BOOKS ON EFFECTS OF SOCIAL MEDIA SOFTWARE

Technology must be a part of the solution The absolute absence of liability afforded by Section 230 has kept that debate from occurring.

The debate should be over whether and how those standards change because of user generated content. There are well established behavioral standards for media companies Social media companies make money by selling access to its users just like ABC, CNN, or The New York Times.

Mark Zuckerberg testified to Congress, “I consider us to be a technology company because the primary thing we do is have engineers who write code and build product and services for other people.” That software code, however, makes editorial decisions about which information to choose to route to which people. Social media companies are media, not technology As Congress takes up serious consideration of Section 230, here are a few ideas: Too often that activity has been performance for their base rather than progress towards a solution. Thus far our political leaders have expressed concern about the effects of Section 230. Delivering what the user wants to see, the more outrageous the better, holds that attention and rings the cash register.

The companies’ business model is built around holding a user’s attention so that they may display more paying messages. It is not technological incapacity that has kept them from exercising the responsibility we expect of all other media, it is the lack of will and desire for large-scale profits. It is hard to believe that the brilliant minds that produced the algorithms and artificial intelligence that powers those platforms are incapable of finding better outcomes from that which they have created. The social media companies assert, however, that they have no way to meaningfully police the information flowing on their platform. The result not only has been unproductive for civil discourse, but also that it represents a danger to democratic systems and effective problem-solving.ĭealing with Donald Trump is a targeted problem that the companies just addressed decisively. We now have the answer to what happens when these features and large profits are blended together in a connected world. The social media companies have put us in the middle of a huge and explosive lab experiment where we see the toxic combination of digital technology, unmoderated content, lies and hate. Why didn’t they do it earlier? The actions of the companies to deal with content on the apps, promotion of the apps and hosting of the apps have been decisive and warranted. Facebook and Twitter (and Google’s YouTube subsidiary) are protected by subsection (2) when they make this editorial decision. The companies have shut down at least one liar and blocked an alternative pathway for his rants. These 26 words are the heart of the issue: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” If you are insulated from the consequences of your actions and make a great deal of money by exploiting that insulation, then what is the incentive to act responsibly? These 26 words are the heart of the issue: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” That single sentence creates the current conundrum. It is Subsection (1) that has insulated social media companies from the responsibility of making such editorial judgements. Subsection (2) of Section 230 provides that a platform shall not be liable for, “Any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that any provider or user considers to be…excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable…” In other words, editorial decisions by social media companies are protected, as long as they are undertaken in good faith. These editorial and business judgements do, however, demonstrate how companies have ample ability to act conscientiously to protect the responsible use of their platforms. But the proverbial horse has left the barn. These actions are better late than never.

This is the same Section 230 behind which social media companies have sheltered to protect them from liability for the dissemination of the hate, lies and conspiracies that ultimately led to the assault on the U.S. Twitter actions of Facebook and Twitter are protected by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Act.

BOOKS ON EFFECTS OF SOCIAL MEDIA SOFTWARE

Books on effects of social media