Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced new legislation today that aims to finally hold tech companies responsible for allowing misinformation about vaccines and other health issues to spread online.
The bill, called the Health Misinformation Act and co-sponsored by Sen. Ray Luján (D-NM), would create an exception to the landmark internet law Section 230, which has always shielded tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter from being sued over almost any of the content people post on their platforms.
Klobuchar’s bill would change that — but only when a social media platform’s algorithm promotes health misinformation related to an “existing public health emergency.” The legislation tasks the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to define health misinformation in these scenarios.
I'm not a fan of Facebook, but that's because of its endlessly dishonest approach to user privacy. At the same time, though, I have to admit that the American public doesn't agree with me. As near as I can tell, the vast majority of Facebook users would be willing to sell every intimate detail of their lives to Facebook in return for $1 off their next purchase from iTunes.
But content is a whole different thing. My guideline here is simple: If you're willing to allow Fox News to do something, then you should be willing to allow Facebook (or Google or Twitter) to do it. If Facebook wants to allow its users to spread vaccine disinformation, that's their right. And the rest of us have the right to fight back against that. We can pressure Facebook, we can boycott Facebook, and we can make Mark Zuckerberg persona non grata in polite company. What's more, President Biden can express any opinion he wants about Facebook. Ditto for every yahoo in Congress.
But government regulation? Forget it. And Amy Klobuchar should forget it too unless she's willing to suggest the same treatment for books, magazines, letters to the editor at the New York Times, and soapbox speeches on the Washington mall.
I have no problem with any kind of (legal) private action against Facebook. I also have no problem with things like antitrust investigations against Facebook. But can't we all agree that the government should stay very far away from any kind of content-based regulation of anyone?
But Kevin! It’s Big Tech. We must resist them at every turn! …
"If you're willing to allow Fox News to do something, then you should be willing to allow Facebook (or Google or Twitter) to do it."
Fox is not allowed to do the things that appear in Facebook because Fox is subject to libel/slander suits. Or anyway they are very limited because of this. Fox is now being sued for its lies about the election machinery - you can't sue Facebook for something like this. The online services are excepted from this liability because of Section 230, which was intended for ISP's, not things like Facebook. One solution would just be to eliminate Section 230 entirely. Anyway Kevin does not seem to grasp the nature of the problem, although there is plenty of discussion of it (for example by Dean Baker whom Kevin claims to read).
How much of the vaccine misinformation would cause liability for slander is a matter for discussion, but certainly Facebook and others would be a lot more careful if it were not for Section 230. At the least they would be subject to nuisance suits.
Yes, that's what I was going to write. So much of the commentary about section 230 is based on misconceptions about what it does, and what the law would be without it.
"Fox is now being sued for its lies about the election machinery"
Fox is being sued for defamation because paid employees made false statements about a company's voting machines. If Facebook staff was doing the same, they could be sued too.
One solution would just be to eliminate Section 230 entirely.
That "solution" would create gigantic problems. I don't see how commercially available services that allow the general public to produce and view user-created content (blogs, microblogs, photos, videos, comments, etc) could possibly remain viable. Software isn't remotely sophisticated enough to automate the deletion of all possibly damaging (and lawsuit-generating) content.
Maybe 230 needs to be tweaked, but I think its elimination entirely would be a disaster, although I don't know how other countries do it, so I'm open to being educated.
Also, to state the obvious: it's not really the case that 230 enables a true free-for-all, consequences-be-damaged environment with respect to defamation and disinformation. In other words, individuals are still responsible for what they post online. You could indeed be sued for causing harm via the content you put on the internet (your ISP can't, is all). I'd be very surprised if there weren't a few lawsuits percolating here and there when it comes to vaccine disinformation, for instance. But they'll be targeting the folks who told the lies; not the web services that provided the forum.
Agree with Kevin in spades (heh heh.) And I say this as someone who dislikes Facebook intensely ... not the least because their search features are for crap.
"But can't we all agree that the government should stay very far away from any kind of content-based regulation of anyone?"
Yes, but not quite.
Regular press, and for that matter individuals like KD blogging, are still subject to civil liability for damages due to spread of misinformation. That puts them at some pains to check facts before posting. Facebook and its peers are exempted by section 230.
Also, section 230 is needed to protect ISPs who are simply passing along other people's communications in a neutral way. But social media do not do that--and section 230 shouldn't protect them in this way. Facebook pushes content at you, based on algorithms that it has developed to maximize "engagement." And that engagement then fuels their advertising revenue. Consequently, social media are strongly incentivized to propagate and amplify disinformation that is packaged in a click-baity way. In my view, they should have no liability protection at all. They are not simply carrying the messages of others--they are picking and choosing which messages to send you. They need to be made accountable for doing that irresponsibly.
