DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Media Immunity in 2021 and Beyond: Will Platforms Continue to Avoid Litigation Exposure Faced by Offline Counterparts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Media Immunity in 2021 and Beyond: Will Platforms Continue to Avoid Litigation Exposure Faced by Offline Counterparts Social Media Immunity in 2021 and Beyond: Will Platforms Continue to Avoid Litigation Exposure Faced by Offline Counterparts By: Peter J. Pizzi Peter J. Pizzi, CIPPE/US, is a business trial lawyer with decades of experience in commercial litigation, internal investigations, technology litigation, eDiscovery, and labor and employment law. A Certified Civil Trial Attorney, Peter represents corporate clients in a broad array of industries, including healthcare, pharmaceuticals, financial services, information technology, cosmetics, industrial equipment, food service and others. Recent highlights include a federal court jury verdict on a contract claim arising from an acquisition and pre-discovery dismissals of consumer class actions in the convenience store retail and private aviation industries. A member of the New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania bars, Peter is former Chair of IADC’s Cyber Security, Data Privacy and Technology Committee. URING the 2020 election cycle, companies from being held liable for both the United States transmitting or taking down user- D presidential candidates generated content (UGC). Twice in called for changes to Section 230 of 2020, the Senate held hearings, with the Communications Decency Act of both sides demanding change to the 1996, which protects online service statute and to platform moderation providers like social media practices.1 Then, following the 1 Cat Zakrzewski and Rachel Lerman, The election was a chance for Facebook and Twitter to show they could control misinformation. Now lawmakers are grilling them on it, WASH. POST (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/techno 2 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL | JULY 2021 January 6, 2021 Capitol Hill riot, I. Origins Donald Trump and others within his circle were de-platformed by Defamation actions brought in Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. 2 the New York courts in the 1980s Participants used these same against two different online platforms, as well as others, to plan platforms, Prodigy and CompuServe, the incursion into the Capitol, which created concern that the internet millions around the world watched would be awash in litigation before in real time.3 As we move further it had achieved its full potential. One into the 117th Congress, a court granted CompuServe continuation of the status quo summary judgment based upon that hardly seems possible, as demands service’s showing that CompuServe for change to Section 230 appear did not police its bulletin boards and continue to intensify, especially with therefore had no “publisher” or the large platforms advertising in “distributor” liability for the favor of change. defamatory utterances in question.4 This article will describe the A second court, however, found that elements of the statutory immunity because Prodigy portrayed its granted by Section 230 and service as “actively utilizing summarize complaints against the technology and manpower to delete current scope of Section 230 as notes from its computer bulletin interpreted by the courts. We will boards on the basis of offensiveness also explore whether the problems and ‘bad taste,’” the service was observed with social media have “clearly making decisions as to resulted from Section 230 itself. In content” and therefore was a other words, would the world have looked a lot different today had online industries faced litigation, and the threat of litigation, in the same way as traditional businesses? logy/2020/11/17/tech-hearing-dorsey- Suspended for Two Years; Will Only Be zuckerberg/; Sara Morrison, Republicans Reinstated if Conditions Permit, FACEBOOK accuse Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and other Big (June 4, 2021), https://about.fb.com/ Tech CEOs of violating their free speech rights, news/2021/06/facebook-response-to- RECODE (October 28, 2020), https://www. oversight-board-recommendations-trump/. vox.com/recode/2020/10/28/21536780/f 3 Rebecca Heilweil and Shirin Ghaffary, How acebook-twitter-google-zuckerberg-dorsey- Trump’s internet built and broadcast the pichai-senate-section-230-hearing. Capitol insurrection, RECODE (Jan. 8, 2021), 2 Following a decision supporting the de- https://www.vox.com/recode/22221285/t platforming by the Facebook Oversight rump-online-capitol-riot-far-right-parler- Board, the company extended the ban twitter-facebook. through January 2023. See Nick Clegg, In 4 Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Response to Oversight Board, Trump