Facebook and Twitter CEOs have been vehemently opposed to changes that would allow the US government to dictate how content is moderated. These platforms are a new industry and should have a different regulatory model.
While Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey have agreed with the legislature that the necessary changes must be made in the controversial section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the two social media heads spoke out against changes from permitting You let the government dictate moderation of content.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally provides immunity to website publishers from third party content and states that no provider or user of any interactive computer service should be treated as the publisher or spokesperson of information provided by any other information content provider.
“Section 230 was designed to allow these technologies to thrive. If you could sue Twitter or Facebook early on over content on a Facebook post or tweet and they were liable for what someone else said or what they felt or did, it was companies probably never would have existed, “Senator Lindsey Graham said during a congressional hearing.
“I hope we will amend Section 230 to motivate social media platforms to develop transparent and opaque standards that allow us to judge their judgments that the fact-checkers are aware of, the community standards that are They set what their prejudices are and give these companies some direction because they have almost an impossible task, “he added.
He said the social media giants are literally trying to tell what is reliable and what is not based on cable news comments or tweets by politicians for the average person.
Mr Graham said he doesn’t want the government to take on the job of telling America which tweets are legitimate and which are not.
“I don’t want the government to decide what content to include and file. I think we’re all in that category. But when you have companies that have government power, you have far more power than traditional media, there has to be something, “he assured me.
Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing on censorship and the 2020 election, Mr Dorsey admitted there were concerns about the moderation of content through Twitter, and specifically its use of Section 230.
“Three weeks ago, we proposed three solutions to address the concerns raised. All of them focus on services that choose to moderate or remove content. This could be section 230 extensions, new legal frameworks, or a commitment to industry best practices be the self-regulation. “he said.
“The publication of a moderation process and procedures, two, a straightforward process for referring decisions, and three, the best algorithmic selection efforts are suggestions for addressing the concerns we all have in the future. And they are all in a short amount of time reachable.” Mr Dorsey said.
When asked by Mr. Graham, both Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Zuckerberg replied that they supported the reform of Section 230 but were against government regulation.
“Eliminating Section 230 altogether or prescribing reactionary government mandates will not raise concerns or be consistent with the initial amendment,” Dorsey said.
“Indeed, such measures could have the opposite effect, which is likely to result in increased removal of language, the spread of frivolous lawsuits and severe limitations on our collective ability to target harmful content and protect people online,” he added.
Mr Zuckerberg said these platforms are a new industry and should have a different regulatory model that is different from either the publishing industry or telecommunications regulators.
“I think it’s not that we’re like a telecommunications company and that there are clearly some categories of content, whether it’s terrorism or child exploitation, that people expect us to moderate and target, but We’re also clearly not like a news publisher. We don’t create the content or pre-select what to publish. We give people a voice to get things published, “Zuckerberg said.
“So I think we have responsibilities and it might make sense to be liable for some of the content on the platform, but I don’t think the analogies with these other industries that were created before will ever hold out.” I think it indeed deserves its own legal framework to be built here, “he said.
Senator Richard Blumenthal said that any meaningful reform of Section 230, including a possible repeal, is in large part because its immunity is far too broad and the victims of their harm deserve a day in court.
“I intend to reform Section 230 aggressively and purposefully. But I am not interested in being a member of the language police, and neither should we be on this committee. There is real harm and real sacrifice here,” he said.