Tag: Communications Decency Act

Don’t Talk to Strangers! But if it’s Online, it’s Okay?

It is 2010.  You are in middle school and your parents let your best friend come over on a Friday night.  You gossip, talk about crushes, and go on all social media sites.  You decide to try the latest one, Omegle.  You automatically get paired with a stranger to talk to and video chat with.  You speak to a few random people, and then, with the next click, a stranger’s genitalia are on your screen.

Stranger Danger

Omegle is a free video-chatting social media platform.  Its primary function has become meeting new people and arranging “online sexual rendezvous.”  Registration is not required.  Omegle randomly pairs users for one-on-one video sessions.  These sessions are anonymous, and you can skip to a new person at any time.  Although there is a large warning on the home screen saying “you must be 18 or older to use Omegle”, no parental controls are available through the platform.  Should you want to install any parental controls, you must use a separate commercial program.

While the platform’s community guidelines illustrate the “dos and don’ts” of the site, it seems questionable that the platform can monitor millions of users, especially when users are not required to sign up, or to agree to any of Omegle’s terms and conditions.  It, therefore, seems that this site could harbor online predators, raising quite a few issues.

One recent case surrounding Omegle involved a pre-teen who was sexually abused, harassed, and blackmailed into sending a sexual predator obscene content.  In A.M. v. Omegle.com LLC, the open nature of Omegle ended up matching an 11-year-old girl with a sexual predator in his late thirties.  Being easily susceptible, he forced the 11-year-old into sending pornographic images and videos of herself, perform for him and other predators, and recruit other minors.  This predator was able to continue this horrific crime for three years by threatening to release these videos, pictures, and additional content publicly.  The 11-year-old plaintiff sued Omegle on two general claims of platform liability through Section 230, but only one claim was able to break through the law.

Unlimited Immunity Cards!

Under 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Section 230), social media platforms are immune from liability for content posted by third parties.  As part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 provides almost full protection against lawsuits for social media companies since no platform is seen as a publisher or speaker of user-generated content posted on the site.  Section 230 has gone so far to say that Google and Twitter were immune from liability for claims that their platforms were used to aid terrorist activities.  In May of 2023, these cases moved up to the Supreme Court.  Although the court declined to rule for the Google case, they ruled on the Twitter case.  Google was found not liable for the claim that they stimulated the growth of ISIS through targeted recommendations and inspired an attack that killed an American student.  Twitter was immune for the claim that the platform aided and abetted a terrorist group to raise funds and recruit members for a terrorist attack.

Wiping the Slate

In February of 2023, the District Court in Oregon for the Portland Division found that Section 230 immunity did not apply to Omegle in a products liability claim, and the platform was held liable for these predatory actions committed by the third party on the site.  By side-stepping the third-party freedom of speech issue that comes with Section 230 immunity for an online publisher, the district court found Omegle responsible under the Plaintiff’s products liability claim, which targeted the platforms’ defective design, defective warning, negligent design, and failure to warn.

Three prongs need to be proved to preclude a platform from liability under Section 230:

  1. A provider of an interactive site,
  2. Whom is sought to be treated as a publisher or speaker, and
  3. For information provided by a third-party.

It is clear that Omegle is an interactive site that fits into the definition provided by Section 230.  The issue then falls on the second and third prongs: if the cause of action treated Omegle as the speaker of third-party content.  The sole function of randomly pairing strangers causes the foreseen danger of pairing a minor with an adult. Shown in the present case, “the function occurs before the content occurs.” By designing the platform negligently and with knowing disregard for the possibility of harm, the court ultimately concluded that the liability of the platform’s function does not pertain to third-party published content and that the claim targeted specific functions rather than users’ speech on the platform.  Section 230 immunity did not apply for this first claim and Omegle was held liable.

Not MY Speech

The plaintiff’s last claim dealing with immunity under Section 230 is that Omegle negligently failed to apply reasonable precautions to provide a safe platform.  There was a foreseeable risk of harm when marketing the service to children and adults and randomly pairing them.  Unlike the products liability claim, the negligence claim was twofold: the function of matching people and publishing their communications to each other, both of which fall directly into Section 230’s immunity domain.  The Oregon District Court drew a distinct line between the two claims, so although Omegle was not liable under Section 230 here through negligent service, they were liable through products liability.

If You Cannot Get In Through the Front Door, Try the Back Door!

