Oct 11, 2022·edited Oct 11, 2022Liked by Robert Reich
This is well summed up by one of my favorite quotes from the 2016 movie Denial.
"Now, some people are saying that the result of this trial will threaten free speech. I don't accept that. I'm not attacking free speech. On the contrary, I've been defending it against someone who wanted to abuse it.
Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can't do is lie and expect not to be held accountable for it. Not all opinions are equal. And some things happened, just like we say they do. Slavery happened, the Black Death happened. The Earth is round, the ice caps are melting, and Elvis is not alive."
The question no one is asking is why all of these social media platforms have algorithyms that specifically targets and forwards horrible things and ensures it creates the thing it makes the most profit off of... fear, hate, slander and ignorance.
The problem is not only the misleading content some users place on these media, but the algorithms the media uses to increase visibility of the content. By observation these algorithms in effect create isolated groups who watch what each other watches and do not encourage reading, reaction, and analysis by those with other views. The algorithms appear to be positive feedback which increases the magnitude of deviations. Rational democratic discourse will happen only if opponents see each others content and comment upon it. It appears the algorithms are currently striving to increase revenue by offering up what amounts to "more of the same" to "believers". Algorithms that encourage cross pollination are what is called for in order to save our nation.
Why aren't social media treated the same as publishers? Publishers are accountable for what they publish, aren't they? If I write a book or an article that is preposterous, and I can't get anyone to publish it, is that a violation of my right to free speech? I don't think so. I can self-publish my views, but without the the power to distribute it widely, it won't start an insurrection or have a team of lawyers to defend it from lawsuits, nor will it require a government to regulate its content. This is the problem with social media being treated as public carriers. They must be held accountable for being able so easily and cheaply to publish harmful tripe.
Communications Decency Act of 1996 was invoked to regulate porn on the internet. Now it’s time to invoke another Communications Decency Act to regulate indecent free speech and hold accountable those people who promote hate filled internet speech. Alex Jones is a good example!
Free speech does not or should not make it OK to shout 'Fire!" in a crowded theater. It should not allow an ad agency to make a political commercial depicting men kicking in the door to their opponent's home and entering with AR-15's and shooting the place up. Responsibility for content has to be there somewhere.
We found out long ago that monopolies are bad and there were laws to break them up. What happened to those laws? Why do we have to make the same mistakes over and over?
The challenge is preserving truth in the internet’s torrent of information. Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie, or to mislead . How the courts can create enforceable measures which protect the public is the challenge of our time.
The idea of imposing the duties of a common carrier can represent a needed balance to the capitalist tendency towards over concentration. Obviously, the courts are the wrong place for this. It should be a legislative and regulatory policy-based approach that deals with the number of platform companies beyond the social media giants.
My suggestion is that Section 230 be amended to narrow its scope and no longer protect the platform algorithm technologies of selection and aggregation. Only the actual words of natural persons should give rise the protection for the companies. The creators of content through algorithms, bots, or similar technology should be subject to full and complete liability for the harm done.
Such an amendment would allow the tort system to regulate conduct without the section 230 liability shield that was enacted to protect an infant industry which is no longer in its infancy.
Finally, if we want to take a strict "originalist" view of the first amendment as sacred text to be interpreted only literally, speech literacy means spoken words and social media companies do not have printing presses so are not the "press".
I agree. We have too many monopolies now. Airlines. Media carriers- newspapers, television, radio. Banks. Movie studios. With their power, they do what they want. Maybe a shareholder would have the guts to object but they just buy back stock. Facebook is a huge business and it’s run by a cheating pipsqueek. Google is huge and pretty much controls most of the net - we google now, not search. Monopolies are good for the dictators running them but terrible and costly for the citizen.
Churchill had an astute viewpoint. I like what Gandhi said when ask what he thought of Western civilization. He said “I think it would be a good idea.“ That being said, I agree with you Robert. Breaking up these mega corporations is a great idea and hopefully will add to a more perfect Union. Right now, it seems like we are akin to the three poor fishermen rescued off the coast of Louisiana today; in shark infested waters fending themselves off with their hands.
1st How can it be called "The Communications Decency Act of 1996" When it is protecting corporations from being sued for publishing false, indecent, and dangerous crap? 2nd I probably shouldn't comment since I don't understand how otherwise reasonably intelligent people can be swayed by the obvious garbage of political ads, and who cares what you ate last night?
Winston Churchill had a clear view : “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted." We can only hope that there is enough time for the powers that be to figure out what that right thing is. How bad will it get before then?
