An example of a thoughtful Facebook CDA 230 discussion:Say That Again that's-not-how-any-of-this-works deptMike Masnick Penn's Sunday School that is often really, really good. And he actually talked about Sacha Baron Cohen in the latest episode -- which, bizarrely, is not on the page I linked to, because it appears that Penn and his team stopped updating their podcast webpage last month.actually demonstrating how nice most people are, in that when they're approached by someone asking them to say or do something, they want to be nice and accommodate the person who's asking . The argument, which Penn explains in much more detail, is that if someone is talking to you in person, you want them to like you and you want to be nice to them, and thus if they ask you do something silly or crazy, you might just do it out of kindness or, in some cases, just "playing along." And thus, his argument is that Sacha Baron Cohen totally misunderstands his own comedy and what it shows about human nature and how people "really are."When I watch Borat, okay, it was alright and funny. But he's an incredible performer. One of the greatest actors ever seen, Sacha Baron Cohen. And deeply, deeply funny. And I've heard from Trey & Matt, the South Park guys, (they know him) that he's a wonderful guy. All that.... And I heard his new show is fabulous. But... he went on and said that the Borat movie showed how much anti-Semitism there was in the US, because people went along with him saying all these things. And I just don't think it shows that. is calling out and demonstrating ignorance and bias that was previously (mostly) hidden. But, there's a part of it that probably is what Penn is saying as well: people performing for cameras and trying to be nice to a confused, but (they think) well-meaning stranger.a keynote address for the ADL , in which he slams social media companies, claims that they're effectively complicit in all the bad stuff on their platforms, and then slams Section 230 of the CDA. You can watch it here, via YouTube, one of the platforms he attacks:VIDEO some truths, and some realities about how people are using social media and how social media companies operate, he's so focused on the superficial aspects of it, that he's completely misunderstanding the deeper workings, motivations, and incentives at play.What do all these dangerous trends have in common? I’m just a comedian and an actor, not a scholar. But one thing is pretty clear to me. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history. discussed Yochai Benkler's new book , the excellent Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics didn't go very far until it was "validated" by a mainstream news source, namely: Fox News . Yes, the lies and shams did start out on social media, but they were mostly ignored. Until Fox News validated them, then they spread like wildfire.On the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart resembles the BBC. The fictitious Protocols of the Elders of Zion look as valid as an ADL report. And the rantings of a lunatic seem as credible as the findings of a Nobel Prize winner. We have lost, it seems, a shared sense of the basic facts upon which democracy depends. top aides , it's difficult to see how this is an internet problem, rather than one that lays deeper in our society and human nature.Facebook and Free Speech Are Different Things ). But Cohen's point is not that. He first makes a correct point, that Facebook is not the First Amendment and can make any decision it wants about who and what to host:Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on what’s posted on social media would be to “pull back on free expression.” This is utter nonsense. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook. We’re not asking these companies to determine the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be responsible on their platforms. very much prohibited by the 1st Amendment. Second, since so much of his argument is that Facebook and other internet companies need to be more aggressive in pulling down speech, you'd think he's support Section 230 , which is what enables them to do so.In every other industry, you can be sued for the harm you cause. Publishers can be sued for libel, people can be sued for defamation. I’ve been sued many times! I’m being sued right now by someone whose name I won’t mention because he might sue me again! But social media companies are largely protected from liability for the content their users post—no matter how indecent it is—by Section 230 of, get ready for it, the Communications Decency Act. Absurd! properly applying the liability to the party who actually broke the law . He's right that people can be sued for defamation. Because they said something defamatory. Section 230 makes sure that those who are defamed sue those who defamed them -- and not the intermediary tool that was used to publish the defamation.Jeff Kosseff's book , which explains all the history.It only seems fair to say to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter: your product is defective, you are obliged to fix it, no matter how much it costs and no matter how many moderators you need to employ. Masnick Impossibility Theorem . He's assuming there's some optimal level of content moderation that can be reached by just throwing more resources at it. There is not. He might as well be suggesting that the answer to all the bigots in the world is for Hollywood to hire more Sacha Baron Cohens until they expose them all. It's a silly suggestion that makes no sense.Here’s another good practice: slow down. Every single post doesn’t need to be published immediately. Oscar Wilde once said that “we live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities.” But is having every thought or video posted instantly online, even if it is racist or criminal or murderous, really a necessity? Of course not! It’s time to finally call these companies what they really are—the largest publishers in history. And here’s an idea for them: abide by basic standards and practices just like newspapers, magazines and TV news do every day. We have standards and practices in television and the movies; there are certain things we cannot say or do. In England, I was told that Ali G could not curse when he appeared before 9pm. Here in the U.S., the Motion Picture Association of America regulates and rates what we see. I’ve had scenes in my movies cut or reduced to abide by those standards. If there are standards and practices for what cinemas and television channels can show, then surely companies that publish material to billions of people should have to abide by basic standards and practices too. for broadcast media . But the internet is not about broadcast. It's about communications. It's about enabling anyone to communicate with anyone. Should we have "standards and practices" for how the telephone is used? Should the Postal Service read through all your mail and not send it on if you say bad words? That's what Cohen is asking for. You don't apply broadcast standards to communications systems. It just doesn't work that way.a direct outgrowth of the Hays Code , which was used to censor films for decades, as there was a moral panic about "decency" in filmmaking. People look back on that era with regret at how that stifled free expression. For Cohen, of all people, to use that as an example of what we should bring to the internet is striking. Strikingly stupid and censorial.In every other industry, a company can be held liable when their product is defective. When engines explode or seatbelts malfunction, car companies recall tens of thousands of vehicles, at a cost of billions of dollars. 1st amendment , bias , cda 230 , comedy , content moderation , free speech , penn jillette , racism , responsibility , sacha baron cohen , section 230 , social media techdirt.com 
