{"id":1285,"date":"2021-11-23T23:16:43","date_gmt":"2021-11-23T22:16:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/2021\/11\/23\/opinion-facebook-is-bad-fixing-it-rashly-could-make-it-much-worse-the-new-york-times\/"},"modified":"2021-11-23T23:16:43","modified_gmt":"2021-11-23T22:16:43","slug":"opinion-facebook-is-bad-fixing-it-rashly-could-make-it-much-worse-the-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/2021\/11\/23\/opinion-facebook-is-bad-fixing-it-rashly-could-make-it-much-worse-the-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Opinion | Facebook Is Bad. Fixing It Rashly Could Make It Much Worse. &#8211; The New York Times"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"cfbc967f0983488262956e73eca9483a\" data-index=\"1\" style=\"float: none; margin:10px 0 10px 0; text-align:center;\">\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3859091246952232\" crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script>\r\n<!-- blok -->\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\" data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3859091246952232\" data-ad-slot=\"1334354390\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script>\r\n\n<\/div>\n<p>Advertisement<br \/>Supported by<br \/>Farhad Manjoo<br \/><strong>Send any friend a story<\/strong><br \/>As a subscriber, you have <strong class=\"css-8qgvsz ebyp5n10\">10 gift articles<\/strong> to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.<br \/><span class=\"byline-prefix\">By <\/span><span class=\"css-1baulvz last-byline\" itemprop=\"name\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/by\/farhad-manjoo\" class=\"css-mrorfa e1jsehar0\">Farhad Manjoo<\/a><\/span><br \/>Opinion Columnist<br \/>The nicest thing you can say about the <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/117th-congress\/senate-bill\/2448\/text\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">Health Misinformation Act<\/a>, proposed in July by the Democratic senators Amy Klobuchar and Ben Ray Luj\u00e1n, is that it means well. The internet has been a key accelerant of widespread myths, misunderstandings and lies related to Covid-19; Klobuchar and Luj\u00e1n\u2019s bill would force online companies like Facebook to crack down on false information during public health emergencies, or lose immunity from lawsuits if they don\u2019t.<br \/>There\u2019s only one problem: What is health misinformation? I know of no oracular source of truth about Covid-19. Scientific consensus has shifted dramatically during the pandemic, and even now experts are divided over important issues, such as whether everyone should get a <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/25\/health\/covid-boosters-cdc-fda.html\" title=\"\">vaccine booster shot<\/a>. Klobuchar and Luj\u00e1n\u2019s bill elides these complications. Instead they designate an all-knowing authority: Health misinformation, the bill says, is <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.techdirt.com\/articles\/20210722\/17302447227\/senators-klobuchar-lujan-release-ridiculous-blatantly-unconstitutional-bill-to-make-facebook-liable-health-misinformation.shtml\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">whatever the secretary of health and human services decides is health misinformation<\/a>.<br \/>I\u2019m sorry \u2014 what? Have the senators forgotten that just last year we had a president who ridiculed face masks and peddled ultraviolet light as a miracle cure for the virus? Why would we choose to empower such a president\u2019s cabinet appointee as the arbiter of what\u2019s true and false during a pandemic? And not just a pandemic \u2014 since the law defines a public health emergency so broadly, I wouldn\u2019t put it past a science-averse future secretary from attempting to declare discussions about abortion, birth control, transgender health or whatever else as \u201cmisinformation.\u201d<br \/>Klobuchar and Luj\u00e1n\u2019s bill is one of <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/whats-next-section-230-roundup-proposals\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">many plans<\/a> that attempt to curb the power of tech companies by altering Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the much-hated and <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/05\/28\/business\/section-230-internet-speech.html\" title=\"\">much-misunderstood 1996 <\/a>rule that affords websites broad immunity from liability for damage caused by their users. Proposals from Democratic lawmakers tend to call on tech companies to delete or demote false content in order to retain Section 230 immunity; proposals from Republicans generally do the opposite, threatening to undo immunity if tech companies censor content \u201cunfairly\u201d or \u201cin bad faith.