Julian Sanchez offers up some sage advice:
The best thing legislators can do if they want private entities to combat misinformation is *stay out of it*, because those entities have much broader latitude to police misinformation than the government does. https://t.co/LO3Yy8b1GC
— Julian Sanchez (@normative) February 23, 2021
There's more to it than this, though. It's certainly true that any government effort to police Facebook's content is almost certain to be overturned by the Supreme Court and is therefore pointless. But it's also true that we shouldn't want the government to police Facebook.
My standard for this is simple: Whatever it is you want regulated on Facebook, would you also want the same thing regulated on CNN or the Washington Post? Why not? Speech is speech, after all, regardless of whether it's in print, pixels, or modulated carrier waves on a cable system.
(Private action, of course, is entirely different. We should all feel free to campaign against Facebook in any way we please. Public pressure is a great way to push media outlets to change the way they operate.)
I'm annoyed that I continually find myself defending Facebook these days. I'm hardly a big fan, but my objections—which now seem practically stodgy—have always revolved around their incessant disrespect for personal privacy. More recently, though, the criticism of Facebook (and other social media platforms) has revolved around content, and I'm a lot less comfortable with that.
Partly this is because I remain an old-school liberal who believes in free speech. There are limits, as with everything, but those limits should be pretty loose.
But it's also partly because I think we've all gone slightly bonkers over our view of Facebook's power. I've spent a fair amount of time researching this, and it turns out there's very little evidence that Facebook actually influences public opinion all that much. There are several reasons for this:
- Surveys show that lots of people get (some of) their news from Facebook, but only a small fraction of that is political news. The vast majority of it is sports or gossip or cute animals.
- As we all know, Facebook users are very siloed. Is there a lot of conservative misinformation on Facebook? Sure. But it mostly gets read by folks who are already true believers.
- There's also positive news on Facebook. In 2020, for example, Facebook was instrumental in getting people out to vote. If you weigh this against the misinformation, it comes out close to even.
There's a ton of research suggesting that social media usage is correlated with depression or loneliness or whatnot. But there's precious little to show that it's correlated with an increase in conservative misinformation. It might be! But so far there's just not much hard evidence to back this up.
So sure, keep pressuring Facebook to do the right thing. Pressure the Biden administration to crack down on Facebook mergers. (It's big enough to deserve a very hard look if it tries to merge or buy a related company.) But until there's better evidence, ease up on the "criticism" that Facebook makes it easier for people to meet in groups or pass along gossip. There have always been good groups and bad groups, just as there's always been good gossip and bad gossip. Facebook really hasn't changed that very much.
"There's also positive news on Facebook. In 2020, for example, Facebook was instrumental in getting people out to vote. If you weigh this against the misinformation, it comes out close to even."
Do we have to settle for breaking even though?
Rohingyat have to be kidding me.
Facebook like all social media basically plays up to its political structure. If you don't like it, ignore it. Or just admit what they are and enjoy the trolling.
“My standard for this is simple: Whatever it is you want regulated on Facebook, would you also want the same thing regulated on CNN or the Washington Post?”
Isn’t the whole point that Facebook *doesn’t* face the same regulations on speech as traditional media? Isn’t that one of the central arguments of the repeal Section 230 crew?
Under current law, media outlets are legally responsible for all the content they publish. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the like are exempt from this liability, so they actually have *less* of a burden than traditional media. Right now Fox is facing a billion dollar lawsuit because they let Lou Dobbs use their network to defame Smartmatic, but I’ll bet Facebook is still allowing any jackoff with a FB page to say exactly the same thing Dobbs is getting sued for. If “speech is speech” regardless of the medium, why is Fox held to a higher standard than Facebook?
> If “speech is speech” regardless of the medium, why is Fox held to a higher standard than Facebook?
The simple answer is, it isn't.
Fox and FB have exactly the same protection. The difference is Fox creates most of its own content, the S230 protection only applies to third-party content. So Fox and FB both have the same protection for, say, user-generated posts.
S230 is not the problem. Please don't fall for the deception, both the crazies *and* some folks on the sane side of the isle are spreading falsehoods.
I would ask anyone interested to please read:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
Exactly right.
What people seem to want from FB is a combination of fewer ads, or perhaps to boil it down to a phrase, fewer targeted ads.
But since the targeted ads are what makes FB free to users that's not as simple a question as many seem to assume.
The second thing people seem to want from FB is for it to behave less like a completely free to users bulletin board and more like a newspaper. They want FB to figure out russian bot posts or not post Trump lies.
