Hello! I hate Big Tech as much as the next guy, but I do not think you should advocate to change Section 230. Please please talk to Cory Doctorow about it, if you can. He's been a consumer protection and digital rights advocate/journalist for decades and he has a nuanced and detailed understanding of digital policy. He has some pretty convincing arguments that the free speech ramifications of removing Section 230 would be truly dire, and that it would actually end up making big tech MORE powerful. Please talk to him!!!
Question - you mention that "no other industry gets this protection." Doesn't the gun industry have a similar protection? And tobacco had protections from being sued for negative health outcomes?
Good question. PLCAA -- the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- does give the gun industry immunity for harms caused by its products. It is probably the closest analog to Section 230, and we discussed on our team whether it was "the same" type of protection. In this context we're talking specifically about lawsuits for speech, and no other industry, I'm aware of, is shielded from getting sued for defamation, etc. But it is probably worth doing a deeper dive to compare the two laws. The fact that guns and tobacco are the closest comparisons that come to mind for social media is telling, in its own way.
I know less about what immunity the tobacco industry had, but there's an interesting parallel there in that states attorneys general banded together in a giant lawsuit against the tobacco companies for all the harm they'd caused to public health; there's a similar lawsuit against social media companies from attorneys general for harming the mental health of children and teens. They're focusing on marketing practices and design elements to try and get around Section 230.
I agree with your premise to be less consumed by lies. I disagree that changing Section 230 is the solution. Changing Section 230 does get to the root of the problem. The problem is that people are not educated/informed enough to sort out the lies and the truth. Changing people is a much harder task and I can see why you would want to tackle it. Changing Section 230 is like our gun laws. We know to get to the root of the problem is to get rid of guns but instead, we do everything else except get to the root issue.
I agree with you that there’s something broken with the tech industry but I don’t entirely think it’s big tech's fault. Their algorithms are pushing people toward lies but it is receiving input from people's likes, shares, etc. The algorithm doesn’t know the content of the posts or video. Once there is human intervention and recognize a post is a lie, big tech should intervene and maybe take the post down but getting rid of Section 230 won’t fix that. The post is already out there and the damage has been done.
Changing Section 230 will have other consequences other than just getting rid of lies. I’m afraid it will do more harm than good. I hope that is addressed in future episodes of the podcast. Lastly, I’m not sure how it can be feasibly done. This comment is long enough and we can save that discussion for another time.
Hello! I hate Big Tech as much as the next guy, but I do not think you should advocate to change Section 230. Please please talk to Cory Doctorow about it, if you can. He's been a consumer protection and digital rights advocate/journalist for decades and he has a nuanced and detailed understanding of digital policy. He has some pretty convincing arguments that the free speech ramifications of removing Section 230 would be truly dire, and that it would actually end up making big tech MORE powerful. Please talk to him!!!
I think his contact email is doctorow@craphound.com
Question - you mention that "no other industry gets this protection." Doesn't the gun industry have a similar protection? And tobacco had protections from being sued for negative health outcomes?
Good question. PLCAA -- the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- does give the gun industry immunity for harms caused by its products. It is probably the closest analog to Section 230, and we discussed on our team whether it was "the same" type of protection. In this context we're talking specifically about lawsuits for speech, and no other industry, I'm aware of, is shielded from getting sued for defamation, etc. But it is probably worth doing a deeper dive to compare the two laws. The fact that guns and tobacco are the closest comparisons that come to mind for social media is telling, in its own way.
I know less about what immunity the tobacco industry had, but there's an interesting parallel there in that states attorneys general banded together in a giant lawsuit against the tobacco companies for all the harm they'd caused to public health; there's a similar lawsuit against social media companies from attorneys general for harming the mental health of children and teens. They're focusing on marketing practices and design elements to try and get around Section 230.
I agree with your premise to be less consumed by lies. I disagree that changing Section 230 is the solution. Changing Section 230 does get to the root of the problem. The problem is that people are not educated/informed enough to sort out the lies and the truth. Changing people is a much harder task and I can see why you would want to tackle it. Changing Section 230 is like our gun laws. We know to get to the root of the problem is to get rid of guns but instead, we do everything else except get to the root issue.
I agree with you that there’s something broken with the tech industry but I don’t entirely think it’s big tech's fault. Their algorithms are pushing people toward lies but it is receiving input from people's likes, shares, etc. The algorithm doesn’t know the content of the posts or video. Once there is human intervention and recognize a post is a lie, big tech should intervene and maybe take the post down but getting rid of Section 230 won’t fix that. The post is already out there and the damage has been done.
Changing Section 230 will have other consequences other than just getting rid of lies. I’m afraid it will do more harm than good. I hope that is addressed in future episodes of the podcast. Lastly, I’m not sure how it can be feasibly done. This comment is long enough and we can save that discussion for another time.