\u201d<br \/>The plans from both sides fill me with deep dread. Many legal experts argue that many Section 230 proposals, including the Klobuchar-Luj\u00e1n bill, likely <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"http:\/\/cyberlaw.stanford.edu\/blog\/2021\/01\/six-constitutional-hurdles-platform-speech-regulation\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">violate the First Amendment<\/a>, which makes it extremely difficult for Congress to dictate to private companies and their users what people can and can\u2019t say online. At best, then, the proposals to reform Section 230 might amount to little more than a performative gesture, a way for lawmakers to show they\u2019re doing something, anything, about the runaway powers of tech giants.At worst, though, these plans may backfire catastrophically. Rather than curbing the influence of Big Tech, altering Section 230 might only further cement Facebook and other tech giants\u2019 hold over public discourse \u2014 because the giants might be the only companies with enough resources to operate under rules in which sites can be inundated with lawsuits over what their users post. Smaller sites with fewer resources, meanwhile, would effectively be encouraged to police users\u2019 content with a heavy hand. It is no accident that Facebook has been <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/about.facebook.com\/regulations\/?utm_source=Search&amp;utm_medium=google&amp;utm_campaign=USPublicAffairs&amp;utm_content=Search-facebook%20regulation-510972687565\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">telling lawmakers<\/a> that it welcomes reforms to Section 230 \u2014 while smaller sites like Etsy and Tripadvisor <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/articles\/2020-12-23\/facebook-support-for-liability-reform-has-little-guys-nervous\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">are nervous<\/a> about the possibility.<br \/>Recent reports have exacerbated lawmakers\u2019 impatience with Facebook. This week news organizations are <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/25\/business\/facebook-papers-takeaways.html\" title=\"\">running scores<\/a> of stories based on documents leaked by Frances Haugen, the former Facebook employee turned whistle-blower. Haugen\u2019s documents show a company out of control, one whose sense of ethics rarely rises above the bottom line, one ripe for regulation and reform.<br \/>\u201cThere\u2019s so much hatred for Facebook right now that anything is possible,\u201d said Jeff Kosseff, a professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy and the author of a book about Section 230, \u201cThe Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet.\u201d Kosseff is most worried about a last-minute, dead-of-night change that undoes the governing law of the internet. \u201cThe worst possibility is that every proposal gets into one 500-page omnibus bill that gets passed right before people go home in December, and makes Section 230 entirely inoperable,\u201d he told me.<br \/>Section 230 has been a punching bag for Democrats and Republicans for years. Last year Donald Trump, who argued that the law allowed liberal tech executives to censor right-wing ideas, issued <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2021\/5\/15\/22437627\/biden-revokes-trump-executive-order-section-230-twitter-facebook-google\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">an executive order aimed at limiting its scope<\/a>. President Biden revoked that order in May, but he has also called for Section <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2020\/01\/17\/opinion\/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share\" title=\"\">230\u2019s repeal<\/a>. Both Trump and Biden are emblematic of a widespread misunderstanding about Section 230 \u2014 the idea that it is the rule that gives tech companies wide leeway to moderate online discussions.<br \/>In fact, it is the First Amendment that grants technology companies that right. As Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford\u2019s Cyber Policy Center, has outlined, there are <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"http:\/\/cyberlaw.stanford.edu\/blog\/2021\/01\/six-constitutional-hurdles-platform-speech-regulation\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">at least six different ways<\/a> that the Constitution limits Congress\u2019s power to regulate online discourse.<br \/>Among these limits: Congress can\u2019t require companies to ban constitutionally protected speech \u2014 and objectionable as it might be, in America, health misinformation is legal speech, and it is not a crime for me to tell you where to stick your syringe.<br \/><a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/knightcolumbia.org\/content\/amplification-and-its-discontents\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">In a recent academic article<\/a>, Keller makes a convincing case that the Supreme Court\u2019s First Amendment precedents also prevent Congress from telling tech companies not to amplify certain speech through recommendation algorithms like the one behind Facebook\u2019s News Feed. Such a law would constitute a burden on speech, and the court <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1999\/98-1682\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">has ruled<\/a> that burdens on speech get the same scrutiny as bans on speech. Congress might even run afoul of the First Amendment just by merely incentivizing companies to maintain certain speech standards, Keller has <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"http:\/\/cyberlaw.stanford.edu\/blog\/2021\/01\/six-constitutional-hurdles-platform-speech-regulation\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">argued<\/a>.