Transcripts For CSPAN Social Media Companies Legal Responsib

Yet over the past few years faced criticism. Many critics on the lift argue that social media giants enjoy special protection. They allow speech without worrying about consequences. Right havecs on the argued that these companies have gone too far in policing these devices or at least two far in policing conservative voices. Criticisms, wese have seen calls to reform this section, and it is these calls that we are going to discuss today, and i often use the phrase, an allstar panel. This time i mean it especially. Is thetely to my right author of the 2014 book hate crimes in cyberspace. Next to her is jim harper, and over on the and is the assistant for pfizer of Cyber Security law at the Naval Academy Cyber Science Department and author of the book the 26 words that anded the internet welcome all. Let me start with jeff. Sure, ore know for reasonably for sure, was the intent behind section 230 . Legislators feel the need to bring this into being . Reasons. Are two main the first was there was really a concern at the time it is kind of quaint, legal pornography available to children. That was the biggest concern at the time. There was a series of Court Rulings which basically stood for the proposition that if you did not moderate content, you could increase your chances of being protected from liability for all user content. But if you start to moderate, then you could expose yourself to liability. There was really a concern that the system was giving incentives for platforms not to moderate. It was one driver of the section. The other was you have to think about the time, 1995, the modern internet was really at its infancy. Congress does congress wanted to get this out of the way of the development of the new technology. Between those two reasons, those were really the driving forces between section 230. Everyone can sort of jump in, you dont need for me to call on you. I should have mentioned that earlier. There seems to be confusion about the original intent. I think thats what you try to dispel with your book. What is the confusion . That seems straightforward. There seems to be confusion. Do we have all day . I will say i am only speaking on my own half. Just sort of the narrow issue of what was the point of this to begin with . My ownking just on behalf, not on the behalf of dod , theres a lot of confusion i would say the biggest bit is that section 230 is conditioned on neutrality, that it only applies to neutral platforms, whatever those might be, rather than publishers. The point was to laminate that this diction and allow platforms to exercise discretion, figure out what their users should or should not be exposed to and not base i ability. Thats probably the biggest. Issues that were foremost at the time were about pornography and defamation, not so much about politics, were they . Not at the time here there was a statement in the findings for the bill that said something along the lines of wanting to foster political discourse, a recognition that there would be free speech. To that extent there was, but there was no conditioning of neutrality. I think we are forgetting the ctle of section 30 230 which is the idea was it would apply to Good Samaritans who were protecting, blocking and filtering offensive speech. Absolutely, the idea was to incentivize selfmonitoring, provide protection for those blocking and filtering offensive speech, which is completely legally protected rate but we wanted to incentivize what did people think they meant by offensive back then . You quoted see 2 allows good faith opt efforts good faith but congress wanted to give a very wide range of discretion to these platforms to block content and not be exposed to liability. Just a brief legal point, really not already protected under the First Amendment . I hear that a lot. Why did date need this why did they need this extra protection . Different a lot of actions, but one is to protect content that others create and the rule is if you are a distributor you can only be liable for other content if you either or had reason to know the problem became that the courts started saying if you start to moderate, you dont receive that protection and you are strictly liable just like a newspaper. That was the weird system that was created by the First Amendment. And it was common law development, that is the courts were looking at this new medium and coming at it from different platformether a provider was the publisher, and in my opinion the law jumped ahead to what i think was the right result. It is unfortunate that we got there through legislation rather than commonlaw development. Years, butve taken then again here we are talking about it, if the rule had been generated from the bottom up through experience, i think it mightve been stronger and a better understood rule and one based deeply in practice rather than getting this overthetop legislation which i think is pretty good but not perfect. That, a little bit on the history, how controversial was this to slip through where people kind of did not understand all of the consequences from this, or was there much real debate . There was a little bit of discussion, no real opposition on the floor. It was attached to the telecom was part ofe this the broader overhaul of telecom laws in 1996. Section 230 was really seen as an alternative to Communications Decency act, which both of those ended up being put in the telecom act. This room court struck this down. Section 230 the Supreme Court struck this down. Section 230 did not really receive media coverage, and when for most types of user content, so it was really an afterthought at the time. So we have this law that shields internet companies, how western europe . Do they have their own version of this . They have rules. Europe has a number of rules, but it varies a little bit and it gets into the classification whether it is a conduit or other service. There are some cases where the court said not only do you have to take down content if you get a complaint about it, you also might have a duty to actively patrol user content that might violate hate speech laws and things like that. It is much more restrictive than really most other jurisdictions than it is here. You said it protects big lot forms, but it protects all flat forms. My thinking, i ran this site which was a Government Transparency site. Dont go look at it now theres nothing but broken dreams, but and when web 2. 