In stunning testimony before a bipartisan Senate committee today, former executive Frances Haugen — Facebook’s worst nightmare — charged the unregulated monopoly with sowing violence and hate speech, deepening societal divides and destabilizing democracies. She said : “Trust is earned and Facebook has not earned our trust; it is not accountable to anyone…every human being deserves the dignity of the truth…Facebook should declare moral bankruptcy…”
Our own champion, Senator Ed Markey indicted the company for putting profits before people : ” We will not allow your (Zuckerberg) company to harm our children, our families and our democracy anymore.”
I believe Congress should amend Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act (1996) to hold social media companies liable — just like publishers — for slanderous content posted by third parties.
Bravo Frances Haugen and Ed Markey for speaking truth to power !
I wish they would ditch algorithms and be more particular about what they allow, but as a media platform government regulation risks first amendment issues.
First amendment issues don’t allow an unregulated monopoly to endanger our union, our system of justice, our domestic tranquility, common defense and general health and welfare of we the people.
The US government has been regulating broadcast and print media for as long as the government has existed.
One of the first elements to change is the explicit exclusion of social media, in federal law, from the laws that govern slander and libel. That carve-out exemplifies the way that the government not just allows but explicitly encourages this kind of abuse.
The principle that guides such practice aside from the carve-out is that any entity with editorial control over content is liable for damages resulting from that content. A newspaper that publishes a slanderous or libelous piece can be itself held liable for damages — in addition to the author of the offending material. The carve-out explicitly exempts social media from this exposure.
There is MUCH that can be done to get these abuses under control that falls well within First Amendment constraints.
I believe Congress should amend Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act (1996) to hold social media companies liable — just like publishers — for slanderous content posted by third parties.
Broadcast can be regulated because the public owns the airwaves and incitement is an appropriate exception, but my understanding was that libel and slander were grounds for lawsuits, but not prior restraint. There’s also the question of who is responsible. A newspaper has a finite staff and complete editorial control, whereas FB arguably offers itself as a platform where anyone can post material.
I share your sense that libel and slander are not grounds for prior restraint.
The key phrase is “editorial control”. Facebook and all the other social media platforms have and exercise the ability to remove content that they find objectionable. That is the key measure.
The editorial control already exists. If Section 230 (hat tip to Fred for the specific cite) were repealed, I’m quite sure that FB developers could quickly (as in hours) find ways to tune their automated filters to disallow this rubbish before it was posted.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that most of the misinformation we’re talking about is repetitive and is copied from one site to another. An entire industry already exists for flagging such material in real-time and even constructing the graph that leads back to the original sources.
This is a business, not technical, issue. FB leaves this material up because it is profitable to do so. The federal government has a variety of ways to adjust the profitability of misinformation like this.
FB absolutely has the editorial control if it chooses to exercise it. I guess part of me still thinks they also have a first amendment right to do such things as let even the most vile opinions stand or even come right out and say, “Yeah, we favor right-wing posts – do ya want to make something of it?”
There is a difference between a “vile opinion” and an outright slanderous or libelous lie that is shown to cause real damage.
This year’s pandemic — with all its suffering and massive economic impact — is the DIRECT result of misinformation from Fox and FB. Those outlets should be held liable for the resulting damages.
If FB and Fox were face with civil suits in the hundreds of billions (treble damages because of the egregiously dishonest behavior), they would find quickly change their ways.
Slander and libel usually refer to lies about individuals that have the effect of damaging reputations. There may be grounds for a suit here, but under a somewhat different legal theory.
My point is that our legal system has long ago found ways to regulate media while preserving our various constitutional protections.
Facebook whistleblower exposes
Zuckerberg’scapitalism’s moral bankruptcy. FTFYAs the saying goes, Nothing personal, just business.
I guess I’m still shocked to think that anyone expects our current American brand of winner take all capitalism to have a heart.