<br \/>Not everyone agrees that the Constitution is incompatible with speech regulations for tech companies. Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School who has been <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2021\/10\/20\/tech-billionaire-aiding-facebook-whistleblower-516358\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">working with<\/a> Haugen, the Facebook whistle-blower, told me that some content-neutral rules for online speech might survive constitutional scrutiny \u2014 <a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/onezero.medium.com\/glenn-greenwald-missing-the-point-5a2f85c98dcf\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">for example<\/a>, a rule that set an upper limit on the number of times a Facebook post could be reshared.<br \/>More broadly, Lessig argued that legal scholars of the digital world should begin to think more creatively about ways to tame social media. \u201cWe kind of stopped our thinking too early in the evolution of these technologies, and there\u2019s a lot more thinking to be done,\u201d he said.<br \/>Indeed, Kosseff, Lessig and Keller all agreed on one idea \u2014 that before hastily enacting new online speech laws, Congress ought to appoint a kind of blue-ribbon investigative commission with the power to compel tech giants to provide much more information about how their platforms work. Lawmakers would be much better equipped to decide what to do about online discourse if they understood how it operates now, they argued.<br \/>But of course, a commission is nobody\u2019s idea of compelling politics. \u201cIt\u2019s kind of unsatisfying,\u201d Keller told me. I agree \u2014 but it\u2019s better than moving haphazardly and making our problems much worse.<br \/><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">Farhad wants to <\/em><a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/05\/16\/opinion\/farhad-office-hours.html?module=inline\" title=\"\"><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">chat with readers on the phone<\/em><\/a><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">. If you\u2019re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that\u2019s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call.<\/em><br \/><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">The Times is committed to publishing <\/em><a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/01\/31\/opinion\/letters\/letters-to-editor-new-york-times-women.html\" title=\"\"><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">a diversity of letters<\/em><\/a><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\"> to the editor. We\u2019d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some <\/em><a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/help.nytimes.com\/hc\/en-us\/articles\/115014925288-How-to-submit-a-letter-to-the-editor\" title=\"\"><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">tips<\/em><\/a><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">. And here&#x27;s our email: <\/em><a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"mailto:letters@nytimes.com\" title=\"\"><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">letters@nytimes.com<\/em><\/a><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">.<\/em><br \/><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">Follow The New York Times Opinion section on <\/em><a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/nytopinion\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\"><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">Facebook<\/em><\/a><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">, <\/em><a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"http:\/\/twitter.com\/NYTOpinion\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\"><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">Twitter (@NYTopinion)<\/em><\/a><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\"> and <\/em><a class=\"css-1g7m0tk\" href=\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/nytopinion\/\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\"><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">Instagram<\/em><\/a><em class=\"css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0\">.<\/em><br \/>Advertisement<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/10\/27\/opinion\/facebook-regulation-section-230.html\">source<\/a><\/p>\n<!--CusAds0-->\n<div style=\"font-size: 0px; height: 0px; line-height: 0px; margin: 0; padding: 0; clear: both;\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>AdvertisementSupported byFarhad ManjooSend any friend a storyAs a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.By Farhad ManjooOpinion ColumnistThe nicest thing you can say about the Health Misinformation Act, proposed in July by the Democratic senators Amy Klobuchar and Ben Ray Luj\u00e1n, is that it means well. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"googlesitekit_rrm_CAow1sXXCw:productID":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}