Social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have become integral parts of our lives. We use them to connect with friends and family, get news and information, share our thoughts and opinions, and more. But there is an ongoing debate about whether these companies are publishers or platforms. Should they be held responsible for the content posted by their users like traditional publishers? Or should they be treated as neutral platforms that aren’t liable for user-generated content? There are good arguments on both sides of this issue.
What are the key differences between publishers and platforms?
Traditional publishers like newspapers, magazines, books, etc. actively curate, edit, and moderate the content they publish. They have editorial teams that decide what content gets published. They can be held legally liable for things like defamation, copyright infringement, invasion of privacy, obscenity, etc. Publishers exercise a high degree of control over the content.
Platforms, on the other hand, take a more hands-off approach. Think of the phone company, which acts as a neutral platform for people to communicate. Platforms generally avoid editorial control and moderation. Their users generate all the content. Platforms are shielded from liability for user-generated content by laws like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US.
Why are social networks considered platforms?
Social networks see themselves as neutral technology platforms. In their early days, they took a very hands-off approach to content moderation. Their argument is that they are not producing any content themselves – they simply provide the platform for users to communicate. This means they should not be held liable for things users post.
There are some valid reasons for this viewpoint:
- Social networks have billions of users posting billions of updates daily. Moderating all this content would be infeasible.
- Heavy moderation could lead to accusations of censorship and political bias, undermining user trust.
- Section 230 gives internet platforms legal immunity for user content in the US in order to promote free speech.
- Making platforms liable could incentivize excessive moderation and removal of lawful content.
For these reasons, social networks have largely operated as neutral conduits rather than curators of content.
How are social networks acting more like publishers?
In recent years, social networks have taken a more active role in moderating content on their platforms. Some of the publisher-like actions they have taken include:
- Setting community standards that prohibit certain types of content like hate speech, nudity, harassment, etc.
- Hiring large teams of content moderators to enforce these community standards.
- Removing or downranking content deemed misleading, dangerous or objectionable.
- Adding labels and fact-checks to disputed or false claims.
- Promoting authoritative content and demoting content from sketchy sources.
- Curating newsfeeds and recommendations using algorithms.
By taking these actions, social networks are exerting more editorial control and oversight like traditional publishers. This makes some argue they should face greater responsibility for content.
Should social networks filter more – or less – content?
There are good-faith arguments on both sides of how much social platforms should moderate content:
Arguments for more moderation
- Prevents real-world harm – e.g. reducing misinformation about elections, public health, etc.
- Upholds democratic values like truth, diversity, civic discourse.
- Protects human rights and prevents discrimination.
- Provides a better user experience by reducing harassment, spam, etc.
- Aligns with companies’ own stated values and principles.
Arguments against more moderation
- Risks political bias and inconsistent moderation.
- Stifles free expression, diversity of opinion.
- Empowers large unaccountable corporations to shape public discourse.
- Opens door to excessive censorship due to slippery slopes.
- Contradicts the spirit of Section 230 and platform vs. publisher divide.
There are merits to both perspectives. The debate continues among policymakers on how to balance these concerns. Perhaps a new framework is needed that doesn’t treat platforms as entirely neutral pass-through entities, but also stops short of making them legally liable publishers.
What responsibilities come with social networks’ scale and power?
A key factor in this debate is the vast scale and power held by major social networks:
- Billions of active users worldwide.
- Ability to instantly spread information globally.
- Algorithmic newsfeeds that influence what billions see.
- Ad platforms that net billions in revenue.
- Influence on elections, public discourse, culture.
This scale gives social networks both opportunities and responsibilities that didn’t exist in the early internet. Even if they aren’t treated as traditional publishers, most agree they should make reasonable efforts to curb clear harms from their platforms. Where to draw that line is the central question moving forward.
Should social networks be liable for user content?
The debate around platform vs. publisher often centers on liability. Should social networks be legally liable for user-generated content on their platforms? Some key considerations:
- Complete liability is likely impractical given the volume of content and potential for over-censorship.
- No liability could allow platforms to ignore real harms like election interference or violence incitement.
- Potential middle ground: liability for content that violates platforms’ own published standards.
- European regulations take a different approach, requiring diligence rather than liability.
- Compromise may involve liability primarily for paid advertising content.
There are also questions around exactly what types of legal liability make sense, whether that relates to defamation, privacy, illegal content, or others. While arguments exist on both sides, the status quo of nearly complete legal immunity for platforms is likely due for a re-examination.
Should social networks pay for news content?
Another heated debate relates to news publishers. Platforms like Facebook and Google drive huge traffic to news websites. But publishers argue the platforms gain the financial benefit while eroding publishers’ ad revenue. Some argue platforms are effectively stealing news content without compensation.
In response, Australia passed a law requiring Facebook and Google to pay publishers for featuring their content or face arbitration. After initial pushback, Facebook reached licensing deals with Australian publishers. Google also signed deals after temporarily removing Australian news searches. These developments could inspire similar laws worldwide as publishers demand a cut of platform profits.
How might regulations change platform vs. publisher status?
Going forward, new laws and regulations may further shape social networks’ responsibilities when it comes to content. Some possibilities include:
- Narrowing platforms’ Section 230 immunity, requiring more diligence.
- Requiring transparency around algorithms and content policies.
- Mandating certain moderation practices and addressing biases.
