(I wrote a post on this subject before the "recent unpleasantness" and well before I started this blog. As the post's original author, I have decided to repost it here and update it accordingly.)
Throughout American history, people with great (and not so great) ideas have formed companies to make products available to the masses. Some of those products became so widely used that they became indispensable to the American lifestyle: electric lighting, telephone, and water systems come immediately to mind. As they became ingrained into American life, and as Americans became dependent on them, access to these products were regulated to ensure their fair distribution.
But communication systems - devices and interconnections that have a direct effect on society and play a part in the political life of America - have always been treated differently.
Because radio, television, and other forms of telephony play a part in spreading information, and since the spread of information is protected by the 1st Amendment, companies that are responsible for "speech that influences" have often come under regulation to ensure that their "product" is fair and factual (although, to be sure, it doesn't always work out that way).
The Federal Communications Commission was formed to regulate and coordinate international use of the electronic airwaves, Over time, it was charged with the responsibility for regulating "speech that influences". It has sometimes unfairly regulated "speech that influences", but has (for the most part) managed to find a balance between allowing the free exercise of speech while enforcing some rules to keep the speech from becoming offensive (e.g. regulations against profanity and so on).
Today, "speech that influences" is communicated over a medium that was never considered at the time the FCC was instituted: the Internet. Originally created for military use, and designed to withstand both widespread natural disasters and nuclear war, the Internet has become indispensable as the primary method for information flow. Today's Internet has the reach and the influence that radio had in the 1930s and TV had in the 1960s.
But the Internet doesn't use the airwaves, so there are no rules permitting the FCC to regulate Internet traffic. Hence, the Internet is entirely unregulated. The FCC's attempt at "net neutrality" was based on cost of access to content, not the content itself. But the content itself? Whatever anyone wants, regardless of how biased, factual, or profane. The FCC isn't involved.
In many ways, the Internet is the ideal model for the 1st Amendment: free and unfettered speech.
BUT, with the recent hubbub over Facebook, is it time for the FCC to begin to examine whether some Internet content should be regulated? Is it time for the FCC to examine whether companies like Google, Yahoo, Twitter, Facebook, Comcast, and other "providers" are using their power to decide who has access to the Internet and whether that access is being fairly and equitably provided by those companies?
And whether, both as Internet access providers and purveyors of "speech that influences", whether they should at least follow some ethical standards regarding that speech?
Facebook, which has a reach far exceeding that of the yellow papers of the early 1900s, has decided to be an arbiter of what its subscribers see. As a private company, it certainly has the right to do so. And people have the right to not use Facebook if they don't want to. But, for the moment, it is the means to share information between users on the Internet. It is the equivalent of the "alphabet networks" of the 20th century: it is the equivalent of one of the "big three", but for Internet users. And it has become the "town square", the place where people congregate to talk among themselves and to be heard by others.
When Google or Facebook, which have become so powerful as to be considered utilities, decide which content they will allow and which they will deny, they enter the realm where they exercise control over political discussion. And by entering this realm and deciding which information they will and won't permit on their services, they exercise control over the political process. In fact, one of the subjects of the recent Facebook hearings was exactly that question: was Facebook used to influence the 2016 election?
Is it time for the FCC to step in and determine how the Internet should be regulated? They stepped in to determine how the original Bell Telephone needed to be regulated and how radio and TV were regulated. Is it now the Internet's turn?
Google and Facebook are not public utilities. They are privately owned. But they have shown that they will use their own influence over hundreds of millions of users to guide the political discussion by making decisions on what their users see and what they don't see.
As much as it pains me to say this, they need to be declared "common carriers" to force them to stop making decisions about who may or may not use their services, and to force them to stop "filtering" information according to the whims of those who manage those services. Just as utilities cannot arbitrarily turn off one person's electricity for no reason, Google and Facebook have become too powerful to be able to arbitrarily ban someone's political ideas merely because someone in the company disagrees with them..
Does this mean that ISIS might have a free hand on Facebook? Yes... and no. Facebook may not like what ISIS posts, but it should not be in the business of blocking it. The same with neo-Nazis and alt-right extremists. And the same with antiFA, BLM, BAMN, and other alt-left extremists. Facebook should remain neutral on content - but should be free to contact authorities when it feels that content presents an immediate danger to others.
The same with "fake news": Neither Google nor Facebook should not be in the business of deciding which news is "fake" and which news is "real". It must become a "common carrier", and needs to stop choosing what is seen on its network.
Yes, it sucks to build a tool that is adopted by thousands, then millions, then hundreds of millions around the world - and then be told that "you have too much influence to be allowed to continue to operate according to your personal agenda." But that's where we are today: hundreds of millions of people around the world getting their information "filtered" through the minds of a select few who determine "what's best" for their subscribers.
The time has come for Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other highly-influential organizations to be told that they need to get out of the "regulating and choosing content" business. They have become too big and too influential, and need to be operate as "utilities". If this means that they need to be subjected to regulation, then so be it.
Sometimes there is a place for government. And when it comes to ensuring that all people have the same right to have their political speech be heard, the 1st Amendment must be the guiding principle. In this country, your right to free speech must be protected. And when companies (are you listening, Facebook?) or city governments trample on those rights (are you listening, Berkeley?) it is time for the federal government to step in and restore those rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment