Eakinomics: The
Section 230 Chronicles, Act I
CEOs Jack Dorsey (Twitter), Sundar Pichai (Google), and Mark Zuckerberg
(Facebook) were the audience for a special performance of Senate drama
yesterday. The occasion was a Senate Commerce Committee hearing entitled “Does Section 230’s
Sweeping Immunity Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior?” This is the first of
two hearings – the second will be in the Judiciary Committee – on
the same topic.
Weirdly, however, the scripts seemed to have gotten mixed up. Republicans
decried the bias of tech platforms and called for intrusive government
regulation. Democrats by and large defended the importance of personal
freedoms, the importance of respecting consumer choices, and the power of
enabling competitive conditions. And sometimes the actors, er Senators,
seemed to switch scripts. Senator Cory Gardner started out with concerns of
anti-conservative bias, including asking about the political leanings of
employees, but arrived at the conclusion that as much as he didn’t like the
companies’ actions, the government would be worse, as “you cannot unsubscribe
from government censors.”
Even the CEOs demonstrated a less than unified message. Twitter and Google
defended the importance of Section 230, with Twitter emphasizing improving
transparency around its decisions and Google focusing on
the internet’s equalizing impact and the importance of Section 230
to consumers and platforms of all sizes. Facebook expressed an openness to
regulation on content moderation including changes to Section 230.
But there were moments of insight and education. Senator Jerry Moran picked
up on an excellent line of questioning about why we should be concerned about
the impact that changes to Section 230 could have on smaller companies and
consumers. This hints at an issue that deserves more
attention in the debate over Section 230: market dynamics.
The liability protections afforded by Section 230 make it easier for new
platforms to start up; there is no discipline like the possibility of losing
your customer base to a new entrant. And the content moderation protection
permits platforms to tailor their content to the tastes of their users – or
not. There is nothing better for consumers than having the ability to choose
among alternatives for the content they prefer and for new platforms to
serve consumers they view as currently unserved. In this way, Section 230 is
an essential framework for a vibrant, innovative market of dynamic
competition – a point spelled out nicely by AAF's Jennifer Huddleston in her
latest insight.
I’m shallow, so I enjoyed the theatrics – there was lots of yelling, and the
Democrats repeatedly complained that the only point of the hearing was
to intimidate the CEOs just before an election. But one must not
lose sight of the seriousness and importance of protecting speech and
competition on the internet, and that this is a debate that will continue
after next Tuesday’s election.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment