July 7, 2020 — Many conservatives have long accused popular social media platforms of discriminating against their ideas, but that feeling reached a new urgency in late May when Twitter flagged several of President Donald Trump’s tweets for touting unsubstantiated claims and glorifying violence.
The move sparked outrage from some on the right. Some Republican users said that Twitter had treated other similarly controversial posts differently.
Shortly after, Trump called for the revocation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Don’t miss Broadband Breakfast Live Online on Wednesday, July 8, 2020 — “Section 230 in an Election Year: How Republicans and Democrats are Approaching Proposed Changes.” This event is part of a three-part event series,“Section 230: Separating Fact From Fiction.”
Put simply, the law protects online platforms from liability for the content their users post. In the event of an immediate threat or other illegal event on the website, the only person that can be held responsible for the crime is the individual user.
Shortly after he called for the statute’s repeal, Trump signed an executive order that attempted to restrict Section 230’s protections by potentially withholding federal funds from tech companies that engage in “viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.”
The order was met with skepticism from many digital policy experts.
Michael Petricone, senior vice president of government affairs for the Consumer Technology Association, said it was “not only ill-considered, it is unconstitutional.”
“For the past few months, people… have relied on online platforms to connect and communicate,” he said. “It was Section 230 and the free speech protections enjoyed by online platforms that enabled their success and subsequently, their ability to support struggling Americans during the pandemic.”
The legal footing on which the order stands is unclear, but frustration at alleged incidents of bias have continued to grow.
Parler’s ‘free speech’ community standards
Several conservative commentators called for a conservative exodus from Twitter.
In its stead, some have migrated to platforms like Parler, which claims to offer users an escape from alleged anti-conservative bias.
Public figures like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Fox News anchor Sean Hannity made Parler accounts that garnered hundreds of thousands of followers in mere days. Some, like Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, had previously made accounts but only recently resumed use of them.
Big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter “have an unparalleled ability to shape what Americans see and hear and ultimately think,” Cruz wrote in a post to the site. “And they use that power to silence conservatives and to promote their radical leftwing agenda.”
Parler aims to be “a non-biased free speech driven entity,” and provides examples of Supreme Court outcomes and Federal Communications Commission media regulations to justify much of what they deem off-limits.
However, the platform still removes posts and even users that run afoul of content moderation policies, including legally-protected content like crass speech, pornography and spam — all behaviors that are permitted on Twitter, provided that pornography is tagged as “sensitive”.
In a post last week, Parler CEO John Matze warned users that such actions would not be tolerated on the website, and that if a user were in doubt about what is acceptable to post, he should “ask [himself] if [he] would say it on the streets of New York or national television.”
Further, the platform’s level of unacceptable content has caused the company to ask members of its userbase to sift through the potentially violent, pornographic, incestuous, bestial or otherwise undesirable content two hours a day without compensation, promising future payment of an unspecified amount.
One such post claims that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-M.N., called for “all white men [to] be put in chains” in a post on Twitter. No such tweet exists.
One can find myriad examples of harmful behavior on mainstream platforms like Twitter and Facebook as well. But ultimately, both their and Parler’s ability to decide which legal content to leave untouched is protected by the very piece of legislation that the president, whom many of Parler’s users and investors support, is trying to repeal.
Gab’s looser guidelines on content
Other alternative social media networks, like Gab, allow far more content on their platforms than Parler. On Gab, users follow loose content guidelines that permit almost anything that is not copyright infringement, impersonation, unlawful threatening, and obscene or pornographic, although nudity for “protest or for educational/medical reasons” is permitted.
Because of the lax restrictions, CEO Andrew Torba said, “Gab is an online refuge for anyone who wishes to speak freely and securely away from the tyranny of Silicon Valley.”
However, such a refuge has led to communities centered around ethnic hatred that are generally banned on Parler, as well as the more “mainstream” and popular social networks Twitter and Facebook. In 2018, Gab user Robert Bowers sparked notoriety for the online forum when he posted on Gab that he was “going in,” before entering a synagogue to murder 11 people and leave several others injured.