0 came along, whennged, and thats people actually started to be able to comment and have their own material. We had a common section comment section. There was a bill to extend welfare benefits, and it had Something Like 200,000 comments. I was the only guy in my spare time to join watching what was going on in the site. There were people who were telling me that someone else was using their name, and i was called on to moderate the situation. I wasnt using section 230, just trying to do my best to create a good environment. It is extraordinary the length people go to to undermine the site because they thought i was in favor of this legislation. It was meant to be a neutral platform. Internettely the allows people to be truly wicked from behind that anonymity. They take every effort to upset each other, to undercut the platform, so its an area that is fraught. This is a very important protection. Is not just to make them upset. People use tools to destroy lives, post nude photos, and sure cant get a date, keep their jobs, get a new one. They threaten. Did amateur he information that one can never respond to, i am not a prostitute, so that the kind of stuff that we have seen isnt just like things that hurt feelings, not just offensive speech paired it is speech that we would say is not even legally protected, that we can criminalize and ensure liability for. There are sites that make a business out of hosting this kind of thing. Say, sumi, good luck, i am immune from liability. I think it is just important to ithat this mischief help with filtering crazy is fors, but we it more than that, like any wonderful tools for great things and also for ill to see a lot of illegality and destruction of lives. Indeed. We have this legislation that is not that was not controversial, now very controversial, for different reasons, but just one second before we get to that, you mentioned that perhaps some of these protections could have evolved more organically. Internet this developed, if that section 230 had not happened, what might the internet look like today . Evolved . It have you could have an argument on that. Skeptical that the common law would have developed to the extent of the protection that 230 provides. I think some of the early cases ,ere not very well reasoned that really imposed significant liability, but i dont think that broad protection that this section provides for thirdparty content wouldve been the same under common law. There probably would be more of a notice of takedown type system where if you get notification of potentially illegal content, your choices take it down or you have to stand in the shoes of the person who posted it and then defendant, which most rational platforms are not going to want to do because they dont want to litigate all these cases. I think you would not see the same extent of social media, all these services that arent coincidentally based in the united states. Giantse are all of these , do you think 230 is a big reason why we have them and they dont . Very much so. I think they were able to develop in the way they currently are because of section 230. We would probably have different types of services, but they would not have the same rules that they have right now. Media Companies Like in china, with complete censorship and control. Its not like we wouldnt have any companies videos, right, right. I think its right that we got the big media we did because of 230. Is that right or wrong . Is it a liability free subsidy . A little bit less liability for social media that forms meant we have a Huge Industry that came at a cost, victimization of people that are in some cases very sympathetic. Some of that includes speech, so you are targeted with harassment online, and you are silent so often, and we forget that those negatives are lost jobs and potential physical violence but also speech. Externalityof the that seems controversial, we are talking about how to regulate big tech, but the victims were there from the very beginning, and i know in the book there are several interesting cases of people who were actually hurt, with extremely synthetic stories, bet where there any calls back then that this is generating victims, we need to do something, or does it pretty much continue to the present state, eggnog by policymakers . Ignored by policymakers . . I think there were some tough cases. Lieberman,ut senator wasnt that 2004, and that just gets ignored. There were some efforts at the time. Saying thewhat i am public attention was not nearly the same, and they were tough cases in the beginning. There were a lot of people arguing theyre only been difficult cases recently. The second case ever litigated was a case where a mother sued aol because there was child pornography with her teenage son in it that aol was being marketed in a chat room and she kept contacting them and they would not prevent it. That is a difficult case. Its not just like they were only defamation cases in the early stages. There were tough cases all the way from the early days of section 230. Doesnt that fall outside of the section . But she was suing for negligence. I got you. The problem is the state of chasing changing technology. In the early days, you had manual processes entirely. Nowadays a thing like child pornography you can kind of automate tracking, and those systems are in place where you can get files and who can review anything. There is a case where aol found child pornography and delivered to delivered at. , butpinion is very good automated review for things that are selfevidently criminal seems like an area where you might be able to feel the whole platform is liable. Its important because if you are taking defamation, it is really hard for a person coming in for the first time to a conversation to figure out whether someone is defaming another. What is the reality