الضوابط الأخيرة، التي أصدرتها هيئة تنظيم الإعلام تجاه المحتوى الإعلامي في المنصات الرقمية، تكشف أن ممارسات الجمهور الاتصالية في تلك المنصات ليست ناضجة حتى الآن، وتجاوز بعضها خطوط القيم والذوق العام، كما تمثّل من جانب آخر حالة تصعيد رسمي في هذا التوقيت؛ لمواجهة المحتوى الهابط في تلك المنصات، التي وصلت إلى حالة من التفاهة لا يمكن القبول بها فضلاً عن السكوت عنها.
شملت هذه الضوابط عدم استخدام اللغة المبتذلة في الحديث، أو التباهي بالأموال والممتلكات والسيارات، أو تصوير الأطفال أو العمالة المنزلية، إلى جانب إظهار الخلافات الأسرية وكشف خصوصيات العائلة، كذلك التنمر أو الإساءة أو الازدراء للأشخاص، أو ارتداء لباس يُظهر الجسد بشكل مبتذل أو غير محتشم.
جميع هذه الضوابط في الأساس تم التأكيد عليها في كثير من الأنظمة والتعليمات التي أصدرتها الهيئة في وقت سابق، ومن ذلك التنمر أو التشهير أو الإساءة للآخرين، ولكن الجديد هذه المرة أنها جاءت مفصّلة وواضحة في التعبير عن ممارساتها، وهذا مؤشر إيجابي لعملية الرصد والتحليل، ونضج تجربة الهيئة المؤسسية في التعاطي مع هذه التحديات والتعامل معها وفق النظام.
هناك من يرى أن هذه الضوابط تقييد للحريات المجتمعية، والرد الذي ينسف هذه الرواية أن الحرية الإعلامية لا تعني الانفلات من مصفوفة القيم الوطنية والمجتمعية، ولا تعني أن يكون لها سقف خاص تتجاوز به محددات الفكر والتعبير، أو هامش يُتيح لها تناول ما تريد في أي وقت وأي مكان، وبالتالي هذه الحرية منضبطة حتى في أكثر الدول ديمقراطية.
ورأينا هذا الضبط مثلاً في أمريكا الشهر الجاري حينما أصدرت الحكومة تعليماتها لوسائل الإعلام بعد مقتل الناشط تشارلي كيرك؛ وذلك لمواجهة انقسام الرأي العام الأمريكي حول الحادثة، واستغلال معارضي الرئيس ترمب الحدث لصالحهم، حيث وصلت هذه التعليمات إلى إيقاف تقديم برامج إعلامية شهيرة في عدد من القنوات، مثل البرنامج الكوميدي جيمي كيميل، وأعادت تلك التعليمات عبارة «أمريكا أولاً»، وذلك في إشارة إلى أن أمن المجتمع واستقراره له أولوية مطلقة في التصدي لأيٍّ من محاولات الخروج عن النص، أو الاقتراب من الخطوط الحمراء، وهذه أمريكا سيدة الحرية تمارس عملية الضبط إذا وصل الأمر إلى تهديد حقيقي لأمن المجتمع، وقس على ما بعدها.
السؤال الآن عن مدى كفاية هذه الضوابط في التصدي للمحتوى الهابط، ومدى الالتزام بها ومتابعة تنفيذها، والجواب أنها غير كافية، لكنها خطوة في اتجاه صحيح، وسيعقبها رصد وتحليل للممارسات الاتصالية للجمهور في المنصات، وبناءً عليه يتم التقييم والتقدير، وربما التصعيد في إجراءات أخرى مستقبلاً، ومن ذلك على سبيل المثال التفكير في ضبط التحويلات المالية للمشاهير في المنصات، وذلك بالتنسيق مع البنك المركزي، باعتبار أن البحث عن المال والكسب السريع أحد أهم أسباب نشر المحتوى المخالف، إضافة إلى منع الجهات الحكومية والشركات المملوكة للدولة أو المساهمة فيها، أو الشركات التي تعمل في مشروعات كبرى مع القطاع الحكومي من الاستعانة بمشاهير المحتوى الهابط في حملاتها الإعلامية والتسويقية.
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
The latest regulations issued by the Media Regulatory Authority regarding media content on digital platforms reveal that the communication practices of the public on these platforms are not yet mature, with some crossing lines of values and public taste. On the other hand, this represents an official escalation at this time to confront the low-quality content on these platforms, which has reached a level of triviality that cannot be accepted, let alone ignored.
