| Coronavirus cases are rising again in the United States, and Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy says social media companies are at least partly to blame by helping spread lies and misinformation about vaccines. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter say they're doing everything they can to cut back on bad coronavirus information. They've blocked millions of posts, shut down entire groups of anti-vaccine users and plastered people's feeds with links to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's website. But misinformation researchers say it's not enough, and the companies' algorithms, which promote the most engaging content, are working against the anti-misinformation effort. On Thursday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), one of the most prominent Big Tech critics in Congress, came out with her own solution to the problem. Her new bill seeks to amend Section 230 — the two-decade-old law that protects Internet companies from getting sued for content posted to their websites — to make social media liable for the health-care misinformation floating around their platforms. If you've been watching the wrangling over tech regulation in Washington over the past few years, this tactic will be familiar to you. It's definitely not the first time a lawmaker has suggested carving a certain category of content out of Section 230.  Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel, has the latest proposal to carve out certain content from Section 230. (Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images) | The most prominent example is probably the only one that's actually succeeded. In 2018, Congress passed a bill removing Section 230 protections for companies aware of sex trafficking on their sites. Free speech advocates said it was a dangerous precedent that could snowball into the law, which many see as fundamental to maintaining a free and open Internet, being deconstructed completely. | ADVERTISEMENT | | CONTENT FROM AT&T Business | | News in 3-D |  | How a new narrative format called spatial storytelling is shifting the visual language of journalism. And how fast, reliable and secure 5G makes it happen. | |  | | | | That hasn't happened, though there have been many attempts in the past three years by other politicians. Soon after the sex-trafficking amendment passed, there was discussion in Congress about making a similar change related to opioids and other drugs being sold on social media sites like Instagram. Conservatives, who have raised millions of dollars from donors over the past several years by casting themselves as fighting against alleged Big Tech censorship, have repeatedly tried to overhaul Section 230. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) proposed a bill taking away protections for content that was pushed by recommendation algorithms. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, another Republican keenly interested in tech issues, introduced a change that would remove 230 protections for companies with more than 30 million U.S. users or revenue over $500 million. Neither went anywhere. They're not alone, though. Democrats have mused about carving up Section 230 just as hungrily as Republicans. After an avowed racist murdered mosque members in New Zealand and streamed it live on Facebook in 2019, prominent liberals including Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon suggested taking away Section 230 protections when it came to hate speech on social media. So Klobuchar's new bill is just the latest in a growing tradition. The problem, though, is the First Amendment protects social media companies' right to moderate their platforms how they see fit, and it's highly unlikely any big changes to the law would be approved by a court, says Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and the author of a book on the history of Section 230. "If it were to pass, I don't think it would ever survive a First Amendment challenge," Kosseff said in a phone conversation. The bill would also give the Department of Health and Human Services secretary the power to define what is and isn't health misinformation, potentially creating all sorts of political conflicts. One might agree with the current secretary's definition, but what if you fast forward four years and someone from the opposite party is in power? "We all want less misinformation online, but this approach would turn future Republican presidents into the speech police," Adam Kovacevich, chief executive of tech trade association Chamber of Progress, said in an email. "When President Ron DeSantis' HHS Secretary deems pro-choice and transgender speech 'misinformation,' Democrats would regret this." For better or worse, Section 230 has captured the imaginations of politicians and voters, even if they don't fully understand how it works or the potential consequences of changing it. And it seems likely the language will continue to be a target for people taking shots at Big Tech and the power companies like Facebook and Google hold in our lives. But they'll likely have to look beyond Section 230 if they want concrete change. "Not all solutions to what's wrong with the Internet are going to come through Section 230," Kosseff said. "There's not any easy answers." | 
Email 
No comments:
Post a Comment