At the heart of this lawsuit is the question of how much freedom is too much freedom. Over the past few years, we have seen near universal adoption of policies regarding hate speech that span from small businesses all the way to Ivy League universities. In the most extreme situations, not only are policies in place about what constitutes hate speech, but leadership has begun to set up “safe zones” where certain words or topics are not allowed to be uttered. More and more, it seems, we’re being taught that not only is disagreement bad, it is increasingly being seen as wrong. And if it’s wrong to disagree, the implication is that there’s only one correct way of viewing the world. I cannot think of a more dangerous precedent to set.

We’ve heard it said often – Freedom is messy. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Archibald Stewart in 1791, famously said:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

Imagine, if you will, two neighbors. Both with a passion for gardening. One neighbor chooses to grow onions, while the other prefers garlic. If they keep their crops on their own land, both are free to do so. This is a very tame example of differing opinions existing in a free society. Unfortunately, we don’t live in such tame times. Let’s take the same scenario, but now imagine that the neighbor that grows garlic has an allergy to onions. We now have a situation where one neighbor has the potential of a messy inconvenience. What obligation does the onion gardener have to stop growing onions? And if he chooses to continue to grow onions, does the garlic gardener have the right to destroy the onion crop because of the allergy? The respective answers to those questions are an emphatic “None” and “No”. However, when it comes to the free sharing of political positions through social media, we seem to be heading down a dangerous road where we’re being told what words/opinions are allowed, and, to revisit our metaphor, what things will get your garden destroyed by your neighbor’s angry friends.

Ironically, when defending their practices of deleting posts, or outright banning users, these tech giants point to the First Amendment for their protection. They are, afterall, a private company that can choose the type of business in which they want to participate.

These are not new arguments. In fact, when the internet was still in its relative infancy, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was put into place. It stipulates, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”. Simply put, Section 230 protects social media platforms from being held responsible for the content posted on their sites by users of the technology. This is often referred to as having a “Platform vs. Publisher” status, and it’s still used today by CEOs like Twitter’s Jack Dorsey to justify why they should not be held to the same editorial and ethical standards as media outlets. But social platforms have evolved since those early days of the internet and we need to understand that they now play a vital role as “virtual street corners” which allow us to engage in mutual discourse. And when these platforms begin making rules about who can or cannot stand on the street in order to engage in discussion, we begin teetering toward outright suppression of speech.

Even worse, these giants seem to pick and choose when to enforce their rules – and often those capricious decisions heavily favor one specific, and very liberal, political ideology. Look no further than November 2020 when Steve Bannon’s accounts on Twitter and Youtube were suspended due to him describing a day dream of a violent death for the ancestors of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray. That very week, Kathy Griffin retweeted a now infamous picture of her holding a bloody and severed prosthetic head of President Trump – Twitter took no action to remove that post. Both instances were unnecessarily violent and disgusting. The only difference was that Griffin’s ideology agreed with that of Twitter’s CEO. Bannon’s didn’t.

Getting back to Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, we find ourselves at a crossroads between big tech and how speech can be protected.

By and large, Facebook, Google, and Twitter leadership point a virtuous finger in the air and defended their actions by highlighting the violence of the January 6th Capitol Riots, and the alleged roles certain groups or individuals (including Mr. Trump) played in potentially setting the scene for what happened on that day. However, if quelling violence is their goal, one must wonder why groups associated with Antifa and BLM are able to use these same platforms to post violent messages and arrange protests that inevitably turn into riots which have led to far more damage, death, and destruction than what occurred on January 6th. It seems there is more at play.

It’s clear there is more work to be done when considering the power and influence these tech companies hold in today’s exchange of ideas. Mr. Trump understands this, and while congress continues to prove ineffective and not up to the task, he has chosen to fight on another front. No matter how ideologically driven tech leaders are, there is another factor they must consider. Their financial bottom line. Launching a class action lawsuit will not only get the attention of lawmakers as it winds its way through the Judicial system, but board members and stockholders will begin to take notice as well. And, depending on the outcome, these leaders may be compelled to revisit their inconsistent actions, not because it’s the right thing in their eyes, but because their livelihood may depend on it.

The post Keep It Classy appeared first on Todd McMurtry.

Why? Because something, as they say, is rotten in the state of cyberspace. Hate-speech and harassment, disguised as paid content and “helpful” content suggestions, regularly miss the mark. And the social media giant’s algorithms are taking the blame.

What’s an algorithm, exactly?

As defined by Wikipedia, an algorithm “is a finite sequence of well-defined, computer-implementable instructions, typically to solve a class of problems or to perform a computation.” Sounds innocent enough, right? It is. It’s nothing more than an aspect of computer science.

However, Yale data scientist Elisa Celis (who studies fairness and diversity in artificial intelligence) explains that companies like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and others refuse to reveal what’s exactly in their respective algorithm’s codes. Most, she says, seem to “revolve around one central tenet: maximizing user engagement­­—and, ultimately, revenue.”

