Here we go again: More threats to editors from social media and political interests.

By William Dunkerley

When you hear the term "censorship board," what pops into your mind? The old Soviet Union? Contemporary nations with dictators? The connotations all seem to be negative. They reflect constraints upon prerogatives we mostly take for granted.

Yet the topic of regulating Facebook is upon us. Facebook has been a problem for editors of curated content publications for some time now. Along with Google, it has captured a lion's share of digital advertising revenue. That leaves less for our publications, and that tends to constrain our editorial budgets.

The Burgeoning Content Regulation Problem

Now Facebook, with its new corporate name Meta, is bringing a new problem our way. It's content regulation. There are widespread beliefs that Facebook plays a negative role in the lives of many. While Facebook is certainly a visible culprit, the concerns also extend to other social media platforms.

Those in politics are aware of the platforms' enormous capacity to influence people, voters in particular. Various factions are seeking advantage by constraining opposition through regulation. If that is accomplished through government regulation, it is clearly censorship, no matter how desirable the end might seem to advocates.

The other thrust to "regulate" Facebook et al. comes from the education and mental health community. Many from both communities believe that Facebook and other social media platforms are responsible for an alarming increase in the number of teen suicides. Bullying and access to children by criminals are cited as untoward influences.

Blaming social media exclusively for all that might be somewhat of a technophobic reaction, however. History shows us that, in an earlier era, TV was earnestly blamed for corrupting the youth.

Alternatives to Regulating Content

Nonetheless, unlike the political issue, the teen issue is something that can be solved without regulating content. If that age group is indeed negatively impacted by certain types of social media platforms, their use can be regulated just as is alcohol and tobacco use. It might be challenging to rally compliance and to enforce, but it wouldn't result in our venturing toward a society of censorship.

There are some very big problems with censorship. First of all, it puts some person or persons or their algorithms in charge of what is permissible. That power can be used not for societal good but for the benefit of those in charge.

Second is the problem of mission creep. Once censorship gets started in one area, the control mechanisms can easily be extended to include areas that include your publication's content, whatever it might be.

And finally, all the political talk and bluster over content "regulation" could reach a dead end with the Supreme Court. It is questionable whether the high court would sustain a clear affront to First Amendment rights.

Practical Solutions Within Reach

Meanwhile, as the threats of regulation blare on, time is being wasted for finding practical solutions to whatever real problems are actually involved. Some politicians might realize short-term wins for trumpeting alarms and calling for censorship of content. But tolerating that will only delay the realization of workable solutions.

Actually, there is a practical step that can be taken right away that would be far less disruptive than age restrictions for teens and less dangerous than political censorship. It is to repeal Section 230 of the FCC regulations. We discussed the perils of that law last January in "Section 230 May Bury Us."

This law in effect immunizes social media platforms from legal actions related to their online content. It was never intended to serve that purpose when enacted, but that is its practical effect now. Repealing Section 230 would allow parents to sue a platform if its content caused injury. Likewise it would allow for adjudicating political damages from malicious online mischief.

While disallowing the platforms' Secton 230 protection is a simple and practical step, it is likely to be fiercely opposed by the tech giants involved. Likewise this would be an obstacle for imposing age restrictions or any other measures that might negatively impact their business agendas.

The platforms have enormous financial resources to deploy in resistance. That massive power is itself another problem. A West Virginia publisher brought suit against Facebook and Google for monopolizing digital ad revenue. Earlier, Forbes reported that "the Federal Trade Commission and 46 states sued Facebook" for certain heavy-handed business practices.

But in late June, Business Insider reported, "Facebook hit a $1 trillion valuation for the first time on Monday after an antitrust court victory. A US judge dismissed two lawsuits lodged against Facebook by the FTC and state attorneys general."

Editors Only's normal function is to focus on practical tips and advice concerning matters directly related to the everyday jobs of editors. It is with some reluctance that we depart from that to deal with threats to the profession overall.

This is really something that our professional associations should be doing. But they don't seem to be in the forefront of protecting us all. In the distant past I've seen that some were active in dealing with postal and tax issues related to the publishing business.

But in today's technology-driven environment, the associations do not seem up to the job at hand. If you have any ideas on how to remedy this deficit, please let us know!

William Dunkerley is principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, www.publishinghelp.com.

Add your comment.