Supp. 135, 139 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Social Media Immunity in 2021 and Beyond 3 “publisher” of the offending speech information content provider. for the purpose of libel law.5 Section 230(c)(2) states that no ISPs The two lawsuits, each of which which voluntarily restrict access to involved instances of actionable content will be held liable for its speech, led lawmakers to include in own “moderation” decisions. The the soon-to-be-misnamed discretion granted by the latter Communications Decency Act of provision is broad, immunizing 19966 a provision that would actions “taken in good faith to protect internet service providers restrict access to or availability of from liability. This provision did not material that the provider or user eliminate lawsuits, but certainly considers to be obscene, lewd, made an adverse outcome far less lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, likely. According to its sponsors, the harassing, or otherwise principal goal of Section 230 was to objectionable, whether or not such establish “Good Samaritan” material is constitutionally protection so that those platforms protected.”8 which chose to exercise some There are several exceptions to degree of editorial control over Section 230 immunity. Section 230 content on their platforms would does not bar liability for lawsuits: (1) not thereby be subject to publisher under federal criminal laws; (2) liability. The statute contains under intellectual property laws; (3) several “findings” and “policy” based upon any state law that is statements that extol the virtues of “consistent with” Section 230; and the internet and the desire to (4) under the Electronic promote its “continued Communications Privacy Act of development”.7 1986. In 2018, Congress created an exception to immunity for certain II. The Communications civil actions or state prosecutions Decency Act of 1996 where the underlying conduct violates specified federal laws As enacted, Section 230 contains prohibiting sex trafficking, which two primary provisions that create was added by a 2018 statutory immunity from liability. Section change called the Allow States to 230(c)(1) states that interactive Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, service providers and users may not known as SESTA/FOSTA. The 2018 be held liable for publishing access amendment demonstrates the to material posted by another 5 Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., struck down in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 544 No. 31063/94, 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. (1997); Section 230 was not. Ct. May 24, 1995). 7 47 U.S.C. § 230 (a) and (b). 6 The provisions of the CDA which sought to 8 Id. at § 230(c)(2)(A) (emphasis added). prohibit obscene and like content were 4 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL | JULY 2021 challenge of revising Section 230, as Twitter added labels that read “Get many asserted that SESTA/FOSTA the facts about mail-in ballots” to did little to help solve the problem of two tweets by President Trump sex trafficking and only served to predicting mass ballot fraud, further marginalize an already at- causing Trump to issue an executive risk community.9 order calling the labels “selective censorship that is harming our III. Critiques of Section 230 national discourse.”11 Of course, the latter criticism – Attacks on Section 230 by that platforms “censor” speech and political leaders break down that practice somehow violates free according to party lines. Critics on speech rights of those affected – the Left fault platforms for distorts, rather than advances, inadequate moderation measures understanding of Section 230. The leading to the spread of hate speech, First Amendment proscribes misinformation, and calls to interference with speech by violence including against political government actors, not by private leaders. individuals or businesses, so neither Republicans in the Senate the First Amendment nor “free accuse the platforms of using the speech” rights enter into the statutory immunity to “censor” equation. 12 A vast array of courts conservative voices.10 In May 2020, 9 In the 116th Congress, the SAFE SEX 11 See Preventing Online Censorship, 85 Fed. Workers Study Act sought to study the Reg. 34,079 (May 28, 2020). A just-released unintended effects of SESTA/FOSTA. See study from NYU’s Stern School of Business H.R. 5444. The “Findings” discusses those attempts to test the conservative complaint adverse impacts. See id. at Sec. 2, available at of excessive moderation aimed at https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th- conservative voices and found that statistics congress/house-bill/5448/text. do not bear out the claim. See Paul M. 10 See supra note 1. Barrett and J. Grant Sims, False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives, NYU STERN CENTER FOR BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (Feb. 2021), https://static1.aquarespace.com/ static/5b6df958f8370af3217d4178/t/601 87b5f45762e708708c8e9/161221718524 0/NYU+False+Accusation_2.pdf. The report collected the results of numerous studies of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube content. The report found that, on Facebook, “right- leaning U.S. Facebook pages dominate the list of sources producing the most-engaged- with posts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Research Library Perspectives June 2021 by Katherine Klosek
