On October 31 2019, ahead of crucial elections across the globe including in countries like India, social media organisation Twitter made a landmark announcement. The company stated it will will ban political advertisements globally on its platform, responding to growing concerns over misinformation from politicians on social media. Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey tweeted that while internet advertising "is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions".
Dorsey's move was in direct contrast to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's, who held to his decision that he would let political figures speak freely and count on voters to judge truthfulness. Facebook's policy allows political speech and ads to run without fact-checking. "In a democracy, I don't think it's right for private companies to censor politicians or the news," Zuckerberg said in an earnings call with analysts, the transcript of which he posted on Facebook.
Dorsey and Zuckerberg might be two of the biggest names in Silicon Valley, but their outlook, world views, and visions for the future could not be more different; the former is known for his "hippie" lifestyle, occasional meditation retreats, intermediate fasting practices, participation in public protests and vocal stances on thorny political issues like racism, while the latter is considered an intellectual who is driven by a single-minded pursuit of the highest standards of success, and nothing else. As Twitter clashed with US president Donald Trump, the latter threatening an "all-out war" to end social media, the difference in their reactions proved this evident.
Zuckerberg, on Thursday, appeared on Fox News, directly criticising Dorsey and Twitter, saying that privately-owned digital platforms should not act as the "arbiter of truth". "We have a different policy than, I think, Twitter on this," Zuckerberg said. "I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online," he added. "Private companies probably shouldn't be, especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that."
Dorsey, without naming Zuckerberg or Facebook, tweeted: "We'll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. This does not make us an 'arbiter of truth.' Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves."
In a way, this exchange encapsulates the crux of the polarising Silicon Valley debate on privacy and content regulation, as a day of reckoning appears to be looming over the horizon for the Big Tech companies.
Understanding Trump feud
The first signs of a feud sparked when Trump and his campaign reacted to Twitter adding a warning phrase to two Trump tweets that called mail-in ballots "fraudulent", and predicted mail boxes will be robbed. Under the tweets, there's now a link that reads 'Get the facts about mail-in ballots', guiding users to a page with fact checks and news stories about Trump's unsubstantiated claims.
Trump accused Twitter of interfering in the 2020 presidential election, signing a landmark executive order aimed at stripping social media giants like Twitter and Facebook of legal immunity for the content posted by third-party users; in essence, they become "publishers" rather than "platforms". Trump's campaign manager, Brad Parscale, said Twitter's clear political bias had led the campaign to pull all advertising from Twitter months ago.
Twitter refused to back down. A defiant Twitter on Friday flagged a fresh tweet from Donald Trump for violating its rules against "glorifying violence", hours after the executive order was signed. The move came after Trump tweeted that "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" in reference to the ongoing unrest in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd, a handcuffed African-American man who pleaded for air as a white police officer kneeled on his neck.
What is at stake?
Simply put, the very existence of Big Tech companies like Twitter and Facebook are at stake. The Trump executive order calls for new regulations, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield. "That's a big deal. They have a shield; they can do what they want. They have a shield. They're not going to have that shield," Trump asserted.
The importance of Section 230 cannot be overstated. It is the foundation upon which social media and third party-generated-content companies function. For instance, if User 1 posts content on social media and User 3 finds it defamatory, User 3 can sue only User 1, not the social media platform which published the content. Once the liability shield is removed, and the companies become publishers rather than platforms, they will be faced with a daunting task of regulating millions of users spread across their platforms. That could spell the end of such companies.
Google released a careful statement on the developments: “We have clear content policies and we enforce them without regard to political viewpoint. Our platforms have empowered a wide range of people and organisations from across the political spectrum, giving them a voice and new ways to reach their audiences. Undermining Section 230 in this way would hurt America’s economy and its global leadership on internet freedom.”
Silicon Valley woes
It is not just Trump; Social media and the Big Tech companies have long been facing bipartisan condemnation across the globe on a multitude of issues. In Europe, the EU is preparing major GDPR (privacy rights) decisions that could radically penalise/affect social media companies, and in the US there is an almost bipartisan support for social media regulation.
This comes in stark contrast to the history of Silicon Valley, which first evolved with the blessings of the US government in the time of the Cold War, ushering in a new era of technology revolution. Financial Times had reported that Fairchild Semiconductor, considered the pioneer start-up of today’s Silicon Valley, won its first business through military contracts, building chips that helped send American astronauts to the moon, and helped build missiles that armed the US in the Cold War.
US Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden has long been of the opinion that “Section 230 should be revoked, for Zuckerberg and other platforms.” In an interview with New York Times, he had said that “it should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”
The conservatives and the right wing have often expressed aggrievances over what they called "algorithmic bias" or "liberal bent to the platforms" and "suppression of right wing voices". In June, Carlos Maza, a popular anchor from the Vox Media corporation, put up a Twitter thread alleging YouTube of inaction against conservative figures who routinely harangued him online for his homosexuality and race. This triggered a firestorm, with a period of what was called ‘adpocalypse’ on YouTube, when, independent YouTube creators complained, half their content were demonetised. This also resulted in a routine suppression of conservative voices on the platform, right wing activists claimed.
This had resulted in a multitude of legislations in the US, proposing to regulate Silicon Valley. The Biased Algorithm Deterrence Act in 2019 and Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, all mandated political neutrality from the social media platforms.
And, this is not just a US phenomenon. On July 20, 2019, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, an MP associated with the BJP, raised an Algorithmic Accountability Bill against Twitter, accusing the platform of clamping down on personalities who differed ideologically with the left.