These regulations include prohibiting the use of vulgar language in conversations, boasting about money, possessions, and cars, filming children or domestic workers, as well as displaying family disputes and revealing family privacy. They also cover bullying, abuse, or contempt towards individuals, or wearing clothing that exposes the body in a vulgar or immodest manner.
All of these regulations were essentially emphasized in many systems and instructions previously issued by the authority, including bullying, defamation, or abuse of others. However, what is new this time is that they have been detailed and clearly expressed in their practices, which is a positive indicator for the monitoring and analysis process and the maturity of the authority's institutional experience in dealing with these challenges and addressing them according to the system.
Some see these regulations as a restriction on societal freedoms, and the response that undermines this narrative is that media freedom does not mean a departure from the matrix of national and societal values, nor does it mean having a special ceiling that exceeds the limits of thought and expression, or a margin that allows it to address whatever it wants at any time and place. Thus, this freedom is regulated even in the most democratic countries.
We saw this regulation, for example, in America this month when the government issued its instructions to media outlets following the killing of activist Charlie Kirk; this was to address the division in American public opinion regarding the incident and to prevent opponents of President Trump from exploiting the event for their benefit. These instructions included halting popular media programs on several channels, such as the Jimmy Kimmel comedy show, and reinstated the phrase "America First," indicating that the security and stability of society have absolute priority in confronting any attempts to deviate from the norm or approach red lines. This is America, the land of freedom, exercising regulation when it comes to a real threat to community security, and the same applies to what follows.
The question now is about the adequacy of these regulations in addressing low-quality content, and the extent of compliance with them and monitoring their implementation. The answer is that they are insufficient, but they are a step in the right direction. This will be followed by monitoring and analyzing the communication practices of the public on the platforms, based on which evaluation and assessment will occur, and possibly escalation in other measures in the future. For example, there may be consideration of regulating financial transfers for celebrities on the platforms, in coordination with the central bank, given that the pursuit of quick money and profit is one of the main reasons for spreading non-compliant content. Additionally, it would involve preventing government entities and state-owned or participating companies, or companies working on major projects with the government sector, from employing celebrities associated with low-quality content in their media and marketing campaigns.
These regulations include prohibiting the use of vulgar language in conversations, boasting about money, possessions, and cars, filming children or domestic workers, as well as displaying family disputes and revealing family privacy. They also cover bullying, abuse, or contempt towards individuals, or wearing clothing that exposes the body in a vulgar or immodest manner.
All of these regulations were essentially emphasized in many systems and instructions previously issued by the authority, including bullying, defamation, or abuse of others. However, what is new this time is that they have been detailed and clearly expressed in their practices, which is a positive indicator for the monitoring and analysis process and the maturity of the authority's institutional experience in dealing with these challenges and addressing them according to the system.
Some see these regulations as a restriction on societal freedoms, and the response that undermines this narrative is that media freedom does not mean a departure from the matrix of national and societal values, nor does it mean having a special ceiling that exceeds the limits of thought and expression, or a margin that allows it to address whatever it wants at any time and place. Thus, this freedom is regulated even in the most democratic countries.
We saw this regulation, for example, in America this month when the government issued its instructions to media outlets following the killing of activist Charlie Kirk; this was to address the division in American public opinion regarding the incident and to prevent opponents of President Trump from exploiting the event for their benefit. These instructions included halting popular media programs on several channels, such as the Jimmy Kimmel comedy show, and reinstated the phrase "America First," indicating that the security and stability of society have absolute priority in confronting any attempts to deviate from the norm or approach red lines. This is America, the land of freedom, exercising regulation when it comes to a real threat to community security, and the same applies to what follows.
The question now is about the adequacy of these regulations in addressing low-quality content, and the extent of compliance with them and monitoring their implementation. The answer is that they are insufficient, but they are a step in the right direction. This will be followed by monitoring and analyzing the communication practices of the public on the platforms, based on which evaluation and assessment will occur, and possibly escalation in other measures in the future. For example, there may be consideration of regulating financial transfers for celebrities on the platforms, in coordination with the central bank, given that the pursuit of quick money and profit is one of the main reasons for spreading non-compliant content. Additionally, it would involve preventing government entities and state-owned or participating companies, or companies working on major projects with the government sector, from employing celebrities associated with low-quality content in their media and marketing campaigns.


