Two Democratic senators introduce a bill to strip away social media platforms' Section 230 liability shield if they amplify harmful public health misinformation

A new bill would make Facebook liable for misinformation — As coronavirus cases rise in unvaccinated populations …

The Verge 2021-07-23 Makena Kelly

Discussion

Vox Shirin Ghaffary on x
A new bill would hold Facebook responsible for Covid-19 vaccine misinformation
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
THREAD: some quick thoughts on @amyklobuchar's new bill, which would allow the government to define speech as “health misinformation” and then revoke platforms' Section 230 protections if they algorithmically amplify that speech https://www.theverge.com/... (spoiler: it's a bad i…
@jkosseff Jeff Kosseff on x
What could go wrong? https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@kellymakena Makena Kelly on x
You'll remember Facebook was calling for 230 reform. Here's a statement from the company on the Klobuchar bill: https://twitter.com/...
@kellymakena Makena Kelly on x
NEW: With tensions rising between the White House and Facebook over COVID-19 misinformation, @SenAmyKlobuchar has introduced a new bill that would remove a platform's Section 230 protections if it amplifies harmful health misinfo. ⤵️ https://www.theverge.com/...
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
So, when Trump wins in 2024 and his HHS secretary declares that promoting vaccines is “misinformation” what happens then? https://twitter.com/...
@jkosseff Jeff Kosseff on x
Health misinformation is a serious problem that is causing many people to make awful choices that threaten their own health and that of their families and communities. A brief thread about why this is not the solution to the problem. https://www.theverge.com/...
@kellymakena Makena Kelly on x
It's important to note that Section 230 shields companies from liability over illegal content they host. Misinformation isn't illegal. It's hard to see how a lawsuit under this bill would move forward. Here's @thedextriarchy on this issue yesterday: https://www.theverge.com/...
@joshmandelohio Josh Mandel on x
Repeal Section 230 NOW.
@albertwenger Albert Wenger on x
Next up: Ministry of Misinformation https://twitter.com/...
@daphnehk Daphne Keller on x
I'm too depressed by the state of political discourse to even count how many constitutional hurdles this bill fails to clear. Lawmakers that waste time being performative are not serving anyone's interests. https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/ ... https://www.theverge.com/...
@kantrowitz Alex Kantrowitz on x
Imagine asking why Americans are so prone to accept the misinformation before running to Section 230. With this, you address the symptoms of the problem without considering the root. https://www.theverge.com/...
@qjurecic Quinta Jurecic on x
Among the other things about the Klobuchar bill, “on the internet and through social media” is doing a LOT of work in section 5(B) here https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@selectedwisdom Clint Watts on x
Wow - one side of the aisle wants to regulate for not moderating, other side wants to regulate for moderating “This legislation will hold online platforms accountable for the spread of health-related misinformation,” says Sen. Amy Klobuchar. https://www.wsj.com/...
@mom101 @mom101 on x
Why limit it to social media? Why not add in cable news networks? Or podcasts hosted on major (Spotify) platforms? https://twitter.com/...
@thedextriarchy Adi Robertson on x
this bill seems like basically a publicity stunt, but in terms of concrete implications it's like, if a Facebook post or Google Search result is health misinformation *and* otherwise actually illegal for some reason, you could sue them over it?
@richzeoli Rich Zeoli on x
The criminalization of speech has officially begun. “This legislation will hold online platforms accountable for the spread of health-related misinformation,” says Sen. Amy Klobuchar. https://www.wsj.com/... via @WSJ
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Repealing Section 230 would be good. I don't like cherry-picking to target specific speech. The problem is amplification of incendiary content due to the click-bait model of surveillance advertising. We still have to do the hard work of building trust in institutions regardless. …
@aricohn Ari Cohn on x
I very much appreciate that Makena put this in, because it's the most important thing that all these performative legislators utterly ignore in their haste to make it appear like they're doing something even when they aren't. Amending Section 230 does not create causes of action.…
@jenniferm_q Jen Monroe on x
I have yet to see a solution proposed to the issue of misinformation on social media be anything but a dystopian disaster waiting to happen https://twitter.com/...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
