#310: Revisiting Section 230
.............................
Steve Randy Waldman, writing in the Atlantic, describes Section 230 as "the 1996 law that ruined the internet". He goes on to suggest that we'd be better off simply repealing it.
[In short, 230 allows social media to either ignore or curate content posted by third parties (you and me) without being libel for what is posted or taken down.]
Waldman's argument makes sense. Here it is in a nutshell, followed by a summary of other points of view:
* With repeal, big social media companies would be responsible for what's published on their sites. So, they'd tighten their standards and become a bland landscape of cat videos and not much else, since liability would be too scary. No getting anywhere near borderline hate speech, etc.,
* Meanwhile, smaller sites would take moderation seriously, using humans, and as a result flourish, setting their standards higher or lower, but being sure not to cross the line into what is defamatory and maliciously misleading.
Suddenly, we'd have something like broadcast/cable television. One larger market with strict rules, and one smaller and varied, with carefully moderated sites.
And here are a few condensed arguments for other criticism / solutions (with my comments in green):
** Repealing would lead to more concentration, not less
Much depends on how good the AI doing the moderating would be. But big corporations with assets to protect aren't likely to take big chances. And with so many people posting....
And, if it turns out that everybody stays on Facebook, Twitter, etc., just because everybody else does, then standards have been tightened, and that may be half the problem solved ('push' algorithms aren't as big a problem if the extremist content is gone).
** Remove protection for sites that use algorithms and 'push' content; retain protection for others
Possibly. But isn't an algorithm that matches user interests with content inherently a plus, absent extremism and any untoward motives?
** The problem is algorithms selecting for extremism -- make this illegal
Maybe. Would be much more elegant to simply repeal a law, rather than setting up a long list of negatories to be avoided.
** The problem is monopoly power
Could be. But again, a much simpler and more elegant way is desirable. Anti-trust action would take years to litigate, no?
** Have standards for only big platforms
Except this sounds a bit like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Doghouse) and his proposed legislation that draws the line at 30 million US monthly users and $1.5 billion or more in global revenues. So, when a new platform reaches 30 million does it start dumping users? Weird.
** Separate platforms and publishers
Another common approach among those who think anti-trust is the way to go. Again, it would take years. But, perhaps so. One advantage is that everyone agrees a platform showing users its own product first, regardless of quality/price isn't right.
** Remove protection for communication that is proprietary on both ends.
The thinking here is we want to elevate open source material. But, most communication under discussion is user < -- > platform, only one of which is proprietary.
** Is fragmentation good in itself?
This leads us back to our first objection, that repealing 230 would mean more consolidation, not less. And my comment there is that if we've solved the extremist problem on major social media, isn't that half the problem, whether the industry fragments or not? And either way it's simple.
** If we tighten the rules they'll move overseas.
This seems like a problem until you realize that the US has one of the most free-market policies in the world--anything goes, as long as free speech isn't overshadowed by imminent danger to the public.
...........................
Happened across a Quora post by an author I respect:
Mike Jones, January18, '21 on Quora
Let’s get something clear: Section 230 does not prevent you from suing a social media company if they publish something you don’t like. What it does is make dismissal of such a suit easy and quick.
If Section 230 were repealed, those suits would be likely to go to trial. It’s unlikely that anyone would win those suits against the social media companies, but it would cost them a lot more to defend against them because there will be lawyers who’d be willing to take a chance on winning them without Section 230 in place.
Note that it is not Section 230 that enables social media companies to moderate user-contributed content — that’s done by the First Amendment.
What would the result be? Large sites would be much more likely to remove/refuse to publish any content that they think is likely to result in a lawsuit. Smaller sites would be more likely to simply eliminate user contributed content entirely because of the expense of monitoring.
So…many fewer sites with comment sections, fewer user reviews of products and services except at places like Amazon who can afford to do the moderation, a lot more banned users.
Basically, a shift of power further toward the large players who can afford to do the moderation and defend against lawsuits.
It is amazing to me how many people seem to think that repealing Section 230 will hurt Facebook, Twitter, et al. It would have exactly the opposite effect.
I hope to revisit this space with a response, soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment