Facebook, Twitter, and what news is fit to share
On Wednesday, both Facebook and Twitter took steps to limit the distribution of a news story from a mainstream publication, on the grounds that it was based on hacked emails and of questionable accuracy. Twitter actually prevented users from posting a link to the story, and in some cases prevented users from clicking on existing links to it, instead showing them a warning with a message saying the story violated the company’s terms of service. Facebook didn’t stop anyone from posting a link to the story, but reduced its reach by tweaking the News Feed algorithm so fewer users would see it.
The story was a New York Post report alleging that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, introduced his father to the head of a natural gas company in the Ukraine. The source? Emails allegedly retrieved from Hunter Biden’s laptop by a computer repair shop and given to Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. In Twitter’s case, the company argued that the story breached its policy against distribution of content obtained through hacking, and said documents included with the story also contained an individual’s identifying information, which is against privacy rules. Facebook, meanwhile, said its position against “hack and leak” operations required it to reduce the distribution of the story while it was being fact-checked by third-party partners.
Unsurprisingly, these moves triggered an avalanche of censorship accusations from conservatives. Sen. Josh Hawley went so far as to argue in a letter to the Federal Election Commission that removing the story was a benefit to Biden, and therefore amounted to a campaign finance violation, and said the Judiciary Committee will vote on whether to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to explain his actions. Others, including Sen. Ted Cruz, argued that Facebook and Twitter had breached the First Amendment. Rep. Doug Collins said that the blocks were “a grave threat to our democracy.”
Such arguments ignore the fact Facebook and Twitter are protected by the First Amendment, and also by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which allows them to make content-moderation decisions without penalty. Many of the arguments are also clearly being made in bad faith, and are a variation on the “platforms censor conservatives” canard that has been rattling around Congress for years without a shred of evidence.
At the same time, however, it’s true that the decisions made by the two platforms are problematic. For instance, Twitter’s policy not to allow users to post “content published without authorization” is extremely vague, and could theoretically block not just questionable stories from the New York Post, but also valuable investigative stories based on leaked content, including the Pentagon Papers and virtually everything from WikiLeaks. (Late Thursday, the company said it has revised its policy, and will now apply labels instead of blocking users from posting links that refer to hacked material.)
The incident also highlights a broader problem with both platforms, and that is a lack of detail about their policies, and how and when they are implemented. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the company didn’t do a good job of explaining itself when it first blocked the Post story, but the followup wasn’t that helpful; while it said the story violated multiple policies, it didn’t contain a lot of detail about either one. Facebook, meanwhile, has a habit of just pointing to its algorithm as though it absolves the company of any need to explain itself, and routinely promises things that never come to pass.
“There will be battles for control of the narrative again and again over the coming weeks,” Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School, told the New York Times. “The way the platforms handled it is not a good harbinger of what’s to come.”
This episode is not only infuriating for those who would like some clarity on the decision-making at these platforms, but it makes it that much easier for bad faith actors to argue that the companies are doing something unsavory or illegal, which leads to show trial-style hearings that often amount to a lot of sound and fury, signifying very little. If we are to trust these giant tech corporations to make decisions around what kind of journalism can be shared on their networks, we’re going to need a lot more transparency and a lot less hand waving.
Yes, we’re doing it all over again
Since Donald Trump became president, there has been a never-ending series of articles about what the media did to enable his victory. Near the top of that list is the air time and free advertising ($2 billion worth, according to one estimate) given to him by TV networks like CNN, because they knew he would […]
House slams monopolistic tech giants for abusing their power
This week, a regulatory process that began in June of last year finally reached its conclusion: the House Subcommittee on Antitrust released a report on the monopolistic practices of four globe-spanning digital platforms: Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple. The investigation involved the collection of more than 1.2 million documents, including internal emails sent by company […]
Can we make Facebook and Google “democratic utilities?”
Over the past decade, Google and Facebook have built globe-spanning digital platforms that impact almost every facet of our lives, and often in harmful ways. Apart from their use of “surveillance capitalism” on a massive scale, or their distribution of disinformation during the 2016 election, the algorithms Google uses at YouTube have been implicated in […]
How can we fight surveillance capitalism?
Over the past decade, we’ve seen the rise of a new kind of corporate power, one built on an almost unprecedented level of digital surveillance, fueled by the demands of the global advertising industry—a phenomenon that Harvard professor emerita Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance capitalism.” Google, Facebook, and Amazon have built businesses that are worth trillions, […]
Facebook’s belated, vague, unhelpful election idea
On Thursday, Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, wrote of his worry that “with our nation so divided and election results potentially taking days or even weeks to be finalized, there could be an increased risk of civil unrest across the country.” So Facebook announced a series of steps designed, Zuckerberg said, to verify […]
What should we do about QAnon now that it has gone mainstream?
Not that long ago, the jumble of conspiracy theories and magical thinking known as QAnon was seen by many—if they knew of it at all—as a sideshow confined to the dark corners of the internet, alternative communities like 4chan and 8chan, where people with a screw loose muttered to each other about the deep state. […]
Google plays hardball in Australia over news payment law
Google users in Australia started seeing a warning pop up on their search pages this week: a yellow triangle with an exclamation mark inside it, and a message that said “The way Aussies use Google is at risk.” Those who clicked on the popup were taken to an open letter from Mel Silva, managing director […]
The QAnon cult is growing and the media is helping
Stocks and bonds may be weak, but we’re still in a raging bull market for one commodity, and that is disinformation. That’s thanks in large part to the fact that President Donald Trump creates and distributes so much of it himself, both through his Twitter account but also in his official statements and briefings from […]
The tech titans appeared before Congress—now what?
Last week, the chief executives of the four major tech platforms—Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook—appeared before Congress (virtually, at least) as part of a year-long investigation into whether antitrust regulators need to take action against any or all of them for anti-competitive behavior. Was the hearing mostly a sideshow, or was it a sign that […]
Campaign organizers say Facebook boycott will continue
For the past several weeks, Facebook has been the subject of a boycott campaign that has called on advertisers to pull their business from the social network, citing a failure to curb hate speech and other offensive content. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, and other senior staff from the company have met with some of […]
Bowing to pressure, Google says it will pay publishers for news
For the better part of a decade, publishers have been begging (or threatening) Google, seeking compensation for the news they provide on its platform. And for all of those years, Google has adamantly refused—until now. On Thursday, Google announced that, later this year, it will introduce a new product focused on “high quality” news and, […]
Are digital giants like Facebook destructive by design?
The most benign view of Google, Facebook, and Amazon is that any social or political disruption and turmoil these behemoths have caused is a side-effect of the beneficial services they provide, and any over-sized market power they have is the result of good old-fashioned hard work or an accident of economics and technology. But what […]
Trump vs social media
Donald Trump’s preferred platform is social media. But he has managed to pick fights, and divide, even there. Twitter recently added a warning label to two of his tweets, with a link to a fact-check of the information he posted, and then blocked a third tweet with a message about violent content. Within days, Trump […]
Twitter fact-checks Trump, but will it do any good?
When Twitter said earlier this month that it was making some changes to “limit the spread of potentially harmful or misleading content” by adding warning labels to tweets, one of the most obvious questions was whether the company would apply the labels to Trump’s various misinformed tweets. On Tuesday, we got the answer, when labels […]
Should Google and Facebook be forced to pay for content?
In a recent column for the New York Times, media writer Ben Smith wrote about how regulators in Australia and France are moving to force digital platforms like Google and Facebook to pay media companies directly for the content they carry from publishers, in the wake of new copyright rules set by the European Union […]