Focus on their damage to holding giant technology companies accountable

Last July, one of the famous content facility on the Tik -Tok platform in Malaysia informed local police that he had received users on the platform rape and murder threats. A day later, Rajssori Abho, known on the Internet known as “Ishha”, committed suicide. Later, one of the accused of electronic bullying was allowed by guilt in communication crimes via Tech Tech, and was fined 100 Ringet Malaysian (equivalent to $ 23). Ishha suicide and consequences described the Malaysian Minister of Communications, Ishha’s suicide as “the straw that broke the camel’s back”, in the context of his defense of the large -scale new licensing requirements for social media platforms in the country, which will come into effect next year. Nevertheless, the question arises as to whether this universal and unclear organization of major technology companies will prevent such tragedies. The question has become how technology companies are liable for the realistic damage caused by their services is one of the most important challenges at the moment, which is a broad global discussion. For example, the “X” platform (Twitter “previously stopped working in Brazil due to organizational differences, and last week France charged the founder of the” Telegram “application, Pavel Dorov, related to his collusion with crimes committed by the application. Politicians have considered a victory for freedom of expression. will affect and claim self -regulation. Despite this criticism, the Malaysian government is still moving forward in its plan, emphasizing that the goal is to reduce electronic fraud and bullying and protect the youth on the Internet. However, the details of these regulations remain unclear, as organizational guidelines have not yet been completed. Increased government control and requests for the removal of content. Despite these developments, Malaysians have the right to be concerned about possible restrictions on freedom of expression, away from the interests of billionaires who want to protect their personal interests. In an amnesty International report of 2024, it is indicated that the area of ​​freedom of expression in the country has decreased, as the government still uses oppressive laws to quiet critical votes. The use of the licensing system is a common way to utilize the editorial control of the media. In this context, this year Malaysia reached the 107th case in the Global Press Freedom Index by the ‘Reporters Without Borders’, after it was 73 in the previous year. As the role of traditional media institutions shrinks, many Malaysians have gone to the Internet to express their opinion and opposition, but it seems that the authorities are now trying to put control of this content. In this context, the Malaysian government submitted the largest number of requests last year to remove content from the “Tek Tok” platform in the world. The number of these requests increased from only 5 requests in 2021 to 2202 requests, which is an indication of the escalation of the government’s efforts to control the online content. The fear that an attempt to organize social media can be used as a tool to silence freedom of expression in Malaysia is completely legal. A local media was quoted by the Deputy Premier, saying that the license could help reduce the spread of ‘negative perceptions’ of the government. Malaysian officials have the right to try to organize this industry, and the licensing system can carry some capabilities, but it should provide clear details on how to hold major technology companies responsible. Possible bullying solutions until these details are provided, it is still unclear how the licensing system can contribute to the prevention of e -bulcying, such as those that led to the death of Ishha. Although threats for violence against women on the Internet cannot be considered in any way within freedom of expression, it is difficult to suggest that such laws can fully achieve this purpose. The balance between freedom and organization must begin with effective solutions. Malaysian lawmakers are currently discussing the issue of criminalization of electronic bullying and finds ways to improve liability on social media platforms, even in the absence of the licensing law. In this context, officials said the ‘Tik Talk’ platform promised to look seriously about what happened in the Ishha case, and to provide the necessary support, including the number of direct supervisors and supervisors of content in Tamil language. This simple step can be sufficient to avoid such attacks in the future. What happens in Malaysia reminds us that these platforms, which have become very popular and strong, cannot be relied on as basic instruments for civil discussion. It is not traditional media or public arenas, but companies that try to grow growth through work models that can clash with social cohesion in their essence. Often, controversial and divisional content attracts more interaction compared to complex or boring facts. Therefore, policymakers should focus on taking on real damage while drafting legislation. Malaysian society has shown its power to suppress efforts to suppress freedom of expression, but the increasing online violations have shown the need for greater protection. This confrontation in Malaysia can be a test for the maturity of other countries’ reactions to such challenges. In short, the article deals with the challenges associated with the organization of major technology companies, focusing on the damage done by these platforms, as well as in the case of suicide of the Malaysian content “IASA” after being exposed to electronic bullying via Tok. The article raises questions about how technology companies are held accountable for the realistic damage caused by their services, suggesting that the organization of these companies should focus on the treatment of damage rather than infringing the freedom of expression. The article discusses the continued controversy in Malaysia on the licensing and government organization of social media platforms, and expresses the fear that this organization can be used as a tool to reduce freedom of expression. On the other hand, the need for effective legislation arises to combat electronic bullying and protect individuals, especially women, from online threats. The article ultimately focuses on the need to find a balance between protecting freedom of expression and organizing technology companies, while emphasizing that solutions should focus on reducing the actual damage caused by these platforms.