Its not that FB can't figure out how to accomplish either thing, its just that FB is not really structured to be actively edited.
Plus, of course, people aren't paying for it.
Fox is still responsible for content, even if it doesn’t create it. For example, it can’t run an ad that defames someone, just because it’s from a third party. They also are liable if they let some jackass come on one of their shows and spout defamatory content (see the recent freak out by the OANN anchor when the MyPillow guy started spouts lies about voting machines), even if he isn’t an employee of the network.
If Fox (or CNN or MSNBC) were to invite some Q conspiracy theorist onto one of its shows to spout defamatory lies, they’d be liable. So why isn’t FB if they allow the same guy to post it on his FB page?
I don't think that CNN, NBC or Fox would be responsible for what a non-employee guest says about anything. Lou Dobbs, or course, is very much a Fox employee.
Compared to CNN, MSNBC and Fox, FB does not produce any content. It makes money off off monetizing content produced by us. FB probably does approve ads, I don't know, as I have never placed a FB ad, but presumably it has to be run by someone.
What the issue is is that FB and other websites who allow comments have algorithms that monitor the comments.
I would be in favor of having no political speech on FB at all, just like I suppose, there is no porn allowed on FB. Certainly politics would be no worse off. FB could make just as much money limiting content to user created cat videos.
^^^FB could make just as much money limiting content to user created cat videos^^^
What do you base this on? You've consulted for them?
I'd personally like to see FB get out of the business of political *advertising*. I can't imagine they make nearly as much money out of it as they do flogging cars or insurance or cosmetics. So, exiting this line would have limited impact on revenues.
But actually forbidding the public to post political content on FB might well significantly reduce the appeal of the site to large numbers of users, thereby negatively impacting traffic, and profits.
I personally think it's one of the shittiest social media products ever devised, and rarely use it (for reasons cited by Kevin, namely their contempt for privacy), but I also agree with Kevin it has little impact on our politics, and I have no desire to see them **forced by the government** into taking actions they deem contrary to their interests, at least when it comes to political content. (But if you want to organize a pressure campaign with like-minded folks, have at it!)
***So Fox and FB both have the same protection for, say, user-generated posts***
And Fox and FB both have the lame level of legal exposure for their own generated news content. (I don't recall if FB produces news content or not -- I know they produce their own entertainment content -- , but if they do, you could sue them if they slander you).
The biggest problem is that any tool used to stop mis-information could also be used to stop "fake-news".
Congress is already in this because of Section 230, which was really intended for ISPs, not Facebook. The question is not whether Facebook can censor what it publishes (it can), but whether it can be sued for libel because of what it publishes. Whether it is a publisher and what that means should be decided explicitly by Congress, not left up to the hodgepodge of courts who have to read the mind of Congress, which didn't really have much understanding of the matter at an earlier stage.
KD: The thing is that you have riled against Fox News for the current level of political discourse. I think you are partly right but I think you need to also include FB for the situation. And we all agree something needs to be done before some unforeseen consequence were to occur. So this is something but you don’t approve, therefore, is anything even possible before such unforeseen event happens?
^^^I think you need to also include FB for the situation^^^
Kevin has taken a deep dive into the research on this, and concludes FB and other social media platforms have exerted, unlike Fox News, only a highly limited impact on political dysfunction and polarization. Do you have contrary findings you want to cite?
What we need is a Supreme Court that doesn't look kindly upon people who use their 'free speech' to cheat or damage or extort.
Why is it a free speech issue when someone is using false statements for gain? That has, since the very beginnings of this country, been illegal.
I'm not comfortable letting anyone, be it FB or MSNBC, cry "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. It is possible to impose constitutionally viable limits on speech, and I suggest it is past time to do so with FB.
Ghost
I agree but this raises the ugly question of who puts the limits on? Do we rely on the corporate entity FB? That we cannot change or the government that we elect?
Corporations brought down Donald Trump not the government. They silenced him by parsing his posts, tweets and messages for truthfulness.
Do I want a government run by Trump to do the same? Hardly
The answer is out there, I just don't know what it is yet
The current legal standard is it wouldn't be Facebook yelling "fire" but a FB user, and this person would indeed be liable for defamatory communication.
Society would be vastly improved simply by making websites accountable for content published on them. It doesn't have to be open-ended; damages could be capped by law, broader defenses than those generally available could be devised, and so on. But in essence, civil and criminal liability could be prescribed in ways that motivated website owners to moderate third party content. On balance, that would be a positive move.
Sorry. Read Qanon casualties as long as I have and there's really no choice.