Is it HIGH TIME we allow Cannabis Content on Social Media?

Is it HIGHT TIME we allow Cannabis Content on Social Media?

The Cannabis Industry is Growing like a Weed

Social media provides a relationship between consumers and their favorite brands. Just about every company has a social media presence to advertise its products and grow its brand. Large companies command the advertising market, but smaller companies and one-person startups have their place too. The opportunity to expand your brand using social media is limitless to just about everyone. Except for the cannabis industry. With the developing struggle between social media companies and the politics of cannabis, comes an onslaught of problems facing the modern cannabis market. With recreational marijuana use legal in 21 states and Washington, D.C., and medical marijuana legal in 38 states, it may be time for this community to join the social media metaverse.

We know now that algorithms determine how many followers on a platform see a business’ content, whether or not the content is permitted, and whether the post or the user should be deleted. The legal cannabis industry has found itself in a similar struggle to legislators with social media giants ( like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) for increased transparency about their internal processes for filtering information, banning users, and moderating its platform. Mainstream cannabis businesses have been prevented from making their presence known on social media in the past, but legitimate businesses are being placed in a box with illicit drug users and prevented from advertising on public social media sites. The Legal cannabis industry is expected to be worth over $60 billion by 2024, and support for federal legalization is at an all-time high (68%). Now more than ever, brands are fighting for higher visibility amongst cannabis consumers.

Recent Legislation Could Open the Door for Cannabis

The question remains, whether the legal cannabis businesses have a place in the ever-changing landscape of the social media metaverse. Marijuana is currently a Schedule 1 narcotic on the Controlled Substances Act (1970). This categorization of Marijuana as Schedule 1 means that it has no currently accepted medical use and has a high potential for abuse. While that definition was acceptable when cannabis was placed on the DEAs list back in 1971, there has been evidence presented in opposition to that decision. Historians note, overt racism, combined with New Deal reforms and bureaucratic self-interest is often blamed for the first round of federal cannabis prohibition under the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which restricted possession to those who paid a steep tax for a limited set of medical and industrial applications. The legitimacy of cannabis businesses within the past few decades based on individual state legalization (both medical and recreational) is at the center of debate for the opportunity to market as any other business has. Legislation like the MORE act (Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement) which was passed by The House of Representatives gives companies some hope that they can one day be seen as legitimate businesses. If passed into law, Marijuana will be lowered or removed from the schedule list which would blow the hinges off the cannabis industry, legitimate businesses in states that have legalized its use are patiently waiting in the wings for this moment.

States like New York have made great strides in passing legislation to legalize marijuana the “right” way and legitimize business, while simultaneously separating themselves from the illegal and dangerous drug trade that has parasitically attached itself to this movement. The Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act (MRTA) establishes a new framework for the production and sale of cannabis, creates a new adult-use cannabis program, and expands the existing medical cannabis and cannabinoid (CBD) hemp programs. MRTA also established the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), which is the governing body for cannabis reform and regulation, particularly for emerging businesses that wish to establish a presence in New York. The OCM also oversees the licensure, cultivation, production, distribution, sal,e and taxation of medical, adult-use, and cannabinoid hemp within New York State. This sort of regulatory body and structure are becoming commonplace in a world that was deemed to be like the “wild-west” with regulatory abandonment, and lawlessness.

But, What of the Children?

In light of all the regulation that is slowly surrounding the Cannabis businesses, will the rapidly growing social media landscape have to concede to the demands of the industry and recognize their presence? Even with regulations cannabis exposure is still an issue to many about the more impressionable members of the user pool. Children and young adults are spending more time than ever online and on social media. On average, daily screen use went up among tweens (ages 8 to 12) to five hours and 33 minutes from four hours and 44 minutes, and to eight hours and 39 minutes from seven hours and 22 minutes for teens (ages 13 to 18). This group of social media consumers is of particular concern to both the legislators and the social media companies themselves. MRTA offers protection from companies advertising with the intent of looking like common brands marketed to children. Companies are restricted to using their name and their logo, with explicit language that the item inside of the wrapper has cannabis or Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in it. MRTA restrictions along with strict community guidelines from several social media platforms and government regulations around the promotion of marijuana products, many brands are having a hard time building their communities’ presence on social media. The cannabis companies have resorted to creating their own that promote the content they are being prevented from blasting on other sites. Big-name rapper and cannabis enthusiast, Berner who created the popular edible brand “Cookies”, has been approached to partner with the creators to bolster their brand and raise awareness. Unfortunately, the sites became what mainstream social media sites feared in creating their guideline, an unsavory haven for illicit drug use and other illegal behavior. One of the pioneer apps in this field Social Club was removed from the app store after multiple reports of illegal behavior. The apps have since been more internally regulated but have not taken off like the creators intended. Legitimate cannabis businesses are still being blocked from advertising on mainstream apps.

These Companies Won’t go Down Without a Fight

While cannabis companies aren’t supposed to be allowed on social media sites, there are special rules in place if a legal cannabis business were to have a presence on a social media site. Social media is the fastest and most efficient way to advertise to a desired audience. With appropriate regulatory oversight and within the confines of the changing law, social media sites may start to feel pressure to allow more advertising from cannabis brands.

A Petition has been generated to bring META, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram among other sites, to discuss the growing frustrations and strict restrictions on their social media platforms. The petition on Change.org has managed to amass 13,000 signatures. Arden Richard, the founder of WeedTube, has been outspoken about the issues saying “This systematic change won’t come without a fight. Instagram has already begun deleting posts and accounts just for sharing the petition,”. He also stated, “The cannabis industry and community need to come together now for these changes and solutions to happen,”. If not, he fears, “we will be delivering this industry into the hands of mainstream corporations when federal legalization happens.”

Social media companies recognize the magnitude of the legal cannabis community because they have been banning its content nonstop since its inception. However, the changing landscape of the cannabis industry has made their decision to ban their content more difficult. Until federal regulation changes, businesses operating in states that have legalized cannabis will be force banned by the largest advertising platforms in the world.

Memes, Tweets, and Stocks . . . Oh, My!

Pop-Culture’s Got A Chokehold on Your Stocks

In just three short weeks, early in January 2021, Reddit meme-stock traders garnered up enough of GameStop’s stock to increase its value from a mere $17.25 per share to $325 a pop. This reflected almost an 1,800% increase in the stock’s value. In light of this, hedge funds, like New York’s Melvin Capital Management, were left devastated, some smaller hedge funds even went out of business.

