Home > Uncategorized > We shouldn’t have to beg Mark Zuckerberg to respect democracy

We shouldn’t have to beg Mark Zuckerberg to respect democracy

from Dean Baker

Last month George Soros had a New York Times column arguing that Mark Zuckerberg should not be running Facebook. (Does the NYT reserve space on its opinion page for billionaires?) The gist of Soros’ piece is that Zuckerberg has made a deal with Trump. He will allow all manner of outrageous lies to be spread on Facebook to benefit Trump’s re-election campaign. In exchange, Trump will defend Zuckerberg from efforts to regulate Facebook.

Soros is of course right. Zuckerberg has said that Facebook will not attempt to verify the accuracy of the political ads that it runs. This is a greenlight for any sleazebag to push the most outrageous claims that they want in order to further the election of their favored candidate.

This will almost certainly benefit Donald Trump’s re-election, since the one area where he can legitimately take credit is in pushing outlandish lies. No one has pushed more lies more effectively than Donald Trump. The free rein promised by Zuckerberg is a re-election campaign contribution of enormous value.

While Soros is right on the substance of the issue, he is wrong to focus on the personality of Mark Zuckerberg. It would be good if we had a responsible forward-thinking person, who cared about the future of democracy, running Facebook, but that is not the normal course of things in a capitalist economy.

Businesses are run to make money. And, the bottom line here is that Facebook stands to make much more money spreading outlandish lies that help Trump’s campaign, than screening ads for their veracity. In this context, we should not be surprised that Facebook is taking the lie-spreading route. The problem is not that Zuckerberg is acting like a normal businessperson, the problem is that we made the lie-spreading route profitable.

In this respect it is worth pointing out that we don’t have the same problem with other media outlets. We don’t have to beg CNN, the New York Times, and other major news outlets to not take ads that they know to be false. They won’t do it, perhaps in part out of principle, but also because they could be sued for libel if they spread claims that were false and damaging.

For example, if I wanted to take out an ad asserting that Donald Trump is a rapist (which is likely true), most major news outlets would refuse to run it. Donald Trump could not only sue me for libel, he could also sue any news outlet that carried the ad. If I could not show that the claim was true, the news outlet that published the ad could be forced to pay substantial damages. For this reason, traditional news outlets do try to screen political ads for accuracy, and will not run an ad that they know to be false.

Facebook does not feel the same need to protect against libel because a law passed by Congress exempts it from the same sort of liability faced by traditional media outlets. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, protects Internet intermediaries from the liability rules that apply to traditional media outlets.

The logic that was used to justify this provision is that Internet intermediaries should be treated the same way as common carriers, like a phone company or the mail service. A common carrier does not have control over the content it carries, nor does it profit from specific content, except insofar as it increases demand for its service.

This was arguably an accurate description of Internet intermediaries in the early years of the web. For example, we would not have expected AOL to be responsible for whatever people chose to post in its chatrooms. But the web in general, and Facebook in particular, have evolved hugely in the years since Section 230 was put into law.

Facebook has complete control over content. It allows people to pay to have their posts sent to as many people as they choose. It allows them to target the recipients, based on location, age, education, gender, and any number of other characteristics. It is very hard to see how an outlet like CNN or the NYT can be held responsible for spreading libelous material, but Facebook should be exempt.

Whether or not Section 230 made sense in 1996, it clearly does not in era of Facebook. In effect it gives Facebook, and other Internet outlets, a special privilege that is not available to their broadcast or print competitors.

Of course, Zuckerberg will claim that it is not possible for Facebook to monitor the hundreds of millions of items that get posted every day. But the standard need not be that Facebook prevents libelous material from being posted. Rather, Facebook can be required to remove libelous material after it has been called to its attention. Furthermore, since Facebook’s system allows it to know exactly who has opened a post, it can be required to send a correction to anyone who originally received the libelous material.

Zuckerberg has also argued that they cannot be responsible for preventing false material from being spread through Facebook because they shouldn’t be in the position of determining what is true. Determining truth may seem hard for Zuckerberg, but this is precisely what every traditional media outlet does all the time, both when deciding on editorial content and when making decisions about accepting ads. If Zuckerberg’s team is that much less competent than those at traditional media outlets they can look to hire competent people away from these other outlets.

There really is nothing terribly complicated about Facebook’s situation, nor any grand questions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press that don’t come up all the time with traditional media. The basic story is that Facebook is now gaming a provision of a quarter-century old law to pretend it is a common carrier when that is clearly not the case.

If Facebook wants to be treated like a common carrier, then it should become one. That would mean not profiting from ads and boosted posts. It would also mean not selling personal information from its users. If it wants to be a common carrier then it can simply allow people to post as they please and not try to profit from content or personal information.

However, this is obviously not Facebook in its current form. Facebook is no more a common carrier than any major media outlet. As such it has to be subject to the same rules as other media outlets. That will require much more spending to police its network for false and libelous information, which will mean that Facebook will be much less profitable and Mark Zuckerberg will be much less rich.

But that is Mr. Zuckerberg’s problem. We should not be in the position of begging Zuckerberg to do the right thing as the CEO of Facebook or hoping that a more socially responsible person takes over the company. The law must be adjusted to take away Facebook’s special status. It is a media outlet and it is long past time that it be treated like one.

(This post originally appeared on my Patreon page.)

