The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Jack Balkin, "How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media"
More from the free speech and social media platforms symposium in the first issue of our Journal of Free Speech Law; you can read the whole article (by Yale law professor Jack Balkin) here, but here's the abstract:
Social media companies are key institutions in the twenty-first century digital public sphere. A public sphere does not work properly without trusted and trustworthy intermediate institutions that are guided by professional and public-regarding norms. The current economic incentives of social media companies hinder them from playing this crucial role and lead them to adopt policies and practices that actually undermine the health and vibrancy of the digital public sphere. The point of regulating social media is to create incentives for social media companies to become such responsible institutions. And it is equally important to ensure that there are a large number of different kinds of social media companies, with diverse affordances, value systems, and innovations.
But treating social media companies as state actors or as public utilities does not solve the problems of the digital public sphere. One might create a public option for social media services, but this, too, cannot serve as a general solution to the problems that social media create. Instead, this essay describes three policy levers that might create better incentives for privately-owned companies: (1) antitrust and competition law; (2) privacy and consumer protection law; and (3) a careful balance of intermediary liability and intermediary immunity rules.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My regulation of social media consists of not have any.
I also do not consider social media as a news source.
But then, I am just a mean old man.
(you know, the kind that thinks men are men and women are women)
(1) antitrust and competition law; (2) privacy and consumer protection law; and (3) a careful balance of intermediary liability and intermediary immunity rules.
Naturally, Eugene went with the paths to massive lawyer fees, endless litigation, with no firm conclusions, and worthless, failed methods that achieve no benefit to the public, just to lawyers. Anti-trust may not even be constitutional.
Disappointed.
Comment section in an online blog where people can talk to each other and post links = Social Media.
"The current economic incentives of social media companies hinder them from playing this crucial role and lead them to adopt policies and practices that actually undermine the health and vibrancy of the digital public sphere."
Ah, so we're going to pretend they're doing the censorship out of ordinary capitalist motives, that they've somehow decided pissing off half their customer base is a route to enhanced profits. That they're not being semi-covertly pressured, or have become monopolists that can afford to jerk around their customers. It's just coincidence that all the big platforms agree about what to censor, and that alternative platforms face enormous and apparently orchestrated obstacles to their operation.
Jack then goes on to sensibly make a case for payment processors and technical support needing to be common carriers, though it's less based on censorship being bad, than their being bad at censorship. But, then:
"Instead, content moderation should occur in social media and search engines. In fact, for these services, content regulation is inevitable. Since it is inevitable, that’s where you should do it."
I'm not seeing why content moderation in social media and search engines actually is inevitable. Since search engines, functioning properly, only show you what you're asking to see, why do they have to "curate" what requests they'll competently respond to? Beyond responding to legal issues like actionable defamation and child pornography, why do social media have to curate, either? In general, you have to go out of your way to be exposed to particular content on social media; If you're seeing white or black supremacism, or what have you, it's because you sought it out.
I think the mistake Jack is making is that he hasn't realized that the people running social media companies by and large have stopped being in it just for the money, even if they did start out that way. Eventually they reached the point where they were comfortably well off, and became willing to sacrifice additional financial reward for other sorts of rewards, such as the opportunity to manipulate public opinion in directions they liked.
Today, manipulating public opinion, and thus electoral outcomes, has become the primary form of 'profit taking' by owners of social media companies. Jack doesn't seem to see that.
Just because you think you see obvious partisan agendas everywhere doesn't mean everyone does and is lying to you about it.
Oh, give me a break. Like there's some question about social media censorship being partisan.
Both parties complain about it, but the difference is, the Republicans complain about being censored, and the Democrats complain that the Republicans aren't being censored enough. EVERYBODY knows which direction the censorship is pointed in.
Brett, I know you're convinced of a liberal agenda everywhere.
But you don't get to pretend everyone else is.
Pure bad faith for any intelligent person to argue that social media censorship is not being used for partisan progressive purposes.