For Melvin, because they were holding their GameStop stock in a short position (a trading technique in which the intention is to sell a security with the plan to buy it back later, at a lower cost, in an anticipated short term drop), they lost over 50% of their stock’s value, which translated to nearly $7 billion, in just under a month.

Around 2015, the rise of a new and free online trading platform geared towards a younger generation, emerged in Robinhood. Their mission was simple — “democratize” finance. By putting the capacity to understand and participate in trading, without needing an expensive broker, Robinhood made investing accessible to the masses. However, the very essence of Robinhood putting the power back in the hands of the people, was also what caused a halt in GameStop’s takeover rise. After three weeks, Robinhood had to cease all buying or selling of GameStop’s shares and options because the sheer volume of trading had exceeded their cash-on-hand capacity, or collateral that is required by regulators to function as a legal trade exchange.

But what exactly is a meme-stock? For starters, a meme is an idea or element of pop-culture that spreads and intensifies across people’s minds. As social media has increased in popularity, viral pop-culture references and trends have as well. Memes allow people to instantaneously spread videos, tweets, pictures, or posts that are humorous, interesting, or sarcastic. This in turns goes viral. Meme-stocks therefore originate on the internet, usually in sub-Reddit threads, where users work together to identify a target stock and then promote it. The goal of promoting a meme stock largely involves shorting the stock—as explained above—which means buying, holding, selling, and rebuying as prices fluctuate to turn a profit.

GameStop is not the first, and certainly not the last, stock to be traded in this fashion. But it represents an important shift in the power of social media and its ability to affect the stock market. Another example of the power meme-culture can have on real-world finances and the economy, is Dogecoin.

Dogecoin was created as satirical new currency, in a way mocking the hype around existing cryptocurrencies. But its positive reaction and bolstered interest on social media turned the joke crypto into a practical reality. This “fun” version of Bitcoin was celebrated, listed on the crypto exchange Binance, and even cryptically endorsed by Elon Musk. More recently, in 2021, cinema chain AMC announced it would accept Dogecoin in exchange for digital gift card purchases, further bolstering the credibility of this meme-originated cryptocurrency.

Tricks of the Trade, Play at Your Own Risk

Stock trading is governed by the Securities Act of 1933, which boils down to two basic objectives: (1) to require that investors receive financial and other material information concerning securities being offered for public sale; and (2) to prohibit any deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities. In order to buy, sell, or trade most securities, it must first be registered with the SEC—the primary goal of registration is to facilitate information disclosures, so investors are informed before engaging. Additionally, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provides the SEC with broad authority over the securities industry, to regulate, register, and oversee brokerage firms, agents, and SROs. Other regulations at play include the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 which regulate investment advisers and their companies, respectively. These Acts require firms and agents that receive compensation for their advising practices are registered with the SEC and adhere to certain qualifications and strict guidelines designed to promote fair, informed investment decisions.

Cryptocurrency has over the years grown from a speculative investment to a new class of assets and regulation is imminent. The Biden Administration has recently added some clarification on crypto use and its regulation through a new directive designating power to the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which were already the prominent securities regulators. In the recent Ripple Labs lawsuit, the SEC began to make some strides in regulating cryptocurrency by working to classify it as a security which would bring crypt into their domain of regulation.

Consequentially, the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has adapted with the times and now cautions against making any investment decisions based solely off of information seen on social media platforms. Because social media has become integral to our daily lives, investors are increasingly relying and turning to it for information when deciding when, where, and on what to invest. This has increased the likelihood of scams, fraud, and other misinformation consequences. These problems can arise through fraudsters disseminating false information anonymously or impersonating someone else.

However, there is also an increasing concern with celebrity endorsements and testimonials regarding investment advice. The most common types of social media online scam schematics are impersonation and fake crypto investment advertisements.

With this rise in social media use, the laws governing investment advertisements and information are continuously developing. Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) provides governance on the selective disclosure of information for publicly traded companies. Reg. FD prescribes that when an issuer discloses any material, nonpublic information to certain individuals or entities, they must also make a public disclosure of that information. In 2008, the SEC issued new guidance allowing information to be distributed on websites so long as shareholders, investors, and the market in general were aware it was the company’s “recognized channel of distribution.” In 2013 this was again amended to allow publishing earnings and other material information on social media, provided that investors knew to expect it there.

This clarification came in light of the controversial boast by Netflix co-founder and CEO Reed Hastings on Facebook that Netflix viewers had consumed 1 billion hours of watch time, per month. Hasting’s Facebook page had never previously disclosed performance stats and therefore investors were not on notice that this type of potentially material information, relevant to their investment decisions, would be located there. Hastings also failed to immediately remedy the situation with a public disclosure of the same information via a press release or Form 8-K filing.

In the same vein, a company’s employees may also be the target of consequence if they like or share a post, publish a third-party link, or friend certain people without permission if any of those actions could be viewed as an official endorsement or means of information dissemination.

The SEC requires that certain company information be accompanied by a disclosure or cautionary disclaimer statement. Section 17(b) of the 1933 Act, more commonly known as the Anti-Touting provision, requires any securities endorsement be accompanied by a disclosure of the “nature, source, and amount of any compensation paid, directly or indirectly, by the company in exchange for such endorsement.”

To Trade, or Not to Trade? Let Your Social Media Feed Decide

With the emergence of non-professional trading schematics and platforms like Robinhood, low-cost financial technology has brought investing to the hands of younger users. Likewise, the rise of Bitcoin and blockchain technologies in the early-to-mid 2010’s have changed the way financial firms must think about and approach new investors. The discussion of investments and information sharing that happens on these online forums creates a cesspool ripe for misinformation breeding. Social media sites are vulnerable to information problems for several reasons. For starters, which posts gain attention is not always something that can be calculated in advance—if the wrong post goes viral, hundreds to thousands to millions of users may read improper recommendations. Algorithm rabbit-holes also pose a risk to extremist views and strategically places ads further on this downward spiral.

Additionally, the presence of fake or spam-based accounts and internet trolls pose an ever more difficult problem to contain. Lastly, influencers can sway large groups of followers by mindlessly promoting or interacting with bad information or not properly disclosing required information. There are many more obvious risks associated but “herding” remains one of the largest. Jeff Kreisler, Head of Behavioral Science at J.P. Morgan & Chase explains that:

“Herding has been a common investment trap forever. Social media just makes it worse because it provides an even more distorted perception of reality. We only see what our limited network is talking about or promoting, or what news is ‘trending’ – a status that has nothing to do with value and everything to do with hype, publicity, coolness, selective presentation and other things that should have nothing to do with our investment decisions.”

This shift to a digital lifestyle and reliance on social media for information has played a key role in the information dissemination for investor decision-making. Nearly 80% of institutional investors now use social media as a part of their daily workflow. Of those, about 30% admit that information gathered on social media has in some way influenced an investment recommendation or decision and another third have maintained that because of announcements they saw on social media, they made at least one change to their investments as a direct result. In 2013, the SEC began to allow publicly traded companies to report news and earnings via their social media platforms which has resulted in an increased flow of information to investors on these platforms. Social media also now plays a large role in financial literacy for the younger generations.

The Tweet Heard Around the Market

A notable and recent example of how powerful social media warriors and internet trolls can be in relation to the success of a company’s stock came just days after Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and only hours after launching his pay-for-verification Twitter Blue debacle. Insulin manufacturing company Eli Lilly saw a stark drop in their stock value after a fake parody account was created under the guise of their name and tweeted out that “insulin is now free.”

This account acting under the Twitter handle @EliLillyandCo labeled itself, bought a blue check mark, and appended the same logo as the real company to its profile making it almost indistinguishable from the real thing. Consequently, the actual Eli Lilly corporate account had to tweet out an apology “to those who have been served a misleading message from a fake Lilly account.” And clarifying that, “Our official Twitter account is @Lillypad.”

This is a perfect example for Elon Musk and other major companies and CEOs just how powerful pop-culture, meme-culture, and internet trolls are by the simple fact that this parody account casually dropped the stock of a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company almost 5% in the matter of a few hours and weaponized with $8 and a single tweet.

So, what does all this mean for the future of digital finance? It’s difficult to say exactly where we might be headed, but social media’s growing tether on all facets of our lives leave much up for new regulation. Consumers should be cautious when scrolling through investment-related material, and providers should be transparent with their relationships and goals in promoting any such materials. Social media is here to stay, but the regulation and use of it are still up for grabs.

The Rise of E-personation

Social media allows millions of users to communicate with one another on a daily basis, but do you really know who is behind the computer screen?

As social media continues to expand into the enormous entity that we know it to be today, the more susceptible users are to abuse online. Impersonation through electronic means, often referred to as e-personation is a rapidly growing trend on social media. E-personation is extremely troublesome because it requires far less information than the other typical forms of identity theft. In order to create a fake social media page, all an e-personator would need is the victim’s name, and maybe a profile picture. While creating a fake account is relatively easy for the e-personator, the impact on the victim’s life can be detrimental.

E-personation Under State Law

It wasn’t until 2008, when New York became the first state to recognized e-personation as a criminally punishable form of identity theft. Under New York law, “a person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree when he … impersonates another by communication by internet website or electronic means with intent to obtain a benefit or injure or defraud another, or by such communication pretends to be a public servant in order to induce another to submit to such authority or act in reliance on such pretense.”

Since 2008, other states, such as California, New Jersey, and Texas, have also amended their identity theft statutes to include online impersonation as a criminal offense. New Jersey amended their impersonation and identity theft statute in 2014, after an e-personator case revealed their current statute lacked any mention of “electronic communication” as means of unlawful impersonation. In 2011, New Jersey Superior Court Judge David Ironson in Morris County, declined to dismiss an indictment of identity theft against Dana Thornton. Ms. Thornton allegedly created a fictitious Facebook page that portrayed her ex-boyfriend, a narcotics detective, unfavorably. On the Facebook page, Thornton, pretending to be her ex, posted admitting to hiring prostitutes, using drugs, and even contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Thornton’s defense counsel argued that New Jersey’s impersonation statute was not applicable because online impersonation was not explicitly mentioned in the statute and therefore, Thornton’s actions do not fall within the scope of activity the statute proscribes. Judge Ironson disagreed by noting the New Jersey statute is “clear and unambiguous” in forbidding impersonation activities that cause injury and does not need to specify the means by which the injury occurs.

Currently under New Jersey law, a person is guilty of impersonation or theft of identity if … “the person engages in one or more of the following actions by any means, but not limited to, the use of electronic communications or an internet website:”

1. Impersonates another or assumes a false identity … for the purpose of obtaining a benefit for himself or another or to injure or defraud another;
2. Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization … for the purpose of obtaining a benefit for himself or another or to injure or defraud another;
3. Impersonates another, assumes a false identity or makes a false or misleading statement regarding the identity of any person, in an oral or written application for services, for the purpose of obtaining services;
4. Obtains any personal identifying information pertaining to another person and uses that information, or assists another person in using the information … without that person’s authorization and with the purpose to fraudulently obtain or attempt to obtain a benefit or services, or avoid the payment of debt … or avoid prosecution for a crime by using the name of the other person; or
5. Impersonates another, assumes a false identity or makes a false or misleading statement, in the course of making an oral or written application for services, with the purpose of avoiding payment for prior services.

As social media continues to grow it is likely that more state legislators will amend their statutes to incorporate e-personation into their impersonation and identify theft statutes.

E-personators Twitter Takeover

Over the last week, e-personation has erupted into chaos on Twitter. Elon Musk brought Twitter on October 27, 2022, for $44 billion dollars. He immediately began firing the top Twitter executives including the chief executive and chief financial officer. On the verge of bankruptcy, Elon needed a plan to generate more subscription revenue. At last, the problematic Twitter Blue subscription was created. Under the Twitter Blue policy users could purchase a subscription for $8 a month and receive the blue verification check mark next to their Twitter handle.

The unregulated distribution of the blue verification check mark has led to chaos on Twitter by allowing e-personators to run amuck. Traditionally the blue check mark has been a sym bol of authentication for celebrities, politicians, news outlets, and other companies. It was created to protect those susceptible to e-personation. The rollout of Twitter Blue began on November 9, 2022, the policy did not specify any requirements needed to verify a user’s authenticity beyond payment of the monthly fee.

Shortly after the rollout, e-personators began to take advantage of their newly purchased verification subscription by impersonating celebrities, pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and even the new CEO of Twitter, Elon Musk. For example, comedian Kathy Griffin was one of the first Twitter accounts suspended after Twitter Blue’s launch for changing her Twitter name and profile photo to Elon Musk and impersonating the new CEO. Kathy was not the only Twitter user to impersonate Elon and in response Elon tweeted “Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody’ will be permanently suspended.”

