Big Tech’s Big Advantage
What I’m going to write here is related to this story about Trump being banned from Facebook, and was originally posted to the Late Edition Substack page.
Today’s big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and even Substack were given a huge gift in 1996. In fact, it’s the only reason they can exist the way they do today. Under the Communications Decency Act, they’re protected from any legal liability for the things other people post on their platforms.
This is why politicians, dictators, Hollywood stars, and your weird uncle can share outlandish untruths (or violent threats) to thousands if not millions of people, instantly, without Facebook getting sued. The internet “giants” of 1996 got Congress to agree that if they’re simply sharing someone else’s words, it shouldn’t count against them. It would be unfair to make them responsible for everything people say using their platform.
But that’s never been the case for other platforms. Newspapers, radio stations, and television broadcasters are all responsible for what they share on their platforms. That’s why Dominion Voting Systems can sue Fox News for what their anchors said last year, and for platforming guests, as defamation.
If the Daily Mining Gazette publishes the wrong thing, even if they didn’t author it, they can get sued, too.
If I wrote something seditious here, I could be put into legal jeopardy.
Substack is protected even though they’re the ones who deliver it to you.
It’s as if you could only get arrested for manufacturing heroin. Selling it has been legal since 1996, as long as you didn’t make it yourself.
Beyond that, websites also have legal protection for what they choose to remove from their sites. While most social media platforms have some kind of policy they follow to determine what is removed and what stays, they can really remove anything they want without legal repercussion, under current law. Even the president has little recourse if Facebook decides to remove him.
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and other social media sites simply are not “the public square”. They are private property, and the owners have near-total authority over who can be there, and what the topic of discussion is.
Should it be that way?
Should social media sites be responsible for everything on their website? Should they, can they possibly, review each and every post to ensure it meets their own policies? Should their policies be required to live up to the expectations of the law? Should they be liable for the words that they amplify and spread, but don’t create?
Facebook has repeatedly said no, and I can’t blame them. Publishing Late Edition, for instance, would be a lot easier if I didn’t read every last word of everything I share first.
Ultimately, I think we all have some responsibility for the things we share with other people, whatever they may be. The question is what kind of legal ramifications should there be if that responsibility is shirked by a company that derives profit from other people’s postings. Right now, there are none.
~~J. Vissers