If they change their business model to simply passively posting what their users put up, then, like ISPs and the phone company, they should be exempt from liability over the content, and, in fact, banned from censoring that content. But that is nothing remotely like their actual business model. And I can't see how they would be able to make a profit if they switched to a no-push model unless they charged user fees (just like ISPs and the phone companies).
Social media is nothing but other people's communications. The difference, which I'm not certain actually matters, is social media are moving communications up at "Layer 7" of the network model where ISPs are doing it at "Layer 3."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model and the obligatory extension to include Layers 8 and 9: https://shop.isc.org/products/osi-9-layer-model-t-shirt-1
I think Clyde made a clear and meaningful distinction. "But social media do not do that--and section 230 shouldn't protect them in this way. Facebook pushes content at you, based on algorithms that it has developed to maximize "engagement." . FB, twitter etc are not neutral data pipes like an ISP or a phone company.
Correct. Facebook is constantly posting material on my page which they think "might interest me". The fact it was originally written by another Facebook user is immaterial. It's Facebook that chose to publish it TO ME.
I did not know that! Thanks!
It should simply be illegal for a company to utilize that kind of engagement-forcing.
And they shouldn't be allowed to create any kind of profile of individuals so that ads and other content can be explicitly curated just for you. Because it's automated on a mass scale still doesn't make it any different from stalking or spying.
And they shouldn't be allowed an option of opting out because it shouldn't happen at all.
It's important that people have a well rounded, balanced and comprehensive understanding of their world, but if everything you see is massively biased and narrowly focused you lose all perspective, as if you were allowed to have a map of the town you live in, but it would only show a few streets it thinks you should hear about. How great a map would that be?
+1
Here's a thought. What if we kept Facebook immune to libel suits, but demanded that they make it easier for outsiders to review material on Facebook for libel, and easier to sue (by disclosing who paid for this ad, for instance).
I mean, let's compare something. It is insanely easy to protect copyrighted material on YouTube, particularly music. Some artists routinely block videos with even a 10 second clip of their music. There is a takedown notice, and the video is blocked. There is an appeal process, but it usually isn't taken.
So, the people who are bothered have an easy (algorithmic) way to tell if there's problematic material and easy recourse (a takedown notice). YouTube doesn't have to censor them itself, and it isn't liable (section 230 applies to them, too). But it does have to make it easy for people who have copyright material to defend.
So why not make liability/disinformation easier to defend?
As a followup point: Is a website like this one (i.e. a personal blog) subject to this? It has comments so it is kind of like a social network.
Requiring even every personal blog to police their comments for "misinformation" seems like a bad idea. The big techs wouldn't like it but they can afford it. I doubt the Kevin Drums of the world could. It would be like Walmart coming in and pushing out all the retail places on Main Street.
"My guideline here is simple: If you're willing to allow Fox News to do something, then you should be willing to allow Facebook (or Google or Twitter) to do it."
I think this is right. But it doesn't take the next logical step. We need to rethink the costs and benefits of the First Amendment and how it needs to be interpreted given current and future technologies.
I'm fairly sure that quote Our Founders unquote had not the slightest notion of entropy, IOW this has merit.
Actually, they had an acute sense of it. I guess your Gender Reassignment major at that tony Eastern liberal arts finishing school didn't include the study of the history of this country whose guts you hate.
The Founders didn't use the word entropy. It wasn't coined until 1865. But anyone who isn't as lazy, stupid, and uneducated as you are knows that systemic disorder and decline were front and center in their debates. Why in hell do you think they diffused power? Why do you think Washington warned against factionalism? And why are you such a brainless dolt?
Tell us, are you this fucking stupid about EVERTHING?
Go away. You are just making incherent noise.
Thanks, arrogant, stupid, racist Anglo looter! LOL
Chuckle. Troll don't know what entropy is either. People don't care what you think, troll, LOL.
True. And certainly not Shannon's recasting of entropy as information (or disinformation in the present instance)
Shannon is a typical "progressive" moron who knows NOTHING about this country's history. (S)he is barely smart enough to breathe. LOL
Claude Shannon was the father of information theory. He died two decades ago. Nobody who knows his work will dream of calling him a moron. His politics, if he had any, is quite immaterial and unknown. As I said before, you are just making rude, incoherent noises. Go somewhere else.