So, are Twitter’s algorithms nothing more than a money-making tool? On the surface, yes. It’s learning what a user’s behaviors are while engaging with the content on the platform: The articles shared, the search terms used, and so on. The idea is to take that data and translate it to relevant products and services. 

“These things aren’t malicious, and they’re not out of control,” states Celis in PBS “Nova” reporter Katherine J. Wu’s article, “Radical ideas spread through social media. Are the algorithms to blame?“. “But it’s also important to acknowledge that these algorithms are small pieces of machinery that affect billions of people.” As Wu puts it, at what point does personalization cross the line to polarizing? The algorithms can’t tell the difference between boating and bigotry, and they aren’t trying to.

Who is to blame? 

Like any tool, however, Twitter’s algorithm can be used for benevolent, benign, or malicious purposes. The question is, how influenced are we by them, and more importantly, who is behind the influence? “If the global reach of social media were being used merely to spread messages of peace and harmony—or just to make money—maybe there wouldn’t be any [harm]. But the purposes are often darker,” writes Bloomberg reporter Shelly Banjo. 

According to the tech companies that implement them, these programs exist only to help and serve you, the user. In essence, they are saying, “Yes, turning a profit is the ultimate goal, but not before bringing you relevant, customized stories, news information, and products based on your likes and dislikes. You’re the one in control, not us. And if you act out based on content fed to you, then that’s your fault, not ours. It’s your interests and online behavior that caused it to appear in the first place.”

Do (but don’t) be influenced by media

It’s the same illogical mentality behind the idea of product placement in television and movies: Don’t be influenced by the sex and violence on the screen, just the BMW and Coke that happen to be there. If content leads a person to act out in a way other than shopping, especially any negative way, that’s on them. Wu notes, “It would be an oversimplification to point to any single video, article, or blog and say it caused a real-world hate crime. But social media, news sites, and online forums have given an indisputably powerful platform to ideas that can drive extreme violence.”

Maybe all you do is look at hilarious cat videos and share links to your favorite recipes. Think your feed is safe? Think again. In “Facebook, Twitter and the Digital Disinformation Mess,” Banjo also highlights how “social media manipulation campaigns” have been utilized by governments and political parties in 70 countries, including China, Russia, India, Brazil, and Sri Lanka. Circumventing and outsmarting social media firewalls and algorithms, state-sponsored smear campaigns in these countries utilize artificial intelligence and internet bots to flood targeted news feeds with extremist messages and videos. The technology to do this exists, and it’s happening now. 

Yet, not all algorithms exist to sway your purchasing decisions or serve tech-giant masters. One promising solution was presented by Binghamton University late last year. Computer scientist Jeremy Blackburn, along with a team of researchers and faculty, “have developed machine-learning algorithms which can successfully identify bullies and aggressors on Twitter with 90 percent accuracy.” While not perfect, it’s important to note that this technology also exists, and it’s a bright ray of hope. 

Abuse on Twitter a regular occurrence

This concern over the unchecked power of Twitter, et al and their algorithms cross party lines and media bias, affecting celebrates and everyday citizens alike. (Even actor Sasha Baron Cohen uses the Trump-popularized phrase “fake news” stating in his op-ed piece for the Washington Post that online, “everything can appear equally legitimate.”) He isn’t alone in his criticisms. Fed up with the onslaught of abuse and hate speech, fellow celebrities including Ed Sheeran, Millie Bobby Brown, and Wil Wheaton have limited their presence on Twitter—and have been quite vocal about doing so. 

While one might argue that living in the public eye comes with consequences, those not in the limelight are equally disgruntled with the social media platform’s refusal to address rampant harassment. Every day, average users continue to question why nothing operates on the platform to combat abuse. Especially critical of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, those active on the social media platform call him out for continually refusing to address cyberbullying concerns. In The Atlantic article “Twitter’s New Features Aren’t What Users Asked For,” author Taylor Lorenz shares one frustrated user’s tweet. “The annoying thing is that every few months Jack comes out with a big speech about how they’re going to fix twitter, and ever[y] time they just continue to get it wrong.”

And what of the onslaught of abuse and harassment suffered by private citizens who find themselves thrust into the spotlight as a result of sloppy reporting? Or peer-to-peer cyberbullying occurring across the personal devices of children and teenagers every day? What fills the Twitter feeds of their tormentors? As Wu states, “[Algorithms] don’t have a conscience that tells them when they’ve gone too far. Their top priority is that of their parent company: to showcase the most engaging content—even if that content happens to be disturbing, wrathful, or factually incorrect.” Are abusers fed more and more volatile articles and videos, which in turn fans the flame of the hate and anger they unleash on others?

Twitter slow to respond to user demands

Although Twitter states that combating abuse is a “work in progress,” the company instead chooses to implement useless updates and changes that are, in some instances, only making it easier to engage in harassment. Lorenz adds, “While the company continues to dedicate time and resources to making minor changes aimed at boosting engagement, easy fixes for harassment are ignored.” Most recently, Twitter purged an untold number of QAnon conspiracy theorists, but this one-time housecleaning will not solve how algorithms move the speech on Twitter.  

Lorenz reports that in 2016, Online Abuse Prevention Initiative founder Randi Lee Harper laid out several improvement options in a Medium post. Although most were addressed by Twitter eventually, several suggestions that addressed minimizing harassment were ignored. Instead, some of the “updates” the social media platform chose to rollout were mostly cosmetic:

• changing its user avatars from square-shaped to circular
• redesigning Moments
• adding topic tags to the Explore page
• spamming users’ timelines with a “happening now” section
• adding endless notifications
• upping the character limit to 280
• promoting live videos of sports events
• revamping its algorithm to give older tweets more prominence

Taking Twitter to task

Close on that last one, Twitter, but you miss the mark again. An algorithm revamp, but of a different sort, is what the public is demanding. New on the media scene (compared to that of television, movies, and the radio), social media’s persuasive power has remained largely unchecked, and the law is desperately trying to catch up. 

In his op-ed piece, Baron Cohen brings to light a chilling fact: the large technology companies behind these platforms are, for the most part, beholden to no one—not even the law: 

“These super-rich “Silicon Six” care more about boosting their share price than about protecting democracy. This is ideological imperialism—six unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any government and acting like they’re above the reach of the law. Surely, instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of the world over, our democratically elected representatives should have at least some say.”

The “Silicon Six” Baron Cohen refers to are American billionaires and tech giant CEOs and/or founders Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (Google), Larry Page (Google), Sergey Brin (Google), Susan Wojcicki (YouTube), and Jack Dorsey (Twitter). Similarly, Wu notes that one of the biggest reasons to be wary of social media companies’ algorithms is that, “[only] a limited subset of people are privy to what’s actually in them.” 

In his article for The Verge, reporter Casey Newton writes that while Baron Cohen efforts to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (the driving force behind his speech and opinion piece) are somewhat misguided, he raises some valuable points. Newton agrees with him about not only the dangers of algorithmic recommendations on social platforms but that the aforementioned “Silicon Six” have been permitted so much influence “thanks to a combination of ignorance and inattention from our elected officials.” 

Data journalist Meredith Broussard, communications expert Safiya Noble, and computer scientist Nisheeth Vishoni (all interviewed for Wu’s article for “Nova”) feel social media algorithms should be tested and vetted as strenuously as drugs before they hit the market. 

Noble further states, “We expect that companies shouldn’t be allowed to pollute the air and water in ways that might hurt us. We should also expect a high-quality media environment not polluted with disinformation, lies, propaganda. We need for democracy to work. Those are fair things for people to expect and require policymakers to start talking about.” These companies can’t police themselves, nor should they. If social media companies do not change their ways, then our elected officials in Washington should change the rules for them. 

Todd McMurtry is a nationally recognized attorney whose practice focuses on defamation, social media law, cyberbullying, and professional malpractice. You can follow him on Twitter @ToddMcMurtry.

The post Swaying with the Algorithm: How Twitter Allows Abuse and Manipulation appeared first on Todd McMurtry.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and others unilaterally decided to kick the United States president off their platforms and terminate his social media relationship with as many as 80 million Americans. It seems to many that this is a violation of former Pres. Trump’s right to freedom of speech, as protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, our constitution offers no such protection. Generally, your speech is protected only in public spaces, not private property.  

As you have likely heard, many people refer to social media companies as private corporations that can do whatever they want on their platforms. This is true. It is also true that in the late 90s, Congress passed the law called the Communications Decency Act or the CDA. It says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of — (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

This act—especially the “otherwise objectionable” –gives companies like Twitter the absolute right to police any content that any person, including the president of the United States, posts on their platform. The courts have broadly interpreted the law to provide maximum discretion to these companies to decide what their users can or cannot post on their platforms.

When you sign up for Twitter, you must press a button agreeing to their terms of service (“TOS”). Social media platforms regularly update their TOS to decide precisely what you or former Pres. Trump can say on social media. First, you can talk about election interference; then they determine that you cannot. Next, you can complain about the origins of the Covid-19 virus; then, they shut you down if you mention it on social media. Examples like this go on and on.

Will this end? It likely will not until Congress or the courts change the law. Right now, several lawsuits are challenging how social media companies use their TOS to interpret their authority under the CDA. We can hope that a more conservative court would temper how social media companies use the law. Time will tell.

In the interim, I think we can rest assured that none of the currently existing major social media companies will allow former Pres. Trump to reengage on their social media platforms. The beautiful thing about this is that eventually, another platform (be it Parler, Gab, or another) will provide social media interaction that allows former presidents and other prominent people to post their views without censorship. It may take a few months or a year to get there, but eventually, the fact that large social media companies have censored a former U.S. president will result in greater competition.

We have already seen companies such as Twitter and Facebook lose value on the stock market. Once a competing company establishes a large presence, there will be real competition. We then can regain much of our right to hear what our leaders have to say.

Todd McMurtry is a nationally known attorney. His practice focuses on defamation, social media law, professional malpractice, and business disputes. You can follow him on Twitter @ToddMcMurtry. 

The post Adios Mr. President, You Are Banned from Twitter! appeared first on Todd McMurtry.