 |
|
|
|||||
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996 as part of the Telecommunications Act, has become a political lightning rod in recent years. The law shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content while allowing moderation in good faith. Lawmakers including Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., now seek to sunset Section 230 by 2027 in order to spur a renegotiation of its provisions. The senators are expected to hold a press event before April 11 about a bill to start a timer on reforming or replacing Section 230, according to reports. If no agreement is reached by the deadline Section 230 would cease to be law. The debate over the law centers on balancing accountability for harmful content with the risks of censorship and stifled innovation. As a legal scholar, I see dramatic potential effects if Section 230 were to be repealed, with some platforms and websites blocking any potentially controversial content. Imagine Reddit with no critical comments or TikTok stripped of political satire. The law that built the internet Section 230, often described as the 26 words that created the internet, arose in response to a 1995 ruling penalizing platforms for moderating content. The key provision of the law, (c)(1), states that 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. This immunizes platforms such as Facebook and Yelp from liability for content posted by users. Importantly, Section 230 does not offer blanket immunity. It does not shield platforms from liability related to federal criminal law, intellectual property infringement, sex trafficking or where platforms codevelop unlawful content. At the same time, Section 230 allows platform companies to moderate content as they see fit, letting them block harmful or offensive content that is permitted by the First Amendment. Some critics argue that the algorithms social media platforms use to feed content to users are a form of content creation and should be outside the scope of Section 230 immunity. In addition, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has signaled a more aggressive stance toward Big Tech, advocating for a rollback of Section 230s protections to address what he perceives as biased content moderation and censorship. Censorship and the moderation dilemma Opponents warn that repealing Section 230 could lead to increased censorship, a flood of litigation and a chilling effect on innovation and free expression. Section 230 grants complete immunity to platforms for third-party activities regardless of whether the challenged speech is unlawful, according to a February 2024 report from the Congressional Research Service. In contrast, immunity via the First Amendment requires an inquiry into whether the challenged speech is constitutionally protected. Without immunity, platforms could be treated as publishers and held liable for defamatory, harmful or illegal content their users post. Platforms could adopt a more cautious approach, removing legally questionable material to avoid litigation. They could also block potentially controversial content, which could leave less space for voices of marginalized people. MIT management professor Sinan Aral warned, If you repeal Section 230, one of two things will happen. Either platforms will decide they dont want to moderate anything, or platforms will moderate everything. The overcautious approach, sometimes called collateral censorship, could lead platforms to remove a broader swath of speech, including lawful but controversial content, to protect against potential lawsuits. Yelps general counsel noted that without Section 230, platforms may feel forced to remove legitimate negative reviews, depriving users of critical information. Corbin Barthold, a lawyer with the nonprofit advocacy organization TechFreedom, warned that some platforms might abandon content moderation to avoid liability for selective enforcement. This would result in more online spaces for misinformation and hate speech, he wrote. However, large platforms would likely not choose this route to avoid backlash from users and advertisers. A legal minefield Section 230(e) currently preempts most state laws that would hold platforms liable for user content. This preemption maintains a uniform legal standard at the federal level. Without it, the balance of power would shift, allowing states to regulate online platforms more aggressively. Some states could pass laws imposing stricter content moderation standards, requiring platforms to remove certain types of content within defined time frames or mandating transparency in content moderation decisions. Conversely, some states may seek to limit moderation efforts to preserve free speech, creating conflicting obligations for platforms that operate nationally. Litigation outcomes could also become inconsistent as courts across different jurisdictions apply varying standards to determine platform liability. The lack of uniformity would make it difficult for platforms to establish consistent content moderation practices, further complicating compliance efforts. The chilling effect on expression and innovation would be especially pronounced for new market entrants. While major players such as Facebook and YouTube might be able to absorb the legal pressure, smaller competitors could be forced out of the market or rendered ineffective. Small or midsize busiesses with a website could be targeted by frivolous lawsuits. The high cost of compliance could deter many from entering the market. Reform without ruin The nonprofit advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation warned, The free and open internet as we know it couldnt exist without Section 230. The law has been instrumental in fostering the growth of the internet by enabling platforms to operate without the constant threat of lawsuits over user-generated content. Section 230 also lets platforms organize and tailor user-generated content. The potential repeal of Section 230 would fundamentally alter this legal landscape, reshaping how platforms operate, increasing their exposure to litigation and redefining the relationship between the government and online intermediaries. Daryl Lim is a professor of law and associate dean for research and innovation at Penn State. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Nearly 40% of Black workers feel comfortable talking about their faith with people at work, the highest of any U.S. racial group, our two recent studies found. But they also risk facing religious discrimination. For the past 15 years, we have been studying religion in workplaces. Recently we conducted two studies, including two online surveys involving 15,000 workers and in-depth interviews with nearly 300. Our respondents included Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and nonreligious individuals. The majority of Black Americansnearly 8 in 10identify as Christians. And we found that Black workers from all faiths are more likely than other racial groups to use their traditions to find meaning and purpose in their work and to feel called to their work. Although not all Black Americans are religious or want their faith to intersect with their work, we found that many Black Americans very much want to bring their religious beliefs to work. This goes beyond just talking about them at work, such as their holiday celebrations or the importance of their church in their lives. In addition, Black Americans are more likely than other racial groups to display or wear religious symbols, such as jewelry or head coverings. Why it matters Scholars have often focused on racial discrimination in workplaces. However, the potential overlap between racial and religious marginalization has not been studied as much. Some Black Christians told us that when they mention faith at work, they fear they will be discriminated against because of their race and because of their faith, what we call double marginalization. For example, we interviewed a Black Christian woman who worked as an assistant professor of English. She told us she was reluctant to describe the challenges she faced in academia as religious discrimination but said the humanities tend to not always be welcoming toward religious people and Christians specifically. She recalled several instances when she was treated differently due to her faith. Black Christians we interviewed said that coworkers stereotyped them as narrow-minded or sanctimonious in ways that felt marginalizing. For example, some said the term holywhich might seem positive in certain kinds of contextscan be applied in pejorative ways to Black Christians. A man we interviewed who attends a majority Black congregation said he talks about his faith openly in the workplace and often feels negatively judged. Members of minority religions may feel even more at risk. The largest group of Muslims in the U.S. are Black Americans. Black Muslim female workers, for example, feel three times marginalizedfeeling at risk for gender, racial, and religious discriminationour study found. Their faith sometimes makes Black Americans less likely to address inequality in their workplaces. We found they sometimes draw on religious values like forgiveness and their belief that God is in control to justify remaining quiet about religious and racial discrimination. Whats next This contrasts with our previous work, where we argued that religion can be used to address inequalities at work. We need more research that examines the inextricable link between religion and race in workplaces. Workplace leaders who care about lessening inequality need to understand that racial and religious identities are often deeply intertwined. The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Elaine Howard Ecklund is a professor of sociology at Rice University. Christopher P. Scheitle is an associate professor of sociology at West Virginia University. Denise Daniels is a chair of entrepreneurship at Wheaton College (Illinois). This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
When government officials accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantics editor-in-chief, in a Signal group chat discussing U.S. military plans, all hell broke loose. The Atlantics CEO, Nicholas Thompson, joins Rapid Response to discuss the scandal now known as Signalgate, revealing insider details about how the story came to be and sharing how the publication thinks about fostering its success as a business while maintaining editorial independence.This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. I have to ask you about one of the biggest news stories of the year: The Atlantics editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, included in a group chat on Signal by U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. Other leaders, including the secretary of Defense, are there. Sensitive military plans are discussed. When did this first come to you? Are you consulted in advance by the editorial team on how to approach coverage, or do you read about it once it breaks for the rest of us? I’m not consulted. I don’t know what they’re going to publish today. I don’t know what the next cover of The Atlantic is. For a story like this, I certainly knew that something important was going to be published, because there’s a lot that you have to do as an organization when something like this happensyou have to make sure your comms officials and others are ready to go. So I knew that something was going to happen, but I read it maybe right about when everybody else did. In fact, I believe one of the first five people to read the story was my 11-year-old son because I was with him. So right before it went live on the site, we got to read the story. Even after I read it, I didn’t realize the impact it would have. When we published the second story, and we published the chat transcripts, I was on an airplane when that went live. The second I read that, I knew that was going to be massive because of the texture, the color, and because the administration had spent the previous day saying that what was in the chats was not classified, and that The Atlantic was mischaracterizing it. So, it was very clear that that was incorrect, and that meant the story was going to go wild.I know there’s the story that obviously brought a lot of attention, but the general environment since Trump took office again has been a high degree of turmoil. Is that turmoil good for your business? I mean, your audience is more eager to be part of it. Our business is subscriptions, and clearly more people really respect our brand. They care a lot about trust. They like fact-check journalism. We stand for all those things, and subscriptions are up substantially. Advertising is more complicated, because advertisers don’t want to be around political tension. So there’s some headwinds, right? Our advertising numbers are terrific. They’re up above target, but we’re not crashing our advertising numbers the way we were not long ago. Then the more interesting thing is if you look at the media ecosystem from 2016 to 2020, there’s a real business risk. I haven’t done the analysis, but if you were to do a regression analysis of how much publications leaned into being resistance publications and their long-term economic prospects, I think there’s probably a negative correlation. I think that there’s some deleterious things that happen to your publication if you become a resistance publication, and it affects your brand. It affects your readership. It affects the way social media algorithms work. It tunes your audience in a way that probably isn’t helpful. Now, that’s not a risk for The Atlantic because we are so at our core or founding statements as we are of no party or clique. We would never become a resistance publication, and it’s so counter to the way Jeff Goldberg and the editorial team see the world. They would 100% have published that story about Joe Biden. If Donald Trump does something that they think is amazing, they’ll write a story that says he’s amazing. But as a general media executive perspective, I do think that there’s a temptation. There was a temptation in the first Trump administration. I think there is in the second Trump administration to eat the sugar of anti-Trump coverage, and it’s not healthy in the long run. It’s interesting, too, because a lot of brands, they get positioned or pigeonholed as being either part of the resistance or part of MAGA, sort of one side or the other. I saw some report saying that Trump’s biggest gripe was that Waltz had your editor’s number on his phone. I could see from an editorial point of view, that’s like a badge of honor like, “Yeah, we’re in there.” From a business point of view, does your relationship with the administration get more complicated about who you can reach and what your reputation’s going to be? Well, I don’t think there’s a huge problem for journalists reaching people in the Trump administration. You read Jonathan Lemire’s piece every day. He’s always like, “I talked to five people on the inside of this decision, all of whom requested anonymity, right?” They’re clearly talking to us. It’s no surprise that Goldberg was in Waltz’s phone. Our reporters talk to lots of people in Washington, because people in Washington care what is written about them in places that people read. So, they may denounce us and say, “It’s a horror, The Atlantic,” but God knows they’re all reading it. From a business perspective, there are risks. There are ways the federal government could retaliate against us on a business side. You can imagine certainly with ABC, CBS. They’ve gone after the owners, and you can imagine an administration going after our owner. We’ve tried to game all this out. We’ve tried to see whether there are points of leverage. I don’t think there are any. I don’t think there are any risks, but who knows, right? The Trump administration has proved very adversarial to anybody it perceives as a critic, and who knows what happens. You mentioned advertising dollars earlier. Is that advertising risk higher if you’re seen as hostile to Trump? Different advertisers have different views. Some don’t care. Our readers, we have almost precisely as many Republican readers as Democratic readers. We are reaching influential and affluent and highly read, highly educated people across the political spectrum. They’re a cohort that many advertisers want to reach, and so that’s a huge plus. I do think if there was a chance we were viewed as a resistant publication, that would be very bad for advertising. But I think the actual risk is advertisers think, You really want to buy a fancy watch when you’re reading a story about bombing Yemen? No. Right? You’re in a mood to buy a fancy watch when you’re reading a story about some entrepreneurwho’s built something cool or something that puts you in a different emotional mood. So the risk is really if your coverage becomes writing about the chaos, or writing about deportations, writing about El Salvadorian prisons. You want to buy a fancy watch when you’re reading about a prison in El Salvador? No, you do not. So, it’s more of a, What is the perception of what we cover? How many stories do we put of this kind? How many people read those stories? How do you fit the ads in? Again, the interesting thing about The Atlantic is that the business choices are all downstream of the editorial choices. Goldberg could come up here and say, “By the way, hey, Nick, we’re actually only going to be covering torture and pillaging for the next two months.” Then I would just have to figure out how to sell ads. I wouldn’t say, “Hey, can you please write some stories about small businesses?” I would sell ads to companies that want to be around torturing and pillaging. I would just figure it out. So, we’re different from publications that work in the other way. Your aspiration is not to operate it like Jeff Bezos at The Washington Post, and say, “We should cover this.” It’s the exact opposite. That’s why I stay out of the editorial decisions. I never want that. When I knew there was something big coming, I just called Goldberg and I said, “I don’t know what the story is. I don’t want to know what the story is, but I want you to publish it no matter what. And I said, “I’ll stand behind you no matter what it is, and no matter what happens.”
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||