Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Hold internet companies responsible for content on their platforms, not just the government
Hold internet companies responsible for content on their platforms, not just the government
Mar 18, 2025 8:35 PM

The alternative to holding panies like Facebook liable for third-party content on their sites is a regulatory machine that poses a far greater threat to free speech than self-monitoring.

Read More…

Frances Haugen’s recent whistleblower testimony regarding Facebook will only stoke the fires of the battle heating up in courts and legislatures over provisions originally addressed in Rule 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Limits placed by private panies on individuals and organizations have raised an alarm on both ends of the ideological spectrum.

Justice Clarence Thomas recently stated in a concurring decision that “we will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.” A second issue addressed by the rule—the liability of panies for illegal content posted by third-party providers—has till now received less attention but is potentially just as dangerous and will undoubtedly receive more attention after Haugen’s testimony before Congress.

After some reflection, most who approach such issues from a foundation of individual freedom recognize that panies’ right to choose what and what not to post is very much in line with free markets and appropriately subject to the same rules petition relied on elsewhere. Concerns about large entities controlling what information the public has access to are alleviated by the right to enter pete in the market. Traditional avenues for content sharing, such as newspapers and broadcasters, have a long history petition.

As for social media, the flurry of activity following the riot at the U.S. Capitol is a telling example of what can happen. Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Google, Amazon, Twitch, Snapchat, Reddit, Shopify, and TikTok each took action to eliminate President Donald Trump’s ability to use their platforms to post information. In response to these actions, alternatives emerged. Millions are reportedly turning to alternative sites such as Gab, MeWe, Telegram, and Discord. In general, any bias shown by petitor creates an opportunity for others to fill the gap. Competition is a powerful force.

Some have also argued that decisions by the internet providers to exclude content is a violation of free speech. It is not. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution as a way of preventing the government from interfering with the rights of individuals and private firms to say what they wish and only what they wish. It is not a tool for requiring private entities to say or to disseminate even what they wish not to.

Often overlooked, but most alarming, is the question of the alternative. If panies themselves don’t determine what content is biased and what isn’t, what content they believe to be accurate and what isn’t, who will? What is and isn’t acceptable to publish would have to be defined by someone, and that someone would probably be in the government. Whatever the costs are of panies in control of content, having the government in control presents its own set of dangers.

Requiring platforms to publish whatever the government insists they publish could, for example, risk having the government itself use major media platforms asspokespersons or propagandists for whatever the government happens to favor. Is that what advocates of forced publication wish to promote? pared to the es out looking pretty good as a way of regulating bias. Competition subjects decisions of bias to the judgment of the broad population in the form of the market, as opposed to the judgement of a single individual or small group of individuals (who might themselves be biased) at a regulatory agency.

A more difficult but equally problematic issue addressed by Rule 230 is the immunity provided for panies for all content posted on their platforms. panies and individuals accountable for actions that harm others is consistent with traditional views on liberty dating back to J.S. Mill’s argument in On Liberty: “that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a munity, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” However, not all who would normally subscribe to libertarian views believe it is appropriate in this case. A recent Cato Institute article defends Rule 230’s immunity for panies, stating that “Section 230 leaves the responsibility for online posts with the appropriate agent: the (content provider).”

The costs and benefits of holding panies liable for the content they post must be assessed relative to the alternatives. Holding content providers, who may be private citizens merely ments on a web posting, responsible—not the pany that provides the platform for the ments—relies on the ability of the regulator to monitor content providers and, as mentioned above, creates the possibility that the regulator will use that authority to limit the information available that is damaging to the regulator itself. The regulator is not always going to be a disinterested third party. Despotism thrives on control over information.

Holding the pany liable would still require the regulator to monitor content; however, the regulator’s job would be easier and less easily used for nefarious purposes. The regulator’s job would be easier because the pany has an incentive to assist in the monitoring. The internet provider is likely able to do this more efficiently than can the government (more on that below). panies already develop algorithms to monitor content and can be expected to do so more earnestly as the punishment for failure increases.

Further, and importantly, any violation of the law by the pany is likely to end up in court, where the regulator will present its case and the pany will have the opportunity to defend itself before a branch of government independent of the regulator. An individual content provider could also go to court under the existing law, but if their resources are more limited, as in the case of a private citizen posting ments, there is a smaller likelihood of them doing so. By consolidating the incentive to challenge a regulator’s allegations of illegal content within a single pany, as opposed to a diffuse group of content providers, a law that holds panies liable for content decreases the potential for a corrupt regulator to restrict content just because it is harmful to the regulator, even when the content is not illegal.

Holding panies responsible may be more efficient as well. Ronald Coase introduced the idea that came to be known as the “least-cost avoider.” Coase argued that society is better off if the liability for an action is assigned to the party that can best keep the costs of that action low. What would be the cost of enforcing the law when only the content providers are liable, and how does pare with the cost of enforcing the law when the pany is liable? panies will almost certainly prove more efficient than government regulators at developing mechanisms for monitoring content. They’re already doing this—both in the interests of making their platforms more attractive and doubtless out of fear of government regulation—with sophisticated programming designed to identify pornography or threatening material. If they are legally responsible for ensuring that content isn’t published, they can be expected to develop more and more sophisticated methods for doing so.

panies will bristle at the idea of being held liable for third-party content posted on their sites. That isn’t surprising, given the current deal they have—free to publish anything they like and power to restrict what they dislike, with little responsibility for any harm caused by content they permit. There is no doubt that if they are held liable, any given internet provider would have to be more selective about what gets published, or how long illegal content remains on its site, thereby reducing the total amount of content available to the public. Thus, it is possible that imposing liability would reduce the amount of content provided by each internet provider.

