response to presentation

Section 230

Karen Nguyen, Molly Mckenzie, Deion Williams, Nnamdi Iroha, Nate Stogdill, Brian Huber

Section 230 and Misinformation Overview

Section 230 provides social media companies with too much protection from legal resources for the misinformation users post. Section 230 protects online services that publish third-party content from a range of laws that would typically hold them accountable for what those third-parties say or do.

Background Social media reaches a large audience. Due to the reach social media platforms have information is able to spread quickly. Specifically, users have been using their platforms to talk about the worldwide pandemic: COVID-19. Users, especially “influencers,” all have their own opinions that often downplay the severity of COVID-19 (Bagherpour and Nouri). This creates misinformation and contributes to the quick spread. Misinformation is false and often harmful information, which is not shared with malicious intent (Tanner). Some social media sites are trying to develop their own systems for identifying misinformation, such as Twitter’s system for tagging tweets for misinformation or inciting violence. They also are displaying messages when someone tries to like a tweet that has been tagged for misinformation, in an attempt to stop the spread of misinformation.

Implementation and Evaluation Policy alternative implementation Human Review - Each site would need to create their own site review committee that is responsible for monitoring the site for any illegal activity or First Amendment violations, and would be responsible for removing them. Social Media Filters - Each site would need to develop some system for sorting, filtering, and/or tagging all posts in order to allow users to determine posts they do and don’t want to see. Federal Review - An existing or new federal government agency would be assigned to monitor all sites for any illegal activity and First Amendment violations. They would also be responsible for notifying the sites of any potential violations, and punishing them if they weren’t rectified. Coregulation - A new organization staffed by both government officials and representatives from each site would be created with the objective of mutual moderation of all sites.

Criteria for measuring effects of policy Alternatives 1st Amendment Suppression - Does this alternative suppress first amendment rights? Illegal Activity - Is there a change in the amount of illegal activity on social media sites? Social Media Turnover - Are there any new social media sites created, or old ones shut down? Dialogue - Is there a noticeable difference in general tone and dialogue on the sites?

Policy Alternatives Status Quo - Maintain current policies Human Review Require social media sites to have human staff consistently review their sites for illegal activity, along with managing potential free speech violations.

This may result in more sites maintaining cleaner websites, and they would likely err on the side of caution, which would result in less illegal activity slipping through the cracks. However, that extra caution may result in some posts being unfairly deleted, which could impact people’s First Amendment rights.

Social Media Filters Require social media sites tag posts depending on their content, and allow users to filter out certain kinds of content that they don’t want to see.

This may result in sites’ user bases segmenting themselves, which could make it easier for their posts to be labeled and watched, without directly impacting their First Amendment rights, but could lead to some groups using this system to find like-minded people, which could lead to echo chambers where misinformation could still spread.

Federal Review Assign or create a federal agency for the responsibility to oversee and potentially discipline social media sites for both illegal activity and free speech violations.

The may result in sites being held more accountable for illegal activity and free speech violations, but some may see it as the government trying to take control of private organizations, and may be worried about them becoming bogged down in a similar fashion to other government organizations.

Coregulation Have both the social media and US Government collaborate through a new government agency in which both parties have equal weight to address illegal activity and free speech violations.

Importance/Relevance

Section 230 shields online intermediaries from being treated, under the law, as the publisher or speaker of content authored by a third party. It also shields intermediaries from liability for actions they take to restrict the availability of obscene, violent, or “otherwise objectionable” content (Llanso). Stricter policies will behoove social media companies to do more to moderate their platforms and take down content such as hate speech and misinformation.

Works Cited Bagherpour, Amir and Ali Nouri. (2020, October 11). “COVID Misinformation Is Killing People.” Scientific American.

www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-misinformation-is-killing-people1/ Harmon, Elliot, and Joe Mullin. “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.”

Electronic Frontier Foundation. www.eff.org/issues/cda230 Feeney, Matthew and Will Duffield. (2020, November 2). “A Year of Content Moderation and Section 230.” CATO Institute.

https://www.cato.org/blog/year-content-moderation-section-230 Llanso, Emma. (2019, July 11). “Clearing Up Misinformation About Section 230.” CDT.

https://cdt.org/insights/clearing-up-misinformation-about-section-230/ Tanner, Jonathan. (2020. September). “Ten things to know about misinformation and disinformation.” ODI.

https://www.odi.org/publications/17330-10-things-know-about-misinformation-and-disinformation Trottier, D. (2012). Policing social media. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 49(4), 411-425. Goldie, D., Linick, M., Jabbar, H., & Lubienski, C. (2014). Using bibliometric and social media analyses to explore the “echo

chamber” hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28(2), 281-305. Rainey, Hal G., and Barry Bozeman. "Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori."

Journal of public administration research and theory 10.2 (2000): 447-470.