Section 230 May Bury Us
Posted on Friday, January 29, 2021 at 2:21 AM
An uncertain future awaits us as editors if we cede too much power to
tech and social media giants at this critical juncture.
FLASH:
See urgent development reported in Comments section!
By
William Dunkerley
If any part of your editorial budget is
supported by ad revenue, Section 230 is out to get you. "230" is the law
that permits the tech giants, and even lesser social media platforms, to
skirt responsibility for whatever they publish. That allows them to
churn out enormous amounts of content with practically no editorial
expense.
That volume of content attracts readers, who in turn
attract digital ad dollars. MarketWatch reports that Google and Facebook
alone soak up a combined 70 percent of the digital ad spend. That
severely limits the advertising money that's left for your publication
to compete for. Section 230 is one reason so many publications are
finding it difficult to achieve growth online.
There's not much
an individual publication can do to fight this injustice. Clearly this
is a job for our professional organizations. But are they representing
our interests? If so, they don't seem to have achieved much success.
How
Editorial Organizations Are Responding
I checked online to
see what some of the organizations have been up to. First I searched for
any mention of Section 230 on the website of the American Society of
Magazine Editors (ASME). Nothing found. Then I tried the same search for
the American Society of Business Press Editors (ASBPE). Same result.
Perhaps these organizations have been working behind the scenes, but
there's no sign of it online.
The former Society of National
Association Publications, now known as AMP, is a different story. It
appears to be on the side of protecting the tech giants and social media
platforms, and the current absence of liability for what they publish.
I
say "appears" because it's really hard to tell for sure. You see, AMP
has become part of the Software and Information Industry Association
(SIIA), who put out a press release on Section 230. What's AMP doing
there? It sounds like a conflict of interest to me. It's worse than a
wolf guarding a henhouse; it’s like a hen living in a wolf's den. But
whatever the case, the organization's position seems to be in conflict
with the best interests of publishers.
The American Society of
News Editors (ASNE) is yet another story. When I searched its site, I
found something about Section 230, too. This organization filed an
amicus brief in one case. It says that a threat to Section 230
immunities would "threaten the comment sections and discussion forums
offered by news sites, which are often used to collect, confirm and
further redistribute news and information. The result is likely that
comments and online feedback are likely to be eliminated by many
publications."
So, in effect, these editors are arguing that
their publications are not really publications, or at least part of the
publications are not a publication. They're like a telephone company or
post office. They are arguing for a free-for-all in comment sections,
with no real responsibility for what they publish.
Here's what's
wrongheaded with that. That kind of unfettered, uncurated material is
freely available all over the internet. A lot of it serves the egos or
political interests of the posters. As long as this is not violating a
law or injuring anyone, there's nothing wrong with that. But there's no
one attesting to the reliability of the content.
If your content
mimics that mode of operation, what advantage do you have? The advantage
a publication can offer is that its content is curated to suit the
interests of its audience, and there are editors who assure its
reliability. That makes up your brand. That's what gives you an
advantage in attracting and keeping readers, and in acquiring
advertisers that help to pay for your editorial budgets.
What
Needs to Change
To level the playing field, and give
publications the chance they deserve, the existing provisions of Section
230 need to be changed.
Right now that law considers the tech
giants and social media to be merely distributors of information. The
telephone company and the US Postal Service fit into that category well.
They don't influence the content they handle. They're not held
accountable for the content that passes through their networks. If the
tech giants and social media companies want to operate similarly, they
deserve to be in that category.
But that's not what's being
practiced now. In my view there is room for a new category to
accommodate them. This category would allow the tech giants and social
media platforms to moderate content based on behavioral rules. But
moderation could not be based on the nature of any content that is
legally permissible. So in effect they would be serving as a digital
public square -- a place where people can go to exercise their right of
free speech, no matter what their views may be, without interference
(provided they do not violate laws). If the platforms should violate
anyone's right to speak freely, they should be penalized.
But
there could be behavioral rules such as those to assure the rights of
all participants. The content might be unreliable. But that's okay. For
reliable content, audiences can turn to branded publications. In
addition, as editors we have the right to publish one-sided
perspectives, if that is what our readers want. No one has the right to
use our pages to exercise personal rights to free speech. Nor is there a
right to use our personal living rooms for such purpose. Folks wanting
to do that should go to the digital public squares. Meanwhile we are
unfettered in our ability to serve boutique content to our audiences.
As
an individual editor there is little you can do to level the playing
field. But our professional organizations should address the issue. So
if this topic concerns you, and you can see how it can impact your
publication’s future, it's time to let your professional organizations
know about this concern. Without group action, the tech giants and
social media companies will continue to gain strength at our expense.
William
Dunkerley is principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, www.publishinghelp.com.
Add
your comment.
Comment:
"One thing
editors/writers can do about Sectoin 230 is to write about the situation
-- write about it for our audiences, write about it to our legislators
and regulators, write about it to our organizations." --Curt Harler,
freelance writer, curtharler.com.
"Urgent: HD Media
has just filed an antitrust suit against Facebook and Google. The tech
giants are charged with monopolizing the market for digital ads. HD
Media is a West Virginia-based magazine and newspaper publisher. Company
officials would like to hear from editors that support this initiative.
We urge EO readers to contact to Doug Reynolds at 304-522-2305
x2305." --EO Staff