Once again, I want to write about Facebook, which is still ironic in that I still don't have a Facebook account and so don't actually use the product.
But I do not have to be a user of Facebook, or even a fan, to feel that some of the legal precedents that are about to drop down on us, from legislators and judges who barely understand the technology, may cause serious issues down the road if extrapolated in the wrong direction.
Last week I noted that we have to be careful about the criminal and civil liability that we ascribe to the medium, whether Facebook or Twitter or whatever. We don't hold the U.S. Postal Service liable when bomb threats are mailed -- in fact, USPS is protected by statutes that make it specifically illegal to use the mail for that purpose.
Keep that thought.
I contend that for whatever little I think of Facebook and the leftists that run it, they are entitled to legal protection, and the expectation that legal precedents will be consistent when applied to them. If they are not facilitating terrorists or radicals, but merely fairly providing the same platform they provide to everyone else, then they are (or should be) absolved of legal liability for what goes across their wires, same as the USPS.
So -- what should Facebook actually do?
They're going to identify the bad actors, because they can. We know that. They're not going to identify all the bad actors, because that would take far too much effort to be reasonable. Moreover, the decision as to what should and should not be allowed on their wires should not be so regulated as to impose liability itself, given how subjective that is.
What is "reasonable" is for there to be a process that the law and the courts recognize as being appropriate.
What I believe that process to be is that Facebook and its ilk should facilitate the reporting of such bad actors by its users themselves, and set up a team big enough to provide a cursory, "triage" review of such items, posts, pictures and posters reported to them as suspect. If indeed there is an issue that may represent an illegality, then they report it to law enforcement, with the expectation that the FBI or other entity (I think we're talking FBI) will take appropriate action.
But Facebook will, under my concept, neither shut down nor suspend that account until directed to by request from law enforcement. That removes non-badged, political types in Silicon Valley from making their own decision as to whether, say, Diamond and Silk, the two black conservative sisters who are social media icons, are "unsafe" for the tender snowflake ears of their user community, and absent specific FBI direction, will not and may not do their own enforcement.
Facebook gains the presumption of protection from excessive liability. Their users, as long as they are not violating the law or making overt threats, can use Facebook to their hearts' content and make money the way that people make money on Facebook, however one does that.
Mark Zuckerberg would have to decide whether his leftism or his wallet is more important, but that's his decision. I know what I would say. And I think that the above needs to be negotiated with the Federal government with input from the courts before -- what a novel thought -- case law puts it in the hands of the wrong court.
Let's talk about it, shall we?
Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton
No comments:
Post a Comment