    Issue Brief Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Research Library Perspectives June 2021 By Katherine Klosek With thanks to Jonathan Band, General Counsel at ARL; Greg Cram, Director of Copyright, Permissions & Information Policy at New York Public Library; and Judy Ruttenberg, Senior Director of Scholarship and Policy at ARL Introduction 3 Background 3 Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 5 Libraries and Section 230 7 FOSTA: The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafcking Act 9 Discussion 10 Appendix: Discussion Guide 12 Access to Information 12 Afordability 12 Anti-harassment 12 Diversity 13 Open Internet 13 Political Neutrality/Freedom of Expression 14 Privacy 14 Issue Brief: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—June 2021 2 Introduction The 117th US Congress is holding hearings and debating bills on changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a 1996 law that protects internet service providers and internet users from liability for content shared by third parties. When it was enacted, Section 230 ofered liability protections for then- nascent services that are integral to the development of the internet we have today. But Section 230 has come under fre from Democrats who believe internet service providers are not engaging in responsible content moderation, and from Republicans who believe that large social media companies censor conservative voices. This myopic debate ignores the longstanding role that research libraries have played as internet service providers, and the vast experience research libraries have in moderating and publishing content. More information on this topic can be found in the “Discussion” section of this brief.
    [Show full text]
  • Eric Johnson Producer of Recode Decode with Kara Swisher Vox Media
    FIRESIDE Q&A How podcasting can take social media storytelling ‘to infinity and beyond’ Eric Johnson Producer of Recode Decode with Kara Swisher Vox Media Rebecca Reed Host Off the Assembly Line Podcast 1. Let’s start out by introducing yourself—and telling us about your favorite podcast episode or interview. What made it great? Eric Johnson: My name is Eric Johnson and I'm the producer of Recode Decode with Kara Swisher, which is part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. My favorite episode of the show is the interview Kara conducted with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg — an in-depth, probing discussion about how the company was doing after the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the extent of its power. In particular, I really liked the way Kara pressed Zuckerberg to explain how he felt about the possibility that his company's software was enabling genocide in Myanmar; his inability to respond emotionally to the tragedy was revealing, and because this was a podcast and not a TV interview she was able to patiently keep asking the question, rather than moving on to the next topic. Rebecca Reed: My name is Rebecca Reed and I’m an Education Consultant and Host of the Off the Assembly Line podcast. Off the Assembly Line is your weekly dose of possibility-sparking conversation with the educators and entrepreneurs bringing the future to education. My favorite episode was an interview with Julia Freeland Fisher, author of Who You Know. We talked about the power of student social capital, and the little known role it plays in the so-called “achievement gap” (or disparity in test scores from one school/district to the next).
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Communication Decency Act's Section