Before the shooting, Bowers’ account was replete with anti-Semitic content. He railed against “Zionist Operated Governments” and the Hebrews Immigrant Aid Society, which assists refugees, and warnedof a “kike infestation.” The posts and Bowers’ account were removed following the shooting.
Torba claimed that journalists who accuse Gab of being a safe haven for white supremacists and radicals are “Marxist propagandists and proven liars,” and that there are numerous healthy groups on the site.
He also said that in the wake of Twitter’s response to Trump’s tweets, the platform has seen a spike in membership to over four million users.
“We saw an increase of 100,000 new daily active users join the Gab community in the past week alone,” he said. “In June, we brought on 200,000 new and returning users after the President’s tweets started getting ‘fact-checked’ by Twitter.”
Despite Gab’s history, its community guidelines are closer to reflecting its stated vision and seemingly less arbitrarily enforced than Parler’s. Torba said that because Parler is available in Apple’s App Store and Google Play (both of which have barred Gab), they are required to enforce not only their own community guidelines but also the guidelines of their providers.
“[This] is likely why Parler is already mass banning users,” he said. “From what I’ve seen, Twitter has more free speech than Parler does.”
In an interview with Pastor Rick Wiles of TruNews (who has warned of a “brown invasion” of the United States and referred to the impeachment of President Donald Trump as a “Jew coup”), Torba said he refuses to “bend the knee” to those who wish to see Gab fail, and that he sees his work as eternally important.
“Hey, if Christ can get up on that cross,” he said, “I can pick up the cross and do what I do. That’s the way I see it.”
Gab CEO supports Section 230
Torba is vocally pro-Section 230. In a Gab News post, he championed the right of private companies to “moderate their platform as they see fit.”
“They can ban anyone for any reason,” he continued. “They can have a rule that says no one can post videos of their cat anymore if they so choose and they can certainly decide to.”
However, Torba also contended that Section 230’s protections do not extend to Twitter or Facebook’s fact-checking practices.
“When Big Tech platforms “fact-check” posts or “editorialize” content, Section 230 does not apply to that speech,” he said. “That speech is them speaking, not a user. Section 230 does not prevent them from being held liable for their own speech.”
Other right-leaning figures, like David Harsanyi of the National Review, have argued that while Twitter’s decision to mark Trump’s tweets as false or glorifying violence will only fuel accusations of bias, it is within the platform’s legal right to do so.
“No American, not even the president, has an inherent right to a social media account,” he said. “Tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter are free to ban any user they see fit. They’re free to accuse Donald Trump — and only Trump, if they see fit — of being a liar, even if they shouldn’t.”
Parler’s Matze has expressed a contrasting view.
In an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Matze said that while he does not like the idea of being perceived as a Twitter alternative, he believes that Parler’s practices are in better keeping with free speech and that Twitter is “acting more like publications rather than a community forum” — the same reasoning Trump used in arguing for the repeal of Section 230.
The future of Parler, Gab and other critics of Silicon Valley social networks
Torba said that Gab’s community guidelines will not change in the future, something that he claimed distinguished the site from its competition.
“This is where Gab stands out,” he said. “For years we have taken the principled position of defending speech that Apple, Google and other Big Tech companies wish to see censored. When Apple and Google demanded that Gab ban [First Amendment] protected speech, we refused to bend the knee and were banned from both app stores as punishment.”
Torba said that Gab’s users were committed to the company’s ideals, and that they did not need the help of “impotent members of Congress.”
“We have a loud majority of truth seekers speaking very freely who are infinitely more important and influential,” he said.
In the future, Matze said to Ingraham, Parler will focus on so-called “influencer marketing,”
“That’s really important right now — the influencers can convey the message better than individuals or the page as a whole,” he said.
In June, Matze offered $10,000 to a left-leaning pundit with at least 50.000 followers on Facebook or Twitter willing to join Parler. Finding no one, he raised the “progressive bounty” to $20,000.
To date, no one has accepted.
Sen. Mike Lee Promotes Bills Valuing Federal Spectrum, Requiring Content Moderation Disclosures
April 5, 2021 – Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said Friday spectrum used by federal agencies is not being utilized efficiently, following legislation he introduced early last year that would evaluate the allocation and value of federally-reserved spectrum.