However, as long as other panies are allowed to enter the market, the total content would not necessarily be less—it could just be dispersed among more outlets. The benefit is that the amount of illegal information about individuals (e.g., libel), events (e.g., threats of violence), or organizations would be lower because the internet providers would have effectively been hired to monitor content.

In short, the same basic principles of private property, freedom of choice, petition that are relied on in other product and service markets can be used in the market for information as well. And the same basic principles of efficient liability rules can best address the posting and dissemination of illegal content. Recent events, including the decisions by panies to eliminate President Trump’s ability to use their platforms to post information and petitive response of alternative mechanisms suggest that the marketplace is performing just as we would expect based on years of petitive behaviors in product markets. It is an imperfect process that is better than any realistically achievable alternative.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. Socialism is dead.
I recently gave a presentation to students about foreign aid in the developing world. I tried to explain that many ing to the conclusion that what is really necessary is to establish conditions suitable for a market-based society. In other words, there must be a transparent administration of justice, the predictable rule of law, private property rights, ease in doing business, a real lack of arbitrariness, etc. Both as I prepared and as I spoke, however, I realized that some...
Justice Scalia explains why the ‘living Constitution’ is a threat to America
A majority of Americans—55 percent—now say the U.S. Supreme Court should base its rulings on what the Constitution “means in current times,” while only 41 percent say rulings should be based on what it “meant as originally written,” according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. Not surprisingly, the divide is mostly along partisan lines. According to Pew, nearly eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (78 percent) now say rulings should be based on the Constitution’s meaning in current...
The miracle apple: Co-creative lessons from the fall of the Red Delicious
In the Age of Information, much of our work now takes place in the realm of the “intangible”—creating and trading products and services that can feel somewhat obscure or abstract. Even still, in our technological, data-driven world, we should remember that we are cooperating withnatureandco-creating with our Creator. From the social-media giants to the sawmills, from the blockchain banks to the barbershops, we are using our God-given intellect and creativity to transform a mix of matter and information into something...
The (just) price of salt (and cancer drugs)
A recent episode of the very fine podcast EconTalk reminded me of one of the more remarkable episodes during my time here at the Acton Institute involving our internship program. The EconTalk episode is about the price of cancer drugs, and the various factors that go into the often astronomical prices of the latest cancer-fighting drugs. These can run up to an in excess of $300,000 per year. A question implicit in the discussion is whether such high costs are...
Socialism is dead (Part 2): What’s wrong with the market-based evolution of socialism?
I spent my previous postexplaining that orthodox socialism is effectively dead and what remains is really different variations on societies that effectively accept the market as the standard frame. Here, I would like to explain, in part, why the Bernie Sanders approach to market-based socialism (after the death of socialism) is not the right way forward. As I stated in the previous post, this Americanized “socialism” is definitely of the half-hearted variety. Strong socialism would mean government ownership of the...
Church and politics: Necessary definitions and distinctions
A few weeks ago The Gospel Coalition ran a review of Jonathan Leeman’s book, Why Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age. A snip: Leeman’s analysis is guided by a few central convictions. One is represented in Psalm 2 and the title itself. He explains, “History’s greatest political rivalry, it would seem, is between the nations of the earth and the Messiah.” Another guiding insight is that all of life is religious, including politics. This is true...
Liberalism needs natural law
The great British political thinker Edmund Burke regarded what some call “liberalism” today as prehensible, unworkable and unjust in the absence of mitment to natural law.A similar argument can be made in our own time, says Acton research director Samuel Gregg: Without natural law foundations, for instance, how can we determine what is and isn’t a right other than appeals to raw power or utility, neither of which can provide a principled case for rights? Or, on what other basis...
What can economics teach us about moral ecology?
In exploring the various connections between morality, theology, and economics, we routinely long for philosophers and theologians who understand economics, just as we crave economists who understand the bigger picture of self-interest and human destiny. That sort cross-disciplinary dialogue and mutual understanding can be beneficial, but for economist Peter Boettke, it can also serve as a distraction. In an article for Faith and Economics, Boettke argues that economics as a scienceoffers plenty of tools for “moral assessment,” and that economists...
How geography affects economic growth
Note: This is post #78 in a weekly video series on basic economics. You could fit most of the U.S., China, India, and a lot of Europe, into Africa. But if pare Africa to Europe, Europe has two to three times the length of coastline that Africa. Why does this matter? As this video by Marginal Revolution University explains, geography can have profound effects on a nation’s economic growth. (If you find the pace of the videos too slow, I’d...
Dalio’s animated adventure in common grace-infused wisdom
Ray Dalio is a fascinating character. Founder of the“world’s richest and strangest hedge fund,”he’s been dubbed the “Steve Jobs of investing” and “Wall Street’s oddest duck.” He’s currently #26 on Forbes list ofrichest people in Americaand Time magazine once included him on their list of the world’s 100 most influential people. In 2011, Dalio outlined his personal philosophy on life and business in a self-published 123-page PDF called “Principles.” (It was re-released as a book in 2017 and e the#1Amazon...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved