قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Business / Mark Zuckerberg just told Congress to subvert the Internet

Mark Zuckerberg just told Congress to subvert the Internet

Facebook supports the rewrite of Section 230, and it begins to lay out the required changes. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg), Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey (Jack Dorsey) had a barbecue for nearly four hours, which was a big gain. This point quickly disappeared in the political conflict before the election, but in the next few months, it will be one of the most important things.

Yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Article 230 of the Communications Act, which is a basic Internet law. The campaign was originally to check whether the Section 230 protection (protecting Web services and sites of all sizes) “enables Big Tech Bad behavior.”

; The witness is prepared to oppose this premise. Dorsey cited Twitter’s transparency center and algorithm-free schedule options, Zuckerberg elaborated on Facebook’s support for voting and journalism, and Pichai promoted many of Google’s free services.

But their defense of section 230 is quite different. Pichai issued a cautious warning, urging the committee to be “very cautious” about any changes. Dorsey is blunt: Not only will it erode the core of the law, “crashing the way we communicate on the Internet,” it will also prevent Twitter hosts from making the site safe for users.

Facebook has adopted a different strategy. “The Article 230 debate shows that people who are politically persuaded are dissatisfied with the status quo. People want to know that companies are responsible for cracking down on harmful content on their platforms, especially illegal activities. They want to know when content is removed from the platform. , They are being deleted fairly and transparently. They want to ensure that they are accountable to the platform.” Zuckerberg said in the opening speech. Changing it is a big decision. However, I believe that Congress should update the law to ensure that it operates as expected. “

Zuckerberg has widely called for strengthening Internet regulation in the past few years. But until now, Facebook has largely remained silent on Section 230 or criticized specific suggestions. In March, it warned that the “EARN IT Act” could be used to roll back encryption and user privacy. In June, it stated that the White House executive order would “[expose] The company is potentially responsible for everything that billions of people around the world say. “

Now, Zuckerberg said: “We support ideas about transparency and industry cooperation, and these ideas are being discussed in the current bipartisan bill.” Although he did not name a specific bill, his statement is consistent with the “PACT Act.” The closest thing is that the bill was introduced in June as a bipartisan “scalpel” rather than a regulatory hammer. According to the “PACT Act”, companies must disclose their audit standards and establish a formal delisting appeal system. They must also delete illegal content ordered by the court within 24 hours.

If Facebook starts lobbying for the PACT Act, it could be a big deal. Facebook is the main supporter of FOSTA-SESTA, and the bill abolished Section 230’s protection measures that content violated anti-prostitution laws. The bill became law in 2018, and Facebook itself has enough equipment to deal with these changes-and small sites like Craigslist have been hit hard. The PACT Act may have a similar effect. Facebook already has a large number of moderators and a policy team that can publish detailed transparency reports. Smaller sites may have far fewer resources. The PACT Act has a “small business provider” exception, but it is a fairly narrow exception.

Mike Masnick Technical Catalog Before the hearing, Zuckerberg issued a testimony, bluntly saying that Facebook is going to “throw the open Internet on the bus.” Congress may follow up on Zuckerberg’s statement in a variety of ways. For example, it’s nice to know how much Facebook’s business model needs to change in order to comply with regulations like the PACT Act. It will be equally interesting to listen to the positions of Google and Twitter on this issue.

But Congress-unfortunately not unexpectedly-did not actually slaughter the CEO in the 230th interested Republicans with individual modest decisions about anger issues-at a particularly strange moment, Senator Ted Cruz (R -TX) Ask Dorsey “Who the hell elected you” to run Twitter. Some Democrats condemned the hearing as a transparent political tool, including Brian Schatz (D-HI), co-author of the PACT Act, who called the entire hearing a “fake” to the committee. And “embarrassing”. Others turn to questions about election integrity or false information, but again, this has nothing to do with actual law.

It can be said that if Congress really seriously passes Section 230 reforms, it will stop dragging the “big technology” CEO into a hearing on it. The most inadvertent moment in this meeting came from Senator Shelley Capito (R-WV), who declared that he “doubts” the claim that drafting Section 230 would harm small sites. Capito asked Dorsey to defend the position-apparently there was no possibility of actually inviting one of those small site owners to testify.

Some changes in section 230 seem more and more possible. The reform goals of Democrats and Republicans are basically incompatible, but they both agree with this goal, so no matter who wins the general election next week, the reform can continue. Facebook may play a more active role in supporting it. Even Dorsey seems to be ambiguous in agreeing with the “PACT Act” and the like. He said: “The best way to address our common concerns is to require the publication of appropriate procedures and practices, call for a direct flow of decision-making and the best efforts around algorithm selection. “(It is not clear whether he refers to legislation or some kind of industry standard.)

This modification will have a serious impact on websites of all sizes. Moreover, if one of Silicon Valley’s largest companies will take on its responsibility, it will be much greater than the outstanding political performance of some senators.

Source link