Expectations for regulation across different content and platforms

One of the key findings from the focus group discussions in the Digital Australians survey was the expectation that community standards should apply differently to content type rather than the delivery channel.

Participants consistently distinguished between user-generated and professionally produced content. This distinction was driven by the perception of each content type having a different ‘community’. Content that was professionally produced (such as films, television programs or series) was expected to be consumed on a mass scale by the broader community and, as such, it was expected to reflect broad community standards. Its producers usually needed to attract an audience that involved the mainstream population in order to have a profitable, worthwhile enterprise.

Accordingly, participants believed professionally produced content should reflect collective views about desirable content and shared cultural and social values. It was felt that professional content that did not reflect the collective views would ultimately not be profitable and, therefore, not sustainable.

On the other hand, user-generated content was expected to be consumed by a more limited number of individuals who choose to do so. As such, participants generally considered that user-generated content should reflect the principle of individual expression and consumption, meaning it did not necessarily have to conform to community standards. Illegal content was the exception here.

Content that originates online is much less likely to be used by broadcasters or others offline. However, content that is professionally produced for linear viewing is much more likely to be found online as well as offline, meaning that the flow of professionally produced content is almost exclusively from broadcast and other traditional media to the internet. Accordingly, expectations about this content tended to follow that flow—for example, if something had been broadcast and then was made available on a catch-up service, then the same consumer expectations were likely to apply to both.

This general finding was reflected in attitudes to media brands—if the brand was well established, then the expectation was that the same standards would apply whether content was offline or online. Making a distinction between offline and online content was not as important to discussion group participants, but trust and confidence in the brand was.

Conversely, if the content service had been founded on the internet; for example, YouTube, then the expectations generally aligned with other expectations about online content—essentially, that few, if any, content-related standards were enforced, apart from those to do with illegal content.

When using YouTube and similar sites, which allow the sharing of video clips online, it was evident that many respondents accessed both user-generated content and professional content uploaded by media outlets and others. However, it was clear that views and expectations about video available on these sites depended to a large extent on whether it had been professionally produced or user-generated.

When user-generated content was picked up by broadcasters, there were a range of expectations about how it should be used, including the need to obtain consent from those depicted.

Community standards and classification for professionally produced content

Overall, the classification system for television programs was seen to reflect broad community standards. Participants agreed it was sensible to implement a system that classified programs according to their suitability for different age groups. They regarded this as a courtesy service for viewers, allowing them to make appropriate decisions about what they, and their children, choose to consume, and there was an expectation that subscription television services and ‘new’ free-to-air channels also follow the same classification system.

The classification system was mainly being used by parents in the groups as a guide for monitoring the content children may consume. It provided an indication as to whether parents should watch the programs with children or not allow them to watch them at all, as it gave some indication as to whether the program included violence, sex scenes, nudity or adult content:

It’s especially useful with other people’s kids. You can just say no to them watching it because you don’t know what their parents would do.

It’s an alert to me that I need to watch the show with them to see what is happening.

The classification system was less likely to be used as a guide for adult consumption, with participants explaining that they were able to determine the suitability of what they wanted to watch.

Parents regarded classification ratings and consumer advice to be one useful tool among others that can be used in the offline environment. Other physical interventions and tools that are available to parents to help them monitor what content their children view include:

• timeslot restrictions
• physically monitoring the content by watching the program with their child
• locks on digital television and Freeview channels
• parental lock for subscription television.

The expectation among participants was that those providing content would be responsible for providing advice on standards and ratings. Currently, providers of professional content made for broadcasting are largely responsive to the needs and wants of their customers.

That said, there was also an underlying expectation by participants that behind the scenes there was a government regulatory body for broadcast television to whom community members could complain should they be unable to resolve an issue with a provider. Many participants were not exactly sure who they would turn to; however, a minority were aware of the ACMA and the role it has to play.

Community standards for content online

From the qualitative research, parents in particular recognised the challenge the online environment posed in meeting community standards and the potential risks to their children. Physical interventions and tools, such as timeslots for particular programs and locking channels to restrict access, were seen as not effective for online content, given that most content is able to be downloaded or streamed on demand.