This, of course, is the core problem with platforms like Facebook, which use surveillance to deliver content to us based on our behavior. So it's good that lawmakers like @amyklobuchar are focused on algorithms and amplification instead of just the speech itself. But...
@jkosseff Jeff Kosseff on x
The bill would allow the HHS Secretary to set guidance as to what constitutes “health misinformation” and exempt any 230 coverage if the platform uses an algorithm to promote that content.
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
On an algorithm-driven platform like Facebook or YouTube, anything that is “not amplified” is effectively “suppressed.” So creating liability concerns around amplifying health information would actually end up keeping helpful, reliable legitimate health info out of people's feeds
@parkermolloy Parker Molloy on x
oh god, this is a bad idea. bad. bad, bad, bad. https://twitter.com/...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
We don't have to wonder what might happen if we create content-specific carveouts in S. 230, because we can just look at what actually did happen the last time we did: when Congress passed FOSTA/SESTA. The bill has been a disaster. It got people killed https://www.dailydot.com/..…
@jgrantaddison Grant Addison on x
Josh Hawley-ism but make it leftie https://twitter.com/...
@scottgreenfield Scott Greenfield on x
Beyond the obvious problem of when the other side is in power, what about when today's medical certainty turns out to be tomorrow's medical error? Health information is dynamic, and we've been wrong before. But with this, you would never know. https://twitter.com/...
@allahpundit @allahpundit on x
“We all want less misinformation online, but this approach would turn future Republican presidents into the speech police” https://www.wsj.com/...
@baldingsworld @baldingsworld on x
Platforms and Journos who are self appointed misinformation fact checkers are trash. However, there is absolutely no excuse for this type of limit on speech and I've gotten vaccinated and worn a mask. Limiting speech even well intentioned is bad idea https://www.wsj.com/...
@jasonfyk Jason Fyk on x
Allow me to translate: Laundering First Amendment infringement. If you don't remove the content we tell you to remove, we allow people to sue you, but you're a private entity “voluntarily” removing content, so it's not “gov” coercing you to restrict speech https://www.wsj.com/...
@roncoleman Ron Coleman on x
Unconstitutional “health misinformation” censorship bill proposed by ⁦@amyklobuchar⁩ https://www.wsj.com/...
@obarcala Owen Barcala on x
The bill itself doesn't even try to define “health misinformation,” which is a pretty bad sign. It just kicks the can to the HHS Secretary and “relevant Federal agencies” So, in effect, political appointees will be able to determine who gets Section 230 protection https://twitter…
@ericgarland Eric Garland on x
WOOT!!! https://twitter.com/...
@timobrien Tim O'Brien on x
Klobuchar introduced a bill that would strip online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter of Section 230 liability protections if they spread misinformation about Covid vaccines or other public-health emergencies. https://www.wsj.com/...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
To understand why this bill is problematic, first you need to understand that ALL content on a platform like Facebook is either algorithmically amplified or algorithmically suppressed. You're almost never 'just seeing" something. You're seeing what Facebook wants you to see.
@justinamash Justin Amash on x
Stop electing people to government who don't understand the freedom of speech and the First Amendment. https://twitter.com/...
@kellymakena Makena Kelly on x
If approved, the HHS Secretary would have 30 days to produce guidelines on what constitutes health misinformation. The bill targets misinfo related to ongoing health crises, as determined by HHS. https://www.theverge.com/...
@blakereid Blake E. Reid on x
That is the sound of Facebook once again throwing the rest of the Internet ecosystem under the bus to try and relieve some of the pressure on antitrust and privacy measures that would actually affect its bottom line. https://twitter.com/...
@merovingians @merovingians on x
this is one of those things that might work in a healthy country and will be an absolute disaster in a country where a good 30 percent of the electorate occupies an alternate universe of socialists destroying America and a good 15 percent just goes with it https://twitter.com/...
@uwcip @uwcip on x
If vaccine misinformation on social media platforms were “a minor problem, then all the interventions, fact-checkers, would appear to have a larger relative effect,” @uwcip director @jevinwest said in a @washingtonpost interview. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@justinamash Justin Amash on x
