Jump to content

Dean Baker on Internet companies threatening democracy internationally and how to fix that

Add links
From Wikiversity
This article includes a video of an interview 2024-07-30 with Dean Baker by Karl Brooks[1] and Spencer Graves[2] with some discussion. It is posted here to invite others to contribute other perspectives, subject to the Wikimedia rules of writing from a neutral point of view citing credible sources[3] and treating others with respect.[4]
Dean Baker on Internet companies threatening democracy internationally and how to fix that
29:00 mm:ss extract from interview with Dean Baker on "Internet companies threatening democracy internationally and how to fix that"

Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research discusses how Internet companies, especially social media like Facebook, make money from spreading lies, defamation, and incitements to violence, enabled by an exemption from liability granted by Section 230 of Title 47 of the US Code, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Baker says these these risks can be reduced by modifying Section 230 to make Internet companies liable for lies, etc., in information they make money from boosting, similar to print and broadcast media, while retaining their immunity from liability for information they pass as common carriers.

Baker mentioned that "people just believe all sorts of patently false things," and the major media are doing little to nothing to correct those misperceptions, thereby increasing political polarization. He continued, "We have Donald Trump running around saying that we have all these immigrants coming in and raping and murdering and it's just completely untrue. ... In fact, the immigrants that are coming here are less likely to commit crimes than native born Americans. And the reality is they come here to work. ... Unless you're a Native American, you're great grandparents, someone came here, and for the most part, they came here to work." The Wikipedia article on "sanctuary city" cites several sources addressing this issue. They either say that sanctuary cities have less crime than other comparable cities, or there is not significant difference between sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities in crime.

The threat

[edit | edit source]

Internet company executives have knowingly increased political polarization and violence including the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, because doing otherwise would have reduced their profits. Documentation of this is summarized in Category:Media reform to improve democracy.

Recommendations

[edit | edit source]

Baker has recommended changing Section 230 to make Internet companies liable for defamation in any content from which they make money by promoting differentially. They should not be liable for defamation, etc., in any content they deliver as a common carrier, similar to a telephone company. However, for anything they make money by promoting differentially based on content, they should carry the same liability as print and broadcast media, consistent with the US Supreme Court decision in NYT v. Sullivan (1964).[5]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Free Press have expressed concern that sunsetting 230 could force Internet companies to censor speech that should be protected.[6] strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) contribute to this problem:[7] People with deep pockets have filed "lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition."[8] Baker agrees this a problem. It's a problem for print and broadcast media as well, though he's not convinced it's an issue for Section 230. Kansas and other jurisdictions have anti-SLAPP laws. If EFF is to support a reform like Baker suggests, it would likely need to include strong anti-SLAPP protection.[9]

Internet companies make money from clicks. People are apparently more likely to click on outrageous lies than honest news, as long as the lies seem plausible to them. These proposed changes would preserve the common carrier role of Internet companies, while making it harder for them to make money from lies, hate, and degrading and destroying democracy.

Baker suggests that the law might include a "safe harbor" for such cases with a "notice and takedown" process similar to that provided for copyright violations by the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act in the US.[10]

Baker and interviewers

[edit | edit source]

Baker holds a PhD in economics from the University of Michigan with a substantive publication record. He is a co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He shared the 2010 Paul Revere award with two other economists for predicting the 2007-2008 Global Financial Collapse.[11] He is interviewed by Karl Brooks, Professor of the Practice in the School of Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Kansas and Radio Active Magazine regular Spencer Graves.

Discussion

[edit | edit source]

Revisions of Section 230 could include a requirement that a copy of any content promoted differentially should be filed in a searchable form with a central repository like the Internet Archive. Without this, it could be nearly impossible for individuals and groups to know if they've been defamed unless they have sympathizers embedded in groups that traffic in hate.

Notes

[edit | edit source]
  1. ↑ Karl Boyd Brooks, Wikidata Q128214400
  2. ↑ Spencer Graves, Wikidata Q56452480
  3. ↑ The rules of writing from a neutral point of view citing credible sources may not be enforced on other parts of Wikiversity. However, they can facilitate dialog between people with dramatically different beliefs
  4. ↑ Wikiversity asks contributors to assume good faith, similar to Wikipedia. The rule in Wikinews is different: Contributors there are asked to "Don't assume things; be skeptical about everything." That's wise. However, we should still treat others with respect while being skeptical.
  5. ↑ Baker (2023).
  6. ↑ Kelly (2020) and Chen et al. (2024).
  7. ↑ Mullin (2022).
  8. ↑ Wikipedia, "strategic lawsuits against public participation", accessed 2024-08-01.
  9. ↑ The EFF (Mullin 2022) recommends a federal anti-SLAPP law. "Thirty-three states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have enacted statutory protections against SLAPPs. These states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. ... These laws vary dramatically in scope and level of protection and the remaining states lack specific protections." Wikipedia, "strategic lawsuits against public participation", accessed 2024-08-01.
  10. ↑ To make it easier for people to document violations, the law might include provisions that require Internet companies to file searchable copies of any ads, underwriting and clickbait for which they receive money for boosting differentially with a central repository like the Internet Archive. Sadly, published retractions are often not effective, especially with extremist groups, as documented by DiResta (2024).
  11. ↑ Real-World Economics Review Blog (2010).

Bibliography

[edit | edit source]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Dean_Baker_on_Internet_companies_threatening_democracy_internationally_and_how_to_fix_that&oldid=2672159"