- Enabling user appeals of content decisions.
- Letting users opt out of algorithmic feeds and sorting.
- Protections against over-filtering of legal speech.
Well-crafted regulations could address platforms’ societal influence while avoiding a full-scale publisher designation. But overly expansive reforms also risk unintended censorship. Lawmakers face a tough balancing act.
Conclusion
In summary, major social networks do not neatly fit the traditional publisher or platform mold. While they began more akin to neutral platforms, they’ve increasingly taken on publisher-like content curation. Yet most agree complete publisher liability remains impractical and risky.
The scale and influence of these networks may justify reasonable content oversight to curb clear harms. But finding the right balance that addresses societal needs without undermining free expression is challenging. This complex issue will likely be the subject of lively debate and potential regulation for years to come.
Moving forward, we may see social networks held to expanded duties around transparency, due diligence, appeals, and proportionality. But a full-scale publisher designation seems unlikely. With no simple solutions, compromise and nuance will be required to shape social media’s ongoing evolution from platform to publisher and preserve its benefits while minimizing harms.
Word count: 1676
The growth of social media
Social media has grown enormously in popularity and usage over the past 15 years. Here is a look at some key milestones in the growth of major social platforms:
| Platform | Users | Date | Event |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 million | 2004 | Launched to Harvard students | |
| 100 million | 2008 | Reached 100 million users | |
| 2 billion | 2017 | Reached 2 billion monthly users | |
| YouTube | 1.5 million | 2006 | Google acquired YouTube |
| YouTube | 1 billion | 2013 | Reached 1 billion monthly users |
| YouTube | 2 billion | 2017 | Reached 2 billion monthly users |
| 400,000 | 2006 | Launched to public | |
| 100 million | 2011 | Reached 100 million active users | |
| 321 million | 2018 | Reached 321 million monthly active users |
This rapid growth shows how social media has become a primary way billions of people connect, express themselves, get news, and share content globally. The huge audiences reached by these platforms is a key factor in debates around their responsibilities as publishers vs. neutral platforms.
Case studies on social media content issues
Here are some case studies highlighting challenges social networks have faced with regards to objectionable or controversial content:
Facebook and Myanmar genocide
A 2018 UN report found Facebook played a “determining role” in inciting genocide against Myanmar’s Rohingya minority. It said ultra-nationalist posts and hate speech on Facebook whipped up hatred and violence. Facebook admitted it was “too slow” to act and later banned key military officials.
YouTube and extremist radicalization
YouTube has faced criticism that its recommendation algorithm can lead users down a “rabbit hole” from mild to extreme content. Reports have found the platform recommended terrorism videos and white supremacist content. YouTube has adjusted its algorithms but struggles with this issue.
Twitter and election misinformation
Twitter has been criticized for allowing misinformation about elections and candidates to spread. Most notably, President Trump and allies used Twitter to share unsupported claims of election fraud. Twitter eventually suspended Trump after the Capitol riot. But the platform continues working to balance speech freedoms and election integrity.
These cases highlight the real-world harms that can emerge when harmful content goes viral on social networks. They have encouraged platforms to take a more active role in content moderation.
Pros and cons of social networks as publishers
Here are some potential pros and cons if social networks were treated fully as publishers like newspapers and magazines:
Potential pros
- Better control over misinformation, extremism, harassment.
- Higher quality information and discourse.
- More accountability for real-world harms from content.
- Revenue for high-quality journalism and content.
- Consistent standards vs. arbitrary enforcement.
Potential cons
- Excessive censorship and erosion of free speech.
- Biased and unequal enforcement.
- Empowering private companies to control discourse.
- Chilling of legitimate dissent and marginalized voices.
- Less transparency from opaque removals.
Given these tradeoffs, most experts believe a nuanced solution is required that doesn’t treat platforms as fully neutral or as completely responsible for all content as traditional publishers.
Potential alternatives and compromises
Rather than a binary choice between platform or publisher, there are alternative frameworks that balance responsibilities and speech freedoms. Some alternatives that have been proposed include:
- Common carrier model – Platforms act as neutral pass-through entities but with guardrails against illegal content.
- Narrowed immunity – Keep Section 230 but limit immunity around certain types of content.
- Procedural reforms – Require transparency, appeals, proportionality without full legal liability.
- Advertising liability – Platforms liable only for paid ads, not organic posts.
- Duty of care – Require diligence but not legal responsibility for all user content.
Hybrid approaches like these recognize that singular models of “platform” and “publisher” fail to capture the nuances of massive social networks. With thoughtful reform, platforms’ societal responsibilities can be better aligned with free expression.
Key takeaways on social media publisher vs. platform status
In summary, here are some key conclusions on this complex issue:
- Social networks do not neatly fit traditional publisher or platform models.
- Their massive scale and impact may justify reasonable, proportional content moderation.
- But making platforms fully liable as publishers risks negative consequences for free speech.
- Alternatives like limited immunity or duty of care may better balance responsibilities.
- This debate will likely continue as reform efforts are considered worldwide.
- No easy or perfect solution exists – compromise and nuance are required.
This issue sits at the intersection of technology, law, ethics, and human behavior. Social media’s role will continue evolving through public debate. With thoughtful analysis and balanced reforms, free expression and responsible moderation can coexist for the benefit of democratic societies worldwide.