Why I’m Taking on Big Tech

We need to change the 26 words that created the internet.

Hey everybody -

Question Everything is back after a summer break — with a bigger fact-checking budget and a new mission.

I’m taking on Big Tech.

I’ve been thinking about tech companies — and specifically social media — a lot. The whole time we’ve been making Question Everything.

When I created this show, my goal was to figure out how to fix journalism’s problems. But really, what that meant — what my underlying hope was — is that I want us to be less consumed by lies. I want there to be reliable information that is easily accessible for all. I want Americans to trust each other more when trust is warranted. For Americans to understand each other better, and to talk to (and about) each other more constructively.

And while improving journalism is absolutely a part of this, you just can’t accomplish any of those things in any systemic way without really looking hard at social media, and how information moves online.

In all the reporting that my team and I have done in the last year and a half, there is one idea that seems to me like it could force a serious change to our information ecosystem. An idea that could incentivize more dependable, factual information, while disincentivizing harmful lies.

And that is: changing the 26 words that created the internet.

These 26 words are known as Section 230. They’re buried in a much bigger act that Congress passed in 1996. And these words do something pretty staggering.

They make it so that you can’t sue social media companies for what happens on their platforms.

Even if those platforms use powerful AI-driven algorithms to pick out the most incendiary, defamatory posts, spread them far and wide, and rake in profit — they still can’t be sued.

This is a special, extremely valuable immunity that no other industry gets.

And I think it’s a big reason that our world is the way it is right now: where lies rocket across the internet and into the real world, spreading hate and division, and corrupting our ability to function as a democracy.

In a study of Twitter…lies were found to travel six times faster and reach far more people…than factual posts do.

I’ve come to believe that changing this provision — reimagining Section 230 — could profoundly change how the internet and social media shape our lives and our democracy.

And that’s what I’m going to dedicate myself to in the coming weeks and months.

This whole advocacy thing — it’s new to me. Journalism outlets I’ve worked at have had rules against taking a stance on policy like this. So it’s a bit scary. But also exciting.

And I want to lay out some ground rules. Please hold me to ‘em.

1. I do have an opinion. Based on my reporting, I think changing Section 230 is a good idea. We’ll get into specific ideas for how that could look — it’s a complicated issue — but I want to be upfront about that.

2. This is my position. It’s not KCRW’s position. The people I work with: you’ll have to ask them where they stand on this — if they have a position at all. So if you think it’s a terrible idea, take that up with me. No one else.

3. I will approach this project as a journalist. I am reporting on this topic every day, learning new things, having my assumptions challenged. I will be sharing my reporting and research with you on our show and here on Substack, and I’ll explore all sides of the issue. I’ll share counterarguments and evidence even if it hurts my case. There are good reasons, many having to do with free speech, to be worried about removing Section 230. I’m open to being wrong.

4. I will be transparent with you, just like I am in all of my reporting. I don’t want you to feel like you don’t have the information you need to make up your own mind about this.

And right now, in transparency — this is where I’m at. I want to use my reporting to take action at a time when we desperately need it. And strip this special immunity from giant tech platforms.

It’s not the only thing we’ll be doing on Question Everything.. We’re still turning journalism on itself, trying to root out the problems in our field, telling stories that help us see it anew, spotlighting good ideas, and figuring out better ways to do things. (Case-in-point: our rather confronting episode about reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, also available right now.)

But we will be making Section 230 a focus. You and I should be able to sue internet companies the way you can sue a news outlet if one of them defames you. Let’s bring the companies that are spreading lies and division onto the same playing field that journalists are operating on.

I hope you’ll follow along and, ultimately, join the movement.

Let’s take on Big Tech.

Brian

@brihreed