The Give and Take of Section 230
The harms fostered by unfettered and unregulated social media have become extremely well documented at this point.
From the damage done to the self esteem of children to the dissemination of overwhelming misinformation, what once could be seen as a broad communications boon to mankind and specifically for voices in need of being heard, the goddamned mechanism is now known to be almost universally destructive.
CNN shut down its Facebook page in Australia on Wednesday, after an Australian court ruled that media outlets are liable for defamatory user-generated comments. On the one hand: bye, Felicia. On the other, the ruling threatens to squash the lively social media discourse we all know and love. It could also stifle grassroots organizing and resources for vulnerable communities—the things internet free speech advocates warn about every time lawmakers threaten to dismantle protections for platforms.
In the United States, social media has Section 230 to protect them from liability for user-generated nonsense. From completely false statements to cyber-bullying, the platforms themselves are held blameless for what is written and published on their channels.
Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".
The problem faced is not with what platforms like Faceborg intend to be used but with what they are actually being used for.
Around a third of Americans regularly get their news from Facebook, according to the latest study from Pew Research Center, whose surveys aim to better understand the current media landscape in the U.S. In the updated report, Pew Research found that around half of U.S. adults, or 53 percent, said they “often” or “sometimes” use social media to get their news. This is spread out across a number of sites, but Facebook is at the top of the list.
The study found that 36 percent of U.S. adults said they “regularly” access Facebook to get news. This is a significantly larger percentage than almost any other social media platform, with the exception of YouTube, which is used regularly for news by 23 percent of U.S. adults.
When it comes to these digital technologies, every benefit to society is equally mirrored by a serious danger presented.
This is like finding out that a third of people in your neighborhood use the community septic ditch for their drinking water and simply shrugging it off as the recklessness of people who can't be bothered to know the difference.
On the other hand, the proliferation of social media has created unprecedented opportunities for expression and interaction among activists and marginalized groups. These people have found these platforms to be inexpensive, powerful tools for bypassing the limitations of established media. Digital technologies provide a platform for points of view that would otherwise be invisible, silenced, or ignored in general debate.
Understand that the terms activist and marginalized are not limited to those involved in progressive causes. For every one group seeking equity in voice for progressive causes (climate, racial equity, trans issues) there are three other loose organizations of Far Right activists who are likewise individuals who are excluded from economic, social, and political life (anti-immigration, pro-life, white supremicist).
Oh, but there's more!
MIT Technology Review received an internal Facebook report from 2019 and learned that Eastern European troll farm "content was reaching 140 million U.S. users per month—75 percent of whom had never followed any of the pages." Squaring the circle on this fact, is it any surprise that a third of the country are stark, raving idiots?
When it comes to these digital technologies, every benefit to society is equally mirrored by a serious danger presented. Like nuclear energy, for every benefit of clean electricity, there is some mutated descendant of a Chernobyl survivor to remind us the cost of the clean. Like nuclear energy, serious regulation needs to be in place to promote the benefits and protect Americans from the dangers.
Section 230 is in desperate need for revision in this case. Written in 1996, the legislation couldn't have possibly taken into account the massive size and end result of communication companies with billions of users and relying on these companies to self regulate is like trusting DuPont to just not dump chemical waste in local rivers—a really bad idea or McDonalds to stop using beef tallow to fry their french fries on their own.
As the richest, most convenience-driven society on the planet, Americans tend to sacrifice a lot for ease of use and freedom of purpose. Compromises for the safety of the tribe have to be considered and as the toxic waste of social media tips to outweigh the healthy use of it, it's time to get all Ralph Nader on their asses.
