Often times in discussion about tech policy in political discussion we will end up on the subject of section 230, generally most people oppose it or want to "reformed" while I attempt to explain how it protects sites from baseless lawsuits, they often accuse me of wanting to allow misinformation to spread or the promotion of hate crimes on Parlor. I try to explain that it also protects a leftist social media site the same way it protects other sites like Parlor. What is even worse is often times the discussion goes further saying we should have gov managed social media. I kinda just feel exhausted and try to not have these discussion as it usually ends pretty badly. Is there a better way of explaining section 230, and suggestions of how to explain alternatives to solving issues such as online harassment, bullying, and misinformation online without repealing section 230.
Reuters reports this morning the Rohingya refugees have filed suit in CA and apparently, in London, against the social media platform for failing to follow its own policies against hate speech. Haugen’s testimony plays a role, as does investigative journalism that suggests Myanmar’s military used the platform for “information combat”. The plaintiffs seek $150B.
Front and center of the defense is Section 230, a part of US law that shields social media platforms from liability over user posts. Various legal experts comment on the viability of the lawsuit.
My takeaway for investors: Whether the lawsuit is viable or not, it’s a distraction on management who must juggle a basket of sensitive issues, picking their words with care. Free speech is one thing, failing to follow internal regulations concerning hateful content is another. More troubling is the apparent passive view as to who’s using the platform and for what purpose. I doubt most Americans know much about this country or it’s history, so the idea the Myanmar military used Facebook most likely gets little traction.
That said, governments may see it differently. Management could face growing scrutiny from the US and Euro governments about various militaries or militants using the platform to promote their agenda. Addressing inquiries and criticism will take time and resources. Similarly, other refugee groups may file suits of their own. Whether there is grounds or merit to the allegations is beside the point. It‘s time, focus, and resources.
if I owned Facebook/Meta, I’d watch this like a hawk, looking for themes and patterns. No need to panic, these things take time, but I would have the company newsfeed on my daily radar until i have enough factual data to do otherwise.
With Facebook in the news and the whistleblower testifying to congress, dems are beginning to reference Section 230 reform. I anticipate a push for that but in the exact opposite way the GQP has been rallying for.
These Q content creators thought 230 reform would allow them some constitutional right to post dis-info and remain unbannable. Instead they might get the opposite and social media companies are held accountable for not cracking down on that baloney.
I'm extremely excited to see all these "Free Speech Conservatives" do a total 180 and start defending Section 230. Going to be fun!
