Technology

Maybe Fewer Rules Will Solve Toxic Social Media. But Probably Not.

Recent debate focuses on social media's pernicious problems.

By  
on

Honestly, the idea that what Twitter needs are more freedoms for bots and Nazis sounds a lot like an anti-vaxxer argument. Taking proactive steps to stave off the disease is, they say, bad because it’s killing “natural immunities” and that if only children could be allowed to suffer through the Flu or Chicken Pox or Polio, they’d develop better antibodies and lead richer lives in the long-run.

Enter the proponents of the motion at the heart of a recent Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, “Constitutional Free Speech Principles Can Save Social Media Companies from Themselves.” David French, a senior writer at the National Review, and Corynne McSherry, Legal Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, came together to argue that rather than develop clunky private codes for online content, social media outlets need to take a hands-off approach and allow the outer bounds of American law govern these platforms. There’s a superficial urge to believe that what’s good for the public square is good for the Facebook — until you remember that the public square isn’t artificially amplifying tailored propaganda based on a relatively easily hackable algorithm.

Arguing against the motion were Stanford Law professor Nate Persily and Marietje Schaake, a Dutch politician and Member of the European Parliament.

The negative prevailed. National Review probably called it fake news.

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Sponsored

Topics

,