And at this point, that's true with a very low threshold for "intelligent person," so low that even Sarcastr0 passes.
"Just because you think you see obvious partisan agendas everywhere doesn’t mean everyone does and is lying to you about it."
You don't think the fact that the former Republican president is not allowed on social media is at least some evidence of a partisan agenda?
Yeah, but the Taliban and ISIS are allowed. Must just be a fluke.
No, because he clearly and repeatedly violated their policies. If he wasn't a manchild and actually knew how to behave himself, he'd still be on those platforms.
Yeah, the problem is that people clearly and repeatedly violate their 'policies' all the time, and get away with it if FB or Twitter like their politics.
Their 'policies' are designed to allow them to ban anybody they feel like, basically anybody who doesn't stick to sharing their original recipes and cat videos they filmed themselves violate them. With all guilty, they can go after anybody they like.
Not allowed on social media in general? Like Parler also "cancelled" him?! Or do you mean just not allowed on some but still allowed on others depending on which policies he chooses to violate?
In general, if you find yourself asserting that the richest people in the world are not interested in making money, it is time to reflect.
I would contend that, once somebody becomes that rich, they develop additional interests, which they will often pursue even if they get in the way of becoming still richer.
Brett, of course you would contend that. I suggested reflection. You prefer contention.
Balkin has offered you insight into how media business models affect what they (and any would-be regulators) are at liberty to do. Implications for the wealth of present internet media barons loom large. It makes little sense to suppose they are not mindful.
Go back and re-read Balkin, using a premise that this is someone who knows more than you do about the subject, and thus is offering you an opportunity to learn.
Monopolists are interested in making money, as is anyone who finds that bending to economic and political pressure from monopolists and the government is more profitable than not doing so.
But, you know, you can always start a social media company that goes against the orthodoxy. It's a free market. Certainly, you'll still be able to get adequate hosting services, there's no way you'll have trouble getting financing in our banking oligopoly, firms like Blackrock are definitely not waging all out political war on you, you definitely won't get your app banned from all of the two (2) consumer choices in mobile operating systems.
Oh, wait . . . . *crickets*
You live in a very narrow world where inconvenient facts are ignored, don't you?
Parler found hosting. Umpteen thousands of porn sites find hosting. There are safe havens for the sort of crud Parler and other "red pill" social media sites traffic in. Telegram has been going strong for years now. Parler's main issue was that it's builders didn't have a plan or a clue on how to set up a site like that.
You can side load apps in Android no problem. It's designed to work that way. So your app cannot be "banned" by both of the major phone players in the American market if one of them has a feature that lets you avoid any app store or even build your own app store. And while these two OSes are dominant in our market, there are other OSes and device manufacturers to choose from.
There was a time when people would see a poorly supported market and think: aha! I can fill a need and make the money! Only now we see conservatives saying: Oh Noes! I'm a victim! Everybody notice me and my victimness!
"Parler found hosting."
Good God. This is like saying somebody wasn't assaulted, just because they made it to the emergency room in time to have their lives saved, and are merely crippled for life.
At the very moment new signups were flooding in, Parler was subject to a systematic and by all indications carefully coordinated attack, on multiple fronts. They barely survived it, and are a fraction the company they were before.
"In general, if you find yourself asserting that the richest people in the world are not interested in making money, it is time to reflect."
The richest people in the world, like the rest of us, also like to spend money. That's largely the point of making money.
If Zuckerberg ran FB to maximize profits, then spent some of the profits on politics, he'd have to pay taxes on those profits, and then run up against campaign finance limits.
If he runs FB to warp American politics in the direction he likes, the forgone profits lower his taxes, and the in kind expenditure isn't regulated.
So spending money by annoying customers is actually economically efficient.
Rupert Murdoch, anybody?
Remember when just the other day the President of the "land of the free" US Joe Biden got up and called Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a MURDERER, for not immediately toeing the exact line of censorship demanded by POTUS with respect to a handful of certain individuals?
So much happening so fast these days.
That's not how search engines work. They're not like hitting Ctrl-F to find text in a document.
As for social media, I've already explained it to you many times: nobody wants a website overrun with Nazis, trolls, and Nazi trolls. And spam, of course.
That is exactly how search engines work, ideally: They find you what you're looking for, uncontaminated by what you're not looking for.
I'm well aware that they're not perfect, but if you're searching for cupcake recipes, that you don't get dropped off at Stormfront isn't 'curation', it's just properly executing a search. "Curation" is not finding you Stormfront even if you're looking for Stormfront. It's not finding sites naming Eric Ciaramella if somebody searches for "Who is the Ukraine call whistleblower?"
"As for social media, I’ve already explained it to you many times: nobody wants a website overrun with Nazis, trolls, and Nazi trolls. And spam, of course."
Trump wasn't kicked off Twitter and Facebook because nobody wanted to follow him there. He was kicked off Twitter and Facebook because too many people wanted to follow him there. He was wildly popular and Zuckerberg didn't like it.
FB and Twitter can't be "overrun" with people you don't like, except in the sense the telephone network is, because you don't have to freaking follow somebody if you don't want. You don't end up exposed to David Duke or whoever unless you want to be.
And if you're upset because a communications utility can be used by people you don't like, even though you don't have to encounter them unless you want?
You're the problem here.
"He was kicked off Twitter and Facebook because too many people wanted to follow him there. He was wildly popular and Zuckerberg didn’t like it."
Nobody's going to buy your gaslighting, Brett.
Trump was booted for violating the polices of those sites.
Repeatedly, deliberately, and unabashedly.
In fact, he was given extreme leeway that none of the rest of us would have received because he was President at the time.
Give me a break! The rules of those sites are so vague and malleable that they barely amount to more than, "Don't annoy us."
A couple years back, just for yucks, I went to the trouble of finding an Antifa page on FB where they were openly discussing plans to assault people, and reported it. It took a week, and they got back to me to say that they hadn't found anything objectionable. In a post that was literally discussing plans to physically assault people!
Guess what Brett:
You'll find that sort of inconsistency everywhere. I've reported things on various sites that were unambiguously against the ToS with no effect. That's how it goes.
Trump violated the policies without any doubt. You cannot possibly look at the ToS for Twitter (for instance) and look at Trump's tweets, and tell me that he didn't run afoul hundreds of times for the harassment and insults he spewed.
Of course he did! The TOS are such that they're basically impossible to not violate if you say anything political, or even the slightest bit controversial.
Note that, until last Friday, the leader of the Taliban still had HIS Twitter account. Think HE wasn't violating the ToS?
Brett, you sound histrionic ninny.
Note how you just changed what you originally said, which was "search engines, functioning properly, only show you what you’re asking to see." What you're looking for and what you're asking to see aren't the same thing. The whole reason Google beat out other search engines in the marketplace is because it had a better algorithm to curate search results so that people could be shown what would actually be useful to them rather than just mindlessly spitting out searches based on pattern matching.
That's not how social media sites work. You seem to be confusing them with some sort of private bulletin boards where one has to subscribe to a particular set of content to see it. Of course a user can follow/friend someone, but that's not all that users see.
Actually, Google beat out the other search engines because their pattern matching was sophisticated and intelligent. Their curation actually created an opening for other search engines because it started degrading the search function for people who were looking for things Google didn't want found.
"That’s not how social media sites work."
I was on FB for about 10 years after moving from my home state of Michigan, to keep in contact with friends and relatives there. My wife is still on it. And that's exactly how it worked. The only time I saw content from somebody I wasn't following was when FB itself insisted on pushing content my way. Something I found so irritating that I actually used an extension to block it.
Not once in that whole time did anybody intrude into my timeline who I hadn't opened the way for, unless FB deliberately let them.