    Legal Sidebari Liability for Content Hosts: An Overview of the Communication Decency Act’s Section 230 Valerie C. Brannon Legislative Attorney June 6, 2019 Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), broadly protects online service providers like social media companies from being held liable for transmitting or taking down user-generated content. In part because of this broad immunity, social media platforms and other online content hosts have largely operated without outside regulation, resulting in a mostly self-policing industry. However, while the immunity created by Section 230 is significant, it is not absolute. For example, courts have said that if a service provider “passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties,” Section 230 immunity will apply; but if the service provider helps to develop the problematic content, it may be subject to liability. Commentators and regulators have questioned in recent years whether Section 230 goes too far in immunizing service providers. In 2018, Congress created a new exception to Section 230 in the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, commonly known as FOSTA. Post-FOSTA, Section 230 immunity will not apply to bar claims alleging violations of certain sex trafficking laws. Some have argued that Congress should further narrow Section 230 immunity—or even repeal it entirely. This Sidebar provides background information on Section 230, reviewing its history, text, and interpretation in the courts. Legislative History Section 230 was enacted in early 1996, in the CDA’s Section 509, titled “Online Family Empowerment.” In part, this provision responded to a 1995 decision issued by a New York state trial court: Stratton- Oakmont, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Tech That Reality Check Making Money from News
    NEWS REALITY IN THE November 2018 CHECK Using technology to combat DIGITAL misinformation AGE CONTINENTAL SHIFT NBC News International’s Deborah Turness on covering a divided Europe MAKING MONEY FROM NEWS Industry leaders across TECH THAT Europe share their views Check out the smart tools reshaping reporting Paid Post by Google This content was produced by the advertising department of the Financial Times, in collaboration with Google. Paid Post by Google This content was produced by the advertising department of the Financial Times, in collaboration with Google. Digital News Innovation Fund 30 European countries 559 Projects €115M In funding g.co/newsinitiative 2 | GoogleNewsInitiative.ft.com Foreword THE FUTURE OF NEWS In 2015, Google launched the Digital News Innovation Fund (DNI Fund) to stimulate innovation across the European news industry. The DNI Fund supports ambitious projects in digital journalism across a range of areas – from creating open-source technology that improves revenue streams to investing in quality, data-driven investigative journalism. Ludovic Blecher Head of the Digital News Google asked a dozen leaders from the industry to allocate a total of Innovation Fund €150m to projects submitted by media companies and start-ups – no strings attached: all intellectual property remains with the companies themselves. To date, we’ve selected 559 projects across 30 countries, supporting them with more than €115m. But it’s not just about the money. The DNI Fund provides space and opportunity to take risks and experiment. In the media industry, many players don’t compete with each other across borders. We are Veit Dengler also proud to have fostered publishers working together to tackle Executive board member, their common challenges, through technological collaboration.
    [Show full text]
  • Trumpism on College Campuses
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Previously Published Works Title Trumpism on College Campuses Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1d51s5hk Journal QUALITATIVE SOCIOLOGY, 43(2) ISSN 0162-0436 Authors Kidder, Jeffrey L Binder, Amy J Publication Date 2020-06-01 DOI 10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Qualitative Sociology (2020) 43:145–163 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z Trumpism on College Campuses Jeffrey L. Kidder1 & Amy J. Binder 2 Published online: 1 February 2020 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract In this paper, we report data from interviews with members of conservative political clubs at four flagship public universities. First, we categorize these students into three analytically distinct orientations regarding Donald Trump and his presidency (or what we call Trumpism). There are principled rejecters, true believers, and satisficed partisans. We argue that Trumpism is a disunifying symbol in our respondents’ self- narratives. Specifically, right-leaning collegians use Trumpism to draw distinctions over the appropriate meaning of conservatism. Second, we show how political clubs sort and shape orientations to Trumpism. As such, our work reveals how student-led groups can play a significant role in making different political discourses available on campuses and shaping the types of activism pursued by club members—both of which have potentially serious implications for the content and character of American democracy moving forward. Keywords Americanpolitics.Conservatism.Culture.Highereducation.Identity.Organizations Introduction Donald Trump, first as a candidate and now as the president, has been an exceptionally divisive force in American politics, even among conservatives who typically vote Republican.