Elon’s threats of permanent suspension did not stop e-personators from trolling on Twitter. One e-personator used their blue check verification to masquerade as Eli Lilly and Company, an American pharmaceutical company. The fake Eli Lilly account tweeted the company would be providing free insulin to its customers. The real Eli Lilly account tweeted an apology shortly thereafter. Another e-personator used their verification to impersonate former United States President George W. Bush. The fake Bush account tweeted “I miss killing Iraqis” along with a sad face emoji. The e-personators did not stop there, many more professional athletes, politicians, and companies were impersonated under the new Twitter Blue subscription policy. An internal Twitter log seen by the New York Times indicated that 140,000 accounts had signed up for the new Twitter Blue subscription. It is unlikely that Elon will be able to discover every e-personator account and remedy this spread of misinformation.

Twitter’s Term and Conditions

Before the rollout of Twitter Blue, Twitter’s guidelines included a policy for misleading and deceptive identities. Under Twitter’s policy “you many not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations to mislead, confuse, or deceive others, nor use a fake identity in a manner that disrupts the experience of others on Twitter.” The guidelines further explain that impersonation is prohibited, specifically “you can’t pose as an existing person, group, or organization in a confusing or deceptive manner.” Based on the terms of Twitter’s guidelines, the recent e-personators are in direct violation of Twitter’s policy, but are these users also criminally liable?

Careful, You Could Get a Criminal Record

Social media networks, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, have little incentive to protect the interests of individual users because they cannot be held liable for anything their users post. Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, “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.” Because of the lack responsibility placed on social media platforms, victims of e-personation often have a hard time trying to remove the fake online presence. Ironically, in order for a victim to gain control of an e-personator’s fake account, the victim must provide the social media platform with confidential identifying information, while the e-personator effectively remains anonymous.

By now you’re probably asking yourself, but what about the e-personators criminal liability? Under some state statutes, like those mentioned above, e-personators can be found criminally liable. However, there are some barriers that effect the effectiveness of these prosecutions. For example, e-personators maintain great anonymity, therefore finding the actual person behind the fake account could be difficult. Furthermore, many of the state statutes that criminalize e-personation include proving the perpetrator’s intent, which may also pose a risk to prosecution. Lastly, social media is a global phenomenon which means jurisdictional issues will arise when bringing these cases to court. Unfortunately, only a minority of states have amended their impersonation statutes to include e-personation. Hopefully as social media continues to grow more states will follow suit and e-personation will be prosecuted more efficiently and effectively. Remember, not everyone on social media is who they claim to be, so be cautious.

I Knew I Smelled a Rat! How Derivative Works on Social Media can “Cook Up” Infringement Lawsuits

If you have spent more than 60 seconds scrolling on social media, you have undoubtably been exposed to short clips or “reels” that often reference different pop culture elements that may be protected intellectual property. While seemingly harmless, it is possible that the clips you see on various platforms are infringing on another’s copyrighted work. Oh Rats!

What Does Copyright Law Tell Us?

Copyright protection, which is codified in 17 U.S.C. §102, extends to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression”. It refers to your right, as the original creator, to make copies of, control, and reproduce your own original content. This applies to any created work that is reduced to a tangible medium. Some examples of copyrightable material include, but are not limited to, literary works, musical works, dramatic works, motion pictures, and sound recordings.

Additionally, one of the rights associated with a copyright holder is the right to make derivative works from your original work. Codified in 17 U.S.C. §101, a derivative work is “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work’.” This means that the copyright owner of the original work also reserves the right to make derivative works. Therefore, the owner of the copyright to the original work may bring a lawsuit against someone who creates a derivative work without permission.

Derivative Works: A Recipe for Disaster!

The issue of regulating derivative works has only intensified with the growth of cyberspace and “fandoms”. A fandom is a community or subculture of fans that’s built itself up around one specific piece of pop culture and who share a mutual bond over their enthusiasm for the source material. Fandoms can also be composed of fans that actively participate and engage with the source material through creative works, which is made easier by social media. Historically, fan works have been deemed legal under the fair use doctrine, which states that some copyrighted material can be used without legal permission for the purposes of scholarship, education, parody, or news reporting, so long as the copyrighted work is only being used to the extent necessary. Fair use can also apply to a derivative work that significantly transforms the original copyrighted work, adding a new expression, meaning, or message to the original work. So, that means that “anyone can cook”, right? …Well, not exactly! The new, derivative work cannot have an economic impact on the original copyright holder. I.e., profits cannot be “diverted to the person making the derivative work”, when the revenue could or should have gone to original copyright holder.

With the increased use of “sharing” platforms, such as TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube, it has become increasingly easier to share or distribute intellectual property via monetized accounts. Specifically, due to the large amount of content that is being consumed daily on TikTok, its users are incentivized with the ability to go “viral” instantaneity, if not overnight, as well the ability to earn money through the platform’s “Creator Fund.” The Creator Fund is paid for by the TikTok ads program, and it allows creators to get paid based on the amount of views they receive. This creates a problem because now that users are getting paid for their posts, the line is blurred between what is fair use and what is a violation of copyright law. The Copyright Act fails to address the monetization of social media accounts and how that fits neatly into a fair use analysis.

Ratatouille the Musical: Anyone Can Cook?

Back in 2020, TikTok users Blake Rouse and Emily Jacobson were the first of many to release songs based on Disney-Pixar’s 2007 film, Ratatouille. What started out as a fun trend for users to participate in, turned into a full-fledged viral project and eventual tangible creation. Big name Broadway stars including André De Shields, Wayne Brady, Adam Lambert, Mary Testa, Kevin Chamberlin, Priscilla Lopez, and Tituss Burgess all participated in the trend, and on December 9, 2020, it was announced that Ratatouille was coming to Broadway via a virtual benefit concert.

Premiered as a one-night livestream event in January 1 2021, all profits generated from the event were donated to the Entertainment Community Fund (formerly the Actors Fund), which is a non-profit organization that supports performers and workers in the arts and entertainment industry. It initially streamed in over 138 countries and raised over $1.5 million for the charity. Due to its success, an encore production was streamed on TikTok 10 days later, which raised an additional $500,000 for the fund (totaling $2 million). While this is unarguably a derivative work, the question of fair use was not addressed here because Disney lawyers were smart enough not to sue. In fact, they embraced the Ratatouille musical by releasing a statement to the Verge magazine:

“Although we do not have development plans for the title, we love when our fans engage with Disney stories. We applaud and thank all of the online theatre makers for helping to benefit The Actors Fund in this unprecedented time of need.”

