What responsibility do platforms that facilitate violent exchanges truly hold? Should legislative measures clarify this duty?
Youth crime has surged into the spotlight recently, particularly with the alarming trend of orchestrating criminal activities through social media—an unsettling practice known to law enforcement as “crime as a service.”
This issue extends beyond encrypted platforms like Telegram and Signal; Instagram and Snapchat have also become channels for ordering heinous acts, allegedly committed by increasingly younger perpetrators. The escalation has sparked numerous proposals for legislative reforms, targeting both prevention strategies and the bolstering of police and child protection resources, as well as advocating for harsher penalties for recruitment into crime and enhanced detention measures for youth.
Yet, amid this urgent dialogue, a significant topic remains unsettlingly quiet: the accountability of technology companies in perpetuating this “crime as a service” model. Today, a vulnerable 13-year-old can be easily reached by criminal elements, whether in the privacy of their homes or while confined to institutions. Although society has always had at-risk youth, the digital age presents unprecedented avenues for their exploitation.
The Elephant in the Room
In crime prevention, a common and effective strategy is to alter environmental designs to make offenses more challenging to execute, a practice known as situational crime prevention.
For instance, in the wake of rising traffic accidents, it’s natural to address road safety and design rather than simply imposing harsher penalties on reckless drivers.
Using this analogy, it’s clear that Norwegian children and youths are navigating perilous paths in the realm of digital interaction. Unlike our physical roadways, however, this virtual landscape is managed by powerful, foreign corporate entities often resistant to regulatory measures.
It’s not unusual for private entities to bear responsibility for crime prevention. Banks, for instance, are mandated to fight money laundering and terrorist funding by thoroughly vetting their customers. Similarly, airlines face penalties if they transport passengers lacking valid documentation.
In discussions about curbing youth crime, these commercial giants often emerge as the proverbial elephant in the room, owning and operating the infrastructures that facilitate these offensives.
Engaging technology firms in this conversation proves difficult; however, they wield substantial resources and are simultaneously devising more sophisticated methods for detecting harmful content. While companies like Snapchat claim to collaborate with law enforcement, there exists a troubling lack of transparency regarding these partnerships.
Recent Nordic studies have suggested that the algorithms employed by these entities may inadvertently boost criminal activity by simplifying connections between buyers and sellers of violence. It’s high time these firms faced accountability, undergoing scrutiny regarding their role in crime prevention and their inherent social responsibilities.
Presently, very little is known about their actual operations, and public discourse seldom demands this clarity. Take Signal, for example—it offers a service rooted in end-to-end encryption, which is undeniably crucial given the rising concerns over surveillance, yet it’s unclear why this service has a 13-year age restriction.
Against American Conditions?
Every crime prevention measure carries an inherent risk of unintended consequences. The pressing question remains: who should shoulder this burden? Vulnerable youths trapped in a cycle of crime, prosperous tech companies, or the general populace potentially facing restrictions on their freedoms?
Controlling undesirable behaviors, notably criminal actions, often creates a tension between liberty and oversight. Comparative research indicates that societies valuing individual freedoms tend to rely more heavily on punitive measures as their primary form of crime control.
The United States presents a stark example of this dilemma, where the reluctance to regulate gun sales exemplifies a national ethos that prioritizes personal freedom over public safety. The chilling phrase, “Guns don’t kill people—people kill people,” reflects a societal unwillingness to acknowledge the role of easy access to firearms in escalating gun violence and homicide rates. It demonstrates that without effective regulation, punitive measures alone are insufficient to curtail violent crime.
A Challenge to Tradition
In contrast, European nations maintain a stronger tradition of addressing the structural roots of crime, demonstrating a more proactive approach to regulating digital actors. In 2022, the EU enacted the Digital Services Act, mandating that digital platforms assess how their design—including algorithms—can contribute to systemic risks like misinformation, election interference, and the exploitation of minors.
While this legislation awaits implementation within Norwegian law, France has taken a step further by enforcing changes that stipulate age verification requirements on specific digital platforms.
Norway has historically favored a judicious approach to punishment, allocating resources to more rehabilitative means in its crime-fighting efforts. This strategy has contributed to a safer and more humane society compared to many others.
Nonetheless, this tradition now faces mounting pressure. Beyond concerns about rising crime resembling that in Sweden, we must also consider the risks of adopting an American-style approach to criminal policy if technology companies continue to evade their responsibilities in the fight against crime.