Last week, Twitter took its first steps toward correcting the president of the United States by labeling his tweets and linking to fact-checking stories. And a dust-up turned into a full-blown storm.
The folks running Twitter should hope it doesn't turn into a hurricane, knocking down everything they built and own.
--our editorial, May 31
Twitter and several other giants of social media are scrambling these days. And they should be. For the president of the United States, who will hold that office until Jan. 20, is demanding the part of the law that allows them to exist be excised from the books.
It's not likely to happen in this political climate, but would you bet your trillion-dollar businesses on "likely" and "unlikely"?
Which is what the social media behemoths have done. Earlier this year, several began editing presidential posts, among others. Now the sitting president vows to veto certain legislation unless the law regarding social media networks is changed.
The official element of the law is known, barely, as Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. More widely, that segment of the law is known as The 26 Words That Created The Internet: ""No 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." These words effectively give social media immunity from libel or slander.
That is, Facebook, Yelp, Twitter and all the rest are treated as bulletin boards. And the owner of a bulletin board can't be sued for what somebody else pins to the cork.
But once those companies begin editing content, they become publishers. And suddenly they would be held to higher standards--such as libel and slander laws. Just like a newspaper. We know something about that.
Twitter has been fact-checking one particular member of the White House since the summer. In recent weeks, after the national elections, Twitter officials have been putting this advisory under President Trump's tweets: "This claim about election fraud is disputed."
But bulletin boards don't fact-check. A court might rule that what the company is doing is editing. And then Twitter's whole business model might come crumbling down.
If Twitter wants to be in the publishing business, fine. Come on in. But whereas newspapers hire reporters and editors to dig up the news, verify the facts, figure out what's important, put it in the lede, and edit the rest, Twitter and Facebook would have a difficult time hiring enough editors to fact-check the billions of people who post to their platforms. And probably not just difficult; more like impossible.
Now a defense bill is being held up by a president threatening a veto if Section 230 isn't repealed. Or as President Trump, yes, tweeted earlier this week, Section 230 is "a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill."
After noon on Jan. 20, the next president will probably sign the bill and be done with it. But interested parties, such as the outgoing president, could still take the matter to the courts. And have them rule that the social media giants have indeed made themselves publishers with their actions. Then all their protections could evaporate.
Editing is a skill, and a responsibility, and not cheap. We can't imagine what it would cost to edit 330 million reporters (Twitter) or 1.69 billion writers (Facebook). But it is possible that's what social media companies could face soon.
And, it must be said, they brought this on themselves.