Normally, Disney is EXTREMELY strict and protective over their intellectual property. However, this small change of heart has now opened a door for other TikTok creators and fandom members to create unauthorized derivative works based on others’ copyrighted material.

Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen!

Take the “Unofficial Bridgerton Musical”, for example. In July of 2022, Netflix sued content creators Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear for their unauthorized use of Netflix’s original series, Bridgerton. The Bridgerton Series on Netflix is based on the Bridgerton book series by Julia Quinn. Back in 2020, Barlow and Bear began writing and uploading songs based on the Bridgerton series to TikTok for fun. Needless to say, the videos went viral, thus prompting Barlow and Bear to release an entire musical soundtrack based on Bridgerton. They even went so far as to win the 2022 Grammy Award for Best Musical Album.

On July 26, Barlow and Bear staged a sold-out performance with tickets ranging from $29-$149 at the New York Kennedy Center, and also incorporated merchandise for sale that included the “Bridgerton” trademark. Netflix then sued, demanding an end to these for-profit performances. Interestingly enough, Netflix was allegedly initially on board with Barlow and Bear’s project. However, although Barlow and Bear’s conduct began on social media, the complaint alleges they “stretched fanfiction way past its breaking point”. According to the complaint, Netflix “offered Barlow & Bear a license that would allow them to proceed with their scheduled live performances at the Kennedy Center and Royal Albert Hall, continue distributing their album, and perform their Bridgerton-inspired songs live as part of larger programs going forward,” which Barlow and Bear refused. Netflix also alleged that the musical interfered with its own derivative work, the “Bridgerton Experience,” an in-person pop-up event that has been offered in several cities.

Unlike the Ratatouille: The Musical, which was created to raise money for a non-profit organization that benefited actors during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Unofficial Bridgerton Musical helped line the pockets of its creators, Barlow and Bear, in an effort to build an international brand for themselves. Netflix ended up privately settling the lawsuit in September of 2022.

Has the Aftermath Left a Bad Taste in IP Holder’s Mouths?

The stage has been set, and courts have yet to determine exactly how fan-made derivative works play out in a fair use analysis. New technologies only exacerbate this issue with the monetization of social media accounts and “viral” trends. At a certain point, no matter how much you want to root for the “little guy”, you have to admit when they’ve gone too far. Average “fan art” does not go so far as to derive significant profits off the original work and it is very rare that a large company will take legal action against a small content creator unless the infringement is so blatant and explicit, there is no other choice. IP law exists to protect and enforce the rights of the creators and owners that have worked hard to secure their rights. Allowing content creators to infringe in the name of “fair use” poses a dangerous threat to intellectual property law and those it serves to protect.

Update Required: An Analysis of the Conflict Between Copyright Holders and Social Media Users

Opening

For anyone who is chronically online as yours truly, in one way or another we have seen our favorite social media influencers, artists, commentators, and content creators complain about their problems with the current US Intellectual Property (IP) system. Be it that their posts are deleted without explanation or portions of their video files are muted, the combination of factors leading to copyright issues on social media is endless. This, in turn, has a markedly negative impact on free and fair expression on the internet, especially within the context of our contemporary online culture. For better or worse, interaction in society today is intertwined with the services of social media sites. Conflict arises when the interests of copyright holders clash with this reality. They are empowered by byzantine and unrealistic laws that hamper our ability to exist as freely as we do in real life. While they do have legitimate and fundamental rights that need to be protected, such rights must be balanced out with desperately needed reform. People’s interaction with society and culture must not be hampered, for that is one of the many foundations of a healthy and thriving society. To understand this, I venture to analyze the current legal infrastructure we find ourselves in.

Current Relevant Law

The current controlling laws for copyright issues on social media are the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is most relevant to our analysis; it gives copyright holders relatively unrestrained power to demand removal of their property from the internet and to punish those using illegal methods to get ahold of their property. This broad law, of course, impacted social media sites. Title II of the law added 17 U.S. Code § 512 to the Copyright Act of 1976, creating several safe harbor provisions for online service providers (OSP), such as social media sites, when hosting content posted by third parties. The most relevant of these safe harbors to this issue is 17 U.S. Code § 512(c), which states that an OSP cannot be liable for monetary damages if it meets several requirements and provides a copyright holder a quick and easy way to claim their property. The mechanism, known as a “notice and takedown” procedure, varies by social media service and is outlined in their terms and conditions of service (YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook/Meta). Regardless, they all have a complaint form or application that follows the rules of the DMCA and usually will rapidly strike objectionable social media posts by users. 17 U.S. Code § 512(g) does provide the user some leeway with an appeal process and § 512(f) imposes liability to those who send unjustifiable takedowns. Nevertheless, a perfect balance of rights is not achieved.

The doctrine of fair use, codified as 17 U.S. Code § 107 via the Copyright Act of 1976, also plays a massive role here. It established a legal pathway for the use of copyrighted material for “purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research” without having to acquire right to said IP from the owner. This legal safety valve has been a blessing for social media users, especially with recent victories like Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, which protected reaction content from DMCA takedowns. Cases like Lenz v. Universal Music Corp further established that fair use must be considered by copyright holders when preparing for takedowns. Nevertheless, failure to consider said rights by true copyright holders still happens, as sites are quick to react to DMCA complaints. Furthermore, the flawed reporting systems of social media sites lead to abuse by unscrupulous actors faking true ownership. On top of that, such legal actions can be psychologically and financially intimidating, especially when facing off with a major IP holder, adding to the unbalanced power dynamic between the holder and the poster.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which focuses primarily on cellular and landline carriers, is also particularly relevant to social media companies in this conflict. At the time of its passing, the internet was still in its infancy. Thus, it does not incorporate an understanding of the current cultural paradigm we find ourselves in. Specifically, the contentious Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (Title V of the 1996 Act) works against social media companies in this instance, incorporating a broad and draconian rule on copyright infringement. 47 U.S. Code § 230(e)(2) states in no uncertain terms that “nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.” This has been interpreted and restated in Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC to mean that such companies are liable for user copyright infringement. This gap in the protective armor of Section 230 is a great concern to such companies, therefore they react strongly to such issues.

What is To Be Done?