The Government Spectrum Valuation Act, or S.553 and introduced March 3, directs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to consult with the Federal Communications Commission and Office of Management and Budget to estimate the value of spectrum between 3 kilohertz and 95 gigahertz that is assigned to federal agencies.
Lee spoke at an event hosted by the Utah tech association Silicon Slopes on Friday about the legislation, in addition to other topics, including Section 230.
Some bands on the spectrum are reserved for federal agencies as they need it, but it’s not always managed efficiently, Lee said. Some are used by the Department of Defense for ‘national security,’ for example, but when asked what that spectrum is used for, we’re told, ‘we can’t tell you because of national security,’ he said.
“Just about everything we do on the internet is carried out through a mobile device, and all of that requires access to spectrum,” he said.
He said that lives are becoming more affected and enhanced by our connection to the internet, often through a wireless connection, which is increasing the need for the government to efficiently manage spectrum bandwidth, he said. Some of the bands are highly valuable, he said, comparing them to the “beach front property” of spectrum.
Legislation changing Section 230
Lee also spoke on Section 230, a statute that protects online companies from liability for content posted by their users. It’s a hot topic for policymakers right now as they consider regulating social media platforms.
Both Republicans and Democrats want more regulation for tech companies, but for different reasons. Democrats want more moderation against alleged hate speech or other content, citing the January 6 riot at the Capitol as one example of not enough censorship. Republicans on the other hand, including Lee, allege social media companies censor or remove right-leaning political content but do not hold the same standard for left-leaning content.
Lee highlighted that platforms have the right to be as politically-biased as they want, but it’s a problem when their terms of service or CEOs publicly state they are neutral, but then moderate content from a non-neutral standpoint, he said.
Lee expressed hesitation about repealing or changing Section 230. “If you just repealed it altogether, it would give, in my view, an undo advantage to big market incumbents,” he said. One solution is supplementing Section 230 with additional clarifying language or new legislation, he said.
That’s why he came up with the Promise Act, legislation he introduced on February 24 that would require the disclosure of rules for content moderation, and permit the Federal Trade Commission to take corrective action against companies who violate those disclosed rules. “I don’t mean it to be an exclusive solution, but I think it is a reasonably achievable step toward some type of sanity in this area,” he said.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and a couple of her colleagues also drafted Section 230 legislation that would maintain the spirit of the liability provision, but would remove it for paid content.
Pressed by Congress, Big Tech Defends Itself and Offers Few Solutions After Capitol Riot
March 26, 2021 – The heads of the largest social media companies largely defended their platforms, reiterated what they’ve done, and offered few solutions to the problems that ail them during a congressional hearing Thursday.
But, under harsh questioning from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, none of the CEOs of Google, Facebook or Twitter were given chance to respond to questions for more than 30 to 60 seconds on a given topic.
The hearing was about misinformation on social media in the fallout of the January 6 Capitol riot. The CEOs said dealing with the problem of dis- and misinformation on their platforms is more difficult than people think.
“The responsibility here lies with the people who took the actions to break the law and do the insurrection,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in response to a question about whether the platforms were to blame for the riot.
“Secondarily, also, the people who spread that content, including the president, but others as well, with repeated rhetoric over time, saying that the election was rigged and encouraging people to organize. I think those people bare the primary responsibility as well,” Zuckerberg said.
Zuckerberg added that “polarization was rising in America long before social networks were even invented,” he said. He blamed the “political and media environment that drives Americans apart.”
A ‘complex question’ of fault
Google CEO Sundar Pichai said it’s a “complex question” in response to the question of who’s at fault for the riot. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, however, was more direct: “Yes, but you also have to take into consideration a broader ecosystem; it’s not just about the technology platforms we use,” he said.
It was the first time Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Pichai appeared on Capitol Hill since the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The hearing was spurred by the riot and the turbulent presidential election that concluded in Joe Biden’s win and Donald Trump’s ban from Twitter and Facebook. Congress has turned their eye toward the social media companies for several months on possible Section 230 reform to address the alleged problems in the tech industry.
