Social media controls the world

[Thrag]

Yeah, so nobody is arguing that some solutions that may be proposed might not pass the SCOTUS.

[scottagibson]

@Timex

You would not be able to make a law prohibiting speech on the basis of it being false.

The libel and slander laws are effectively laws that limit speech and confer civil liability for speech content, so apparently you can actually have laws that have the effect of prohibiting speech on the basis of it being false and harmful.

@Timex

The problem that arises here, is that it does not seem clear how you would limit the section 230 protections in a way that did not have far reaching, unintended consequences, such as those laid out by JSnell previously.

Simple: As a publisher, you have section 230 protection for another person’s speech unless you decide to amplify that speech for your own profit, in which case you become potentially liable for the content of that speech. Let a jury sort it out.

[Timex]

@scottagibson

The libel and slander laws are effectively laws that limit speech and confer civil liability for speech content, so apparently you can actually have laws that have the effect of prohibiting speech on the basis of it being false and harmful.

I think that the key difference here is that those laws do not actually prohibit speech on the basis of its content, but rather they allow people to seek damages if they are harmed by someone lying about them.

This is perhaps a subtle difference, but surely you see how important it is.

@scottagibson

Simple: As a publisher, you have section 230 protection for another person’s speech unless you decide to amplify that speech for your own profit, in which case you become potentially liable for the content of that speech. Let a jury sort it out.

Then wouldn’t search engines become liable for all of their search results?

[scottagibson]

@Timex

I think that the key difference here is that those laws do not actually prohibit speech on the basis of its content, but rather they allow people to seek damages if they are harmed by someone lying about them.

Yes, which is precisely the purpose people are suggesting; a combination of that and the FTC false advertising laws, where it is the government that sues.

@Timex

Then wouldn’t search engines become liable for all of their search results?

Is a search engine a publisher? Is this what the FB algorithm does, wait until I specifically enter some search terms and try to give me a meaningful response? Because I don’t think that’s what their algorithm is doing.

[Thrag]

@Timex

I think that the key difference here is that those laws do not actually prohibit speech on the basis of its content, but rather they allow people to seek damages if they are harmed by someone lying about them.

Which is why people have pointed out adjusting how civil liability works in regards to social media companies is one tool in the legislative toolbox.

Then wouldn’t search engines become liable for all of their search results?

Possibly depending on how the law is crafted. While the concept of extending liability may be simple, the language and details of how it is done is not simple. Clearly something that applied to organic results would be unworkable. Not that extending it to PPC results is not a thorny issue too. The detail of the law could make carveouts for search engines as a whole or just organic content.

[scottagibson]

@Timex , you could be right that there is just no way to regulate these algorithms in any meaningful way that also comports with the constitution. But we don’t know that you’re right, and you don’t know that you’re right. That’s all I’m saying.

[Thrag]

Yes, talking past everyone to cling to the absolutist position that nothing can be done, and reducing all other voices to “you just want to regulate wrongthink” is the issue. Not any notion that it’s a difficult issue.

[Timex]

@scottagibson

Is a search engine a publisher?

Yes, search engines are currently protected from liability by section 230, in the same way that Facebook is.

@scottagibson

Is this what the FB algorithm does, wait until I specifically enter some search terms and try to give me a meaningful response? Because I don’t think that’s what their algorithm is doing.

But a search engine is choosing what content to show you. The fact that it’s doing it based on you actually activating a search doesn’t make it any less an algorithmic suggestion of content, and they are in fact doing it for profit. So you would need to narrow that definition more if you want to avoid making search engines essentially infeasible, which I’m certain you do not intend.

@Thrag

Possibly depending on how the law is crafted. While the concept of extending liability may be simple, the language and details of how it is done is not simple. Clearly something that applied to organic results would be unworkable. Not that extending it to PPC results is not a thorny issue too. The detail of the law could make carveouts for search engines as a whole or just organic content.

This is exactly my point though… crafting such a law would be extremely perilous, potentially creating extremely negative impacts on the internet by accident. The suggestions that have been made thus far all seem to have major problems, some of which I didn’t initially recognize until they were pointed out.

Removal of 230 protections won’t run afoul of the first amendment, as long as you don’t attempt to do it on the basis of content, but I’ve yet to see a good plan for how those protections could be stripped.

[Timex]

@scottagibson

@Timex , you could be right that there is just no way to regulate these algorithms in any meaningful way that also comports with the constitution. But we don’t know that you’re right, and you don’t know that you’re right. That’s all I’m saying.

And I agree that you COULD potentially come up with a way to remove such protections… my main point was twofold:

1. You cannot actually have the government ban speech on the basis of it being false, even if it is for profit. We have multiple SCOTUS cases that establish this precedent.
2. You could remove section 230 protections, but I have not seen good suggestions for how this would be done yet. This doesn’t mean that you couldn’t figure out a way to do this, but I am exceptionally wary of this because it would be very easy for the cure to be worse than the illness here, and the proposals thus far have fallen into this category.

[Thrag]

@Timex

This is exactly my point though… crafting such a law would be extremely perilous, potentially creating extremely negative impacts on the internet by accident. The suggestions that have been made thus far all seem to have major problems, some of which I didn’t initially recognize until they were pointed out.

