Opening statements from Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Jack Dorsey have been published ahead of Thursday’s misinformation hearing in the House — and they show all three CEOs taking on an unusually sensitive issue for tech platforms. All three statements are worth reading, with Dorsey focusing on internal tools like Birdwatch and Pichai warning of the dangers of a full repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
But the most detailed proposal came from Zuckerberg, who talked at length about his preferred changes to Section 230. Instead of repealing the law entirely — as President Biden called for during the campaign — Zuckerberg’s proposal would make Section 230 conditional on companies maintaining a system to remove illegal content.
As Zuckerberg describes it in the letter:
We believe Congress should consider making platforms’ intermediary liability protection for certain types of unlawful content conditional on companies’ ability to meet best practices to combat the spread of this content. Instead of being granted immunity, platforms should be required to demonstrate that they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it. Platforms should not be held liable if a particular piece of content evades its detection — that would be impractical for platforms with billions of posts per day — but they should be required to have adequate systems in place to address unlawful content.
The standards for retaining 230 protections could be set by a third party, Zuckerberg goes on to say, and would exclude demands around encryption and privacy “that deserve a hearing in their own right.” That distinguishes Zuckerberg’s proposal from previously introduced 230 bills like the EARN IT Act, which conditions protections on a long-sought encryption backdoor. Zuckerberg’s proposal is closer to the PACT Act, which conditions the protections on transparency disclosures and other measures but focuses less on the removal of illegal content.
Broadly, it’s unusual for companies to propose rules for how they would like to be regulated, but it’s less unusual for Zuckerberg, who has previously written at length about favorable data portability and content moderation rules.
This is the most detailed proposal for Section 230 that Zuckerberg has yet put forward, and it’s one that would require few material changes for Facebook itself. Facebook already maintains significant systems for identifying and removing illegal or otherwise objectionable content. Still, the proposal might address some of the most urgent objections to Section 230, which often focus on smaller sites entirely dedicated to malicious activity.
The issue is particularly urgent for groups like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which struggle with websites that don’t scan or moderate for child abuse imagery.
“There are a lot of companies, especially some of the very large companies, that engage in really tremendous voluntary measures,” NCMEC’s Yiota Souras told The Verge earlier this year. “But there are a lot of companies that don’t, and there is no legal requirement for them to use any kind of detection or screening.”
The hearing is scheduled to begin at 12PM ET on Thursday, March 25th.
Comments
This is like an alcoholic making recommendations for how to break their own alcoholism. Pretty hard to see the forest from the trees objectively here.
Still, I don’t think this is a particularly bad move for Zuck or any big tech leader. The reality is that these decisions will have pretty large impacts on many people’s lives, and working together for the best path to success makes sense if we’re not being dogmatic and cynical about things.
By Ben Meszaros on 03.24.21 11:38am
Given how the past several congressional sessions have gone, it’s going to be far more productive to start with Zuck’s proposal and have a discussion from there instead of people in congress just dunking on each other and asking how Facebook makes money.
In that regard, it’s a great idea to propose this. It should lead to a more productive discussion and try to keep everyone on topic a bit more.
By Someguyperson on 03.24.21 12:10pm
It’s easy to focus on how 230 affect social media companies, and I don’t blame Zuckerberg for focusing on that since he runs the biggest ones.
However, 230 affects far more than social media companies. His "reforms" (let’s just note that Facebook is probably already in compliance with Zuckerberg’s suggested fixes) don’t even begin to address how other sectors of the online universe will be affected.
How about, with respect to social media companies, we modify 230 to say that if a platform uses algorithms to modify what is presented to its users then that platform loses 230 protections? Because if the platform is using algorithms, then it’s not a neutral platform anymore, but has become a publisher since it’s deciding what its users actually see.
I wonder how Zuck would like that idea?
By JFitzgerald on 03.24.21 2:50pm
I highly doubt Facebook’s definition of "success" has much in common with what’s best for the consumer/citizen.
By ench on 03.24.21 4:30pm
Yeah, let’s listen to that sociopath f*ck, Mark Zuckerberg!
He’s is the real life Miles Dyson and destroying humanity with his stolen invention.
The guy is so hungry for power and money, he would sell his grandma if he could make an extra few bucks.
Only his ‘Skynet’ is a lot more worrisome because it let us destroy ourselves by dumbing down societies 24/7 through their phones. Just open the newspaper in pretty much any country, it polarizes everything it touches for profit.
Again f*ck that guy!
By Tinckerbel on 03.24.21 11:53am
Just like Ballmer, Zuck rants around the stage yelling, "Damage Control! Damage Control! Damage Control!"
By Winklemeier on 03.24.21 12:38pm
His proposal sounds good for large social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, than can afford to invest large amounts into automated moderation systems, but what about smaller message boards? Is the intent that Google, Facebook and Twitter should enjoy the protections of Safe Harbor, and no one else? The devil is really in the details, and I hope there’s some sort of graduated scale for what constitutes "meeting best practices" and "systems in place" for a given forum size.
By sirmarksalot on 03.24.21 1:07pm
Or just as an example, what about the comments sections on news sites like The Verge? Now I’m sure that if I posted abusive language or indecent material here, that comment would eventually be deleted and I would be banned. But how long would that take, and how long would be considered reasonable? I doubt that Vox has any kind of automated page crawling to identify offensive material. I’m guessing they rely mainly on user reports and the occasional look-over from a writer. Would that pass muster under Zuckerberg’s proposal?
By sirmarksalot on 03.24.21 1:12pm
There are a handful of moderators, but yeah it can take hours for certain comments to be dealt with, especially on articles that are more than a day old.
By ench on 03.24.21 4:31pm
It’s not really unusual in the sense that industry groups and lobbyists often draft rules/laws that end up in real laws. Hearing it from the CEO is unusual though.
I think this is not a good idea in that it won’t get the job done, and will ultimately require more litigation in terms of deciding what is reasonable measure in light of what Zuck is proposing. Facades and barrier to entry are not what this industry really needs, and is a giant waste of time.
By omo on 03.24.21 2:03pm
break up Fb. please.
By The Quik Mix on 03.24.21 2:28pm
Yes! With sugar on top
By Tinckerbel on 03.24.21 4:27pm
Down to the individual electrons, if you want to do it right.
By Winklemeier on 03.24.21 7:37pm
This is basically a deal between two devils, each with slightly different motivations.
What could go wrong?
By brianericford on 03.24.21 4:36pm
This proposal is just Zuckerberg asking the government to solidify his monopolistic position against competition.
Note that he doesn’t want to be liable if his spending money on moderation doesn’t get the job done, just make it almost impossible for new competitors to disrupt his business.
By Draenar on 03.24.21 4:53pm
This is abundantly obvious to anyone with even a superficially basic understanding of economics. It is not unusual at all for market leaders to support regulations smaller rivals can’t handle. Tech writing doesn’t usually bother me one way or the other but this one really does. That they don’t even mention this is a bit damning on the verge as a whole. Some editor should have flagged this on first draft.
By SmithBurger on 03.24.21 6:37pm
First… how can a guy who started out with basically a "Hot-or-Not" site and is now worth quadzillions STILL look like Dr. Evil with a leather football helmet glued to his cranium? I mean really… throw a copy of GQ on the chair before he walks in.
Second… this is just a Jedi mind trick to bamboozle the weak-minded in Congress.
By Digital Philosopher on 03.24.21 6:13pm