“Our nation is drowning in misinformation driven by social media. Platforms that were once used to share kids with grandparents are all-too-often havens of hate, harassment and division,” said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Penn., chairman of the Communications and Technology subcommittee, who led the hearing. Doyle alleged the platforms “supercharged” the riot.
Both Democratic and Republican members of the committee laid out a variety of grievances during the five-hour meeting, and while they didn’t all share the same concerns, all agreed that something needs to be done.
“I hope you can take away from this hearing how serious we are, on both sides of the aisle, to see many of these issues that trouble Americans addressed,” Doyle said.
On the left side of the political aisle the main criticism against the tech giants was the spread of misinformation and extremism, including COVID-19 vaccines, climate change and the 2020 presidential election that Trump alleged was rigged against him.
“It is not an exaggeration to say that your companies have fundamentally and permanently transformed our very culture, and our understanding of the world,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois. “Much of this is for good, but it is also true that our country, our democracy, even our understanding of what is ‘truth’ has been harmed by the proliferation and dissemination of misinformation and extremism,” she said.
“Unfortunately, this disinformation and extremism doesn’t just stay online, it has real-world, often dangerous and even violent consequences, and the time has come to hold online platforms accountable,” said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J.
From the right, Republican members voiced concerns about too much censorship, easy access to opioids, and the harm on children they said social media has.
“I’m deeply concerned by your decisions to operate your companies in a vague and biased manner, with little to no accountability, while using Section 230 as a shield for your actions and their real-world consequences,” said Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio. “Your companies had the power to silence the president of the United States, shut off legitimate journalism in Australia, shut down legitimate scientific debate on a variety of issues, dictate which articles or websites are seen by Americans when they search the internet,” he said.
“Your platforms are my biggest fear as a parent,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, expressing frustration over the impact that social media has on children. “It’s a battle for their development, a battle for their mental health, and ultimately, a battle for their safety,” she said, citing a rise of teen suicides since 2011. “I do not want you defining what is true for them, I do not want their future manipulated by your algorithms,” she said.
Platforms say it’s challenging, reiterate initiatives
In response to the many criticisms, Zuckerberg made it clear that while moderating content is central to address misinformation, it is important to protect speech as much as possible while taking down illegal content, which he said can be a huge challenge. As an example, bullying hurts the victim but there’s not a clear line where we can just censor speech, he said.
Pichai said that Google’s mission is about organizing and delivering information to the world and allowing free expression while also combatting misinformation. But it’s an evolving challenge, he said, because approximately 15 percent of google searches each day are new, and 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. To reinforce that point, he cited the fact that 18 months ago no one had heard of COVID-19, and in 2020 ‘coronavirus’ was the most trending search.
Dorsey expressed a similar sentiment about the evolving challenge of balancing freedom of expression with content moderation. “We observe what’s happening on our service, we work to understand the ramifications, and we use that understanding to strengthen our operations. We push ourselves to improve based on the best information we have,” he said.
The best way to face new challenges is to narrow down the problem to have the greatest impact, Dorsey said. For example, disinformation is a broad concept, and we focused on disinformation leading to offline harm, he said. Twitter worked on three specific categories, he said, these included manipulated media, public health and civic integrity.
“Ultimately, we’re running a business, and a business wants to grow the number of customers it serves. Enforcing a policy is a business decision,” Dorsey said.
Dorsey noted Twitter’s new Bluesky project, a decentralized internet protocol that various social media companies would be able to utilize, rather than being owned by a single company. It will improve the social media environment by increasing innovation around business models, recommended algorithms, and moderation controls in the hands of individuals instead of private companies, he said. But others already working in a similar technology space say the project is not without its problems.
On Section 230 reform
On the question of changing Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act, which grants social media companies immunity from liability for user-generated content, Zuckerberg suggested two specific changes: Platforms need to issue transparency reports about harmful content, and need better moderation for content that is clearly illegal. These changes should only affect large social media platforms, he said, but did not specify the difference between a large and small platform.
Dorsey said those may be good ideas, but it could be difficult to determine what is a large and small platform, and having those stipulations may incentivize the wrong things.
When asked about Instagram’s new version for children, Zuckerberg confirmed it was in the planning stage and many details were still being worked out.
