We will be Was frustrating.
No one should expect any value from the hearing of this congressional committee. They were not designed for this. The CEO of this tech company has practiced for six to 16 years without saying anything controversial, the best lawyers can buy money. Understanding.
Clearly the hearing was meant to cover the role of social media in promoting extremism, but the subtext was read to see if these social platforms still claim legal protection. Category 230 (S230) is a general immunity provided in websites that host content produced by other people. (Very) simply put, you, as a platform, cannot be held responsible for any content published on your site that you do not know. Basically, whatever it is User Write, Facebook will not be responsible for it.
The time for self-control is over. It is time for us to legislate to hold you accountable. – Representative Frank Pallon
Luckily, we don’t need yesterday’s hearing to understand what Facebook, Google and Twitter are thinking. The real meat was in a statement released the day before the hearing. Of course, Kremlinology needs a bit of a spread to spread exactly what’s being said, but the CEO’s reactions say it all.
Zuckerberg Appropriately, he said, people “are doing more harm than good because of contradictory laws.” (This is mainly because it is the only legal protection that benefits Big Tech more than the wider business world, so it’s the only direct weapon weapon outside of lawmakers writing new legislation.) To meet best practice, “add” platforms must show that they have a system in place to detect and remove illegal content. “
Basically, you only get the benefit of s230 protection if you have visually restrained tools and policies. He added that “platforms should not be held liable if certain content refrains from identifying them, which is not practical for platforms with billions of posts per day.” Doing. “The definition of an adequate system can be proportional to the size of the platform and can be set by a third party,” an organization that ensures that “practices are fair and clear for organizations to understand.”
The obvious acceptability of today’s hearing is that platforms need to do more to combat malicious information but they can’t be restrained at all because they need to be a neutral platform that doesn’t cost any editorial consideration.
– Jeff Koscef (@jokosef) March 25, 2021
Of course, the system that Zuckerberg is advocating for is, at least for social networks, stable. It could already Display It has a system for identifying illegal content and its own third party Facebook Oversight Board, so that it can address such national constitutional questions. What this tweet will do in the rules is that any challenger hoping to set up a rival social platform is likely to be out of the question.
Professor Jeff Coscef, 230 expert in the department and author of the book Twenty-six words that made the Internet, Said Engadget in an interview early last year s230 reform Weakening these protections can even be good for Facebook. “There are other platforms,” he said, “and the cancellation of Facebook probably won’t do much harm.” Facebook is big enough and rich enough, it can both deal with the impetus for early litigation, and it has a fairly restrained platform.
What it will do, however, is be strong rival platforms – which may lack the resources available to companies with an annual profit of about 29 billion to fight many frontal battles. Last year, Coscef cited Yelp as an example, saying that if a restaurant received a one-star review under the S-230, it had nothing to do with it. However, if an anxious retriever is involved, Yelp must either go to court (an expensive, time-consuming ordeal) or delete the review (thereby reducing its effectiveness). A camouflage, at the moment, would mention that Facebook has its own list of restaurants, which host their own reviews.
Already Sundar Pichai is the only CEO who is currently speaking in favor of the S230 without any changes. This is probably because Google has been able to avoid many of the criticisms that Facebook has received due to its structured ownership of YouTube. Of course, most of the questions directed on YouTube on Thursday revolved around her kids ’products rather than content control. (Before this week The Washington Post Asked why YouTube CEO Susan Wojciech is not being given a more regulatory investigation into YouTube’s role in spreading conspiracy theories and extremist content in general.)
At Thursday’s hearing, Dorsey let her frustration show more than both parts of her. He treated the process with some contempt and, as he woke up, tried less to hide his feelings. Darcy’s reactions came in such a way that he felt that many of the questions directed at him were below him. It didn’t help by being the CEO Tweets Liked the time of the hearing and several responses that criticized the committee’s question. At one point he said, “I don’t think we should be arbitrators of the truth,” adding that he “didn’t think the government should be too.”
Dorsey’s statement is the only one that does not mention s230 by name or makes any suggestions for its reform. His interest is more generally towards both bitcoin, blockchain, and decentralization, so he probably doesn’t see any value in U.S. law anymore. His Blue sky The project basically wants the power of the platform to engage its users and others in places which means it needs no less than Twitter to find an acceptable way to reform the s230, as it seeks to create something completely unique.
You may suggest that the statement of each organization in S230 is a reflection of their general values and attitudes. While Facebook wants to twitch the law to weaken potential competitors, Google hopes it won’t make waves, but won’t shout too loudly for stability, when Twitter is already mentally elsewhere. Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, Pichai and Dorsey, none of these positions will be subdued by politicians who understand that something needs to change, but they are not sure.