In these circumstances, participants expected online content to meet the standards of the website’s end users. Three different types of content were identified, with each expected to reflect different standards:

• Smaller sites, predominantly made up of user-generated content—for example, many blog sites—that have niche consumption, were expected to meet the standards of the small group of end users. Given this, participants did not believe standards needed to be so encompassing. Instead, they believed it should be up to individuals to self-regulate and decide for themselves whether to use those sites.
• Larger sites hosting user-generated content and that are bordering on mass consumption—for example, YouTube, Facebook—were expected to reflect relatively broad community standards. Participants expected these sites to demonstrate a sense of corporate social responsibility by monitoring content and, at a minimum, responding to users’ complaints. At the same time, they believed users should still take responsibility for self-regulating their use of these sites.
• Those sites with professionally produced content aimed at mass consumption were expected to uphold broader community standards. Participants believed these sites should be subject to some regulation and be responsible for providing information and advice according to established community standards.

Ideally, participants considered that professionally produced content available online should provide guidance about what that content contains. Participants believed the classification and ratings information that applied to broadcast television should also apply to on-demand television. They also considered that classification and ratings should apply to movies and games available online, given that all professionally produced mass-consumed content should be subject to community standards. Furthermore, as parents were less likely to have a comparative reference for movies and games than for television shows, it was felt to be almost more important that classification and ratings apply to these products.

Participants accepted that children would be likely to ignore classifications and rating advice provided for ‘online’ content and most were unlikely to alert their parent of the classification given. Indeed, this system could potentially backfire if some children actually sought out content they were otherwise not allowed to consume. To date, some parents reported finding their children watching television shows on their tablets and computers that they had not been allowed to watch on television.

That’s what happened. We didn’t let him watch Family Guy and the next thing you know he has it on his computer thingy [iPad].

Kids won’t pay any attention to it.

Despite these limitations, a classification and ratings system for online content was still considered useful for parents; in particular, to provide a framework for them to understand and manage their child’s online consumption of professionally produced content. Parents tended to manage children’s access by physically watching or monitoring what content they downloaded.

Given that most participants recognised a regulatory body exists to monitor and regulate professional content on broadcast television, some assumed that this may also be the case with online content provided by those with an offline presence.

Expectations of community standards for user-generated content online

In contrast to expectations about professional content, participants did not see user-generated content as something that should, or could, be regulated. Participants recognised that the internet is a tool for individuals to express themselves and their view. It also provides people with a vast array of choices about where to source information and is a means by which to educate people. Respondents felt very strongly about this. They considered that placing limitations on what can be accessed on the internet would be suppressive and did not accord with Australian culture:

You’d end up being like China.

That said, it was recognised that children may need to be protected from some online user-generated content where there is little reference or guidance provided as to the type of material. The greatest concern among parents in the groups was content containing violence and extreme behaviour:

You don’t know what that video is going to really show when you click on the link.

They think it’s going to be funny, but really they end up seeing things they are just not ready for.

I limit my children’s exposure to watching the news due to the horrific image they show … but you can’t do that online … they come across all sorts of things.

Although the capacity and resilience to deal with inappropriate content online is learnt over time by parents and their children, some parents expressed concerns about the speed in which developments have taken place on the internet and the sheer volume of content that is available to children.

Participants could see, for example, that parents could value having some guidance as to what user-generated content contains. However, in practice, all participants recognised that a classification and ratings system for user-generated content would logistically not be possible, given the sheer amount of this type of content that is available online:

Who would want to be the person who sits there and classifies all the YouTube videos?

Participants also recognised that it would be impossible to police or enforce classification or ratings systems among site providers.

That’s ridiculous, totally impossible. Only in 1984.

Ultimately, any sense of community standards applying to user-generated content was driven by those who consumed that content. People considered it was up to them to censor or regulate any content they were not happy with, either by not visiting the site or by complaining about it to the site owner or administrator.

Parents in the focus groups accepted that they should take responsibility and act as the regulator of their children’s internet use. Many said they were able to achieve this by using a number of tools or mechanisms.

First, they felt that educating themselves and ensuring their children were educated about the possible dangers of online content helped them to manage usage. Parents talked about trying to keep up to date with developments. However, it was evident that not all parents were finding it easy to keep up with the rapid changes or knew what to look out for.

Second, parents recognised that actually monitoring their children’s use, while not always possible, was still one of the most effective means of regulating usage. Third, they accepted that there is hard and soft infrastructure that helps them to regulate access. For example, only allowing their children to have a standard mobile phone, instead of a smartphone, is one way to limit access to content. They also talked about having a limited download amount and content filters to their internet at home. Some also used the parental lock function that is available on some digital televisions.

More information about attitudes to, and expectations of, media regulation is available in chapter 5 of Digital Australians.