For almost 30 years, social media platforms have been nearly immune from liability pertaining to Section 230 issues.  In the last few years, with the growth of technology on these platforms, judges have been trying to find loopholes in the law to hold companies liable.  A.M. v. Omegle has just moved through the district court level.  If appealed, it will be an interesting case to follow and see if the ruling will stand or be overruled in conjunction with the other cases that have been decided.  

How do you think a higher court will rule on issues like these?

Shadow Banning Does(n’t) Exist

Shadow Banning Doesn’t Exist

#mushroom

Recent posts from #mushroom are currently hidden because the community has reported some content that may not meet Instagram’s community guidelines.

 

Dear Instagram, get your mind outta the gutter! Mushrooms are probably one of the most searched hashtags in my Instagram history. It all started when I found my first batch of wild chicken-of-the-woods mushrooms. I wanted to learn more about mushroom foraging, so I consulted Instagram. I knew there were tons of foragers sharing photos, videos, and tips about finding different species. But imagine not being able to find content related to your hobby?

What if you loved eggplant varieties? But nothing came up in the search bar? Perhaps you’re an heirloom eggplant farmer trying to sell your product on social media? Yet you’ve only gotten two likes—even though you added #eggplantman to your post. Shadow banned? I think yes.

The deep void of shadow banning is a social media user’s worst nightmare. Especially for influencers whose career depends on engagement. Shadow banning comes with so many uncertainties, but there are a few factors many users agree on:

      1. Certain posts and videos remain hidden from other users
      2. It hurts user engagement
      3. It DOES exist

#Shadowbanning

Shadow banning is an act of restricting or censoring a user’s content on social media without notifying the user. This usually occurs when a user posts content deemed inappropriate or it violates the platform’s guidelines. If a user is shadow banned, the user’s content is only visible to the user and their followers.

Influencers, artists, creators, and business owners are vulnerable victims to the shadow banning void. They depend the most on user engagement, growth, and reaching new audiences. As much as it hurts them, it also hurts other users searching for this specific content. There’s no clear way of telling whether you’ve been shadow banned. You don’t get a notice. You can’t make an appeal to fix your lack of engagement. However, you will see a decline in engagement because no one can see your content in their feeds.

According to the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, “shadow banning is not a thing.” In an interview with the Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, he stated Facebook has “no policy that is shadow banning.” Even a Twitter blog stated, “People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not.” There is no official way of knowing if it exists, but there is evidence it does take place on various social media platforms.

#Shadowbanningisacoverup?

Pole dancing on social media probably would have been deemed inappropriate 20 years ago. But this isn’t the case today. Pole dancing is a growing sport industry. Stigmas associating strippers with pole dancing is shifting with its increasing popularity and trendy nature. However, social media standards may still be stuck in the early 2000s.

In 2019, user posts with hashtags including #poledancing, #polesportorg, and #poledancenation were hidden from Instagram’s Explore page. This affected many users who connect and share new pole dancing techniques with each other. It also had a huge impact on businesses who rely on the pole community to promote their products and services: pole equipment, pole clothing, pole studios, pole sports competitions, pole photographers, and more.

Due to a drastic decrease in user engagement, a petition directing Instagram to stop pole dancing censorship was circulated worldwide. Is pole dancing so controversial it can’t be shared on social media? I think not. There is so much to learn from sharing information virtually, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act supports this.

Section 230 was passed in 1996, and it provides limited federal immunity to websites from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal. This means that if User X decides to post illegal content on Twitter, the Twitter platform could not be sued because of User X’s post. Section 230 does not stop the user who posted such content from being sued, so User X can still be held accountable.

It is clear that Section 230 embraces the importance of sharing knowledge. Section 230(a)(1) tells us this. So why would Instagram want to shadow ban pole dancers who are simply sharing new tricks and techniques?

The short answer is: It’s inappropriate.

But users want to know: what makes it inappropriate?

Is it the pole? A metal pole itself does not seem so.

Is it the person on the pole? Would visibility change depending on gender?

Is it the tight clothing? Well, I don’t see how it is any different from my 17  bikini photos on my personal profile.

Section 230 also provides a carve-out for sex-related work, such as sex trafficking. But this is where the line is drawn between appropriate and inappropriate content. Sex trafficking is illegal, but pole dancing is not. Instagram’s community guidelines also support this. Under the guidelines, sharing pole dancing content would not violate it. Shadow banning clearly seeks to suppress certain content, and in this case, the pole dancing community was a target.