This. It's not Section 230 that protects the spreading of misinformation; it's the First Amendment that protects the spreading of misinformation. https://twitter.com/...
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
This is such disingenuous nonsense from Facebook. They *know* that the 1st Amendment is the real issue here, so this statement is pure, 100% bullshit suck-uppery. https://twitter.com/...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
This bill would be bad enough if all it did were attempt to revoke 230 protections for algorithmic amplification of vaguely defined “medical misinformation,” but unfortunately it goes a step further, and that step takes it all the way over the line into unconstitutional territory
@giladedelman Gilad Edelman on x
Makena nails it here. You already can't sue someone for declaring that vaccines don't work, so Section 230 is irrelevant. https://twitter.com/...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
... this bill fundamentally misunderstands how platforms react in real life when threatened with liability. If this law were to go into effect, Facebook and YouTube's highly risk-averse lawyers would likely say “do not amplify any medical content at all. we can't take the risk.”
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
We literally JUST had an administration in the White House who would have defined “medical misinformation” as “saying anything that challenges whatever President Trump decided to say this morning” https://twitter.com/...
@allahpundit @allahpundit on x
klobuchar's bill creating an exception to section 230 reads like it would allow people to sue platforms *only* for health misinformation, not defamation. but health misinformation is protected speech https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
Frankly, it's beyond frustrating to see a lawmaker like @amyklobuchar, who genuinely seems to take these issues seriously, introduce a bill that's this sloppy, misguided, unhelpful, and unworkable, at a time when we urgently need actual action, not partisan messaging bills.
@zaidjilani Zaid Jilani on x
It could just be that Klobuchar, Biden, etc. are pressuring these companies to censor more by making threats even if the threats don't make a whole lot of sense. If they start changing Section 230 one day they won't stop the next day. https://twitter.com/...
@jkosseff Jeff Kosseff on x
Platforms generally will use some sort of algorithm, so this effectively says that if you carry any of this forbidden content, you will lose 230 protections. And it gives the HHS Secretary a tremendous amount of discretion to define health misinformation.
@thekevinboyd Kevin Boyd on x
The government would outsource censorship of anything that contradicts its narrative to a private company. No thanks https://twitter.com/...
@pwnallthethings @pwnallthethings on x
Remember with these bills, the question is rarely the *what* speech is bad (health misinformation is obviously bad), but the *who* decides what goes in the bad category (in this case the president and someone in a cabinet position s/he can appoint to). https://twitter.com/...
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
The reality is that if you think Big Tech platforms like Facebook and YouTube are doing a bad job moderating medical misinformation now, they will do a MUCH WORSE job if their moderation practices are being dictated by corporate lawyers whose only concern is avoiding liability
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
For lawmakers, Section 230 carveouts tend to satisfy the impulse to “do something” about X — whether X is online sex trafficking (see: FOSTA-SESTA) or vaccine misinfo — without addressing the underlying issues, and with the potential for ugly unintended consequences.
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
Some perhaps useful context for Klobuchar's new bill: Most online speech experts I've spoken with - including those who think Section 230 should be reformed - have cautioned against these sorts of “carve-outs” for specific types of content. https://twitter.com/...
@mikestabile Mike Stabile on x
Sen @amyklobuchar has just introduced a Section 230 bill which removes exemptions for platforms that “promote health misinformation through an algorithm.” As much as I hate bad public health advice on social, this is a disaster and I have no idea how this would work... https://tw…
@evan_greer Evan Greer on x
sigh. this is a bad idea and it's not even a new bad idea. https://twitter.com/...

Chronicles

Two Democratic senators introduce a bill to strip away social media platforms' Section 230 liability shield if they amplify harmful public health misinformation

Related Coverage

Discussion