    [Show full text]
  • Netflix and the Development of the Internet Television Network
    Syracuse University SURFACE Dissertations - ALL SURFACE May 2016 Netflix and the Development of the Internet Television Network Laura Osur Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/etd Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Osur, Laura, "Netflix and the Development of the Internet Television Network" (2016). Dissertations - ALL. 448. https://surface.syr.edu/etd/448 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the SURFACE at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract When Netflix launched in April 1998, Internet video was in its infancy. Eighteen years later, Netflix has developed into the first truly global Internet TV network. Many books have been written about the five broadcast networks – NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and the CW – and many about the major cable networks – HBO, CNN, MTV, Nickelodeon, just to name a few – and this is the fitting time to undertake a detailed analysis of how Netflix, as the preeminent Internet TV networks, has come to be. This book, then, combines historical, industrial, and textual analysis to investigate, contextualize, and historicize Netflix's development as an Internet TV network. The book is split into four chapters. The first explores the ways in which Netflix's development during its early years a DVD-by-mail company – 1998-2007, a period I am calling "Netflix as Rental Company" – lay the foundations for the company's future iterations and successes. During this period, Netflix adapted DVD distribution to the Internet, revolutionizing the way viewers receive, watch, and choose content, and built a brand reputation on consumer-centric innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • Google V. Hood
    Case 3:14-cv-00981-HTW-LRA Document 37-1 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION GOOGLE, INC. PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-981-HTW-LRA JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY DEFENDANT PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AMICUS CURIAE INTERNATIONAL ANTICOUNTERFEITING COALITION I. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (“IACC”) is a nonprofit corporation recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(6). It has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. The IACC was established in 1979 to combat counterfeiting and piracy by promoting laws, regulations, directives, and relationships designed to render the theft of intellectual property undesirable and unprofitable. 1 Counterfeiting and piracy are scourges that threaten consumer health and safety and drain billions of dollars from the U.S. economy. The IACC is the oldest and largest organization in the country devoted exclusively to combating these threats. Today the IACC’s members include more than 230 companies in the pharmaceutical, health and beauty, automotive, fashion, food and beverage, computer and electronics, and entertainment industries, among others. The IACC offers anti-counterfeiting programs designed to increase protection for patents, trademarks, copyrights, service marks, trade dress and trade secrets. Critical to the IACC's 1 IACC states that no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief; and no person, other than the amicus curiae and its members, contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
    [Show full text]
  • Vox Media Turns to Cloudian Hyperstore to Meet Growing Archive Demand
    Vox Media Turns to Cloudian Hyperstore to Meet Growing Archive Demand Automates archive process and eliminates steps CUSTOMER CASE STUDY: to accelerate workflow by 10X VOX MEDIA Vox Media is a digital media company known for its high-profile brands including Vox, SB Nation, The Verge, Racked, Eater, Curbed, Recode, and Polygon. Headquartered in New York, the company also has offices in D.C, Los Angeles, Chicago, Austin, and San Francisco. The Challenge Vox Media creates digital content that caters to technology, sports and video game enthusiasts. At any given time, the firm has multiple active projects, including videos, podcasts and other digital content for a diverse audience across multiple INDUSTRY sites. Together, these digital projects drive demand for multiple petabytes of Media and Entertainment data storage. CHALLENGES Quantum StorNext provides the central storage management point for Vox, • Time-consuming tape-based connecting users to both primary and Linear Tape Open (LTO) archival storage. In archive process their legacy workflow, the digital assets currently in use were stored on SAN. Once • NAS staging area required, adding a project was completed, those assets were migrated to LTO tape. A NAS system workload served as a staging area between the SAN and the LTO archives. • Tape archive not searchable SOLUTION Cloudian HyperStore appliances PROJECT COMPLETE RESULTS PROJECT RETRIEVAL • 10X acceleration of archive process • Rapid data offload from SAN SAN NAS LTO Tape Backup • Eliminated NAS staging area and manual steps • Integration with existing IT Figure 1 : Legacy media workflow at Vox infrastructure (Quantum StorNext, The legacy workflow had multiple issues which prevented the team from meeting its Evolphin) goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Vox: a New Far Right in Spain?
