By: Alexandra Marlowe
On October 14, 2020, Facebook and Twitter took steps to limit the spread of a series of articles published by the New York Post, which purported unconfirmed claims about the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden. The article series cites to emails allegedly sent by Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son. The New York Post contends that it received the secretive emails from President Trump’s private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and his former advisor, Steve Bannon. This scenario seems all too redolent of the 2016 election cycle with President Trump charging his opponent with corruption, substantiated by leaked emails. However, unlike the impact of the leaked emails in 2016, the first installment in the article series painted a murky picture and is unlikely to prove to be the “smoking gun” the Trump campaign believes it to be.
The action taken by Facebook and Twitter begs the question – “why” – given the already tumultuous relationship between the President and technology companies. The two tech giants stated that their decision to limit the distribution of the articles was in an effort to curb the “spread of potentially false information.” Facebook, for example, had its outside fact-checkers review the claims, all the while their algorithms ensured that the articles remained lower on user’s Facebook feeds, thereby limiting the number of user views. Despite this formulated effort, the story has been “liked, shared, or commented on almost 600,000 times.”
Twitter, on the other hand, took even more drastic steps by blocking users who post pictures of the emails or links to the New York Post articles. Twitter maintains that their actions were supported by their established rules, which state that users are prohibited from sharing “content obtained through hacking that contains private information.” The positions held by Facebook and Twitter signal to the public that they are not only taking fake news, and the potential of fake news seriously, but that they are unafraid to take substantive steps to constrain the spread of false information.
Their foresight is bolstered by a study conducted by three MIT scholars. The study findings establish that “falsehoods diffuse significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than truth.” For instance, false news stories are 70% more likely to be retweeted than truthful stories, and it can take true stories six times as long to reach 1,500 people compared to false stories. Even more alarming is the conclusion that the spread of false news cannot be attributed to artificial intelligent bots, who are programmed to share false information, but rather is a result of real human users sharing posts containing false information.
The study’s findings indicate the power of false information, and leads to the question – what is the driving force powering its ability to spread at such a rapid rate? The scholars hypothesize that it is because “[f]alse news is more novel, and people are more likely to share novel information.” They tested their hypothesis by taking a random subsample of Twitter users who posted false news stories and examined the reactions to the stories. The results reveal a “different emotional profile for false news and true news.” For instance, individuals respond to false news with “surprise and disgust,” while they respond to true news stories with “sadness, anticipation, and trust.” The evidence suggests that “novelty” plays a role in falsehoods, and the rapid spread of false information, which could help explain why a news story like the New York Post article series could spread expeditiously, even though social media platforms attempted to reduce the spread.
Despite evidence supporting Facebook and Twitter’s tactical approach, President Trump and his allies have made allegations of censorship and called for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The section states, “[n]o 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.” In other words, online platforms or “intermediaries” that host speech is “protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do.” The section has provided broad protections, enabling platforms like Facebook and Twitter to thrive. It has been said that it is one of the “most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet.”
The decisions made by Facebook and Twitter provided another opportunity for President Trump and his allies to call for repealing Section 230, asserting that it is proof that they have an anti-conservative agenda, rather than a mere goal to stop the spread of false information on the internet. Many legal experts and free speech advocates assert that removing the law would have “unintended consequences” for President Trump and his use of social media. The action has the potential to create a “chilling” effect on the speech regularly practiced on President Trump’s social media accounts. If the President moves forward with his agenda, it could create a dramatic political debate, as legal experts, including the former Federal Communications Commissioner as well as former staff of the agency, have expressed their belief that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) lacks the necessary authority to regulate the internet in the manner professed by the Trump Administration. Even more so, the former Commissioner stated that the FCC is not the “thought police” of social media platforms.
It is unclear what the next steps on Section 230 are, however, it is evident that President Trump and other Republicans seized on the actions taken by Facebook and Twitter to further their allegations that the social media platforms are pushing an anti-conservative agenda. The recent debacle highlights the importance of having explicit and transparent policies in place, as they relate to when an article or post is fact-checked, and then sticking to those policies like glue. If the companies had standard policies in use addressing these concerns prior to the New York Post series being shared, then both platforms could have communicated coherent justifications for their actions. Implementing standardized policies could deflate the claims of bias perpetuated by President Trump and other Republicans, especially if the policies are drafted with nonpartisan intent.
Student Bio: Alexandra Marlowe is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School and a Staff Member on the Journal of High Technology Law. She is interested in pursuing a career in employment law. Alexandra holds a B.A. in Political Science and minors in Psychology and Philosophy from Wheaton College (MA).
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
