reports say the country's de facto leader aung san suu kyi, and other party leaders of the national league for democracy have been detained in a series of early morning raids. soldiers are on the streets of the capital naypyitaw and the main city yangon. the move comes after days of escalating tension between the civilian government and the powerful military that stirred fears of a coup in the aftermath of an election the army says was fraudulent. but at the weekend the army promised to abide by the country's constitution. tens of thousands of russians have taken to the streets for the second week running in the biggest protests against president putin and in support of the jailed activist alexei navalny for a decade. over 5,000 people have been detained. this is bbc news.

now on bbc news: after social media suspended donald trump, some have questioned the power of the silicon valley giants. has big tech gone too far, or is it long overdue? hello and welcome to global questions with me, zeinab badawi. many of us all over the world rely on social media for information, communication and entertainment, but the reach and power of big tech companies is worrying many. their decision to ban donald trump and decide what can and can't be said on their platforms has reignited the debate about freedom of speech and whether we need new laws to regulate the tech giants. that's global questions — social media, is it more powerful than governments?

well, to bring you this edition of global questions, as always, our questioners and our two panellistsjoin us via video link. so let me tell you who is in the hot seat this week giving the answers. kara swisher has been described by newsweek as silicon valley's most powerful technology journalist. she's been covering the tech industry for decades. kara co—founded recode, a tech news website, and co—hosts an influential interview podcast for the new york times called sway and pivot. and agnes callamard is director of global freedom of expression at columbia university in new york, which seeks to define and protect freedom of expression. she is also the united nations rapporteur on extrajudicial executions. and in march, agnes becomes secretary general of the human rights organisation amnesty international.

welcome to you also, agnes, and to my questioners, and to you, of course, wherever you are watching this programme. don't forget you too can join the conversation at #bbcglobalquestions. let's get down to our first question from alexander from texas in the united states, but is currently here in london. alexander, what do you want to ask our two panellists? thank you for having me today, zeinab. . i think my question is, - does big tech pose a danger to society, and if so, - what should policymakers do to solve this - potential problem? ok, let's just keep this one simple, then, at the outset, kara — does it pose a danger to society? well, it is a little broad a question. lot of things pose a... do cars pose a danger to society? in some cases, they do and in some cases they don't. but the first thing i'd like to say is there is no such thing as big tech. i think it's sort of a shorthand that media and regulators use. there is a lot of big tech companies and some are more

dangerous than others and some are more problematic than others. each of these companies, depending if it's facebook or apple or google and also its youtube division, each of them has to be regulated in a different way because they pose different problems. when i'd say, are they a danger? a lot of things they do are dangerous and they need, they are in desperate need of some regulation, largely because there hasn't been any regulation of tech companies, even though we spend a lot of time in this country, in the united states where i am, regulating cars and aeroplanes and wall street and all kinds of things. but the tech industry, for the most part, which is...all the companies in it are the most valuable in the world and the people who run them are the richest people in the world, have almost no regulations. so, yes, they need to be regulated, largely because there is no regulation and the question is how to do it correctly and keep innovation going at the same time. i'm sure we'll talk about that shortly. agnes, does big tech pose a danger to society? they are part of an ecosystem of dangers. so i will say they are one of the actors that can be

dangerous to human rights protection, but so are states around the world. while in the western part of the world we may be very focused on what big tech may be doing to democratic principles and human rights, we need to recognise that in other parts of the world, states continue to be the violator, in chief. states continue to be the censor, in chief. i think it is important to replace the role of those corporate actors within an ecosystem, and some of which are unregulated, aspects of which are unregulated, but they are not the only source of danger to the online world and to society. right, alexander, what do you think about what you've just heard? i definitely would have to agree with a lot, i with what they are saying. when i posed this question, i

i believe that in some senses it has, especially social media and facebook, instagram - and twitter, has somewhat exacerbated polarisation i and kind of radicalised somel users, and i feel like we have definitely seen thatl in american society, especially today. all right, ok, thanks very much indeed. i should say, the biden administration is considered to be quite disdainful, isn't it, of big tech and wants tougher regulation? all right, let's go to uganda now to kwehangana hamza. kwehangana, what is your question, please? thank you so much, zeinab, for the opportunity. - my question is do you think. government censorship solves the issues at hand regardless of who it affects? _ agnes, the role of governments in censorship, does that help at all? does it solve the issues at hand is what kwehangana is asking?

no. well, of course, states have to be part of a regulatory system, but as i havejust pointed out, states remain a main source of danger for human rights online, either on their own or in collusion and complicity with the so—called big tech companies. i don't think we... i need to remember the situation in china, in iran, in saudi arabia, where the states are censoring legitimate expression online and are creating a very dangerous environment online and off—line, and they are doing so either on their own or with the complicity of the big tech companies. so we need to think, i think, outside the notion that states are going to be the solutions as states. kara, how would

you answer this? is there a place for government censorship sometimes? it depends on where you are, right? nobody loves the internet more than an authoritarian government or a fascist. there's absolutely nobody who thinks it is better and they use these tools. you look at duterte in the philippines, and across the world, in saudi arabia, they abuse these tools. as agnes was saying, what happens is, the issue isn't necessarily the tools themselves, it is how they are used and deployed and how they're monitored and managed. i think one of the things i always think about is that hitler didn't need twitter to do what he did, mussolini didn't need instagram. i know it sounds crazy, stalin didn't need reddit. these people used the tools of the time, whether it was newsreels or other means of propaganda and so we have to really be thinking hard about how to figure out how to not let this come down to companies deciding these things.

with regards to censorship in the united states, impossible with government doing anything around that. we have a thing called the first amendment and most people misread it badly, but it is congress shall make no law abridging freedom of press among other rights that they give the citizens of the united states, so it couldn't even ever happen here, the idea of the government having a speech regime that it would impose. that said, because we are so in love with free speech in the united states, or at least the idea of it, we don't understand that some speech is not free and we can't say anything we want, especially when it comes to private companies. kwehangana, you're from uganda and of course president museveni during the presidential elections in january suspended all internet gateways during the election for four days and there are still some just give us an idea of what the state of affairs is as far as the internet is concerned. well, it is basically, - like after the four—five days of the internet shutdown, it was rolled back on andl ideally, at the moment, it is censored. - we can't access some l social media platforms,

like facebook, twitter, - youtube, which is actually my main platform that i use - to create and publish content. and basically, even— the internet speeds have been kind of suffocated. all right. thanks very much indeed for telling us that. all right, let's go to hong kong to samantha cheung. samantha, what is your question, please? thank you, zeinab. so obviously, tech firms can't make the decisions for usersi but we seen they have the power to remove users like _ donald trump, my question would be do you think- they should decide who can gol on the platform and who can't? this has generated a great deal of discussion. are these commercial, private outfits or do they operate in the public interest? how would you answer, for samantha? it is important to keep in mind these are private,

profit—making companies owned by some of the richest people in the world and are some of the most valuable companies in the world. they can do whatever they want. people for some reason decided they have to operate in the public interest. they absolutely do not have to operate in any interest but their own and their shareholders' interest. that's one thing to keep in mind. it is really hard to separate out what happened with donald trump from the actual issue, which is about concentration of power, that there are too few tech companies running most of the game going on. that is the problem we face, concentration of power. in this case, two people, jack dorsey of twitter and mark zuckerberg of facebook, and in part google and youtube, made the right decision to remove donald trump. he had been violating their rules constantly. the problem is, they were arbitrary with him and others, making baby steps, adding on disputed links, which is very confusing. donald trump said, which any troll would do, he continued to push the line, until he pushed too far around

the attack on the capitol. they were waiting for this chance to do this, because they have some very bright lines, even though they are arbitrary all over the place. you can't incite violence, child pornography is a red line and so is terrorism. you could argue donald trump violated two of those very bright red lines, domestic terrorism and inciting violence. so it was the right decision, but should the decision be in the hands of so few people is the issue. agnes, your answer on this question? i would slightly disagree, just in terms of the nature of those companies. yes, by the legal construct they are private corporations and are answerable to their shareholders. by virtue of their size, by virtue of their role, by virtue of the fact they are powering the most important technology for global economy, for the world,

at all level, including peace and conflict, for all those reasons i think those corporations are taking a different persona. and i think we need to replace their legal constructions within the era we live in, which is founded very largely by that technology. second, the fact there are so few of them means that they exercise such a strong monopoly of a crucial dimension of our private and social life, our access to information, government services and so on and so forth. so i personally think that we need to think more of them as, at times, if not all the time, exercising public services. it does not mean that they work in the public interest, it does not mean they are not answerable to their shareholders, but we need to understand them as exercising

some or a lot of public services, and that is why the nature of the regulation that we impose or we think or, in fact, we create, need to take into account those dimensions. can i make a point? go ahead. we regulate differently in this country, but they are not. we wish it so, it is not the way it is. the government has to act to make them into utilities, but right now they are absolutely private, profit—making companies. let's go to berlin in germany. my question is, should i the government be online to enforce content regulation? or should this come _ from the social media companies themselves? and if there is a problem with content, how do - you regulate that?