    VOX: A NEW FAR RIGHT IN SPAIN? By Vicente Rubio-Pueyo Table of Contents Confronting the Far Right.................................................................................................................1 VOX: A New Far Right in Spain? By Vicente Rubio-Pueyo....................................................................................................................2 A Politico-Cultural Genealogy...................................................................................................3 The Neocon Shift and (Spanish) Constitutional Patriotism...................................................4 New Methods, New Media........................................................................................................5 The Catalonian Crisis..................................................................................................................6 Organizational Trajectories within the Spanish Right............................................................7 International Connections.........................................................................................................8 VOX, PP and Ciudadanos: Effects within the Right’s Political Field....................................9 Populist or Neoliberal Far Right? VOX’s Platform...................................................................9 The “Living Spain”: VOX’s Discourse and Its Enemies............................................................11 “Make Spain Great Again”: VOX Historical Vision...................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Section 230 Legislation in the 117Th Congress
    Section 230 Legislation in the 117th Congress 47 USC 230, commonly referred to as Section 230, was passed as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 provides immunity for website platforms for third-party content posted on their platforms and allows platforms to remove or restrict content the service provider finds objectionable. This immunity has allowed the ad-supported internet to grow over the past 25 years without publishers facing crippling lawsuits for user-posted content. Both parties have raised issues about this immunity and support repeal or modification – for different reasons. Republicans, including Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), believe that platforms use Section 230 to censor the views of conservatives. Democrats, such as Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), want to remove the protections of Section 230 from ads and paid content, while allowing users to sue over content that threatens them with harassment or discrimination. Senate Bill Number Bill Title S. 47 Adversarial Platform Prevention Act of 2021 (APP Act) Sponsor Description Rubio (R-FL) This bill would require owners and operators of covered foreign software to provide consumers with a warning prior to the download of the software and requires annual reports to the FTC and DOJ on the privacy practices of the owner concerning US users. It would also remove Section 230 protection from owners of covered foreign software. Cosponsors History None 1.26.2021: Introduced in Senate 1.26.2021: Referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Bill Number Bill Title S.
    [Show full text]
  • Platform Justice: Content Moderation at an Inflection Point 3
    A HOOVER INSTITUTION ESSAY ON Platform Justice C ONTENT MODERATION at an INFLECTION POINT DANIELLE CITRON & QUINTA JURECIC Aegis Series Paper No. 1811 In June 2016, Facebook Vice President Andrew Bosworth circulated an internal memorandum describing the company’s mission. “We connect people,” he wrote. “Maybe someone finds love. Maybe [Facebook] even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.”1 Bosworth was not speaking metaphorically. The month after he distributed the memo, Facebook was sued by the parents of five victims of terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas, which had made extensive use of the company’s platform to recruit and organize. Days before, the social media platform had inadvertently broadcast a murder over the streaming app Facebook Live. National Security, Technology, and Law and Technology, Security, National Yet the outrage Facebook weathered in the aftermath of this violence was nothing compared to the scathing criticism it endured two years later after Buzzfeed News published Bosworth’s memo. When the memo leaked in March 2018, Facebook was neck-deep in controversies over its influence on the 2016 presidential election, including the use of the platform’s ad-targeting function by Russian trolls to sow political discord and the harvesting of user data under false pretenses by the Trump-affiliated political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.2 Meanwhile, Facebook’s competitors, Twitter and Google, faced mounting criticism over their failure to curb disinformation and abusive content.3 In 2016, Bosworth’s memo might have been an awkward attempt at self-reflection.
    [Show full text]
  • Corynne Mcsherry, Ph.D
    The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Joint Hearing: “Fostering a Healthier Internet to Protect Consumers” Statement of Corynne McSherry, Ph.D. Legal Director Electronic Frontier Foundation October 16, 2019 As Legal Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I thank Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden and Members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce for the opportunity to share EFF’s views on how to create a healthier Internet and protect all of its users. EFF is a donor-funded nonprofit, with contributions from more than 30,000 dues-paying members from around the world forming the backbone of our financial support. The majority of EFF’s funding comes from ordinary individuals, and over 80% of that funding consists of donations under $10,000. We receive less than six and a half percent of our funding from corporate sponsors.1 For nearly 30 years, EFF has represented the interests of technology users both in court cases and in broader policy debates to help ensure that law and technology support our civil liberties. From that vantage point, we are well aware that online speech is not always pretty—sometimes it’s extremely ugly and causes real-world harm. The effects of this kind of speech are often disproportionately felt by communities for whom the Internet has also provided invaluable tools to organize, educate, and connect. Systemic discrimination does not disappear and can even be amplified online. Given the paucity and inadequacy of tools for users themselves to push back, it’s no surprise that many would look to Internet intermediaries to do more to limit such speech.
    [Show full text]