Read on Twitter
Today the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee will hold a hearing on #Section230 featuring Zuckerberg, Dorsey, + Pichai.
I want to highlight @CatoInstitute's work on the law and highlight misrepresentations and errors we should expect https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/10/does-section-230-s-sweeping-immunity-enable-big-tech-bad-behavior
I want to highlight @CatoInstitute's work on the law and highlight misrepresentations and errors we should expect https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/10/does-section-230-s-sweeping-immunity-enable-big-tech-bad-behavior
1. The predicate of #Section230 was that interactive computer services are a kind of "neutral public forum." In a previous hearing Sen. Cruz claimed that this was the case. I hope Cruz doesn't make similar factual errors today.
(see around 0:50)
(see around 0:50)
If you want to read about the history of #Section230 check out @jkosseff's book. https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Internet/dp/1501714414
2. Twitter, Facebook, and other social media companies posting their own content via factchecking, warnings, etc. is not relevant to #Section230. Such factchecking does not make social media companies "publishers."
3. Speaking of "publishers," there is not distinction between "platforms" and "publishers" in #Section230.
@mmasnick's post on Section 230 myths includes a good discussion on this point. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
@mmasnick's post on Section 230 myths includes a good discussion on this point. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
4. #Section230 is not a "carve out" for "Big Tech." Any company with a website and every blog with a comments section enjoys Section 230 protections. The law also protects institutions typically not associated with social media. Many companies allow for third party content.
5. #Section230 is not a subsidy.
If anything, the law is a subsidy for those seeking to compete against market incumbents. How hard would it be to compete against Facebook if you needed to hire an army of lawyers to oversee content moderation first?
If anything, the law is a subsidy for those seeking to compete against market incumbents. How hard would it be to compete against Facebook if you needed to hire an army of lawyers to oversee content moderation first?
Why does all of this matter?
It matters because today some of the most powerful politicians in the country are going to grill the CEOs of private companies that are accused of breaking no law. That alone is cause for concern.
It matters because today some of the most powerful politicians in the country are going to grill the CEOs of private companies that are accused of breaking no law. That alone is cause for concern.
Why are they doing this? Many Republican lawmakers are concerned about bias in Silicon Valley. I find the evidence of such bias unpersuasive. But even if there is systemic anti-conservative bias in "Big Tech" reforming #Section230 would be a misguided approach to the issue.
The whole reason #Section230 came about as a solution to the Moderator's Dilemma, which I explain in this working paper (which I'm currently reworking, comments welcome!).
https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2020/03/Feeney-Defending-the-Indispensable.pdf
https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2020/03/Feeney-Defending-the-Indispensable.pdf
Advocates of #Section230 reform usually jump in to say that they're not for repeal of the law, they just want to reform it. The problem is that some of the reforms I've seen would either plunge interactive computer services back into the Moderator's Dilemma.
Such a result would likely lead to an Internet that increasingly resembles 8Chan and Pornhub, which is an odd result for conservatives to be pushing for.
Other reforms would shred the First Amendment and/or put privacy and security at risk.
Other reforms would shred the First Amendment and/or put privacy and security at risk.
The First Amendment, not #Section230 protects websites from removing content. Absent Section 230 content moderation would still be protected, but under a new regulatory and legal regime. Such an environment is ripe for market incumbents to exploit.
Private companies might not be huge fans of regulation, but once they see that regulation is on the horizon they'll try to influence what the new regulations look like.
For example, see Zuckerberg's statement for today's hearing.
For example, see Zuckerberg's statement for today's hearing.
At the moment, #Section230 protections provide a level playing field to those seeking to compete against Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. Changes to the law that make complying with Section 230 more difficult are anticompetitive.
Some #Section230 reformers (such as Sen. Hawley) try to get around this issue by applying reforms to BIG websites. But this is also anticompetitive. Once a website is on the cusp of facing new Section 230 regulations they have an added incentive to sell to a Facebook or Google.
Ok, that's enough morning tweeting. I need coffee. I'll be live-tweeting the hearing. More of my work on #Section230 can be found at the link below. See the rest of the thread for more @CatoInstitute #Section230 work. https://www.cato.org/people/matthew-feeney
In April last year Cato VP @JohnSamplesCato wrote this paper on why the government should not regulate social media. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-government-should-not-regulate-content-moderation-social-media
My colleague @Will_Duffield has been almost exclusively focussed on Internet content moderation this year. Check out his blog posts, media appearances, and more of his output related to the issue at his Cato bio page. https://www.cato.org/people/will-duffield