both of you have hinted at regulation in some of your answers, but be explicit now. how would you regulate and who does it? agnes? look, let me first make a very short and important point. we are in a very unsettled era when it comes to regulations and to the technology, and the reason we are having so many debates is because it is changing all the time. the technology evolves, the action evolves, the behaviours evolve. it is extremely unsettled, and what it means, in that kind of environment, to create institution and laws is extremely difficult. because they are likely to be completely outdated, possibly within a 6—month period. so let's be part of a very dynamic movement. right now, let's not think

that we will get the final stage of the regulation now. i think it is going to take at least a good decade. second, i do think that there are a number of actors who have a role to play. they are exploring those roles. when it comes to the corporate actors, i believe in self—regulation. i don't think they have taken it seriously so far, those so—called big tech. meaningful self—regulation is far more stringent than those little steps that they have taken. kara, this question of regulation, how and what and who? obviously, it is coming in the united states but it has been extraordinarily slow — they're not gonna self—regulate properly. when i say there is no such thing as big tech, the problems are different. the problems of amazon are different from facebook and apple and the others and each must be dealt

with in a different way. we use a lot of tools. one is of easily the worst for a lot of these companies which is anti—trust, which would break them up in some way — similar with what happened to microsoft, although it never did get broken up in the end after a court appeal, but it did slow them down and allow for innovation. so anti—trust is one way to do that, to make them less strong and to create movement for other innovative companies to come up. there are also fines that are — ftc in this country, at least, and across the world can impose — the eu has done and the fdc here on that. that can happen too, and that sometimes is good, but in the case of facebook was like a parking ticket, $5 billion — seems a lot to you and me but nothing to facebook, they make that in five minutes essentially. then there are ways to have policy you can pass, whether it is privacy laws, data laws and other things. and the one way i think will be most important, besides global shame or reporting and things like that, or consumer advocacy, is the idea of liability. and at least in the united states, we have something

called section 230 which is under a lot of debate, which gives broad immunity to these platforms for what is on them. if there is some liability attached to the things, the toxic waste which blows over, the content that blows over these corporations, they are going to do something about it. they have not been needed to. and that's really, to me, if they have to pay more, they will behave better, and that is the way it is with most corporate citizens. thank you. priya, what do you think about what you just heard? thank you. iagree. i think that actually _ technology develops so quickly it is difficult for regulationl and legislation to keep up. i personally do think| there could be a role for government around i online regulation in terms of the laws and the legislation they can set up, but this has i to be done in a way that can protect citizens and stop - the spread of misinformation, as opposed to censorship - as we have seen in the past. thanks very much indeed, priya.

now to new delhi, india. my question goes as follows. should we have tougher laws, for example, on what - constitutes hate speech? - kara? we don't have any for the most part. yes, absolutely. i think what agnes was talking about the same thing — we have left it to these companies to make the decisions. it is sort of like someone who owns a city that has no stop signs, has no sewer systems, has no water system, has no police and things happen just the way they happen. so i think getting some laws in place that are stronger and have some teeth to them is really what we have to do. i think there is no question that our regulators have let us down for the most part, in dealing with these big tech companies over the decades that they have become so powerful. agnes, do we need tougher international laws on hate speech? the key word here is �*international�* because at national level, there is plenty of laws on hate speech,

incitement to violence and so on. the problem at international level, there is no agreement as to what constitutes hate speech. we have an article under the international covenant that prohibits incitement to violence, but that is about it. and for the last a0 years, there has been no agreement as to what hate speech constitutes, online or off—line. so while i agree, i'm not sure it is going to be a very easy solution to get. now we will go to princeton outside new york in the united states. carissa gonzales. my question is how can the us and other countries work- together to prevent - the misuse of technology? for example, the use of data to target ethnic minorities. . when i say 'data', i refer- to the expansion of big data, facial recognition and all tools, and their potential

to be misused, for- instance, by more actors getting into this space, all right, thank you. i fully agree with carissa. we have a fundamental problem in terms of the algorithm and the technology itself. on one hand, it needs to be de—colonised in terms of being far more equitable in its handling, in how people use it and have access to it, and on the other hand, it also needs to be far less biased and discriminatory. i am not sure that this needs to be done through a government—led process at the moment. i think there is more that can be done through the technology itself, in terms of unpacking and ensuring that it is not as biased as it is at the moment. but in situations where the use of data becomes a source of legally defined

discrimination, or is at the heart of the use of violence, then of course there is a space for government to intervene. 0k, thank you. kara? the problem with all these tools is it depends on who is using them. i mean, you try to think — brad smith of microsoft, he wrote a great book called tools and weapons. these are both tools for the betterment of humanity and they're weapons against humanity. i think the thing that is the lowest common denominator there is humanity. and that's what happens when you put tools in the hands of people, depending on who the actor is, they're gonna use them in different ways. so in areas like facial recognition and things like that, it should require enormous government regulation and pushback against countries like china and others who are using it as a surveillance economy