And I belonged to a private group, that you couldn't even look into without being a member, where we discussed politics, keeping our main accounts for just recipes and travel photos. Leaving FB was prompted by FB giving some SJW access to our private group, and the threats that we'd be shut down if we didn't stop saying things that moron disagreed with.
Now I'm on MeWe, and my feed is never, ever, contaminated with anything I didn't invite, because MeWe doesn't push content. They don't censor it, either, unless they can make a case that it's criminal. So it's quite obvious that exposing people to content they didn't ask for isn't an essential component of social media.
> Jack then goes on to sensibly make a case for payment processors and technical support needing to be common carriers,
I'd let social media do what it wants, but I'd ensure a healthy competitive internet speech by somehow making DNS services and payment processors be viewpoint neutral
I thought I was the only one who thought this, thanks for mentioning it, now I'll have to read the article.
A bolt of lightning.
Balkin's great contribution here is to unravel many of the complications which make social media problems so confusing to understand, let alone to solve. Crucially, Balkin understands that social media companies are publishers, and that regulating publishers must be done in the context of understanding their business models.
Read every word. This is the best thing I have seen published by the Volokh Conspiracy.
That said, there will be a long way to go before the problems Balkin outlines so well get solutions which many folks recognize as constructive and necessary. Internet publishing utopians will be particularly resistant.
I sometimes think a merger of Balkinization and The Volokh Conspiracy might produce something quite useful and enjoyable, each improving the other.
Balkin does not call for regulating social media providers as publishers.
I mean, it’s like Lathrop is a bot that just says “publishing publishing publishing” when triggered. The article’s point is exactly the opposite: that social media companies do not act like traditional publishers.
Right, Nieporent.
They don't publish expressive content.
They don't assemble an audience.
They don't curate content, with an eye to making the audience marketable to advertisers.
They don't make the bulk of their money by selling ads.
They don't use a business model which competes with publishers in the publishing marketplace for ad sales.
Probably, those are all points Balkin made to prove social media are not like traditional publishers.
Balkin said they should for the most part be given conditional intermediary immunity, and when that is not appropriate it should be distributor immunity.
Josh R, if you spend all day doing publishing activities, why wouldn't the result at the end of the day be publications?
Is there some reason you don't want social media platforms to be called publishers? Do you hope to deprive them of 1A press freedom? Do you number yourself among the many opponents of press freedom who comment here? If so, why?
Do you have investments in red herring farms?
Mindlessly reciting your stupid reductionist bullet points that are not and never have been the definition of publishing does nothing to advance the discussion. Selling ads, for instance, is not even relevant to the definition of publishing. (If it were, Simon & Schuster, for example, would not be publishers. But Barnes & Noble would be. HBO wouldn't be, but CBS would be.)
The points Balkin made to prove social media are not like traditional publishers are these:
The analogy between a social media company and a publisher is a terrible one. No, they don't publish content (for the most part; they may occasionally do so, but it's not their business model.) They distribute it — but unlike traditional distributors, they generally do not choose what to distribute, except in retrospect. Social media companies are bulletin boards.
Nieporent, since you have seen my previous bullet point listings, you probably remember that I said those points do not cover all publishers. I said also that I thought it would be impossible to create a comprehensive definition—which of course is what you are arguing, but not, as you suppose, in contradiction.
What I went on to say is that the practices listed did define a widely-practiced subset of publishing, and that it was very hard to find any business based on those practices which was not a publisher. Thus, if you do those things, it is likely a safe presumption that you are a publisher. See if you can come up with a list of notable examples to the contrary. To avoid circular reasoning with regard to the point in contention, please don't include internet platforms.
Prof. Balkin has some great and thoughtful insights on an important issue of the day.
However, it will all be for naught if the authorities fail to give us a Thursday Open Thread and the Internet goes up in flames as a result.