  1. Ed Zimmer
    February 15, 2020 at 5:06 pm

    Speaking as a digital engineer who has been active in the technology since punched-card days, yes, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 should be rescinded. (IMO, it never should have been allowed at the time.) And that would not be a major burden on Facebook (or any other platform). One solution is simply to require Facebook to verify the identity of those wishing to use their platform & require them to use their real names when posting.

  2. Meta Capitalism
    February 15, 2020 at 11:24 pm

    I totally agree the law must be adjusted; in fact, I think Facebook should be considered a serious threat to our democracy and broken up and taken over and we should bring back the FCC Fairness Doctrine and stop the news being used as a propaganda machine on par with the Goebbels, such as Faux News.

  3. Craig
    February 16, 2020 at 1:22 am

    A big corporate head needs to be put on a pike IMO. Every news outlet now has a slant, but to propagate outright lies and not even cover certain facts like Fox and some of the smaller wacked out right wing outlets fail to do is unjustifiable.

    What we really need is a genuine integrative third way network dedicated to pursuing actually different points of view.

  4. Calgacus
    February 17, 2020 at 2:37 am

    No one has pushed more lies more effectively than Donald Trump.

    Really? Notwithstanding the validity of his other points -The forum of this debate – the New York Times, comes to mind. Which of the innumerable Trumpian lies has been more successful and outlandish than the nonsense of Russiagate pushed by “liberal media” like the NYT?

    • Robert Locke
      February 17, 2020 at 9:32 am

      Calgacusm the liberak tradition is the only authenic American. Russia has no liberal tradition and we all heard Trump ask the Russisans to investigate Clinton. Can’t believe you know anything about Russia as an outlier in European civilization. My wife lived it and her father spent 20 years in the Gulag.

      • Calgacus
        February 18, 2020 at 10:39 am

        That has nothing to do with my comment. Russiagate was nonsense, preposterous from the beginning, absurd accusations made by dishonest prosecutors like Muller and
        the mass media and basically nothing of it is left. It was completely American, with next to nothing to do with Russia.

      • Meta Capitalism
        February 18, 2020 at 11:11 am

        The only nonsense is your claim that Russia didn’t interfer in the 2016 election, which the Mueller Report and every US intelligence agency confirms they did. The whole world witnessed Trump’s open invitation to both China and Russia to interfere in US democracy and his attempt to US the office if the president to extort and bribe Ukraine to interfere with baseless conspiracy theories are witnessed to on great detail by Trump’s own fellow conspirators. You are a Trump sychophantic liar Calgacus. And history will prove you for the traitor you are.

      • Robert Locke
        February 19, 2020 at 7:00 am

        Its a Russian tradition, dating from Czarist time, the Ochrana, to spy on others, even within system, didn’t you learn anything in school.

      • Calgacus
        February 19, 2020 at 9:45 pm

        Friends, again, the crazy Russiagate conspiracy theories have been exploded by serious investigators- and from the very beginning. Mueller and his report and his fake investigation are based on provable-beyond-any-doubt lies and self-contradictions. It has next to nothing to do with Russia, Russian traditions and whatever microscopic influences Russian entities exerted.

        This has nothing to do with sycophancy toward Trump and I said noting about the Ukraine. If the mainstream press went equally insane and accused Trump of being a vampire from Mars I would say the same thing. There are no such things as vampires, and there are no Martians. There was nothing to Russiagate,

        See sources like consortiumnews, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and former ambassador and university rector and Wikileaks insider Craig Murray for refutation of the insane lies of Russiagate,

  5. Robert Locke
    February 19, 2020 at 7:08 am

    “The Okhrana were the secret police of the Russian tsars, created following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881. For over thirty years, they infiltrated, monitored, censored, and detained groups seen as destabilizing the nation or threatening the autocratic power of the Russian Empire.”

  6. Craig
    February 19, 2020 at 4:41 pm

    Mueller copped out. Despite the fact that every time one shook a branch a Russian fell out with a member of the Trump campaign being whispered to by them Mueller didn’t prosecute for a conspiracy…which on the other hand IS the highest bar to prove in the legal system. Being trapped in institutional-ism, however, is just another symptom of the three ways from the middle decline we are caught in.

    The third rate populist nonsense of Trump and Bannon only knows how to bash ideas together so as to assist and promote disintegration (which is the dead give away that they are either conscious tools or unconscious “useful idiots” of Putin) when what is actually necessary is the integration of the particles of truth in seeming opposites. That is what the new tool and/or insight that accompanies historical paradigm changes enables.

  7. Ken Zimmerman
    March 2, 2020 at 2:20 pm

    In the 1933 movie, ‘Duck Soup,’ the following exchange occurred between the actress Margaret Dumont playing Mrs. Gloria Teasdale and Chico Marx playing Chicolini,

    Teasdale: Your Excellency, I thought you left.
    Chicolini: Oh no. I no leave.
    Teasdale: But I saw you with my own eyes.
    Chicolini: Well, who ya gonna believe me or your own eyes?

    Trump wants us to believe his lies instead of what we see, hear and read. He’s screwing with facts to take over the country and make himself and his ‘friends’ get rich and richer. And Zuckerberg’s helping him. Enough in my book to put Zuckerberg and Facebook under a microscope and shut both down to protect our democratic nation.I’m certain Trump and associates, CPAC, etc. will remain blind. After all lies are the only cover they have.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.