Arguably, fixing the issues around copyright on social media is far beyond the capacity of current legal mechanisms. With ostensibly billions of posts each day on various sites, regulation by copyright holders and sites is far beyond reason. It will take serious reform in the socio-cultural, technological, and legal arenas before a true balance of liberty and justice can be established. Perhaps we can start with an understanding by copyright holders not to overreact when their property is posted online. Popularity is key to success in business, so shouldn’t you value the free marketing that comes with your copyrighted property getting shared honestly within the cultural sphere of social media? Social media sites can also expand their DMCA case management teams or create tools for users to accredit and even share revenue with, if they are an influencer or content creator, the copyright holder. Finally, congressional action is desperately needed as we have entered a new era that requires new laws. That being said, achieving a balance between the free exchange of ideas and creations and the rights of copyright holders must be the cornerstone of the government’s approach to socio-cultural expression on social media. That is the only way we can progress as an ever more online society.

Image: Freepik.com

https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/flat-design-intellectual-property-concept-with-woman-laptop_10491685.htm#query=intellectual%20property&position=2&from_view=keyword”>Image by pikisuperstar

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. 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?

#ad : The Rise of Social Media Influencer Marketing

#Ad : The rise of social media influence marketing.

When was the last time you bought something from a billboard or a newspaper? Probably not recently. Instead, advertisers are now spending their money on digital market platforms. And at the pinnacle of these marketing platforms are influencers. Since millennial, generation Y, and generation Z consumers spend so much time consuming user-generated content, the creator begins to become their acquaintance and could even be categorized as a friend. Once that happens, the influencer has more power to do what their name suggests and influence the user to purchase. This is where our current e-commerce market is headed.

Imagine this:

If a person you know and trust suggests you try a brand new product, you would probably try it. Now, if that same person were to divulge to you that they were paid to tell you all about how wonderful this product is, you would probably have some questions about the reality of their love for this product, right?

Lucky for us consumers, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has established an Endorsement Guide so we can all have that information when we are being advertised to by our favorite social media influencers.

The times have changed, quickly.

Over the past 8 years, there has been a resounding shift in the way companies market their products, to the younger generation specifically. The unprecedented changes throughout the physical and digital marketplace have forced brands to think thoroughly through their strategies on how to reach the desired consumer. Businesses are now forced to rely on digital and social media marketing more than they ever have before.

With the rise of social media and apps like Vine, and Tik Tok, came a new metaverse with almost untapped potential for marketing. This was the way companies would be able to reach this younger generation of consumers, you know, the ones with their heads craned over a phone and their thumbs constantly scrolling. These were the people that advertisers had trouble reaching, until now.

What the heck is an “ Influencer”?

The question “What is an influencer?” has become standard in conversations among social media users. We know who they are, but the term is very loosely defined. Rachel David, a popular, YouTube personality, defined it with the least ambiguity as “Someone like you and me, except they chose to consistently post stuff online”. This definition seems harmless enough until you understand that it is much more nuanced than that and these individuals are being paid huge sums of money to push products that they most likely don’t use themselves, despite what their posts may say. The reign of celebrity-endorsed marketing is shifting to a new form of celebrity called an “Influencer”. High-profile celebrities were too far removed from the average consumer. A new category emerged with the rise of social media use, and the only difference between a celebrity and a famous influencer is…relatability. Consumers could now see themselves in the influencer and would default to trusting them and their opinion.

One of the first instances we saw influencers flexing their advertising muscle was the popular app Vine .Vine was a revolutionary app and frankly existed before its time. It introduced the user to a virtual experience that matched their dwindling attention span. Clips were no more than 6 seconds long and would repeat indefinitely until the user swiped to the next one. This short clip captured the user’s attention and provided that much-needed dopamine hit. This unique platform began rising in popularity, rivaling other apps like the powerhouse of user engagement, YouTube. Unlike YouTube, however, Vine required less work on the shorter videos, and more short videos were produced by the creator. Since the videos were so short, the consumers wanted more and more videos (content), which opened the door for other users to blast their content, creating an explosion of “Vine Famous” creators. Casual creators were now, almost overnight, amassing millions of followers, followers they can now influence. Vine failed to capitalize on its users and its inability to monetize on its success, it ultimately went under in 2016. But, what happened to all of those influencers? They made their way to alternate platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook taking with them their followers and subsequently their influencer status. These popular influencers went from being complete strangers to people the users inherently trusted because of the perceived transparency into their daily life.

Here come the #ads.

Digital marketing was not introduced by Vine, but putting a friendly influencer face behind the product has some genesis there. Consumerism changed when social media traffic increased. E-commerce rose categorically when the products were right in front of the consumer’s face, even embedded into the content they were viewing. Users were watching advertisements and didn’t even care. YouTube channels that were dedicated solely to reviewing different products and giving them a rating became an incredibly popular genre of video. Advertisers saw content becoming promotion for a product and the shift from traditional marketing strategies took off. Digital, inter-content advertising was the new way to reach this generation.

Now that influencer marketing is a mainstream form of marketing, the prevalence of the FTC Endorsement Guide has amplified. Creators are required to be transparent about their intentions in marketing a product. The FTC guide suggests ways influencers can effectively market the product they are endorsing while remaining transparent about their motivations to the user. The FTC guide provides examples of how and when to disclose the fact that a creator is sponsoring or endorsing a particular product that must be followed to avoid costly penalties. Most users prefer to have their content remain as “on brand” as possible and will resort to the most surreptitious option and choose to disguise the “#ad” within a litany of other relevant hashtags.

The age of advertising has certainly changed right in front of our eyes, literally. As long as influencers remain transparent about their involvement with the products they show in their content, consumers will inherently trust them and their opinion on the product. So sit back, relax, and enjoy your scrolling. But, always be cognizant that your friendly neighborhood influencer may have monetary motivation behind their most recent post.

Can Social Media Be Regulated?

In 1996 Congress passed what is known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which provides immunity to website publishers for third-party content posted on their websites. The CDA holds that “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.” This Act passed in 1996, was created in a different time and era, one that could hardly envision how fast the internet would grow in the coming years. In 1996, social media for instance consisted of a little-known social media website called Bolt, the idea of a global world wide web, was still very much in its infancy. The internet was still largely based on dial-up technology, and the government was looking to expand the reach of the internet. This Act is what laid the foundation for the explosion of Social Media, E-commerce, and a society that has grown tethered to the internet.

