On his way out the White House door, Trump has thrown another bombshell, this time threatening to blow up the internet by treating the big tech platforms as publishers rather than innocent carriers of the words of others.
Sure, it’s lame-duck Trump, throwing shi… um, stuff at the wall to see what sticks and the adults in the room in Washington are busy hosing it down. But his call has widespread, even cross party support.
It was only last January that now-President-elect Joe Biden was similarly calling for platforms to lose their immunity, saying: “For Zuckerberg and other platforms, it should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.” (He’s been more cautious since.)
In Australia, this month, back-bench Nationals MP Dr Anne Webster has urged the government to bring forward legislation to regulate platforms like Facebook for the information they publish. (Communications Minister Paul Fletcher has said: no.)
Trump is using the arcane practices of US military financing to strong-arm Congress into overturning the almost quarter-century long regulatory fiction that enabled social media — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states:
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Back in 1996, the wording was designed to protect carriers and internet service providers. But the platforms that now dominate the net — from Google search to Twitter and Facebook — all built their power by squatting in a corner of that immune space and, having squat, built empires.
Global clout came through US trade policy with undertakings for immunity in bilateral agreements, including the Trump-era deal between the US, Mexico and Canada. Under the Broadcasting Act, Australia gifts similar immunity to online platforms unaware of the nature of the content they distribute.
Traditional publishers have always hated this regulatory asymmetry: editorial care brings penalties; lack of care brings freedom. While publishers have to invest in subeditors, proof readers and lawyers to carefully parse each bit of content, the platforms don’t.
Unfortunately, the “make ‘em publishers” camp has always had a touch of H. L. Mencken’s aphorism about well-known solutions to every human problem: “neat, plausible, and wrong.”
It’s proponents have conflicting goals. Some want better gatekeepers. Some don’t want gatekeepers at all.
Put Trump in the no gatekeeper camp: his current beef is that since the November 3 election, his tweets claiming voter fraud have come with a disclaimer from the platform. But his unhappiness is not new. Back in May, he converted the “old man yells at cloud” meme into an “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship” based on the right-wing talking point that the Facebook and Twitter algorithms act to suppress conservative views.
That’ll be news to anyone who spends time on social media. Since July, The New York Times‘ Kevin Roose has been recording each day’s 10 top-performing link posts on US Facebook pages, showing conservative and right-wing voices — including Fox — generate the most engagement each day. (Facebook disputes the measure.) In Australia, Business Insider’s Cam Wilson reported last month that Sky News has become the biggest news channel on social media.
Still, facts haven’t stopped conservative Republicans from promoting various legislative alternatives to Section 230.
Anne Webster’s call comes from a concern about disinformation. Earlier this year, she was targeted in wild online conspiracies spread on Facebook alleging child abuse. She and her husband sued the author, resulting in a defamation payout of $875,000. Facebook eventually apologised.
In a recent interview with The Guardian’s Katherine Murphy, Webster said: “I’m not saying that holding these platforms to account as publishers is the only answer, but it is the clearest answer that I can think of … I see these platforms really get away with far too much and are not being held to account — so I think that’s got to stop.”
So, closer to the Biden position, reflecting global concerns that the platforms need to do a much better job in eliminating disinformation and misinformation.
What next? On the internet Australia is a rule taker, not maker. Expect the US law to be amended, sooner or later, perhaps with some platform liability for content. That will transform the way the internet works.
“For Zuckerberg and other platforms, it should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”?
Imagine that criteria for censure being applied across the media ….
We need to begin with a few premises Chris. The first may well be that people, left to their devices, will go in the direction that Tommy Hobbs predicted (if not observed).
Even into the late 1950s communist in Australia were arrested not for their beliefs but for, with the aid of an unregistered printing press, putting their beliefs into practice.
A similar situation exists now in the environment of desktop publishing where the opportunities for post truth projects are legion. Yet, who is to guard the guardians.
We do have options. Until the Stewarts a slanderous remark directed to either the Royal Family or the country was an act of treason. Thus, 400 years ago Harry could have had his detractors executed by means according to their rank; which returns us to Hobbs.
Presenting the discussion at the level of the front bar (as you have) is to participate in the behavior.
One would think the partisan and/or media self interest in Australia, revolving round NewsCorp etc., would preclude any objective policies for an even media playing field.
Although there is much merit in breaking down large platforms and/or waiting for inevitable innovative changes making them obsolete.
The EU approach, via competition laws, plus data privacy (GDPR) and related, also demands more education in digital and media literacy to empower individual citizens for informed understanding of society.
The issue with this approach, no matter how sensible, is that it also challenges legacy media and its role in political and/or corporate PR that relies upon much ignorance.
Further, a question or issue ignored in Australia, a small nation with an insiginficant, consolidated, narrow and shallow mainstream media, what if Google and Facebook simply pulled the plug on allowing NewsCorp, 7 and 9 Fairfax media to use their platforms, in addition to not featuring their content online at all?
If the “platforms” were forced to deal with their users as customers & not just entities entitled to no level of care other than that deemed appropriate by the seemingly undiscoverable “community standards” used by these engines to randomly ban anything that comes a cropper with their algorithms
Then perhaps they would be brought to heel by existing consumer legislation
They also increasingly canvass their “users” as a customer base for paid advertising & restrict organic sharing in order to encourage user paying
Question is where does this exclusive access to an easily contactable data base of potential customers render them into being “customers” & just unrelated “users”
The effectiveness of anti-trust legislation (over the past hundred years) anyone?
Not very. In this instance, making platforms responsible for the content they distribute actually brings them in line with print media and may actually force them to censor what appears. Wait! That sounds like Hong Kong!
I wasn’t commenting on the size or monopoly possessed by these companies
Or even their content
Rather that they should be required to be more responsive to their “users”
This may as a side affect restrict their growth & control their comment
At the moment their “customer service” doesn’t exist, because as the maintain they don’t have any customers
We, as an unrepresentative example, may get 10 posts a day rejected about say soil based on their algorithm that says its is “contrary to our policy on healthcare”
Ok, then they offer you an opportunity for a review, but this system is either broken or too difficult use
It can be broken for so long I am tempted to think it is part of their paradigm to allow it to remain so to cut down on their work
Then when you submit a report about the broken bit you hear nothing
But this can continue forever since they have no customer service standard to conform to & are simply offering an extra privilege in allowing you to fill out forms
And I disagree with the idea an operative in Montana or Ireland can correctly adjudication on the subtleties of my Australian nuances
Let the users regulate their platforms by having capacity to mechanisms of compliant
Their “customers” are the ones who pay them money in return for their services. That would be advertisers, mostly.
The “users” are not customers, they’re the product that the platforms are selling to their customers. Their attention, at any rate. The algorithms goal is to maximize that attention, so that more of it can be directed towards their customers’ paid content.
If your publisher is not publishing your content (whether it’s against their health guidelines or because you’re not paying them enough is barely material) shouldn’t you be switching publishers?
Setting up a self-run internet presence and becoming your own publisher is the job of mere minutes these days, and doesn’t require any particular technical expertise. Having some technical expertise will open less expensive options though.