Cultural expression also battles with shadow banning. In 2020, Instagram shadow banned Caribbean Carnival content. The Caribbean Carnival is an elaborate celebration to commemorate slavery abolition in the West Indies and showcases ensembles representing different cultures and countries.

User posts with hashtags including #stluciacarnival, #fuzionmas, and #trinidadcarnival2020 could not be found nor viewed by other users. Some people viewed this as suppressing culture and impacting tourism. Additionally, Facebook and Instagram shadow banned #sikh for almost three months. Due to numerous user feedback, the hashtag was restored, but Instagram failed to state how or why the hashtag was blocked.

In March 2020, The Intercept obtained internal TikTok documents alluding to shadow banning methods. Documents revealed moderators were to suppress content depicting users with “‘abnormal body shape,’ ‘ugly facial looks,’ dwarfism, and ‘obvious beer belly,’ ‘too many wrinkles,’ ‘eye disorders[.]'” While this is a short excerpt of the longer list, this shows how shadow banning may not be a coincidence at all.

Does shadow banning exist? What are the pros and cons of shadow banning?

 

 

 

A Uniquely Bipartisan Push to Amend/Repeal CDA 230

Last month, I wrote a blog post about the history and importance of the Communications Decency Act, section 230 (CDA 230). I ended that blog post by acknowledging the recent push to amend or repeal section 230 of the CDA. In this blog post, I delve deeper into the politics behind the push to amend or repeal this legislation.

“THE 26 WORDS THAT SHAPED THE INTERNET”

If you are unfamiliar with CDA 230, it is the sole legislation that governs the internet world. Also known as “the 26 words that shaped the internet” Congress specifically articulated in the act that the internet is able to flourish, due to a “minimum of government regulation.” This language has resulted in an un-regulated internet, ultimately leading to problems concerning misinformation.

Additionally, CDA 230(c)(2) limits civil liability for posts that social media companies publish. This has caused problems because social media companies lack motivation to filter and censor posts that contain misinformation.

“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” (47 U.S.C. § 230).

Section 230’s liability shade has been extended far beyond Congress’s original intent, which was to protect social media companies against defamation claims. The features of this legislation have resulted in a growing call to update section 230.

In this day and age, an idea or movement rarely gains bi-partisan support anymore. Interestingly, though, amending, or repealing section 230 has gained recent bipartisan support. As expected, however, each party has differing reasons as to why the law should be changed.

BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION

Although the two political parties are in agreement that the legislation should be amended, their reasoning behind it stems from differing places. Republicans tend to criticize CDA 230 for allowing social media companies to selectively censor conservative actors and posts. In contrast, democrats criticize the law for allowing social media companies to disseminate false, and deceptive information.

 DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION

On the democratic side of the aisle, President Joe Biden has repeatedly called for Congress to repeal the law. In an interview with The New York Times, President Biden was asked about his personal view regarding CDA 230, in which he replied…

“it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy. You guys still have editors. I’m sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also voiced opposition, calling CDA 230 “a gift” to the tech industry that could be taken away.

The law has often been credited by the left for fueling misinformation campaigns, like Trumps voter fraud theory, and false COVID information. In response, social media platforms began marking certain posts as unreliable.  This led to the reasoning behind republicans opposition to section 230.

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION

Former President Trump has voiced his opposition to CDA 230 numerous times. He first started calling for the repeal of the legislation in May of 2020, after Twitter flagged two of his tweets regarding mail-in voting, with a warning label that stated “Get the facts about mail-in ballots.” In fact, in December, Donald Trump, the current President at the time, threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act annual defense funding bill, if CDA 230 was not revoked. The former presidents opposition was so strong, he issued an Executive Order in May of last year urging the government to re-visit CDA 230. Within the order, the former president wrote…

“Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor …”

The executive order also asked the Federal Communications Commission to write regulations that would remove protections for companies that “censored” speech online. Although the order didn’t technically affect CDA 230, and was later revoked by President Biden, it resulted in increased attention on this archaic legislation.

LONE SUPPORTERS

Support for the law has not completely vanished, however. As expected, many social media giants support leaving CDA 230 untouched. The Internet Association, an industry group representing some of the largest tech companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, recently announced that the “best of the internet would disappear” without section 230, warning that it would lead to numerous companies being subject to an array of lawsuits.

In a Senate Judiciary hearing in October 2020, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey warned that revoking Section 230 could…

“collapse how we communicate on the Internet.”

However, Mark Zuckerberg took a more moderate position as the hearing continued, telling Congress that he thought lawmakers should update the law.

