Nick Clegg, Amy Klobuchar, Josh Hawley, Chris Hughes, Clay Shirky, and others on how to reform social media platforms and limit their harm
including Nick Clegg, Amy Klobuchar, Josh Hawley, Sherry Turkle and Jaron Lanier—discuss how to deal with the problems posed by the biggest social-media sites https://www.wsj.com/... Kate Bevan / @katebevan : If Facebook didn't exist, I suspect January 6 might not have happened. https://twitter.com/... Peter Smith / @redpeter99 : How ex senior politicians use their influence and contacts speaks volumes for their character. Clegg and Cameron may be very rich but they are hollow. https://twitter.com/... Justin Hendrix / @justinhendrix : The worst part of this is that Facebook's own researchers are “Reasonable people.” “Reasonable people” produced this insight into how your platform makes things worse. https://www.wsj.com/... Tom McSlay / @thetomzone : I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that the ItalianAmerican community is being held responsible for conduct that runs much deeper in society. If this thing of ours didn't exist, these crimes wouldn't magically disappear. More thoughts on what we should do here. https://twitter.com/... Molly Jong-Fast / @mollyjongfast : [Clegg: “I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that social media is being held responsible for issues that run much deeper in society."] Obviously we're being unreasonable and it's not that your platform elevates far right voices, except it does Tom Coates / @tomcoates : @nickclegg Social media *isn't* being held responsible for these things. *FACEBOOK* is being held responsible for some of these things because *FACEBOOK* has not done enough to counter them! David Clinch / @davidclinchnews : @nickclegg I believe your outline of what kind of new regulation should be introduced is important but there is no need to change 230 to get this done. Also, antitrust, data protection and harmful content regulation should be dealt with in separate regulations that solve for each issue. Tom Coates / @tomcoates : @nickclegg It's very easy to start blaming the whole category to try and distract from the fact that Facebook has about one content moderator for every 100,000 users! That Facebook doesn't have moderators that speak the languages of much of the world and so hate speech is unchecked! Marco Rogers / @polotek : Facebook is now *asking* to be regulated. I take 2 things from this. 1. They see the writing on the wall. They're shifting to “how do we control what the laws say?” 2. This validates what we already knew. The only way to stop them is regulation. They will not stop themselves. https://twitter.com/... @chinchillazllla : @nickclegg oh for sure man Liam Ketley / @kiamletley : @nickclegg Mate if there's a fire and I pour two billion litres of gasoline on it I don't get away with it cos it was already there to begin with. Anton Ferdinand / @anton_ferdinand : @nickclegg What type of nonsense is this? When talking about discrimination on ur platform, which I assume u mean when using the term issues how about we see some accountability & get rid of it on ur platform. You can protect society from it if you want to! The question I'm asking is do u?? Molly Jong-Fast / @mollyjongfast : @nickclegg I'm here for the ratio Mike Duckett / @duckett_mike : @nickclegg Oh how you've changed. Back in 2010 I actually believed you wanted a better, fairer world. Now you defend a company that amplifies hate for add money. Yes the issues exist in society, but Facebook lights a rocket under them and makes them thousands of times worse. Luke Zaleski / @zaleskiluke : @nickclegg Boy seeks human connection in the world's worst possible way. Boy destroys all human connection. Boy becomes very “connected” recluse. Blames the world BobbyThorne / @bobbythorne7 : @nickclegg Ah, the old 'guns don't murder people, people do' argument. Doesn't wash, I'm afraid Nick, sometimes you need to remove the weapon. Jo Maugham / @jolyonmaugham : @nickclegg Do you have any evidential basis for asserting what ‘most reasonable people’ would acknowledge? Or are you, true to form, spreading fake news? @slpng_giants : @nickclegg The reasonable people at the UN concluded that your company touched off a genocide, Nick. https://www.nytimes.com/... Tom Coates / @tomcoates : While we're at it, Nick Clegg should know better then to say that private companies don't have a responsibility to behave ethically unless government legislates to force them to do so! Tom Coates / @tomcoates : It's particularly ridiculous for Facebook to say that they need the government to tell them what's acceptable in the US when the government is *literally constitutionally forbidden from doing so*. Tom Coates / @tomcoates : Social media isn't being held responsible for these things, *Facebook* is being held responsible because *Facebook* has over and over again chosen to turn a blind eye to their negative externalities in order to maximize income! https://twitter.com/... David C Lowery / @davidclowery : Not naming names. But a couple of the authors were markedly pro-tech just a few years ago. Wish I could be that shameless. https://www.wsj.com/... Josh Hawley / @hawleymo : I offer a few thoughts here, with others, on the problem of #BigTech. My point is simple: break them up. Restore competition and give Americans control over their own property and speech https://www.wsj.com/... Nick Clegg / @nickclegg : Here are some specific ideas: https://twitter.com/...
Wall Street Journal
Context & Ripple Effects
The reform debate has come full circle: back in 2017, Stratechery argued that Zuckerberg's own manifesto was a sign Facebook's power needed checking, and by 2020 sources told the WSJ that Zuckerberg and others had shelved internal research on Facebook's polarizing effect. Now the Wall Street Journal convenes an unusually broad roster — Meta's Nick Clegg alongside senators Amy Klobuchar and Josh Hawley, co-founder Chris Hughes, and critics like Sherry Turkle and Jaron Lanier — to argue over what should replace self-regulation.
The lineup matters because it spans the political spectrum: Clegg pitches specific new regulation while Hawley argues for breaking up Big Tech outright, and the reaction online is already hostile — Twitter users tie Facebook directly to January 6 and question what ex-politicians like Clegg are doing defending the company.