of it . Someone contacting me someone someone contacted me saying someone was using my name. I could not bring myself to take something down as Identity Fraud because the same name was being used as another person out there in the world. I dont think the people who are faced with these decisions, married different kinds of arelems coming to them going to be able to negotiate those kinds of determinations readily. Might have a liability that is appropriately attached, but i think you probably should not have liability for those platforms. So there would be these stories, but generally this is sort of what it sounds like, its sort of not anymore, is it the case that you have these big Platform Companies that are in the news, and so its sort of why now . Or there triggering event, is it just being intrusive in our lives . A couple of things, coming together all at once, i feel like we could take each thread and bring it together, right . . People dont like tech Companies Like techjust dont companies. This is a wonderful opportunity for every senator to hop on the bandwagon. You bear full responsibility of all mischief online, and it was sort of an easy potshot, and then so what else can we throw on this . We have cambridge analytical, and then therefore blaming the platform for not doing anything about it when they were caught unaware, right . I dont want to take all the thunder. I would also say one thing i have observed is traditional news media perhaps is not very happy with the Business Models of some of the large platforms. Criticisms like one is that it enables those models, moderating and shielding companies, but it is a part of why these companies are billionbillion 500 dollars. They are engaged in surveillance for tremendous amounts of money and they are thats what youre saying. Or in the mind of one problem familiar, if you were deeply to undercut these protections, the big ones would be able to navigate the new law, and the little ones trying to challenge and would not be able to navigate the new law costeffectively. Like regulation typically does, it would lock in the status quo in the marketplace. So the natural decline of facebook would be delayed if not by doing away with 230 or deeply undercutting its protections. Is there is much for the small ones as it is for the big ones. I have an approach for that, but we can talk about that later. We dont have to get there yet. I would also say the larger platforms have lack of transparency, and they have started to change, but i think it was often like a black box to figure out what was going on in there. That has been a complaint even among conservatives that think companies are biased against them. I say i dont see why that down, is not being taken and why not that person . Do i call the 800 number if it happens to me . What do i do . Went on twitter, to discuss this, there was a statement that section 230 is terrible at what it does is enables hate and harassment. This. Ve written about right,ve, and thats that is a free pass. In 2017 we sort of proposed a way to fix the statute without doing too much violence, all the great things that it does, because on the one hand section 230 provides this safe harbor which is not conditioned on Good Behavior when it came stew under filtering. When it comes to over filter, we condition it on Good Behavior. Condition that immunity on any Good Behavior. It just says you have this immunity, we are not going to treat you as a publisher of other content. When that is interpreted broadly , it means that even websites that encourage nonconsensual pornography, that Business Model is abused. In sex videos,r they get to enjoy immunity from liability even though they are not engaged in any kind of mock moderation. Can i talk about my proposal . Not yet. This is a stay tuned moment. The proposals are coming. I dont want to get rid of it. I think section 230 has been important great it was important from the early years, from which we do have ace book and prosocial activity online. It seems like all of these positive things that most of the stories that you hear wikipedia. That is pretty social. Whether its hate speech or uploading,g really violent videos, these companies have been given a lot of power, and got very big. They show no responsibility. With great power comes great responsibility. Where are those peace when companies theres all these politicians that were so right about hate and harassment. They dont really care. All of these years ive been writing about it, no one says a word. Its only when it is it is your own ox being gored is when you think about it. The companies actually the largest platforms have been working on these issues and i have been working with them, facebook, twitter, four years. They have not done a terrific job for they have been trying. They have gotten better at it. Why does twitter take a stand against threats and not pornography . We had tamer gate. Business, they are making efforts. They have not done a good job. New companies. T they have been around for a while. I think a lot of people think they should have better policies at this point, but maybe they just didnt really care that much until it became really a big issue in the public conscience. I think it is important that a lot of the worst wrongdoing that happens online has a wrongdoer doing the wrong thing. You take Something Like revenge revengere giving pornography. They are the ones that are the actual wrongdoer, but if they hadnt done what they did, the platform not have that material on it. Case that is dealt was dealt in the Second Circuit where it is unclear that they saw this as a grinder case. They did muchthat to stop the bad act. And grinder did nothing so they made it impossible his perpetrator. Spend 30 seconds on that issue. Site andr is a hook up exlover adopted the identity of another and invited i think Something Like thousands to his house. He provided the home address, so over 1000 men came to his house because prompted not to do anything, but that individual i think there was a protective order against him. Not enforced. I am not the lawyer, but i know the lawyer well who represents the victim. And L