Several Democrats raised concerns about minority populations, citing as one example the March 16 shooting in Atlanta that killed eight people including several Asian American women. Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Cal., asked why various hashtags such as #kungflu and #chinavirus were not removed from Twitter.
Dorsey responded that Twitter does take action against hate speech, but it can also be a challenge because it’s not always simple to distinguish between content that supports an idea and counter speech that condemns the support of that idea.
The tech leaders were asked by multiple members about the platform algorithms failing to catch specific instances of content moderation. Democrats referred to examples of posts containing misinformation or hate speech, while Republicans used examples of conservative-based content being removed.
Both Zuckerberg and Dorsey said that their systems are not perfect and it’s not realistic to expect perfection. Some content will always slip by our radars that we have to address individually, Zuckerberg said.
In response to Rep. Steve Scalise’s reference to a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden that was taken down, Dorsey said we have made mistakes in some instances.
Editor’s Note: This story has been revised to add in a second paragraph that more accurately captured the fact that, while the tech executives offered few solutions, they were given little opportunity to do so by members of Congress. Additionally, the word “secondarily” was added back into Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s statement about who bore responsibility for the insurrection.
Sen. Mark Warner Says His Section 230 Bill Is Crafted With Help of Tech Companies
March 23, 2021 – Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, said he and his staff are in “regular contact” with big tech representatives about Section 230 reform.
“Both my staff and I are in regular contact with a host of individuals on the tech side,” Warner said Monday at a Protocol webinar discussing internet intermediary liability provision Section 230.
“We have had a great deal of contact with Facebook; in the most senior levels on the performance team, we have had an ongoing conversation with Google, although sometimes they decided not to show in our hearings.
“My staff is in contact with major platforms entities and will continue to have a dialogue.”
The proposed legislation, which was brought forth by Warner, Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., would maintain immunity from legal consequences for whatever the platforms’ users post, but makes an exemption for content that the companies get paid for.
Critics of the proposal, including Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have said that, if enacted, the change would effectively create a new form of liability on commercial relationships that would force “web hosts, cloud storage providers and even paid email services to purge their networks of any controversial speech.”
After consulting with interest groups, consultants, and experts, Warner declared that it is time to make some changes and get it right. “Some say the bill doesn’t go far enough; some say it goes too far, but I’m sure we got at the right point.”
To make it clear what the bill does and what it doesn’t do, Warner shared that this legislation does not restrict anyone’s right to free speech, and he still wants “customers to be able to say about the good or bad of things they got at their local restaurant.”
The changes, Warner said, will address the disparity between big and small tech companies by maintaining protections for the latter but holding the former responsible for things they get paid for.
“In the late 90s, Section 230 was built to protect tech startups,” Warner said, but it has become a “get out of jail free card” for large corporations.
- Huawei’s Success In China A Win For Washington, Expert Says
- Partnerships And Trust Go Long Way To Securing Financing For Broadband Projects, Panelists Say
- Faster Rural Broadband Bill, Tools For Robocalls, Opposition To Instagram For Kids
- Telecoms Should Actively Build Broadband Infrastructure Through Road Developments
- Openreach Partners With STL For Fiber Build
- FCC to Vote On Emergency Connectivity Fund Policies By Mid-May: Rosenworcel
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Artificial Intelligence3 months ago
Artificial Intelligence Aims to Enhance Human Capabilities, But Only With Caution and Safeguards
Fiber4 months ago
Smaller Internet Providers Were Instrumental to Fiber Deployment in 2020, Says Fiber Broadband Association
Privacy1 month ago
New Laws Needed on Capturing Data Collection From Mixed Reality, Experts Say
Artificial Intelligence2 months ago
Staying Ahead On Artificial Intelligence Requires International Cooperation
#broadbandlive1 month ago
Broadband Breakfast Live Online Wednesday, March 24, 2021 – The State of Online Higher Education
Cybersecurity3 months ago
Internet of Things Connected Devices Are Inherently Insecure, Say Tech Experts
White House3 months ago
Building Better Broadband Underscores Joe Biden’s Top Policy Initiatives
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
Getting Older Adults Connected, Nextlink Internet Partnership, Tacoma Convention Center Gains 5G Connectivity