First-order effects
Facebook faces a two-front argument it cannot split: Clegg's regulatory proposals compete inside the same pages with Hawley's breakup case, so the company is simultaneously shaping the rules debate and fighting the existence of its current structure.
The public backlash against Clegg — users citing January 6 and Facebook's own researchers — raises the reputational cost of his advocacy role at precisely the moment he is pitching reform.
Rivals get pulled into the frame: Twitter has built its position on aggressively defending users against unmasking subpoenas, and any cross-platform regulatory regime would force it to defend that posture under new legal obligations rather than corporate preference.
Third-order effects
If the pattern holds — platforms' own suppressed research surfacing as evidence, then bipartisan proposals arriving — the endpoint is distribution-layer liability written into law, ending the era where content moderation terms were purely a private contract between platform and user.
The deeper shift is that platform governance stops being a Facebook design problem: access-control rules and external oversight would apply across the industry, converting trust from a brand asset each company manages into regulated infrastructure.
The trend: Platform governance is moving from voluntary self-regulation toward externally imposed rules, with Facebook's own internal research and oversight experiments supplying the evidence and templates legislators are now working from.
I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that social media is being held responsible for issues that run much deeper in society. If Facebook didn't exist, these issues wouldn't magically disappear. More thoughts on what we should do here: https://www.wsj.com/...
“Reasonable people” would acknowledge your position is a scarecrow. Hardly anyone believes social media is the prime cause for society's issues. What “reasonable people” object to is your company knowingly making things worse and making billions while at it. https://twitter.com/.…
Issues can exist which are then amplified and pushed to their most extreme through algorithmic filter bubbles and a corporate ethos that puts bottom line before the line in the sand. A reasonable person would acknowledge that victim-blaming is never a good look. https://twitter.c…
@nickclegg I believe your outline of what kind of new regulation should be introduced is important but there is no need to change 230 to get this done. Also, antitrust, data protection and harmful content regulation should be dealt with in separate regulations that solve for each…
@nickclegg Social media *isn't* being held responsible for these things. *FACEBOOK* is being held responsible for some of these things because *FACEBOOK* has not done enough to counter them!
I'm honored to participate in the @WSJopinion symposium on “fixing” social media. Government intervention is the wrong answer. “How many tech panics must we endure before we understand that the problem is less our technology than our flawed humanity?” https://www.wsj.com/...
@nickclegg Do you have any evidential basis for asserting what ‘most reasonable people’ would acknowledge? Or are you, true to form, spreading fake news?
I offer a few thoughts here, with others, on the problem of #BigTech. My point is simple: break them up. Restore competition and give Americans control over their own property and speech https://www.wsj.com/...
This is such a disingenuous take. I think most reasonable people realise that Facebook and other social media must take some responsibility for design decisions, which have - inadvertently - become drivers of radicalisation and misinformation. https://twitter.com/...
[Clegg: “I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that social media is being held responsible for issues that run much deeper in society."] Obviously we're being unreasonable and it's not that your platform elevates far right voices, except it does
While we're at it, Nick Clegg should know better then to say that private companies don't have a responsibility to behave ethically unless government legislates to force them to do so!
How ex senior politicians use their influence and contacts speaks volumes for their character. Clegg and Cameron may be very rich but they are hollow. https://twitter.com/...
@nickclegg It's very easy to start blaming the whole category to try and distract from the fact that Facebook has about one content moderator for every 100,000 users! That Facebook doesn't have moderators that speak the languages of much of the world and so hate speech is uncheck…
Twelve leading figures from tech, government and academia—including Nick Clegg, Amy Klobuchar, Josh Hawley, Sherry Turkle and Jaron Lanier—discuss how to deal with the problems posed by the biggest social-media sites https://www.wsj.com/...
Social media isn't being held responsible for these things, *Facebook* is being held responsible because *Facebook* has over and over again chosen to turn a blind eye to their negative externalities in order to maximize income! https://twitter.com/...
@nickclegg Oh how you've changed. Back in 2010 I actually believed you wanted a better, fairer world. Now you defend a company that amplifies hate for add money. Yes the issues exist in society, but Facebook lights a rocket under them and makes them thousands of times worse.
Facebook is now *asking* to be regulated. I take 2 things from this. 1. They see the writing on the wall. They're shifting to “how do we control what the laws say?” 2. This validates what we already knew. The only way to stop them is regulation. They will not stop themselves. htt…
@nickclegg Boy seeks human connection in the world's worst possible way. Boy destroys all human connection. Boy becomes very “connected” recluse. Blames the world
@nickclegg What type of nonsense is this? When talking about discrimination on ur platform, which I assume u mean when using the term issues how about we see some accountability & get rid of it on ur platform. You can protect society from it if you want to! The question I'm askin…
Once again @nickclegg asks the wrong question. It's not whether Facebook is the cause of societies problems or just reflects them. It's that by amplifying hate for profit Facebook is making things much worse. Their failure to confront this is why we need independent regulation. h…
The worst part of this is that Facebook's own researchers are “Reasonable people.” “Reasonable people” produced this insight into how your platform makes things worse. https://www.wsj.com/...
This is embarrassing. I've been in meetings with Facebook where they're happy to leave up Nazi-level content, inside groups whose members compete to post more and more rabid material. You can literally track their entire radicalisation on the platform. What a crock. @CCDHate http…
It's particularly ridiculous for Facebook to say that they need the government to tell them what's acceptable in the US when the government is *literally constitutionally forbidden from doing so*.
I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that the Italian American community is being held responsible for conduct that runs much deeper in society. If this thing of ours didn't exist, these crimes wouldn't magically disappear. More thoughts on what we should do here. htt…