Mediaboss Marketing

Beware of politicians bearing reforms. Since the Trojans first wheeled awooden horseinto their fortified city, many are leery about "gifts" that may be heavily laden with dangers. That is true with the Trojan horse legislation just offered by Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharPhotos of the Week: State of the Union, Ukraine vigil and Batman Democrats press top pharmaceutical representative on price increases The damnable religious inklings of the Big Tech libertarian MORE (D-Minn.). In the name of "reforming" the internet and bringing tech monopolies to heel, Klobuchar has penned a "Nudge Act" that would expand corporate censorship and speech controls.

Even the name is designed to be non-threatening. After all, who could oppose an act titled "Nudging Users to Drive Good Experiences on Social Media"? It isenough to garnerthe support of Sen. Cynthia LummisCynthia Marie LummisSenate conservatives threaten to hold up government funding over vaccine mandate Three senators endorse Timken in Ohio GOP Senate primary Russia fight shows off tensions between McConnell, pro-Trump wing MORE (R-Wyo.). The act, however, is less of a nudge and more of a shove toward approved content and choices.

For years, PresidentJoe BidenandDemocratic membersof Congresshave pushed for greater and greater censorship on the internet and on social media. Liberals have found awinning strategy in using corporate censorshipto circumvent constitutional limits on governmental speech controls. Senators like Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)warnedsocial media companies that they would not tolerate any backsliding or retrenching by failing to take action against dangerous disinformation, and demanded robust content modification to block disfavored views on subjects ranging from climate control to elections to the pandemic.

The Nudge Act is arguably the most insidious of these efforts. Under the Act, Congress would enlist the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) to recommend sweeping design changes to Big Tech platforms like Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to reduce the harms of algorithmic amplification and social media addiction.

The Act is a masterpiece of doublespeak. It refers to developing content-agnostic interventions that would ultimately be enforced by a commission. That sounds great; after all, many of us have called for years for areturn to content neutrality on social mediawhere sites function more as communication platforms, similar to telephone companies. However, that is clearly not the intent of the bills sponsors, who see it as a weapon against "misinformation." That wasmade clear by Klobuchar herself: "For too long, tech companies have said Trust us, weve got this. But we know that social media platforms have repeatedly put profits over people, with algorithms pushing dangerous content that hooks users and spreads misinformation.

Liberal groups like Public Knowledge which support the bill also openly discuss its real purpose, declaring that it will halt the promotion of misinformation" anddevelop new avenues"to reduce the spread of misinformation. Klobuchar has repeated such descriptionsin support of the bill.

How is combatting "misinformation" content-neutral? The answer will be imposed by a new commission that can declare a sites failure to take appropriate measures as constituting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. That would create a glacial chilling effect on these companies, which will err on the side of censorship. After all, Democrats have maintained for years that "misinformation" is simply false and not really a matter a partisan content discrimination.With Nudge, Klobuchar seems to be making her own Trust us, weve got this" pledge to fellow Democrats.

The key term used in the Act is "algorithmic amplification." Klobuchar makes clear the intent to use algorithms to stop "pushing dangerous content." Democrats in Congress have argued for years that these companies need to protect citizens from bad choices by using beneficent algorithms to guide us to healthier" viewing and reading habits.

The most extreme effort wasa letter from Democratic membersto pressure companies like AT&T to reconsider whether viewers should be allowed to watch Fox News and other networks. It does not matter that Fox News is the most popular news cable station and even hasa greater percentage of Democratic viewers than CNN.(For the record, I appear as a legal analyst on Fox). The members insistedthatnot all TV news sources are the same and called on these companies to protect viewers from dissemination of false viewpoints.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenOn The Money Job growth booms in February Overnight Health Care Presented by Alexion Manchin pitch sparks Democratic exasperation Equilibrium/Sustainability: Alaska's Iditarod racers to sled through rain as climate warms MORE (D-Mass.) hascalled for these companies to protect citizens from poor reading choicesby tweaking algorithms to steer them away from disfavored views. It is the free-speech version of therejected "Big Gulp" laws. Warren wants companies to amplify true books on issues like climate change and direct searches away from misleading books.

Some liberal think tanks admit it is not clear that such manipulation of information will help, yet they still appear all-in on trying.Brookings Institution declared:"Even though cause and effect are hard to discern in social media, it is undeniable that algorithms contribute to hate speech and other information disorder on social media.

If the Senate truly wanted content neutrality, it would not requirea new army of internet apparatchiks. It would condition the continued immunity protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act on removing "content modification" and amplification programs. Instead, it seeks to place content under the oversight of a commission while reaffirming the need to stop, in Klobuchars words, the spread of misinformation.

There are aspects of the law that are positive, like the study of social media addiction and requirements for greater transparency from these companies. However, Congress is adept at the art of Trojan-horse legislation, and it is hard to argue against "studying" issues and recommending changes. Yet, this bill is designed to create a new system of content review and revision. It isviewed by the industryas designed "to slow down how misinformation or other harmful content spreads on social media.

A governmental regulation combatting misinformation likely would be unconstitutional. However, the obvious desire is for these companies to self-regulate and avoid any problems through the "robust content modification" demanded by Democrats. Moreover, it is not clear how courts would react to circuit-breaker tactics that limit or slow the dissemination of information, though this also could "neutrally" slow all stories of public importance from going viral.

Despite the unrelenting campaign against free speech in Congress, there remain political and constitutional barriers that have proven insurmountable thus far.In this case, the crack troops hidden within Klobuchars wooden horse are expected to be thestaffof the NAS and the FTC, who could cloak content modification in pseudo-scientific terms. They would be assisted by an increasingly anti-free speech media and academia, including the World Health Organizations chief whorecently supported censorshipto combat "the infodemic."

Before this Trojan Horse is wheeled into our own lives, Americans should consider whats inside the Nudge Act.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.Follow him on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Read the original:
Tech Trojan Horse: How the Senate is poised to codify censorship of social media | TheHill - The Hill