essentially is what they're doing — they're spending enormous amounts of money spying on their own citizens. how to we then enforce that in any way? that is the real difficulty. whatever tool you put in people's hands, just like a knife, they can kill you with it or make a sandwich. itjust it just depends on who itjust depends on who is using them — a quick response from you, carissa, and what you heard? thank you, i think that kind of -ot thank you, i think that kind of got to— thank you, i think that kind of got to the _ thank you, i think that kind of got to the heart _ thank you, i think that kind of got to the heart of— thank you, i think that kind of got to the heart of it - thank you, i think that kind of got to the heart of it with - got to the heart of it with kind _ got to the heart of it with kind of— got to the heart of it with kind of costs _ got to the heart of it withj kind of costs plummeting got to the heart of it with - kind of costs plummeting into the computer— kind of costs plummeting into the computer power - kind of costs plummeting into the computer power rising - kind of costs plummeting into. the computer power rising with these _ the computer power rising with these tools _ i think we're going to see | many more actors getting into the space and so i am curious what we can do . in an international sense, - maybe through the un and other agencies to work towards preventing that misuse. i our final question is from nairobi. william. thank you very much, zeinab. now, these conversations - going on about big tech giants are being essentially too bigi to an extent where they have too much monopolies.

as a result, they have power over economy, | society and democracy. is breaking them up - an idea worth considering? thank you very much indeed. so, agnes first, then, kara. agnes. yes — i mean, why not? i'm not sure it will solve all of the problems. the european union has been trying to break some of those corporations in one way or the another and has used anti—trust law repeatedly to address the lack of competitiveness and the implications for the consumers — not with great success so far. the second issue is that we need to question independently of the fact that those companies, because they are so powerful now, may be preventing competition from emerging. it is, of course, where we need to go to — we need to have far more competitions and more choices — but we need to reflect on how we do it, and what it means about creation, innovation and continuing exclusion.

that sounds like you're saying "yes, do break them up", if i can summarise it like that, agnes. kara? your response. i think it will be depending on the company you're dealing with, whether it is with facebook, apple or amazon and they are all, again, very different. i think it is probably the slowest way to deal with companies and usually the most ineffective way, because it takes the longest. i think there's other ways to get them to a different place. they are also incredibly willing to fight these things. but the fact of the matter is, in this country, for example, we did fight big oil, we did fight big telecom and stuff like that, so it has happened before — there have been trust—busters and there's a lot of politicians here and abroad who can do this. i think the question is, we have to use all these tools, including our own ability to press, as citizens, to press these companies to do better and press our regulators to do better and that is the real question —

if we can spur innovation anywhere around the world, that should be our focus. but should they be broken up? there are conversations being had in the united states, some in the biden camp saying "break up google". i don't think there will be. i think there will be some strictures, and consentagrees but that is very tough road. the idea that governments cannot do this, they can do it. they have done it in the past and they will do it again. thank you to you, kara, agnes. that is all from this edition of global questions. social media, more powerful than government? remember, we are the programme that brings you the trend lines behind the headlines. and i think as governments try to figure out what to do with big tech, i hope we have brought you some of the issues being grappled with. thank you to questions my and two panellists and to you, wherever you are watching or listening to the programme. if you want to be part of the programme or submit a question, please e—mail us. till the next time, from me, zeinab badawi, and the rest of the global questions team, goodbye.

monday getting off to a frosty start we have had the clearest quys start we have had the clearest guysin start we have had the clearest guys in northern england and scotland and a few wintry showers in northern and eastern scotland so it could be icy in a few places are not as cold as the other day through northern ireland, wales, is tingly with the cloud is damp readily in places and a few spots brightening up at rain and hills no pushing across northern ireland as we go on through the afternoon. not quite as cold, the top temperatures may be not so much as you will notice the difference, the main sleet and snow feeding into parts of scotland on monday evening, some heavy rain feeding northwards across the uk during the night, bumping into cold air will bring some snow to parts of wales the midlands

northern ireland before richard's terrain turning very nice here and more snow into northern england and scotland on tuesday morning so some difficult travel conditions start the day, snow continuing to fall in the pennines and parts of scotland as the day goes on. elsewhere it is turning milder on tuesday, but a bit of sunshine and some heavy showers too.

our top stories: an apparent military coup is underway in myanmar. the country's de facto leader aung san sui kyi has been detained. the military complained about alleged irregularities in last november's election but at the weekend promised to abide by the country's constitution. yelling. more than 5,000 people are arrested in russia, as protests take place in support ofjailed opposition leader, alexei navalny. the eu commission president tells pharmaceutical companies that problems with the supply of coronavirus vaccines must be addressed.