YouTube illegally deceives users by “allowing violent murder videos” to spread in violation of its terms of service, gun safety advocate Andy Parker alleged in an FTC complaint Thursday. The agency confirmed it received the complaint, and Google defended its “vigilant” policy enforcement record against such content. Google’s “reprehensible and ongoing failure” to remove these monetized videos from YouTube is illegal under the FTC Act, which polices unfair and deceptive practices, Parker said at the National Press Club. Parker’s complaint stems from a video of his 24-year-old daughter, a reporter who was assassinated on live TV in 2015 (see 2002030059). He told us he’s also floating legislative proposals to the offices of Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, both Virginia Democrats. He planned to meet with their offices after the news conference to discuss proposals that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to address “targeted harassment, hate speech and murder videos.” Google’s Community Guidelines are “designed to protect the YouTube community, including those affected by tragedies,” a spokesperson said. Policies prohibit such videos, and the platform has removed thousands of copies of the video for violating policies, the spokesperson said: “We will continue to stay vigilant and improve our policy enforcement.” Georgetown University Law Center's Civil Rights Clinic helped Parker file the complaint. A separate Georgetown clinic filed a 2018 complaint against Google involving child-directed content. That proceeding resulted in a $170 million fine against Google from the FTC and the Office of the New York Attorney General (see 1909040066). Offices for Kaine and Warner didn't comment.
Section 230
DOJ is considering whether Section 230 creates the right incentives for platforms to maintain a safe internet, said Attorney General William Barr Wednesday. Tech companies are no longer underdog upstarts but titans of U.S. industry, he said during a workshop on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: “Given this changing technological landscape, valid questions have been raised on whether Section 230’s broad immunity is still necessary, at least in its current form.”
Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) implementation is in its early days, with new rules taking effect last week, but it's generally assumed the number of transactions coming under Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) jurisdiction will quadruple, said David Plotinsky, DOJ National Security Division principal deputy chief, at an FCBA CLE event Wednesday. He said the number of telecom deals subject to CFIUS also likely will quadruple, though there's less concern about deals on "the pipes" of telecom than on data. CFIUS experts said prospective deals now have to take CFIUS issues and possible mitigation steps into consideration early in the planning.
The goal is to produce a draft bill this year to update the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, said Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Tuesday. “I have low expectations we can get it done in this Congress. But I think we can get a generally accepted baseline and continue to work with the House to move it on a bicameral basis,” he told us before Tuesday’s hearing on DMCA. “It hasn’t been touched since Chumbawamba was topping the charts” in 1998.
Section 230-related draft legislation from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., (see 1912190079) threatens free expression and privacy, the Center for Democracy & Technology wrote Friday. It could prevent platforms from providing end-to-end encryption, and would “give the Attorney General significant and unaccountable power to regulate speech, control online services, and undermine our privacy and security,” CDT said. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields platforms from liability for user content.
The tech industry’s content liability shield should be tightened because its protections have expanded well beyond the original intent, House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., told us Thursday. Congressional scrutiny of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is growing.
DOJ scheduled a Feb. 19 workshop on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (see 1912190079). Proponents say 230 allowed the internet to flourish; others fear associated immunity is interpreted too broadly, Justice said Thursday: It “intends to examine these issues and identify and discuss potential solutions.”
The office of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., is exploring Section 230-related legislation dealing with election misinformation, she said Tuesday at the State of the Net internet policy conference. “It’s very, very early right now, but I absolutely want to do something, even if it’s narrow on 230” of the Communications Decency Act, Schakowsky told reporters. “If we can craft something, there will definitely be some more hearings, no question about that.” Throughout her talk, she cited blatant lies hosted by Facebook.
Facebook’s unwillingness to ban or fact-check political commercials (see 2001090029) is grossly irresponsible and undermines democracy, said Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in interviews earlier this month. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., argued the company is right. He trusts Americas to “do their own fact-checking.”
Revoke Communications Decency Act Section 230 “immediately” for Facebook and other platforms, said former Vice President Joe Biden, a 2020 Democratic candidate for president. Facebook “is not merely an internet company,” Biden told The New York Times in a Q&A Friday. “It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy.” Singling out Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Biden said he should be “submitted to civil liability and his company to civil liability.” Congress is considering whether to change immunity laws for big tech companies (see 1912270037). Removing Section 230 would mean internet platforms would “either become the most rigorous speech police ever created” or would step back and “allow an unfiltered stream of the kinds of ruinous libel, hate speech and falsehoods that the former vice president is understandably concerned about,” said Free Press Action Senior Policy Counsel Gaurav Laroia. He said changes should be “undertaken carefully and cautiously with an eye to protecting marginalized and vulnerable communities and with an understanding that it’s the First Amendment, not Section 230, that allows individuals to engage in the speech of their choosing, for good and for ill.” Facebook and the Internet Association didn’t comment Friday.