Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research,1 talks about how information operations internationally exploit a license to lie, defame, and encourage political violence granted to Internet companies by Section 230 of Title 47 of the US Code, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.2

Extreme examples of the results of this license have been described by Maria Ressa, Filipino-American Journalist, who shared the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize with Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov for "their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace."3 She says that Filipino teenagers were world leaders in figuring out how to make Facebook and Twitter (now X) make their messages go viral.4 The social media campaign of President Duterte of the Philippines "started ... with five hundred volunteers5 (1) creating “sock puppets,” or fake accounts that attack or praise; (2) “mass reporting,” or organizing to negatively impact the targeted account; and (3) “astroturfing,” or fake posts or lies designed to look like grassroots support or interest.6 The results have easily overwhelmed honest media, forcing Leila de Lima, a Senator and former Secretary of Justice of the Philippines, to spend years fighting trumped up charges, including years in pretrial detention before the charges were dropped for lack of evidence.7 Ressa's news organization, Rappler.com, was ordered to close. Ressa herself was convicted on questionable charges. Both are continuing to operate while the legal procedures against them are appealed.  Ressa says similar procedures are making major contributions to the rise of fascism and far-right nationalist populists in the US, Europe, Turkey, India, Russia, and elsewhere. H. R. McMaster, former President Trump's second National Security advisor, said that "The internet and social media thus provided [Russia] with a low-cost, easy way to divide and weaken America from within."8 

Baker recommends changing Section 230 to make Internet companies liable for defamation in any content they promote differentially. They should not be liable for defamation, etc., in any content they deliver as a common carrier, similar to a telephone company. However, for anything they promote differentially based on content, they should carry the same liability as print and broadcast media, consistent with the US Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).9 

Such revisions of Section 230 could include a requirement that a copy of any content promoted differentially should be filed in a searchable form with a central repository like the Internet Archive. Without this, it could be nearly impossible for individuals and groups to know if they've been defamed unless they have sympathizers embedded in groups that traffic in hate.

Internet companies make money from clicks. People are apparently more likely to click on outrageous lies than honest news, as long as the lies seem plausible to them. These proposed changes would preserve the common carrier role of Internet companies, while making it harder for them to make money from lies, hate, and degrading and destroying democracy.  

Baker holds a PhD in economics from the University of Michigan with a substantive publication record. He is a co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He shared the 2010 Paul Revere award with two other economists for predicting the 2007-2008 Global Financial Collapse.10 He is interviewed by Karl Brooks, Professor of the Practice in KU's School of Public Affairs and Administration,11 and Radio Active Magazine regular Spencer Graves.

Copyright 2024 Spencer Graves and Dean Baker, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) 4.0 international license



_______



Wikipedia, "Dean Baker" and "Center for Economic and Policy Research", accessed 2024-07-22.

Wikipedia,