Facebook has taken a more moderate approach by acknowledging that 230 should be updated. This approach is likely in response to public pressure due to increased awareness. Irregardless, it signifies a likely chance that section 23o will be updated in the future, since Facebook represents one of the largest social media companies protected by 230. A complete repeal of this law would create such major impacts, however, that this scenerio seems unlikely to happen. Nevertheless, growing calls for change, and a Democratic controlled Congress points to a likelihood of future revision of the section.

DIFFERING OPINIONS

Although both sides of Washington, and even some social media companies, agree the law should be amended; the two sides differ greatly on how to change the law.

As mentioned before, President Biden has voiced his support for repealing CDA 230 altogether. Alternatively, senior members of his party, like Nancy Pelosi have suggested simply revising or updating the section.

Republican Josh Hawley recently introduced legislation to amend section 230. The proposed legislation would require companies to prove a “duty of good faith,” when moderating their sites, in order to receive section 230 immunity. The legislation included a $5,000 fee for companies that don’t comply with the legislation.

Senator Ted Cruz has advocated for a complete repeal of section 230, reasoning that…

“big tech enjoys an immunity from liability on the assumption they would be neutral and fair. If they’re not going to be neutral and fair, if they’re going to be biased, we should repeal the immunity from liability so they should be liable like the rest of us.”

Adding to the confusion of the section 230 debate, many fear the possible implications of repealing or amending the law.

FEAR OF CHANGE

Because CDA 230 has been referred to as “the first amendment of the internet,” many people fear that repealing this section altogether would result in a limitation on free speech online. Although President Biden has voiced his support for this approach, it seems unlikely to happen, as it would result in massive implications.

One major implication of repealing or amending CDA 230 is that it could allow for numerous lawsuits against social media companies. Not only would major social media companies be affected by this, but even smaller companies like Slice, could become the subject of defamation litigation by allowing reviews to be posted on their website. This could lead to an existence of less social media platforms, as some would not be able to afford legal fees. Many fear that these companies would further censor online posts for fear of being sued. This may also result in higher costs for these platforms. In contrast, companies could react by allowing everything, and anything to be posted, which could result in an unwelcome online environment. This would be in stark contrast to the Congress’s original intent in the creation of the CDA, to protect children from seeing indecent posts on the internet.

FUTURE CHANGE..?

 

Because of the intricacy of the internet, and the archaic nature of CDA 230, there are many differing opinions as to how to successfully fix the problems the section creates. There are also many fears about the consequences of getting rid of the legislation. Are there any revisions you can think of that could successfully deal with the republicans main concern, censorship? Can you think of any solutions for dealing with the democrats concern of limiting the spread of misinformation. Do you think there is any chance that section 230 will be repealed altogether? If the legislation were to be repealed, would new legislation need to be created to replace CDA 230?

 

A Slap in the Face(book)?

Social media law has become somewhat of a contentious issue in recent years. While most people nowadays could not imagine life without it, many realize too, that it’s influence on our daily lives may not be a great thing. As the technology has advanced to unimaginable levels and the platforms have boomed in popularity, it seems as though our smart phones and Big Tech know our every move. The leading social media platform, Facebook, has around 1.82 billion active users a day, with people volunteering all sorts of personal information to be stored in the internet database. Individual profiles hold pictures of our children, our friends, our family, meals we eat, locations we visit. “What’s on your mind?” is the opening invite to any Facebook page, and one can only hazard a guess as to how many people actually answer that question on a daily basis.  Social media sites know our likes, our dislikes, our preferences, our moods, the shoes we want to buy for that dress we are thinking of wearing to the party we are looking forward to in three weeks!

With all that knowledge, comes enormous power, and through algorithmic design, social media can manipulate our thoughts and beliefs by controlling what we see and don’t see. With all that power, therefore, should come responsibility, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) has created a stark disconnect between the two. What started out as a worthy protection for internet service providers for the content posted by others, has more recently drawn criticism for the lack of accountability held by social media oligarchs such as Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook).

However, that could all be about to change.

On May 28, 2017, three friends lost their lives in a deadly car accident in which the 17-year-old driver, Jason Davis, crashed into a tree at an estimated speed of 113 mph. Landen Brown, 20, and Hunter Morby, 17, were passengers. Tragic accident? Or wrongful death?

Parents of the deceased lay blame on the Snapchat App, which offered a ‘Speed Filter’ that would clock how fast you were moving, and allowed users to snap and share videos of their movements in progress.