Yes, it does sound like a problem that requires a lot of research and thought in order to craft a solution that both will pass review, not have unintended consequences and actually address the problem. I’m not sure anyone has really disagreed with that. Now while some have pointed out to “simple” conceptual solutions I don’t think they meant to imply they’d be super simple to implement and I will happily admit my mistake if that is not true.

[scottagibson]

@Timex

You cannot actually have the government ban speech on the basis of it being false, even if it is for profit

If nobody has suggested simply banning false speech —and nobody has — what is the point of this objection by you?

@Timex

You could remove section 230 protections, but I have not seen good suggestions for how this would be done yet.

I just offered one: treat social media platform algorithms that automatically amplify some content without any user request for that content differently than search engine algorithms that are responding to specific user requests. Make the platform potentially liable for amplifying false, harmful content when nobody asked them to.

[Thrag]

And since I wandered into this thread again, here’s a joke I came up some days ago but at the time decided it was too bad to make.

Okay, so if you think entirely removing 230 protections is a bad idea how about we start with just a few at a time and see how it goes?

[Timex]

@Thrag

Yes, it does sound like a problem that requires a lot of research and thought in order to craft a solution that both will pass review, not have unintended consequences and actually address the problem. I’m not sure anyone has really disagreed with that. Now while some have pointed out to “simple” conceptual solutions I don’t think they meant to imply they’d be super simple to implement and I will happily admit my mistake if that is not true.

I think the reason that I’m hammering on this point, is that there are lots of folks who very clearly do not understand the complexities of the situation.

And to be clear, I’m not even talking about folks in this thread, but rather actual people writing laws, as we speak. We’ve got a multitude of terribly written laws going through the legislatures of a bunch of states right now, most of which are obviously unconstitutional.

Hell, even at the federal level, you’ve got people like Sen. Klobuchar pushing the Health Misinformation Act, which is, again, OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional.

So I get real worried here, in that we’ve got major legislative players who seemingly don’t understand clearly established precedent for the first amendment, but also aren’t really thinking about what the broader impacts of these things are going to be. These people don’t understand the technology or how any of this stuff works, and frankly, lots of people don’t really value the first amendment when it’s protecting other people.

[Timex]

@scottagibson

If nobody has suggested simply banning false speech —and nobody has — what is the point of this objection by you?

Well, previously I’m pretty sure that folks here, including you, suggested that you could ban speech on the basis of it being false and for profit.

But even if I were mistaken and that was not your intent, I can point to Sen. Klobuchar’s law which specifically makes speech illegal if it is false, and the government is who decides what constitutes being false.

So it’s not like no one is suggesting this stuff. I mean, that’s a law that’s sitting in the senate, as we speak.

[Thrag]

In regards to that specific bill, and this specific thread, wasn’t it critiqued and the text of the bill itself wasn’t really defended?

[Timex]

I was actually just bringing it up as an example of actual legislation that is proposed by actual people in power, and not just randos on the internet, and yet is still obviously terrible. I didn’t recall that we talked about it here or not.

[scottagibson]

@Timex

Well, previously I’m pretty sure that folks here, including you, suggested that you could ban speech on the basis of it being false and for profit.

I said before that maybe you could regulate amplifying false speech the way advertising is regulated, as for-profit commercial false speech; that it would be a civil matter, a matter for the courts to decide in each case. If you want to simplify that to ‘banning’, you can and I don’t mind, but then don’t reject the idea because it is ‘banning’ speech and therefore unconstitutional. False advertising laws aren’t unconstitutional.

In any event, this:

@Timex

You’re not gonna be able to regulate that… it’s obviously going to run afoul of the first amendment.

…is not obvious at all. You can regulate commercial false speech. It’s regulated right now.

[Timex]

But there are a number of cases that already establish precedent that you cannot censor speech on the basis of it being false, which is the context of that statement (established in the paragraph right before the one you quoted).

That’s why it’s obvious, because there is clear precedent saying it’s unconstitutional.

[scottagibson]

@Timex

But there are a number of cases that already establish precedent that you cannot censor speech on the basis of it being false, which is the context of that statement (established in the paragraph right before the one you quoted).

No one is suggesting you censor speech on the basis of it being false. Or, at least, I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting you apply the legal standard for commercial speech to unsolicited speech amplified by algorithms for profit; that is, treat such amplified speech as commercial speech. It isn’t obvious to me that such a thing would be unconstitutional, since the existing false advertising laws seem to be constitutional.

If people want to talk about this stuff, I don’t really know why you have to respond to everything they say by declaring it ‘obviously’ impossible. I don’t see how that results in any meaningful dialog.

[rrmorton]

I get the “stop using facebook” argument and it’s a compelling one. I’m still at the “stop mis-using facebook” stage. I don’t feel that I mis-use facebook. I stay in touch with some friends and family, occasionally watch some amazing golf shots or tennis rally videos, and lately I’ve avoided creating a significant amount of landfill waste by joining the local Buy Nothing community for giving and receiving usable items rather than throwing them out. It’s great and I definitely recommend it.

Maybe I’m just too optimistic or naïve but I’m hopeful that some combination of regulation and education can still help. I think the best advice is to be extremely wary of any news story that makes you angry or fearful. Learn what the algorithm is and how it works so you don’t feed and fall into that negative loop.

I like Marc Maron’s quote, “Mind your mind so they don’t mine your mind.”