an independent regulator with enforcement powers, rather than a voluntary code.
"We need teeth, accountability and consequences for breaking the rules. There's none of that at the moment."
Former Netsafe chief executive Martin Cocker said the charity had close relationships with the tech companies because it was supposed to do that under the HDCA.
"It's getting as close as it can to tech companies for the purpose of creating a bridge between people who are being harmed in New Zealand and those tech companies and trying to get positive outcomes from them."
He said the public wrongly assumed Netsafe had a watchdog role.
"It's supposed to bridge New Zealanders being harassed online with tech companies overseas and it's not able to be a watchdog or a regulator as a result."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
