We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
GOP battle with Big Tech reaches the Supreme Court
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, discusses Republican states picking fights with social media companies.
Why are all these Republican states picking fights with social media companies?
The Supreme Court this week ruled that a Texas law that banned content moderation by social media companies should not go into effect while the lower courts debated its merits, blocking the latest effort by Republican-led states to try and push back on the power of Big Tech. Florida and Texas are two of the large states that have recently passed laws that would prevent large social media companies from censoring or de-platforming accounts that they think are controversial, which they say is essential for keeping their users safe from abuse and misinformation. The courts did not agree on the constitutionality of this question. One circuit court found that the Florida law probably infringes on the free speech rights of the tech companies.
Yes, companies do have free speech rights under the US constitution while a different circuit court said that the state of Texas did have the ability to dictate how these firms choose how to moderate their platforms. These questions will likely eventually be settled by the Supreme Court who are going to be asked to weigh in on the constitutionality of these laws and if they conflict with the provision of federal law that protects the platforms from liability for content moderation, known as Section 230. But the issue is also likely to escalate once Republicans take control of the House of Representatives next year. These anti-Big Tech laws are part of a broader conservative pushback against American companies who Republicans think have become too left-leaning and way too involved in the political culture wars, most frequently on the side of liberal causes.
And states are taking the lead because of congressional inertia. Democrats are looking at ways to break up the concentrated power of these companies, but lack a path towards a majority for any of the proposals that they've put forward so far this year. Social media, in particular, is in the spotlight because Twitter and Facebook continue to ban the account of former president Donald Trump. And because right-leaning celebrities keep getting de-platformed for what the platforms consider COVID disinformation and lies about the 2020 election.
But recent trends strongly suggest that when Republicans are in charge, they're likely to push federal legislation that will directly challenge the platform's ability to control what Americans see in their social media feeds, a sign that the tech wars have just begun.
Kara Swisher on Trump’s social media ban
What does renowned tech journalist Kara Swisher make of the swift and near-universal social media ban imposed on former President Trump shortly after the January 6 Capitol riots? She supported the move, but she doesn't think these companies should be left off the hook either. "Why are these systems built this way so someone like President Trump can abuse them in such a fashion. Or in fact, not abuse them but use them exactly as they were built." Her conversation with Ian Bremmer is part of the latest episode of GZERO World.
Section 230: The 90's law still governing the internet
The technology of the 1990s looked nothing like today's connected world—and the internet hosted just a fraction of the billions of people who now use it every day. Yet, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, is the law that governs rights and responsibilities of social media companies…that weren't even around when it was written. Ian Bremmer explains on GZERO World.
How to change a social media business model that profits from division
The United States has never been more divided, and it's safe to say that social media's role in our national discourse is a big part of the problem. But renowned tech journalist Kara Swisher doesn't see any easy fix. "I don't know how you fix the architecture of a building that is just purposely dangerous for everybody." Swisher joins Ian Bremmer to talk about how some of the richest companies on Earth, whose business models benefit from discord and division, can be compelled to see their better angels. Their conversation was part of the latest episode of GZERO World.
Kara Swisher on Big Tech’s big problem
Renowned tech journalist Kara Swisher has no doubt that social media companies bear responsibility for the January 6th pro-Trump riots at the Capitol and will likely be complicit in the civil unrest that may continue well into Biden's presidency. It's no surprise, she argues, that the online rage that platforms like Facebook and Twitter intentionally foment translated into real-life violence. But if Silicon Valley's current role in our national discourse is untenable, how can the US government rein it in? That, it turns out, is a bit more complicated. Swisher joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Podcast: Kara Swisher on Big Tech's Big Problem
Listen: Renowned tech journalist Kara Swisher has no qualms about saying that social media companies bear responsibility for the January 6th pro-Trump riots at the Capitol and will likely be complicit in the civil unrest that may continue well into Biden's presidency. It's no surprise, she argues, that the online rage that platforms like Facebook and Twitter intentionally foment translated into real-life violence. But if Silicon Valley's current role in our national discourse is untenable, how can the US government rein it in? That, it turns out, is a bit more complicated. Swisher joins Ian Bremmer on our podcast.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.How can the Biden administration rein in Big Tech?
Renowned tech journalist Kara Swisher has no qualms about saying that many of the country's social media companies need to be held accountable for their negative role in our current national discourse. Swisher calls for "a less friendly relationship with tech" by the Biden administration, an "internet bill of rights" around privacy, and an investigation into antitrust issues.
Swisher, who hosts the New York Times podcast Sway, joins Ian Bremmer for the latest episode of GZERO World, airing on public television nationwide beginning this Friday, January 22th. Check local listings.
FCC wants to change Section 230 regulating tech companies & censorship
Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of WIRED, shares his perspective on technology news in Tech In (a little over) 60 Seconds:
What is the deal with Twitter and Facebook censoring a New York Post story on Hunter Biden?
The New York Post ran a story on Hunter Biden. It may have been entirely false. It may have been hacked. Both of those things are problems. But the complicated thing is when the story ran, nobody at Facebook and nobody at Twitter knew whether it was false or whether it had been hacked. The two companies responded in different ways. Facebook said, we're just going to down-rank it. Twitter initially said, "we just won't let it be shared." Twitter then backtracked. Basically, there is a really hard problem of what you do with false information and what you do with hacked information. Neither company has totally clear policies and both got caught in the slipstream.
Was the censoring of the New York Post story the catalyst for the FCC's public statements to rewrite Section 230?
Yes, absolutely. So Section 230 is the very important Internet law that allows the tech companies to filter content on their platforms. It essentially says, hey, if you run a platform, whether it's Facebook, Twitter or a Web site comments, you are not responsible for comments and for content that other people post there. And not only that, you have the ability to within certain limits, censor, change, edit the content out there without becoming a publisher and becoming liable. So that is partly what has allowed the tech companies to do what they do. It's allowed them to thrive and it's also allowed them to have policies policing misinformation or false statements on their platforms. So, Donald Trump got very mad at it, and so Ajit Pai, the head of the FCC, said, "hey, we're going to look at Section 230 and interpret it." In my opinion, that's garbage. Section 230 may be a bad law. It may be bad that the tech companies filter content on their platforms, whatever. I don't see how the FCC has the authority to deal with that. It is a law that gets interpreted by the courts. So, Congress can change the law, or the courts can change the interpretation of the law. I don't see why the FCC has authority, but who knows? It's just my guess, Ajit Pai is trying to please Donald Trump.