As Congress put some Big Tech CEOs on the grid this week, Democratic leaders were busy in the background, working on proposals to change the way section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is written. . Unfortunately, there are many people on both sides of the ideological divide who have been angry at both the actions of Twitter and Facebook, along with the rest of the heavyweights on social media, who seem to support this kind of action seems to be growing. But what House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (DN.J.) and his colleagues plan to do will not stop some of the worst abuses of Jack Dorsey and company. Instead, it will open the door to unofficial censorship of anyone with insufficiently aroused opinions and could lead to endless lawsuits, not only against social media platforms, but also against all online content publishers. (Axios)
The question is not if it is necessary to regulate technology companies, but how, the chairman of the house energy and trade committee, Frank Pallone (DN.J.), explains to Margaret Harding McGill of Axios.
Why is it important?: Democrats, empowered in Congress and enraged by misinformation about vaccines and elections, agree that it is time to legislate on technology policy, including updating the key law that protects them from responsibility for user-generated content. The path to approving an invoice is a little clearer and there have been indications that the larger technology platforms are ready to accept some changes.
Driving the news: Pallone said he wants to target the financial incentives of online platforms to expand misinformation and extreme content.
Pallone cleverly frames the discussion by talking about the “most outrageous and extremist” content (his words) and how Facebook and Twitter are “taking advantage” because it is the type of content that generates many clicks. It is taken for granted that flashy, inflammatory headlines draw eyeballs, and if Democrats seem like the only person punished is a multimillionaire like Zuckerberg and Dorsey, it’s easy to get people to join by opening the door to demands and regulations.
Here we have to keep two things in mind. First, the Decency in Communications Act does not only apply to social media platforms. In fact, the original legislation was written long before these platforms were even a blink in the eyes of their creators. These rules apply to any web medium where news and opinions are published and, more precisely, to any place that allows public comment.
The biggest problem, however, is that opening the door to demands and restrictions involves a system in which someone will have to decide what qualifies as “outrageous and extremist” content. Even labeling something as “misinformation” opens the door to rampant abuse. We’ve seen too many examples of blocking Facebook and Twitter content or suspending / banning users (almost entirely conservative voices) to post comments that are considered “harmful.” This is often done under the guise of supposedly passing bad information about the pandemic, but these patterns of behavior shift into discussions about racism, social inequality, and almost every other divisive topic you’d like to name.
People have been suspended from Twitter for suggesting that the new coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, although the former CDC chief recently said he believed it would be the same. Twitter suspended the New York Post account for weeks because they were linked to one of their own stories about Hunter Biden that ended up being 100% claimed. (Dorsey told Congress this week that the decision was “a mistake,” but would not say who made the decision or what process was used to evaluate the content). Other examples abound.
The point is that there will be no clear definitions as to what speech is allowed and what is “extremely dangerous misinformation” other than those generated by publishers. And with section 230 modified the way Democrats propose, the Liberals will soon be exploring the comment sections of websites like the one you’re reading now. As soon as they find someone quoting the Danish medical study to say that cloth masks are not effective in protecting uninfected people from contracting the virus, they can file a lawsuit against our company for allowing “dangerous misinformation” to appear. in our place. (Although the results of this study have never been refuted.)
These lawsuits (or, at the very least, should) eventually fail for First Amendment reasons, but too many of these frivolous attacks will generate massive legal bills that will keep some smaller publishers out of business. So don’t be too quick in supporting Pallone’s proposal just because you think it will punish Facebook and Twitter. There is a Trojan horse hidden in this plane and Democrats are fully aware of it. It is not a mistake. It is a feature.