The FOX TV station here shares its studio with the ABC TV station for it's broadcast operation. Both stations share the same local news team, as well. ABC broadcasts the local news until 7:00 AM, at which time it changes over to the network news. Just before the 7:00 AM switch to network, the local news team invites the viewers to join them on FOX, where they'll continue to deliver the morning news.
Now, here's what's interesting. If you switch over to the FOX broadcast station at 7:00 AM, what you'll find is infomercials, complete with the disclaimer preface - on each - denying responsibility for the views or products presented by the infomercial. The FOX trash news seems to be exclusively a creature of the internet.
The only explanation I think holds water for that dichotomy in FOX's behavior is that broadcast TV is regulated by the FCC, while the internet is - for all intent - unregulated. It seems that broadcast is required to at least tip it's hat in observance of >some< modicum of truth and decency - not to mention . . . fairness.
That's why I think there could be a lot worse outcomes than imposing FCC regulations on "common carriers" - >a lot worse.< I don't think the internet should be viewed and treated as an >instead< of broadcast platform. I think it should be viewed and treated as an >additional< broadcast platform.
However, I think FCC regulations being imposed exclusively on social media platforms is a >canard.< After having had time to see the trend of an unregulated - for all intent - internet, as it has developed over years, I think FCC regulation should be imposed on the internet as a whole - in the same way it is imposed on radio transmissions. >Every< website hosted on the internet should be considered equivalent to a broadcast TV channel or radio station or telephone network, and regulated in >exactly the same way<.
After all, what we have come to know as the internet, a public platform, was originally a US defense system developed by DARPA to insure a "self healing" strategic communications system that could maintain critical communications channels in the event of a nuclear attack.
Some genius just decided that if huge money could be made if the public was granted access, it should be opened for use by the public. >Fair enough.< It worked well enough for >regulated< radio and television broadcast. Few people like taking a shot. Yet, sometimes a shot is the only thing that can save them.
I'm very conflicted as to what I think. The First Amendment protects our right to free speech...up to a point. It's my understanding that inflammatory racist or call-to-violence type speech is NOT protected because of the harm they cause. So I do believe that the social media platforms should be more responsible and diligent about keeping that awful stuff off their sites. As for trusting Americans to do the right thing, once upon a time Winston Churchill was absolutely correct. Now? I wonder.
This is well summed up by one of my favorite quotes from the 2016 movie Denial.
"Now, some people are saying that the result of this trial will threaten free speech. I don't accept that. I'm not attacking free speech. On the contrary, I've been defending it against someone who wanted to abuse it.
Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can't do is lie and expect not to be held accountable for it. Not all opinions are equal. And some things happened, just like we say they do. Slavery happened, the Black Death happened. The Earth is round, the ice caps are melting, and Elvis is not alive."
The question no one is asking is why all of these social media platforms have algorithyms that specifically targets and forwards horrible things and ensures it creates the thing it makes the most profit off of... fear, hate, slander and ignorance.
The problem is not only the misleading content some users place on these media, but the algorithms the media uses to increase visibility of the content. By observation these algorithms in effect create isolated groups who watch what each other watches and do not encourage reading, reaction, and analysis by those with other views. The algorithms appear to be positive feedback which increases the magnitude of deviations. Rational democratic discourse will happen only if opponents see each others content and comment upon it. It appears the algorithms are currently striving to increase revenue by offering up what amounts to "more of the same" to "believers". Algorithms that encourage cross pollination are what is called for in order to save our nation.
Why aren't social media treated the same as publishers? Publishers are accountable for what they publish, aren't they? If I write a book or an article that is preposterous, and I can't get anyone to publish it, is that a violation of my right to free speech? I don't think so. I can self-publish my views, but without the the power to distribute it widely, it won't start an insurrection or have a team of lawyers to defend it from lawsuits, nor will it require a government to regulate its content. This is the problem with social media being treated as public carriers. They must be held accountable for being able so easily and cheaply to publish harmful tripe.
Communications Decency Act of 1996 was invoked to regulate porn on the internet. Now it’s time to invoke another Communications Decency Act to regulate indecent free speech and hold accountable those people who promote hate filled internet speech. Alex Jones is a good example!
It’s exhausting, waiting for all other possibilities to be exhausted…!
Free speech does not or should not make it OK to shout 'Fire!" in a crowded theater. It should not allow an ad agency to make a political commercial depicting men kicking in the door to their opponent's home and entering with AR-15's and shooting the place up. Responsibility for content has to be there somewhere.
We found out long ago that monopolies are bad and there were laws to break them up. What happened to those laws? Why do we have to make the same mistakes over and over?
The challenge is preserving truth in the internet’s torrent of information. Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie, or to mislead . How the courts can create enforceable measures which protect the public is the challenge of our time.
The idea of imposing the duties of a common carrier can represent a needed balance to the capitalist tendency towards over concentration. Obviously, the courts are the wrong place for this. It should be a legislative and regulatory policy-based approach that deals with the number of platform companies beyond the social media giants.
My suggestion is that Section 230 be amended to narrow its scope and no longer protect the platform algorithm technologies of selection and aggregation. Only the actual words of natural persons should give rise the protection for the companies. The creators of content through algorithms, bots, or similar technology should be subject to full and complete liability for the harm done.
Such an amendment would allow the tort system to regulate conduct without the section 230 liability shield that was enacted to protect an infant industry which is no longer in its infancy.
Finally, if we want to take a strict "originalist" view of the first amendment as sacred text to be interpreted only literally, speech literacy means spoken words and social media companies do not have printing presses so are not the "press".
I agree. We have too many monopolies now. Airlines. Media carriers- newspapers, television, radio. Banks. Movie studios. With their power, they do what they want. Maybe a shareholder would have the guts to object but they just buy back stock. Facebook is a huge business and it’s run by a cheating pipsqueek. Google is huge and pretty much controls most of the net - we google now, not search. Monopolies are good for the dictators running them but terrible and costly for the citizen.
Churchill had an astute viewpoint. I like what Gandhi said when ask what he thought of Western civilization. He said “I think it would be a good idea.“ That being said, I agree with you Robert. Breaking up these mega corporations is a great idea and hopefully will add to a more perfect Union. Right now, it seems like we are akin to the three poor fishermen rescued off the coast of Louisiana today; in shark infested waters fending themselves off with their hands.
1st How can it be called "The Communications Decency Act of 1996" When it is protecting corporations from being sued for publishing false, indecent, and dangerous crap? 2nd I probably shouldn't comment since I don't understand how otherwise reasonably intelligent people can be swayed by the obvious garbage of political ads, and who cares what you ate last night?
Winston Churchill had a clear view : “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted." We can only hope that there is enough time for the powers that be to figure out what that right thing is. How bad will it get before then?
You support him by asking the question.
We are a month out from the possible demise of our democracy. Focus on that.
We also should not be exposed to that other lying MF Donald J. Trump.
IMHO liars are a threat to themselves and to civilization and need a civil commitment hearing.
The FOX TV station here shares its studio with the ABC TV station for it's broadcast operation. Both stations share the same local news team, as well. ABC broadcasts the local news until 7:00 AM, at which time it changes over to the network news. Just before the 7:00 AM switch to network, the local news team invites the viewers to join them on FOX, where they'll continue to deliver the morning news.
Now, here's what's interesting. If you switch over to the FOX broadcast station at 7:00 AM, what you'll find is infomercials, complete with the disclaimer preface - on each - denying responsibility for the views or products presented by the infomercial. The FOX trash news seems to be exclusively a creature of the internet.
The only explanation I think holds water for that dichotomy in FOX's behavior is that broadcast TV is regulated by the FCC, while the internet is - for all intent - unregulated. It seems that broadcast is required to at least tip it's hat in observance of >some< modicum of truth and decency - not to mention . . . fairness.
That's why I think there could be a lot worse outcomes than imposing FCC regulations on "common carriers" - >a lot worse.< I don't think the internet should be viewed and treated as an >instead< of broadcast platform. I think it should be viewed and treated as an >additional< broadcast platform.
However, I think FCC regulations being imposed exclusively on social media platforms is a >canard.< After having had time to see the trend of an unregulated - for all intent - internet, as it has developed over years, I think FCC regulation should be imposed on the internet as a whole - in the same way it is imposed on radio transmissions. >Every< website hosted on the internet should be considered equivalent to a broadcast TV channel or radio station or telephone network, and regulated in >exactly the same way<.
After all, what we have come to know as the internet, a public platform, was originally a US defense system developed by DARPA to insure a "self healing" strategic communications system that could maintain critical communications channels in the event of a nuclear attack.
Some genius just decided that if huge money could be made if the public was granted access, it should be opened for use by the public. >Fair enough.< It worked well enough for >regulated< radio and television broadcast. Few people like taking a shot. Yet, sometimes a shot is the only thing that can save them.
I'm very conflicted as to what I think. The First Amendment protects our right to free speech...up to a point. It's my understanding that inflammatory racist or call-to-violence type speech is NOT protected because of the harm they cause. So I do believe that the social media platforms should be more responsible and diligent about keeping that awful stuff off their sites. As for trusting Americans to do the right thing, once upon a time Winston Churchill was absolutely correct. Now? I wonder.