Social Media Giants Face Global Scrutiny
Government interactions with social media companies toward protecting our health and security are back in the news this week, but the emergent images are as hazy as the flailing policies behind them.
Further, just what we understand about the intersection of profit-seeking indifference from Big Tech and the moral case for Free Speech seems to depend a whole lot on who’s telling the story and what words they use.
Two completely different social-media-meets-government tales popped up:
In Paris, French authorities arrested Russian businessman Pavel Durov, saying Durov, the head of Telegram, had pushed his anti-establishment agenda on his social media channel to grow into a home for terrorists, extremists, gun runners, scammers and drug dealers. It is unclear whether Durov faces any criminal charges directly, but his advocacy for total hands-off operation from governments or other authorities has led to what looks to be international nastiness that will simply get worse.
In Washington, Mark Zukerberg of Meta/Facebook turned over tons of documents to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, (R-Ohio), basically on the question of whether the federal government had leaned too hard on social media companies to block anti-vaccine critics during COVID, or other factually questionable public issues.
As Fox News told it, Zuckerberg “admitted” in a cover letter that he found himself under “government pressure” to kill, disable or not promote what the government saw as “disinformation.” What Zuckerberg said, though, was that he and Facebook were given the government information, and made their own decisions about how to react.
The two incidents happen to coincide, but the questions involving perceived protection of public good and the unsteadiness of free speech rights these days is a potent question. It takes on yet more weight when we apply the layer of political partisanship we see at play on the various sides.
Freedom to Publish
Durov is the Russian equivalent of Elon Musk, owner of X, who believes anything goes in the digital public square.
On his watch, Telegram has become the unofficial home of dissent in Russia for discussion of war in Ukraine, and a preferred channel for child pornography and scams. Telegram is among the channels used during the Stop the Steal election-conspiracy sharing. In an old post, Durov argued, “Privacy, ultimately, is more important than our fear of bad things happening, like terrorism.”
Like Musk, Durov is an oddity, claiming wealth, business prowess and also to have fathered more than 100 biological children in 12 countries as a sperm donor over 15 years. He said he wants to “open source” his DNA. Musk was among the first, joined by Edward Snowden, the former U.S. intelligence guy who fled to Russia after stealing secrets, to leap to defending Durov because there should be no rules governing speech.
Durov’s don’t-interfere rules clearly irk governments, particularly those seeking to tamp down international terror, disinformation, propaganda, far-right extremism, drug dealing, child pornography and weapons sales. Telegram has faced temporary or permanent bans in 31 countries, but has resisted cooperation with authorities.
Zuckerberg has had many innings with Congress and the press over exactly what Facebook and other outlets do about balancing truth with profit-driven algorithms that accentuate conflict and anger over facts. Jordan’s committee has been after the Biden administration for years now pursuing the theme that the government applied partisan pressures to stop conservative voices from fair representation and promotion in social media.
We’re left parsing the meaning of “pressure” from authorities who presumably were pointing out that injecting bleach is a bad idea to halt COVID, and what difference “pressure” makes if Facebook and Zuckerberg were left to make whatever decisions they wanted. It was Zuckerberg, not the government, Zuckerberg says, who decided to temporarily halt posts about Hunter Biden’s laptop discovery while “fact-checkers” went to work to see if reports that it was all “Russian disinformation” held any water. Facebook reversed itself and allowed several digital tons of posts attacking the Bidens to flood the airwaves.
Just why Facebook blocks things, often at random, is not quite clear, and the appeals process is impossible. We’re left just being asked to truth Meta.
Lots of Questions
We come to the questions: What is the proper role for government officials, particularly when there are public health issues at stake — and the proper role for social media? Why are social media companies still allowed to do business without regulation, unlike other publishers, or essentially to be protected from lawsuits over libel, slander and personal injury? What are the proper roles when violent acts or criminal behavior is involved?
And who is the enforcer in these situations?
House Republicans have insisted on full support for free speech, particularly when it comes to social media posts that attack our institutions, sully the Democratic administration or challenge vaccine policies and other mandates. But the very same Republicans in Congress have proved to be the vocal opponents of college campuses that have allowed “pro-Palestinian” rallies, protests and encampments; they have led the charge in demanding the dismissal of college presidents, a futile gesture that seems crafted for publicity and partisanship rather than for protection of offended Jewish students and Israel supporters.
Opponents who suggest that there are limits to free speech are loath to outline when speech should be curtailed. Instead, they expect that social media leaders like Zuckerberg, Musk and Durov somehow should know when things are over the proverbial moral line. Even as billionaires, they should be able to blunt their profit motives for some social good when it is needed.
A lot could change if Congress simply ends the special protections for social media giants. The marketplace pressure and lawsuits might replace “government pressure” to pay some attention to truth-seeking. I’m not hopeful about reforming Big Tech practices or about eliminating the partisan need to blame someone else for troubles we face.
Where we find ourselves in the free speech debate is that our voices necessarily have to be louder than theirs. That’s nuts.
