Srs Bsns: How The Trump Administration Plans To Regulate Social Media, And What It Could Mean For The Internet

Ever since debuting in the late 1990s and early 2000s, social media has been largely unregulated and free to stretch its tendrils across the world, slowly creeping into nearly every corner of our daily lives. After decades of daunting growth, unchecked power and boundless control, the industry is facing its most scrutinous year to date as governments around the world are considering if and how to regulate social media.

One of the most outspoken individuals regarding social media regulation, President Donald Trump announced plans earlier this week to have the FCC develop more oversight of the industry, though he’s certainly not the only one pushing for this change. At the time of this writing, four of the nation's biggest tech CEOs are currently testifying before congress about their power over society. But what exactly does regulating social media entail, and what could it mean for the future of the industry and the internet as a whole?

Since its foundation, the internet has generally been regarded as a sort of “Wild West” environment. Because of this, any sort of oversight or regulation typically results in intense backlash from users, and for good reason. When many people hear that regulation is to be directed at their beloved world wide web, it usually warrants fierce public outcry (as seen with PIPA and SOPA).

Social media, however, is a different ball game when it comes to regulation. Aside from the most staunch supporters of a completely unrestricted internet, public opinion on the need for social media companies to be regulated is a widespread notion. According to a new Pew Research Center survey published last week, 72 percent of adults in the U.S. agree that these companies have too much influence and power in politics.

Even Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg agrees with public opinion. In a March 2019 opinion piece with The Washington Post, Zuckerberg said, “Lawmakers often tell me we [social media] have too much power over speech, and frankly I agree.” As this belief continues to become more widely accepted in the U.S. and abroad, politicians and lawmakers are prepping to offer a solution.

In May, Trump signed an executive order to call the FCC to have oversight of internet platforms (albeit just days after Twitter applied a warning label to his tweets for being potentially misleading). On Monday, his administration took another step forward by having the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) file a formal petition to the FCC to develop these new regulations. Now, the agency must decide if and how they’ll plan to do so.

What this petition essentially requests is that platforms be required to demonstrate their content regulation be carried out in good faith, particularly surrounding political biases (something Trump and many conservatives have expressed they face online). If passed, the FCC would have the ability to rule on how platforms are protected by their moderation decisions.

Experts on the matter remain firm that the order is unlikely to bring about any monumental changes if any at all. In a statement from FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, she said, “The FCC shouldn't take this bait. While social media can be frustrating, turning this agency into the President's speech police is not the answer. If we honor the Constitution, we will reject this petition immediately.”

Traditionally, the FCC has avoided regulation of internet companies, mostly due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has protected such companies from liability over their content posted by users since it was passed back in 1996. Under this act, social media giants like Twitter or Facebook are allowed to remove any posts from users they deem offensive or inaccurate.

Despite this, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr stated on Twitter that he “welcomes the petition” and “looks forward to FCC action” on the matter. “The Section 230 petition provides an opportunity to bring much-needed clarity to the statutory text,” he said. “And it allows us to move forward in a way that will empower speakers to engage in ‘a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,’ as Congress envisioned when it passed Section 230.”

Section 230 confers a unique set of benefits on social media companies that go beyond the First Amendment rights all other speakers enjoy.Today, the Administration filed a petition asking the FCC to issue rules clarifying Section 230.I look forward to FCC action: pic.twitter.com/KH4Gz7VQMt

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) July 27, 2020

Taking all of this into consideration, it’s hard to argue that this recent push for regulating social media companies isn’t simply a political one (much like the majority of legal disputes).

Regardless, the issue over social media companies receiving the same protections from Section 230, which was originally intended to allow internet service providers to avoid liability for user content and to moderate material “in good faith,” remains the primary argument behind the NITA’s petition. The NITA and many proponents of this push assert that because social media platforms essentially function as public squares, they should be subject to the same free speech protections.

If such a proposal were to pass, the biggest social media companies would open to defamation lawsuits, but smaller sites online would also face the same potential legal repercussions, which would undoubtedly affect them far more severely.

In an interview with Forbes, Jennifer Huddleston, director of technology and innovation policy at the American Action Forum, said, “Large companies are going to have increased legal costs as a result, but a small company may have a much harder time getting off the ground.”

Whatever the ultimate outcome of Trump’s executive decision and today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, it appears that social media and the internet as a whole will inevitably be changed to some degree. In what ways exactly? Only time will tell.