My error. I confused him with a different shitstain. LOL
Troll don't know who Claude Shannon is, LOL.
What probably kept me in the Democratic Party for as long as I stayed was the "progressive" commitment to civil liberties. Well, that's over with, and now you are violent, racist, and no less "authoritarian" than Xiden's Chinese bankers. LOL
I'm sure you'd be happier commenting some place like Mediaite. Some people would argue with you there, instead of laughing.
I think you'd be happier at a KKK meeting, Anglo racist. LOL
As others point out, Section 230 exempts Facebook from the very laws that do in fact constrain "books, magazines, letters to the editor at the New York Times, and soapbox speeches on the Washington Mall." If Fox News accuses Kevin Drum of [insert libelous or slanderous content here], Kevin can sue their ass. If Facebook promotes a post accusing Kevin Drum of same, Kevin *may* be able to sue the person who made that post... but cannot sue Facebook for shoving it in front of a million eyeballs.
I don't think I agree with Klobuchar's approach here. I'd rather see a more carefully thought-out, but also much broader, revision to Section 230; something that tackles the general incentive of these companies to promote clickbait over content. But there is nothing wrong in principle with the government stepping in to deal with this stuff.
Promoted content treated like Fox News. Actual user posts under Section 230.
Crissa got there first--see below. I didn't read to the end first.
Is there a rule that only Republicans can do performative bullshit moves to make a point with the public?
We let Facebook live stream mass murder. Everything is permissible.
When you have an opportunity to kill a terrorist you take it. You don’t wait until you can kill them all. You pick off one at a time.
Oh hell no… they did it again today! Shame on you Drum. You defend this when you defend Facebook and the rest.
Twin sisters in Brazil have reportedly been fatally shot in the back of their heads in a horrific gang-related double execution that was livestreamed on Instagram.
https://nypost.com/2021/07/22/twin-brazilian-sisters-reportedly-killed-in-livestreamed-execution/
This is obscenity of the worst kind.
The problem is: We all pay a price for "Free Speech". Many people have died because everybody's right to lie is protected by the constitution--not just in the COVID case.
I understand what Kevin says and I agree with him. But this is maybe the costliest freedom we have under the constitution. And we should be aware of this.
Free Speech is not some lofty ideal. It is a kludge: All other ways to solve the problem are even worse.
If you don't want the right to lie, the "progressives" are in big trouble. LOL
I don't know I think the 2nd amendment is pretty costly too, not sure if it's over 600,000 though.
Please try to get 'em! This will be fun! LOL
“Freedom” is a bill of goods sold to morons to create a political climate of rampant stupidity.
Seems to be working out exactly as planned.
Thanks, "progressive!" Always good to see your true Stalinist colors. LOL
'When their proprietary algorithm promotes it' I think is the key phrase.
yes, very much so.
No. Lots of democracies criminalize certain speech based on content and they can have plenty of debate.
Let's start by throwing you into a concentration camp for racists. LOL
Yes, but that is a bad thing. In Sweden you can get arrested for criticizing groups of people. Sweden prohibits "hate speech" including publicly making statements that express "disrespect" for a group regarding their race, skin color, ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation. Laws like this are on the slippery slope. If the next generation is more active in suppressing speech, the definition of hate speech can be expanded.
Sweden reminds me of people in the US who are saying we have systemic racism due to a lack of certain income transfers and subsidies to POC. But isn't systemic racism an expression of hate? Shouldn't opposition to ridding us of this racism be illegal hate speech?
The left in all countries, left unchecked, seems to always point in the direction of becoming the Soviet Union in the long run. The impulse is to always add more checks on perceived bad behavior. This is why countries need responsible conservative opposition parties. (We don't have one right now.)
"Progressives" LOVE Stalin.
Nope.
The Soviet Union??? This post makes the same blunder over and over again. What is "left"??? Nothing like this is. I would argue, if you knew who Leon Trotsky is, may really lose faith in what is "left" and groups like BLM who come from his name sake. Yes, Leon was a spy of the U.S. Government. Yes, he was there to keep Russian Bolsheviks on track. Considering the amount of capitalists there. Talk to Fred Koch how that went. Even hiding him in MC didn't work.
Ps, the Soviet Union was a Russian dictatorship from the start. As the key leaders were of Russian, Democratic centralism was to keep it Russians. The return of the Russian military from the war is a good place to start.
Mentioning the Soviet Union really exposes your bad faith here but ignoring that for now.
Everything is a slippery slope. Or has the potential to be. We keep from falling off them all the time.
