Stop the Whining. Stop the Finger Pointing.
Hey Congress, Help
Solve the Problems:
Repeal Section 230 of the
1996 Communications Decency Act.
Whatever the circumstances that lead to the rationalization for granting Internet platforms like Facebook and Twitter "broad “safe harbor” protections against legal liability for any content users post on their platforms" have long since changed. Websites like Facebook, Google, and Twitter are insulated from the same demands for accuracy that govern newspapers and traditional electronic media like cable and television broadcasters. As reported by Insurance Giant, The Hartford, in its online publication, Insights, 02/18/2022. "Section 230 provides immunity to internet companies in two ways:"
1. A provider or user of an “interactive computer service” can’t
be treated as the “publisher or speaker” of information provided by a
third party. The law has a broad definition of “interactive computer
service.” It includes almost any online platform that publishes
third-party content.
2. Providers and users of interactive
computer services can’t be liable for voluntarily taking down content if
the provider believes in good faith that the information is obscene or
otherwise objectionable.
Besides Facebook, through its American Edge Project, the only other organization of merit still supporting Section 230 is The Electronic Frontier Foundation, whose very name sounds rather anachronistic. The EFF argues that:
Without Section 230, the Internet is different. In Canada and Australia, courts have allowed operators of online discussion groups to be punished for things their users have said. That has reduced the amount of user speech online, particularly on controversial subjects. In non-democratic countries, governments can directly censor the internet, controlling the speech of platforms and users.
Arguably, the Internet itself is very much a different thing than it was in 1996. And our laws should reflect this fact proven true by these businesses' valuations. Traditional media companies, less able to withstand a judgment than cash rich Internet giants, are nonetheless held to account for the same practices for which Internet companies are not held to account. The lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News "over repeated claims that it rigged its voting machines as part of a conspiracy to steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump" is the most glaring example of the inherent unfairness of Section 230. It was not only Fox News and its anchors that made these spurious claims that lie at the heart of lawsuit against Fox News. As CBSNews reported, "President Trump first mentioned Dominion in a tweet November 12th and recorded a video a few weeks later, which was posted on Facebook." And CBS quoted what Trump posted on Facebook.
President Trump: We have a company that's very suspect. Its name is Dominion. With the turn of a dial or the change of a chip, you could press a button for Trump and the vote goes to Biden. What kind of a system is this? We have to go to paper. Maybe it takes longer. But the only secure system is paper.
Likewise, a suit is proceeding against One America News Network (ONN) for similar Causes of Actions as those against Fox. Similar lawsuits are also proceeding against Rudy Giuliani and attorney Sidney Powell as private citizens for the same accusations Donald Trump made on Facebook.
Media reports about how Congressional hearings concerning censorship of social media postings became a needless exercise in partisan bickering. Yeah, my guy got his account dropped. Well, I got my own dropped. And so it went back and forth. The hearing became Shakespeare's MacBeth come to tragic life.
Life’s but a
walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the
stage,
And
then is heard no more.
It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound
and fury,
Signifying nothing.
All that one could take away from those hearings is, despite now facing unemployment in a down tech market, those who were charged with trying to moderate the madness that Twitter had become are probably glad that impossible task is no longer their problem.
The repeal of Section 230 would make all the
silliness on full display in Congress this past week moot. The New
York Times is not obligated to publish every diatribe sent to it as A Letter
to the Editor or opinion piece. Newspapers and broadcasters have
published statements of Standards and Practices for inclusion in their
products to which
those businesses must and will adhere. Furthermore, newspapers, like The
Washington Post; broadcasters, like Fox News; and Internet platforms,
like Twitter and Facebook are all private companies. They can
manage their products as they seem fit. Ultimately, these private
companies all answer to their shareholders. And the shareholders
will make their displeasure known if their investment lost significant
value because of big ticket settlements for harms caused by shoddy
products.
If the management of Google had known in advance that
their rollout of the Bard AI and the ensuing fiasco might prompt
lawsuits, then maybe the disastrous debut for Bard would have been
postponed. Google's own staff has laid the groundwork for any such
investor's lawsuit by posting such things as “Dear
Sundar, the Bard launch and the layoffs were rushed, botched, and myopic.”
So many of the less desirable aspects of the adoption of AI technologies by web platform companies could be mitigated by holding web platforms accountable for injury caused by the use of their products. And, in our small "r" republican form of "government of laws, and not of men," we turn to the courts as the arbiter of whom has suffered harm by an action, and who should held liable for that harm. Considering the great harm that could come from the AI technology itself, not to mention the thoughtless applications of these products, those who bring the new technology to market might show a bit more circumspection in the letting lose of the unregulated application of Artificial Intelligence Technology upon all aspects of our now fully entrenched digital economy and society. If our Leviathans of the Deep Web were certain, just like every vendor in our society and economy, they will held responsible for harm caused by their products, these IT bosses might wait until the product is guaranteed to work before any public release of any new product.
The Repeal of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act would be a start in bringing greater sanity to the World of IT in general. And we may begin to see these machines as machines: nothing more; nothing less.