Contents
Facebook’s CEO wants to make it harder for people to sue tech companies Here’s how he thinks liability laws should be changed.
Checkout this video:
The status quo of tech liability
Amid a slew of recent scandals, it’s no wonder that members of Congress are starting to talk about holding tech companies more accountable. But what would that actually look like? More specifically, what would it mean for the legal liability of tech companies? It’s a complex question, but Zuckerberg has a few ideas.
current laws
Currently, there are very strong laws in place that protect tech companies from being held liable for the content that their users post. These laws are known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and they state that tech companies cannot be held responsible for the things that their users say or do online.
This law has been instrumental in allowing the internet to become what it is today, but there are some people who believe that it needs to be tweaked in order to make sure that tech companies are still held accountable for their actions.
One of the biggest proponents of this belief is none other than Mark Zuckerberg himself, who has stated on numerous occasions that he believes that Section 230 should be amended.
Interestingly enough, Zuckerberg’s views on this issue seem to be in line with those of President Trump, who has also called for changes to be made to Section 230.
how they are not working
According to Zuckerberg, the current state of tech liability laws are not working. He says that they are too broad and that they need to be tweaked in order to be more effective. He also says that the laws should focus on preventing harm, rather than just punishing companies after the fact.
Zuckerberg’s proposal
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has a proposal to tweak existing tech liability laws, and he outlined his thoughts in a post on the social network. He believes that current laws are “outdated” and that they don’t take into account the “way people and technology have developed.”
what it is
Zuckerberg’s proposal would do two things: first, it would create a new category of ” intermediary liability” specifically for internet platforms, and second, it would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make platforms more responsible for the content that appears on them.
how it would work
Zuckerberg’s proposal would create a new category of intermediary liability, which he said would be designed to protect “platforms that facilitate expression.” It would not, however, protect platforms that delete content or silence voices they don’t like.
“We propose three specific changes to the law. First, we propose creating a new category of intermediary liability for platforms that facilitate expression. second, we propose clarifying that Section 230 does not grant platforms blanket immunity when they willfully violate the law. third, we should strengthen enforcement mechanisms so there are real consequences for platform misconduct,” he wrote.
Pros and cons of Zuckerberg’s proposal
Mark Zuckerberg has proposed that the US government should change the liability laws around internet platforms. He argues that the current laws are outdated and that they need to be changed in order to allow internet platforms to continue to grow and thrive. Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of Zuckerberg’s proposal.
Pros
1. Reduces platform responsibility- One of the main pros of Zuckerberg’s proposal is that it would reduce the responsibility that platforms have for the content that is posted on them. This would be a huge relief for companies like Facebook, who have been under intense scrutiny in recent years for the alleged spread of fake news and other harmful content.
2. Creates a level playing field- Another advantage of this proposal is that it would create a level playing field for all platforms, both big and small. Currently, smaller companies are at a disadvantage when it comes to liability laws, as they often don’t have the same resources to deal with potential legal problems. This change would level the playing field and make it fairer for all businesses.
3. Encourages self-regulation- One of the positive aspects of Zuckerberg’s proposal is that it would encourage platforms to self-regulate their content more effectively. This would lead to a cleaner, safer online environment overall, as companies would be more incentivized to police their own sites.
Cons
Zuckerberg’s proposal would protect companies from being held liable for content posted by their users, as long as those companies make a “good faith” effort to remove illegal content. But some experts say that such a law could do more harm than good by shields companies from accountability.
“If you give these companies legal immunity, you are basically giving them a blank check to do whatever they want,” Daphne Keller, director of Internet governance at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, told CBS News.
Keller said the proposal would also stifle competition, since it would be harder for new companies to enter the market if they can’t compete on the same terms as existing firms.
“You could see this leading to the consolidation of power among a few very large tech firms,” she said.
Other possible solutions
Zuckerberg’s proposed solution to the problem is not the only one. In fact, there are many different ways to tweak tech liability laws. Below, we’ll explore a few other possible solutions.
solution 1
According to Zuckerberg, the first way to change the law is to stop factoring in intent when it comes to liability.
“If a company knows something is going to cause harm but do it anyway, that should be considered reckless and punished accordingly,” he said. “The current standard is negligence, which lets companies off the hook as long as they can show they didn’t intend to cause harm.”
Zuckerberg also called for changes to the law that would make it easier for people to sue companies over harms caused by data breaches or other misuse of information.
“Right now, if you’re harmed by data misuse, you can only sue if you can prove the damage was done intentionally or recklessly,” he said. “That’s way too high a bar.”
solution 2
Some experts have proposed raising the bar for what kinds of cases can go to trial, making it harder for plaintiffs to get a jury to hear their case. One way to do this would be to require plaintiffs to show not just that a company was careless, but that its actions were “gross negligence” or displayed “reckless indifference.” Another proposal would be to let companies off the hook if they can show they took “reasonable care” to prevent the harm, even if they couldn’t have predicted it.
Conclusion
Some argue that more tech regulation is needed in order to hold big companies accountable for their impact on society. But regardless of whether or not you believe this to be true, it’s clear that our current laws around tech liability are in need of reform. And who better to suggest how we might go about doing that than Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg?
In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, Zuckerberg laid out his ideas for three key changes that he believes would help to make tech more accountable without stifling innovation. Let’s take a look at what he had to say.
First, Zuckerberg suggests that we need to update the laws around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This section protects internet companies from being held liable for the content that their users post. However, it also means that companies like Facebook can’t be held responsible when their platforms are used to spread misinformation or promote hate speech.
Zuckerberg argues that we should amend Section 230 so that internet companies are only protected from liability if they make a good faith effort to remove illegal content from their platforms. This would incentivize companies to be more proactive about moderating their platforms, and it would also help to hold them accountable when they fail to do so.
Next, Zuckerberg argues that we need to create new rules around data privacy and data sharing. He points out that currently there are no laws explicitly prohibiting companies from collecting and sharing people’s data without their consent. This needs to change, he argues, in order to give people more control over their own information.
Finally, Zuckerberg believes that we need to impose stricter regulations on political advertising. He suggests that internet companies should be required to verify the identity of anyone who buys political ads on their platform, and they should also be required to disclose who is paying for those ads. This would help to prevent foreign meddling in our elections, and it would also make it easier for voters to see who is trying to influence them during election season.
These are just a few of Zuckerberg’s ideas for how we could tweak our existing tech liability laws. Do you agree with his suggestions? Or do you think that we need to go even further in regulating the tech industry?