You see where this is going.

As quickly became the trend, the three youths used the app to see how fast they could record the speed of their car. Just moments before their deaths, Davis had posted a ‘snap’ clocking the car’s speed at 123 mph. In Lemmon v Snap, the parents of two of the boys brought suit against the social media provider, Snap, Inc., claiming that the app feature encouraged reckless driving and ultimately served to “entice” the young users to their death.

Until now, social media platforms and other internet service providers have enjoyed the protection of near absolute immunity from liability. Written in 1996, Section 230 was designed to protect tech companies from liability, for suits such as defamation, for third party posts. In the early days, it was small tech companies, or an online business with a ‘comments’ feature that generally saw the benefits of the Code. 25 years later, many people are questioning the role of Section 230 within the vastly developing era of social media and the powerful pass it grants Big Tech in many of its societal shortcomings.

Regarded more as an open forum than the publisher or speaker, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat, have been shielded by Section 230 from any legal claims of harm caused by the content posted on their sites.

Applied broadly, it is argued that Section 230 prevents Snap, Inc. from being held legally responsible for the deaths of the three boys in this case, which is the defense the tech company relied upon. The district court dismissed the case on those grounds, holding that the captured speeds fall into the category of content published by a third party, for which the service provider cannot be held liable. The Ninth Circuit however, disagrees. The Court’s interesting swerve of such immunity, is that the speed filter resulted in the deaths of the boys regardless of whether or not their captured speeds were posted. In other words, it did not matter if the vehicle’s speed was shared with others in the app; the fact that the app promotes, and rewards, high speed (although the award system within the app is not entirely clear), is enough.

The implications of this could be tremendous. At a time when debate over 230 reevaluations is already heavy, this precedential interpretation of Section 230 could lead to some cleverly formulated legal arguments for holding internet service providers accountable for some of the highly damaging effects of internet, social media and smart phone usage.

For the many benefits the internet has to offer, it can no longer be denied that there is another, very ugly side to internet usage, in particular with social media.

It is somewhat of an open secret that social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, purposely design their apps to be addictive by its users. It is also no secret that there is a growing association between social media usage and suicides, depression and other mental health issues. Cyber bullying has long been a very real problem. In addition, studies have shown that smart device screen time in very young children has shockingly detrimental impacts on a child’s social and emotional developments,  not to mention the now commonly known damage it can have on a person’s eyesight.

An increased rate of divorces has been linked to smart phones, and distracted driving – whether it be texting or keeping tabs on your Twitter retweets, or Facebook ‘likes’– is on the increase. Even an increase in accidents while walking has been linked to distractions caused by the addictive smart devices.

With the idea of accountability being the underlying issue, it can of course be stated that almost all of these problems should be a matter of personal responsibility. Growing apart from your spouse? Ditch your cell phone and reinvent date night. Feeling depressed about your life as you ‘heart’ a picture of your colleague’s wine glass in front of a perfect sunset beach backdrop? Close your laptop and stop comparing yourself to everyone else’s highlights. Step in front of a cyclist while LOL’ing in a group text? Seriously….put your Apple Watch hand in your pocket and look where you are going! The list of personal-blame is endless. But then we hear about three young friends, two still in their teens, who lose their lives engaged with social media, and suddenly it’s not so easy to blame them for their own devastating misfortune.

While social media sites cannot be held responsible for the content posted by others, no matter how hurtful it might be to some, or no matter what actions it leads others to take, should they be held responsible for negligently making their sites so addictive, so emotionally manipulative and so targeted towards individual users, that such extensive and compulsive use leads to dire consequences? According to the Ninth Circuit, negligent app design can in fact be a cause of action for wrongful death.

With a potential crack in the 230-armor, the questions many lawyers will be scrambling to ask are:

      • What duties do the smart device producers and/or internet service providers owe to their users?
      • Are these duties breached by continuing to design, produce, and provide products that are now known to create such disturbing problems?
      • What injuries have occurred and where those injuries foreseeably caused by any such breaches of duty?

For the time being, it is unlikely that any substantial milestone will be reached with regards to Big Tech accountability, but the Ninth Circuit decision in this case has certainly delivered a powerful blow to the Big Tech apparent untouchability in the courtroom.

As awareness of all these social media related issues grow, could this court decision open the door to further suits of defective or negligent product design resulting in death or injury? Time will tell…..stay tuned.

Skip to toolbar