The advent of Smart-Phones in the late 2000s, coupled with the CDA, set the stage for a society that is constantly tethered to the internet and has allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon to carve out niches within our now globally integrated society. Facebook alone in the 2nd quarter of 2021 has averaged over 1.9 billion daily users.

Recent studs conducted by the Pew Research Center show that “[m]ore than eight in ten Americans get news from digital services”

While older members of society still rely on news media online, the younger generation, namely those 18-29 years of age, receive their news via social media.

The role Social Media plays in the lives of the younger generation needs to be recognized. Social Media has grown at a far greater rate than anyone could imagine. Currently, Social Media operates under its modus operandi, completely free of government interference due to its classification as a private entity, and its protection under Section 230.

Throughout the 20th century when Television News Media dominated the scenes, laws were put into effect to ensure that television and radio broadcasters would be monitored by both the courts and government regulatory commissions. For example, “[t]o maintain a license, stations are required to meet a number of criteria. The equal-time rule, for instance, states that registered candidates running for office must be given equal opportunities for airtime and advertisements at non-cable television and radio stations beginning forty-five days before a primary election and sixty days before a general election.”

What these laws and regulations were put in place for was to ensure that the public interest in broadcasting was protected. To give substance to the public interest standard, Congress has from time to time enacted requirements for what constitutes the public interest in broadcasting. But Congress also gave the FCC broad discretion to formulate and revise the meaning of broadcasters’ public interest obligations as circumstances changed.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority is constrained by the first amendment but acts as an intermediary that can intervene to correct perceived inadequacies in overall industry performance, but it cannot trample on the broad editorial discretion of licensees. The Supreme Court has continuously upheld the public trustee model of broadcast regulation as constitutional. The criticisms of regulating social media center on the notion that they are purely private entities that do not fall under the purviews of the government, and yet these same issues are what presented themselves in the precedent-setting case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969. In this case, the court held that “rights of the listeners to information should prevail over those of the broadcasters.” The Court’s holding centered on the public right to information over the rights of a broadcast company to choose what it will share, this is exactly what is at issue today when we look at companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat censuring political figures who post views that they feel may be inciteful of anger or violence.

In essence, what these organizations are doing is keeping information and views from the attention of the present-day viewer. The vessel for the information has changed, it is no longer found in television or radio but primarily through social media. Currently, television and broadcast media are restricted by Section 315(a) of the Communications Act and Section 73.1941 of the Commission’s rules which “require that if a station allows a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use its facilities (i.e., make a positive identifiable appearance on the air for at least four seconds), it must give equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to also use the station.” This is a restriction that is nowhere to be found for Social Media organizations.

This is not meant to argue for one side or the other but merely to point out that there is a political discourse being stifled by these social media entities, that have shrouded themselves in the veils of a private entity. However, what these companies fail to mention is just how political they truly are. For instance, Facebook proclaims itself to be an unbiased source for all parties, and yet what it fails to mention is that currently, Facebook employs one of the largest lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. Four Facebooks lobbyist have worked directly in the office of House Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi herself has a very direct connection to Facebook, she and her husband own between $550,000 to over $1,000,000 in Facebook stock. None of this is illegal, however, it raises the question of just how unbiased is Facebook.

If the largest source of news for the coming generation is not television, radio, or news publications themselves, but rather Social Media such as Facebook, then how much power should they be allowed to wield without there being some form of regulation? The question being presented here is not a new one, but rather the same question asked in 1969, simply phrased differently. How much information is a citizen entitled to, and at what point does access to that information outweigh the rights of the organization to exercise its editorial discretion? I believe that the answer to that question is the same now as it was in 1969 and that the government ought to take steps similar to those taken with radio and television. What this looks like is ensuring that through Social Media, that the public has access to a significant amount of information on public issues so that its members can make rational political decisions. At the end of that day that it was at stake, the public’s ability to make rational political decisions.

These large Social Media conglomerates such as Facebook and Twitter have long outgrown their place as a private entity, they have grown into a public medium that has tethered itself to the realities of billions of people. Certain aspects of it need to be regulated, mainly those that interfere with the Public Interest, there are ways to regulate this without interfering with the overall First Amendment right of Free Speech for all Americans. Where however Social Media blends being a private forum for all people to express their ideas under firmly stated “terms and conditions”, and being an entity that strays into the political field whether it be by censoring heads of state, or by hiring over $50,000,000 worth of lobbyist in Washington D.C, there need to be some regulations put into place that draw the line that ensures the public still maintains the ability to make rational political decisions. Rational decisions that are not influenced by anyone organization. The time to address this issue is now when there is still a middle ground on how people receive their news and formulate opinions.

Free speech, should it be so free?

In the United States everybody is entitled to free speech; however, we must not forget that the First Amendment of the Constitution only protects individuals from federal and state actions. With that being said, free speech is not protected from censorship by private entities, like social media platforms. In addition, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides technology companies like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram as well as other social media giants, immunity from liabilities arising from the content posted on their websites. The question becomes whether it is fair for an individual who desires to freely express himself or herself to be banned from certain social media websites by doing so? What is the public policy behind this? What are the standards employed by these social media companies when determining who should or should not be banned? On the other hand, are social media platforms being used as tools or weapons when it comes to politics? Do they play a role in how the public vote? Are the users truly seeing what they think they have chosen to see or are the contents being displayed targeted to the users and may ultimately create biases?

As we have seen earlier this year, former President Trump was banned from several social media platforms as a result of the January 6, 2021 assault at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. It is no secret that our former president is not shy about his comments on a variety of topics. Some audiences view him as outspoken, direct, or perhaps provocative. When Twitter announced its permanent suspension of former President Trump’s account, its rationale was to prevent further incitement of violence. By falsely claiming that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, thousands of Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and January 6 which ultimately led to violence and chaos. As a public figure and a politician, our former president should have known that his actions or viewpoints on social media are likely to trigger a significant impact on the public. Public figures and politicians should be held to a higher standard as they represent citizens who voted for them. As such, they are influential. Technology companies like Twitter saw the former president’s tweets as potential threats to the public as well as a violation of their company policies; hence, it was justified to ban his account. The ban was an instance of private action as opposed to government action. In other words, former President Trump’s First Amendment rights were not violated.