Germany has banned nazis for decades, actively confronts what they did since the 70s and there are still plenty of nazis in all but name. Government wanted to put the AfD under surveillance but the courts denied them. This was this past March!
So nope. You are being stupid
"But can't we all agree that the government should stay very far away from any kind of content-based regulation of anyone?"
Yes.
Facebook's algorithms amplify emotionally-triggering posts in order to earn ad revenue.
Section 230's protection of misinformation incentivizes FB to promote these posts.
If you disincentivize the profiting of such posts, those posts will still be on FB but they won't be promoted by FB.
This is less about free speech and more about profiting off false information.
well said
“Profiting” being the key motivation . Well argued.
+1
Agreed.
iTunes shmiTunes. Nobody gives two shits about that.
What Facebook offers is a low overhead ability to keep in touch with people you knew 30 years ago who are now 1000 miles away. My students from my first teaching job. My colleagues from graduate school.
It is goddamn hard to give that up since there really is no replacement. To date, I have never clicked on a Facebook ad, no matter how they disguise. I have, however, left insulting comments on a few.
The ability to keep in touch with people you don’t really care about…. Something I don’t place much value in tbh.
But this is what modern tech really specializes in: bad solutions to non problems that end up making everything worse for everybody except the tech company stock holders.
Yay capitalism!
+1
Actually, I stopped using FB precisely because I kept getting friend requests from people that I vaguely knew decades back, didn't much care for then, and had no real interest in bringing back into my life. At first, out of politeness, I accepted those requests. Soon my "friends" list was mostly people like that, and FB became increasingly time consuming and a colossal time suck.
So one day, I just stopped using it. I can and do still keep in touch with the people I care about, through other means.
Pretty much my experience, too. I was never a very FB active user. But my activity has plunged to the point where I haven't even checked my own feed for months. Maybe over a half year. It's just a kludgy, pretty awful product that, among other things, is utterly contemptuous of its users' privacy. I can't bring myself to quite delete my account, yet. But maybe that's next.
(I do still use Instagram, though).
The govt removing section 230 protection from social media platforms in general is one thing. May be a policy determination question as to good idea or not but should not be a 1st amend issue.
The govt removing section 230 protection for specific sort of content while leaving it for other types of content has major 1st amend issues by discriminating re content. Might get away with that if clearly objective definition of what that contest is and a really compelling public policy reason.
But this goes further. It limits the 230 exemption to " misinformation ". Who decides what is misinformation or not? The government? That goes to what is a fact and what is not and the govt does not get to make that decision and then punish speech that disagrees with the official govt fact. That would be core 1st amend and the supreme court will just strike it down or will not have to as lower courts will.
Have to think most in congress would know this and so I expect this is just theater.
Slander and libel laws already involve judging what the truth is. If a statement is true, it can't be slanderous; if false, it can be (in the US at least).
The judgement as to what is true or not for slander and libel is not being made by the govt.
Sure it is. When you file a lawsuit, who do you think pays the judge's salary?
"Progressives" used to be for civil liberties. But that was a lie, as their Stalinism proves.
Yes sir. This is nothing. But we have those kinds of posters who either celebrate it or whine about a bill that has no chance.
Progress one, the founding fathers did "bills" like these all the time. Why you mumble "leftist" is sad. Educate yourself.
Ps, this bill doesn't have any energy. It's dead.
Just wait until your lovely Chinese masters start giving you orders, starting with "two genders" and "homosexuality is an abomination" and "sorry not sorry, but no more abortions." LOL
Or I can put clickbait on Facebook about Republican homosexuality and Rand Paul is a secret jew. Republicans would demand bans asap.
Always fun to see "progressive" whataboutism. LOL
I can’t decide which of you two bozos is dumber, so it occurred to me that maybe you’re just a really bored troll with two accounts. It would seem difficult to mathematically support two people with such low functioning brains finding the same website, so this must be the case.
Thanks, racist looter! How's that TV you stole working? LOL
Kevin has been full of bad takes recently and this is yet another one.
If you’re going to allow something like FB to have such power over the information people are taking in and making decisions with, they must be held accountable for that information.
This way of thinking Kevin has is exactly what will lead to the destruction of the human race.
Thankfully the stakes are low eh?
"Bad takes," as in "not Stalinist enough." LOL
NO NO NO NO to Amy! Just think about turning the tables. The Republicans are in charge and get to decide what is true.
But, more importantly, we need a free exchange of ideas.
Simple.
p.s. some of the currently acceptable discussions about COVID were once deemed falsehoods (origins, masks, etc.) We have to be able to ask questions to hold people like Fauci accountable.