I heard an argument on Section 230 the other day that was absolutely revelatory for me.
For context: Section 230 is the law that protects social media giants like Facebook and Twitter from being held responsible for any content posted on their sites. It qualifies them as "platforms" rather than "publishers," and since platforms are meant primarily as open forums for discussion among users, social media companies cannot be held liable when that conversation goes south. This lack of accountability for the content on social media sites is why everyone has at least one uncle who believes in QAnon.
I always struggled trying to understand a solution for this problem. I acknowledged that a problem did exist; too many people are sent down conspiracy theory rabbit holes and made victims of egregious misinformation to believe there isn't an issue. But I also genuinely believed completely controlling this problem was an insurmountable task for these companies, and because of that, I was hesitant to say they should be held liable for the content.
But the argument I heard on this issue from former TimeWarner CEO Jeff Bewkes made me realize I was looking for a clever answer when I really should've been looking at a clever interpretation of the question. His perspective is that the minute any of these sites use an algorithm to cater content directly to the individual user, a platform becomes a publisher, and therefore they are no longer protected behind the shield of Section 230.
It's one of those ideas that once you hear it, you cannot believe you did not realize it first. Not only does virtually every one of these sites use an algorithm to personalize content, but that algorithm is often the culprit for how people end up down the QAnon rabbit holes and such. They create a digital echo chamber that you don't even realize you're stuck in; the algorithm works almost entirely silently. I fully agree with Bewkes on this one. You simply cannot be a neutral platform if you are the invisible hand shaping the content all of your users see. That is the definition of a publisher.
Will this change the debate over how Section 230 applies to social media companies? Probably not. The lawyers for these giants are too good. But it's still an absolutely genius perspective.
Comments