First, let us discuss the fairness aspect of censorship. Yes, individuals possess rights to free speech; however, if the public’s safety is at stake, actions are required to avoid chaos. For example, you cannot scream “fire” out of nowhere in a dark movie theater as it would cause panic and unnecessary disorder. There are rules you must comply with in order to use the facility and these rules are in place to protect the general welfare. As a user, if you don’t like the rules set forth by that facility, you can simply avoid using it. It does not necessarily mean that your idea or speech is strictly prohibited, just not on that particular facility. Similar to social media platforms, if users fail to follow their company policies, the companies reserve the right to ban them. Public policy probably outweighs individual freedom. As for the standards employed by these technology companies, there is no bright line. As I previously mentioned, Section 230 grants them immunity from liabilities. That being said, the contents are unregulated and therefore, these social media giants are free to implement and execute policies as they seem appropriate.

In terms of politics, I believe social media platforms do play a role in shaping their users’ perspectives in some way. This is because the contents that are being displayed are targeted, if not tailored, as they collect data based on the user’s preferences and past habits. The activities each user engages in are being monitored, measured, and analyzed. In a sense, these platforms are being used as a weapon as they may manipulate users without the users even knowing. A lot of times we are not even aware that the videos or pictures that we see online are being presented to us because of past contents we had seen or selected. In other words, these social media companies may be censoring what they don’t want you to see or what they may think you don’t want to see. For example, some technology companies are pro-vaccination. They are more likely to post information about facts about COVID-19 vaccines or perhaps publish posts that encourage their users to get vaccinated. We think we have control over what we see or watch, but do we really?

There are advantages and disadvantages to censorship. Censorship can reduce the negative impact of hate speech, especially on the internet. By limiting certain speeches, we create more opportunities for equality. In addition, censorship prevents the spread of racism. For example, posts and videos of racial comments could be blocked by social media companies if deemed necessary. Censorship can also protect minors from seeing harmful content. Because children can be manipulated easily, it helps promote safety. Moreover, censorship can be a vehicle to stop false information. During unprecedented times like this pandemic, misinformation can be fatal. On the other hand, censorship may not be good for the public as it creates a specific narrative in society. This can potentially cause biases. For example, many blamed Facebook for the outcome of an election as it’s detrimental to our democracy.

Overall, I believe that some sort of social media censorship is necessary. The cyber-world is interrelated to the real world. We can’t let people do or say whatever they want as it may have dramatic detrimental effects. The issue is how do you keep the best of both worlds?

Private or not private, that is the question.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), protects private online companies from liability for content posted by others. This immunity also grants internet service providers the freedom to regulate what is posted onto their sites. What has faced much criticism of late however, is social media’s immense power to silence any voices the platform CEOs disagree with.

Section 230(c)(2), known as the Good Samaritan clause, states that no provider shall be held liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

When considered in the context of a ‘1996’ understanding of internet influence (the year the CDA was created) this law might seem perfectly reasonable. Fast forward 25 years though, with how massively influential social media has become on society and the spread of political information, there has developed a strong demand for a repeal, or at the very least, a review of Section 230.

The Good Samaritan clause is what shields Big Tech from legal complaint. The law does not define obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, harassing or excessively violent. And “otherwise objectionable” leaves the internet service providers’ room for discretion all the more open-ended. The issue at the heart of many critics of Big Tech, is that the censorship companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (owned by Google) impose on particular users is not fairly exercised, and many conservatives feel they do not receive equal treatment of their policies.

Ultimately, there is little argument around the fact that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are private companies, therefore curbing any claims of First Amendment violations under the law. The First Amendment of the US Constitution only prevents the government from interfering with an individual’s right to free speech. There is no constitutional provision that dictates any private business owes the same.

Former President Trump’s recent class action lawsuits however, against Facebook, Twitter, Google, and each of their CEOs, challenges the characterization of these entities as being private.

In response to the January 6th Capitol takeover by Trump supporters, Facebook and Twitter suspended the accounts of the then sitting president of the United States – President Trump.

The justification was that President Trump violated their rules by inciting violence and encouraged an insurrection following the disputed election results of 2020. In the midst of the unrest, Twitter, Facebook and Google also removed a video posted by Trump, in which he called for peace and urged protestors to go home. The explanation given was that “on balance we believe it contributes to, rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence” because the video also doubled down on the belief that the election was stolen.

Following long-standing contentions with Big Tech throughout his presidency, the main argument in the lawsuit is that the tech giants Facebook, Twitter and Google, should no longer be considered private companies because their respective CEOs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Sundar Pichai, actively coordinate with the government to censor politically oppositional posts.

For those who support Trump, probably all wish to believe this case has a legal standing.

For anyone else who share concerns about the almost omnipotent power of Silicon Valley, many may admit that Trump makes a valid point. But legally, deep down, it might feel like a stretch. Could it be? Should it be? Maybe. But will Trump see the outcome he is looking for? The initial honest answer was “probably not.”

However, on July 15th 2021, White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, informed the public that the Biden administration is in regular contact with Facebook to flag “problematic posts” regarding the “disinformation” of Covid-19 vaccinations.

Wait….what?!? The White House is in communication with social media platforms to determine what the public is and isn’t allowed to hear regarding vaccine information? Or “disinformation” as Psaki called it.

Conservative legal heads went into a spin. Is this allowed? Or does this strengthen Trump’s claim that social media platforms are working as third-party state actors?

If it is determined that social media is in fact acting as a strong-arm agent for the government, regarding what information the public is allowed to access, then they too should be subject to the First Amendment. And if social media is subject to the First Amendment, then all information, including information that questions, or even completely disagrees with the left-lean policies of the current White House administration, is protected by the US Constitution.

Referring back to the language of the law, Section 230(c)(2) requires actions to restrict access to information be made in good faith. Taking an objective look at some of the posts that are removed from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, along with many of the posts that are not removed, it begs the question of how much “good faith” is truly exercised. When a former president of the United States is still blocked from social media, but the Iranian leader Ali Khamenei is allowed to post what appears nothing short of a threat to that same president’s life, it can certainly make you wonder. Or when illogical insistence for unquestioned mass emergency vaccinations, now with continued mask wearing is rammed down our throats, but a video showing one of the creators of the mRNA vaccine expressing his doubts regarding the safety of the vaccine for the young is removed from YouTube, it ought to have everyone question whose side is Big Tech really on? Are they really in the business of allowing populations to make informed decisions of their own, gaining information from a public forum of ideas? Or are they working on behalf of government actors to push an agenda?

One way or another, the courts will decide, but Trump’s class action lawsuit could be a pivotal moment in the future of Big Tech world power.

Tag: Twitter