Speech Police: The Global Struggle to Govern the Internet

"Speech Police , which came out about a year ago, deals with the pitched debates over the role of internet companies and social media platforms in regulating speech. So much of our public discourse now takes place on social media and the internet. Whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, or Tik Tok, these companies are not subject to the First Amendment. They set their own rules regarding what is permissible on their platforms and what is not. Each one has a different set of precepts and standards, which shift all the time. Speech Police examines the complex role of these platforms in shaping the parameters of modern discourse. These companies are now arbitrators of our public forums. The rules that they set can determine whether an idea sees the light of day or is buried in the deep dark web. On the one hand, some consumers and governments are demanding that these platforms prohibit harmful speech. Whether it’s cyber-bullying, terrorist recruitment, white supremacist ideology or the expression of any idea that can translate into violence in the physical world, there is tremendous pressure for internet and social media companies to find a fix. But there’s also a worry that if they aggressively police their platforms, enormous swaths of speech will be suppressed without public knowledge. As Speech Police details, the rules they apply and the mechanism they use to implement those rules, which are heavily dependent on algorithms and artificial intelligence, have abundant unintended results which may wind up suppressing content that does not meet their definition, or anyone’s definition, of what ought to be out of bounds in a free society. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does shield the platforms from liability for the vast bulk of user content that is posted on them. So, if someone posts something and it’s illegal, in American courts you can go after the individual, but not the platform itself. The notion behind that provision, as you’ve touched on, is that these platforms are not the equivalent of publications, which fact check content; they’re closer to a bulletin board in a public square. If people put up a notice that is offensive or solicits illegal activity, you wouldn’t expect the bulletin board to be liable for the harms caused. Support Five Books Five Books interviews are expensive to produce. If you're enjoying this interview, please support us by donating a small amount . Defenders of Section 230 say that its liability shield enabled the internet to develop into the broad freewheeling participatory platform it is today. Internet freedom advocates are concerned that companies will overzealously police content if they face liability by taking down any speech that might seem offensive or touch on illegal activity in any way, because their corporate counsel will warn they might face liability for all kinds of content. Even the process of having to vet and scrutinize everything posted on Twitter and Facebook would fundamentally alter the nature of those platforms. On the flip side, this idea is gaining momentum. President Trump is urging the Justice Department to consider curbing Section 230 and legislation to do just that has been introduced with a good deal of bipartisan support. Eliminating liability in one fell swoop could recast the internet in ways that are hard to predict. But some reform proposals would simply subject these companies to a good faith standard, to encourage them to undertake some responsibility over content. I think that’s something to be pursue, but with caution."