The Big Story: Spotlight on content moderation ahead of election. With the presidential election weeks away, and Americans increasingly relying on Internet services amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, digital platforms are working overtime to identify and moderate user-generated content that could cause real-world problems. But policymakers are turning up the heat on the already difficult and contentious issue of content moderation, with platforms’ efforts to combat the spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation leading to partisan pushback and claims of supposed censorship.
Internet companies of all sizes are able to host user content and engage in content moderation in large part because of Section 230, which provides liability limitations to online platforms. Just this week, Twitter and Facebook both announced that they would remove Holocaust denial content from their platforms. YouTube also announced that it would begin cracking down on conspiracy-themed videos—such as those related to QAnon and “Pizzagate”—used "to justify real-world violence." And Twitter and Facebook attempted to limit the spread of a New York Post article about emails allegedly belonging to the son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, which has led to renewed calls from President Donald Trump and other GOP lawmakers to repeal Section 230.
Content moderation is a difficult task for even the largest online companies, particularly in light of the rapid spread of misleading information and harmful posts. And platforms are also in an unwinnable situation, with some lawmakers calling for more moderation of harmful content to protect users and other policymakers calling for less, supposedly in the name of free speech. With the presidential election only weeks away, Internet companies are being squeezed by all sides when it comes to moderating misleading posts and videos that could have an impact on the election. By politicizing the actions of large Internet companies and threatening to amend Section 230, however, policymakers are opening the door to proposals that would have a devastating impact on the Internet ecosystem—particularly for the startup community.
While Section 230 has received scrutiny because of the actions of large Internet companies, the law allows platforms of all sizes to operate online by providing them with the flexibility they need to moderate user-generated content without the fear of crippling lawsuits. Rather than limiting the ability of online companies to combat the spread of harmful content, policymakers should work with startups and the broader tech industry to defend Section 230 and support content moderation best practices.
Policy Roundup:
FCC moves forward with petition to examine Section 230. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced yesterday that the agency will move forward with a petition from the Trump administration to review Section 230. As Engine pointed out last month in comments submitted to the FCC in response to the petition, the White House’s request is almost entirely based on unsubstantiated allegations about Section 230, alleged anti-conservative bias, and the law's impact on competition in the Internet ecosystem.
Justice Thomas sounds off on Section 230. Justice Clarence Thomas used the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to take up a limited Section 230 case as an opportunity to echo unrelated complaints about the law that has increasingly become subject to partisan animosity. In a statement about the Court’s decision not to grant cert in MalwareBytes Inc. v. Enigma Software Group, a case about a narrow provision of Section 230 and its applicability to content filtering technology providers, Thomas criticized the law in its entirety as well as its interpretation by lower courts. The kinds of changes envisioned by Thomas’ criticisms—and composed without an opportunity for the Court to hear from relevant stakeholders—would disproportionately impact the startup community.
France moves to implement digital services tax after global deal is delayed. French officials said this week that the country will collect digital services taxes (DSTs) from large tech companies beginning in December, despite international negotiators recently delaying the timeline for a digital tax deal. As we noted, startups won’t be immune from France’s digital services tax—a three percent levy on tech firms with a revenue of 750 million euros globally and 25 million euros in France—since the DST disproportionately affects large U.S. companies that offer inexpensive services to growing firms.
Uber, Lyft take on AB 5 in California court. A California appeals court this week heard arguments from Uber, Lyft, and the state of California about whether or not the state can force gig economy companies to reclassify many of their independent contractors as employees as a result of Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5). While the measure, signed into law last year, is ostensibly targeted at larger companies that operate in California, it would disproportionately harm early-stage startups that don’t have the resources to navigate the law’s new compliance burdens, or the ability to determine how the new independent contractor definition applies to their own workforce.
Companies ask Congress to investigate policies shielding invalid patents. Several small tech companies joined more than 50 firms in sending letters to lawmakers expressing concern about recent patent office policies which leave invalid patents in force. The letters—sent last week and signed by companies including Bitmovin, GitHub, Patreon, and Mapbox—voice concern about recent steps taken by the patent office to weaken inter partes review, an important tool for improving patent quality.
Startup Roundup:
#StartupsEverywhere: Tuba City, Arizona. Located on the Navajo and Hopi reservations, Change Labs is a nonprofit organization working to foster small business development and increase economic opportunities for Native American entrepreneurs. We recently spoke with Heather Fleming, Change Labs’ Co-Founder and Executive Director, to learn more about the nonprofit’s work supporting Native entrepreneurs, some of the challenges that startups and small businesses face on the Navajo and Hopi reservations, and the steps that need to be taken to advance Native American founders.
