OPINION - Editorial

OPINION | EDITORIAL: Facebook, etc.

What happens now?

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

It's hard to blame Facebook's people for wanting to pawn off its most difficult decisions and responsibilities on a board. That way, blame is spread across a group, and no one person has to answer the angry phone calls.

Facebook's newly discovered (by the press) "Oversight Board" sounds a lot like an American editorial board. There's no telling when those things crept into American journalism, but they did readers no favors. The main purpose of an editorial board seems to be to rid all editorials of flair, or even opinion. How square 10 different people on an editorial position?

More on topic, an editorial board also draws fire when, on infrequent occasion, it takes a stand. When somebody calls to complain, an editor can always weasel out of it: "Sorry, but that was the consensus of the board."

This week, the Oversight Board for Facebook made a couple of semi-decisions on whether to make Donald Trump's ban from the social network permanent. Few were happy with the outcome but, as surely is being explained today, that was the consensus of the board.

The board was put together to "independently rule on difficult issues around content moderation," according to The Wall Street Journal. But instead of taking fire, as boards are supposed to do, the 20-person (!) panel punted back to Facebook's front offices.

In the matter of Donald J. Trump -- and whether to ban him for spreading falsehoods about the last presidential election -- the board's members said it wasn't up to them to set policy for the company. Doubtless, a number of Facebook suits are scratching their heads this morning, wondering why they created the board in the first doggone place.

The Oversight Board even decided to point out other problems at Facebook, including a need for clear rules and clear enforcement policies. Helpful.

In the end, the board decided that Facebook Inc. was right in suspending Donald Trump's account, but gave the company six months to determine whether to make the ban permanent. Our friends on the right weren't happy because they still feel their side is censored. Our friends on the left weren't happy because they still want more accountability among those running Big Tech.

This story has made the front pages of all the papers, and on multiple days. But we haven't see this phrase much: Section 230.

Readers of this column might remember that section. A part of the 1996 Communications Act, Section 230 contains the "26 words that created the Internet." They are kind of boring and written by lawmakers, but we repeat ourselves. In essence, the section says a social media platform cannot be held responsible for the posts thereon. That would be more like publishing, which we know something about.

A publisher is responsible for what's on its platform, or newspaper columns. Which is why we have to be careful, hire good editors and smart reporters, and print corrections when we're wrong.

A social media platform such as Facebook, on the other hand, is supposed to be something more akin to a bulletin board. Where a body can stick a nasty note, but no editor is around to fact-check.

If social media companies such as Facebook or Yelp or YouTube or Twitter want to start editing their posts, fine. They should be considered publishers. And protections under Section 230 should disappear.

And when that happens, the business model for billion-dollar companies might just dry up.

So Facebook, and all the others, have a choice to make. Six months ago, we thought it would be an easy one to make. But it seems to be an awfully difficult process.

Maybe another board can help them out.

No matter what the partisans say, this really isn't a matter of Donald Trump vs. Facebook. It's more of a legal question, about whether these social media platforms want the responsibility for the billions of things posted on them every year.

And whether they can take that responsibility when it comes to one person (Donald Trump) or a group of persons (bad folks saying bad things on the Internet) or whether they want to still be covered under Section 230.

Big Tech seems to want it not just both ways, but all ways. It wants to pull the reins some of the time, then give the proverbial horse its head some other times.

We're pretty sure that won't work. Unless the law is changed. And once Congress starts amending this particular law, well, as an Arkansas governor once said, that's going to open a whole box of Pandoras.

Upcoming Events