Could fixing Facebook algorithms bridge our political divides?
Could fixing Facebook algorithms bridge our political divides?
Proposed U.S. legislation aims to make Facebook accountable for misinformation by targeting algorithms rather than content By Aeryn Pfaff
A Biden supporter has a conversation with a Trump supporter on the U.S. Capitol grounds on January 6.
We’ve all heard the calls for unity since the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump. We’re meant to unite with far-right radicals who want to end democracy and QAnon supporters who make real-world decisions based on the belief that liberals are a cabal of Satanist pedophiles. Embrace your uncle who believes every lie spread by Trump and far-right media. Engage social media contacts in debates about whether or not minorities deserve rights – because if we don’t, we run the risk of creating the dreaded
Section 230 | R Street rstreet.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from rstreet.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Members of Congress don’t agree on much these days, but there’s one idea both the right and the left support: Something needs to be done to rein in social media companies.
Democrats’ concerns revolve around harassment and misinformation, while Republicans’ focus is on political speech. Both sides have set their sights on a small but critical piece of federal law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But such discussions have been clouded by fundamental misunderstandings of what CDA230 is and the role it plays in the legal functioning of the internet today.
This provision shields internet service providers from liability associated with defamatory content posted by users. Twitter and Facebook would be utterly unviable without CDA230. But it also benefits the little sites. An online guest book on a bed-and-breakfast website, for example, would be a legal time bomb for the B&B without CDA230. Here we explore the historic and current implications of the law, a
CompuServe
Inc extended distributor liability to digital intermediaries that exercised little or no editorial control over third‐party content, offering them the protections traditionally granted to newsstands and booksellers. This protected CompuServe from Cubby’s defamation claim, though it left open the possibility that CompuServe might have been liable for
Rumorville’s defamation had it failed to act after being made aware of the defamatory content.
In 1995, Stratton Oakmont Inc., the brokerage firm of
Wolf
Wall
Street fame, sued internet service Prodigy Services Co. in New York state court after a user of the service’s Money Talk message board posted several screeds alleging that Stratton Oakmont’s directors were about to be indicted. Unlike CompuServe, Prodigy was attempting to run a family‐friendly business. Prodigy had promised users that it would remove “obscene, profane, or otherwise offensive” messages and promulgated “content guidelines�
Circumventing Section 230: Product Liability Lawsuits Threaten Internet Speech cato.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from cato.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.