So some say. Yet the first thing done after threatening billions in stock losses by wiping section 230 was "Thank you for censoring harrassment. Oh, did you notice our political opponents' tweets are harrassing, WINK."
Except they didn't wink.
And now it's "dangerous speech". Curiously, "dangerous" is the term used by dictatorships to restrict speech in their own country.
I guess that's different, though, because in those horrible countries, government decides what's dangerous, unlike here...
Oh, wait. It is exactly the same.
We see silencing of political opposition, and facetiously play some game that it is really honorable.
Do not reintroduce censorship under the false belief it can be wielded safely in a democracy, because it is a democracy.
Because leaping a low 51% simple majority is just what the charismatic demagogue ordered.
from the journal article:
I do not think that these private operators should be allowed to be the judge of whether or not their customers activities are illegal.
If there are criminal charges being actively prosecuted or a conviction, fine. Otherwise, NO.
At the very least, pretextual claims of illegality should be seriously sanctioned and the customer nicely compensated.
Slyfield, you would not permit a payment system operator to use its own discretion with an eye to avoid being charged criminally?
On what basis could the payment system operator be charged for illegal transactions by their customers?
And if the law allows that, that law should be changed.
Slyfield, so a payment system operator ought to be free to conspire criminally on, for instance, money laundering, and no law should say otherwise?
"A public sphere does not work properly without trusted and trustworthy intermediate institutions that are guided by professional and public-regarding norms."
That is complete and utter garbage.
There are no "trusted and trustworthy intermediate institutions", because none of the ones that exist are in any way trustworthy.
And the "intermediate institutions" are no "guided by professional and public-regarding norms", they are guiding by a lust of political power that admits to no respect for principle, norms, or anything else that gets in the way of their political agendas.
The way to regulate social media is this:
1: You can chose not to censor: you get Section 230 protections.
2: You can chose not to get Section 230 protections: you can do whatever you want
3: You can chose to censor based on objective, non-political standards. (This is a cat thread, we will delete any threads about dogs.). Any user has a private right to sue for any non-objective / political censoring of themselves. $100k fine for each violation. "Loser pays" for attorney costs (so not bankrupted by spurious suits).
There is no one in the world who is qualified to decide what we can legitimately discuss. Anyone who thinks there is such a person has proved their judgement is utter crap, and nothing else
This is gibberish. Literal gibberish. It's like saying, "1. You can choose not to fly, and be treated like an airline.
2. You can choose not to be treated like an airline, and fly." The entire point of Section 230 is to protect websites that moderate. There are no "Section 230 protections" other than that.
If you want to repeal 230, then then just forthrightly say that, instead of exposing your ignorance by saying that you want to keep 230 but make it so that doesn't have any operative effect.
Point 3 is nonsensical, both because it violates the first amendment and doesn't understand the concept of "political."
There is: the property owner where you are holding the discussion. You can praise your Dear Leader all day long as a wise, honest man if you want — but not in my kitchen.
" The entire point of Section 230 is to protect websites that moderate. There are no “Section 230 protections” other than that."
Haven't read Section 230 lately, have you?
Section 230 provides several protections.
(c)1 "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".
So Reason isn't liable for comments here, unless they get a takedown order for illegal content, and refuse to comply. And they don't have to moderate at all to have that protection.
(c)2 "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph"
So, Reason isn't civilly liable for allowing us to block each other, or taking down comments that are 'objectionable' in certain ways.
The real problem has been that the list of basis for moderation has been swallowed by that "or otherwise objectionable", rendering the rest of the list totally redundant. Ejusdem generis, anyone?
So, a protection of a limited sort of 'censorship' was transformed into a blank check.
They don't need that protection unless they moderate. If they don't moderate, they're not going to be liable anyway — that's Cubby v. CompuServe.
Sigh. That's because there's no theory of liability there. Repeal 230 and you still couldn't sue Reason for taking down comments, regardless of what "ways" it decided those comments were objectionable.