Following developments in recent years, the United States may repeal or amend the article that protects giant technology companies and upholds their independence. The main reason is security, which is often not provided by the algorithm used by this or that company for its own interests.
“Facebook can identify people who support the so-called whites (ie, whites) and offer them special groups. YouTube can identify people who are anti-vaccines and add video content to them. Twitter may be a foreign country. “Involve millions of people in a targeted campaign launched by agents so that the reference is nowhere to be found. This is wrong,” said Mike Doyle, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.
What the Democrat congressman points out in this case is an algorithm. A mathematical code that operates in the interests and goals of its creator. The code that Facebook, Twitter and Google aim to leave the user on the platform as long as possible, and the algorithm offers this or that person only the content that is interesting to him. To continue, for example, if you are an antivaxer, or just watch a video of vaccines a few times, this or that social networking algorithm will often provide you with this kind of content over the next few hours and days. It helps to form a specific opinion in you.
“Mr. Mark, Mr. Pichai and Mr. Dorsey – your companies, the so-called megaphones, are stirring up and spreading problems. Your business models are really a problem. The time for so-called self-regulation needs to end. “- said Frank Pallone, a Democrat congressman from New Jersey.
Where is the line between the interest of companies and the information security of the user on this or that platform? This is the main question that American congressmen are trying to answer. Crossing the line is a difficult process in this case. Often an algorithm distributes a stream of information that promotes misconceptions in the population. Თ However, content based on false or intentional lies is created by a third party, for which no giant technology company is responsible. Both Facebook, Twitter and Google say that the managers of these companies are fighting against the spread of misinformation with their own forces, rules and means. However, they also say that this is not their only problem.
“Some people think that social platforms polarize society, but this is not really the case. In fact, judging by research and data in America and around the world, polarization began in the years when there was no social media. Some people say the algorithm feeds them news that “It’s not our responsibility to spread misinformation either, because we do not create this content. The situation we are in today is actually the fault of politics and the media. It is because of their actions that society is divided,” said Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
The problem is acknowledged on Twitter, but there are other ways to solve it.
“Disinformation is a broad concept and we need to focus on what the real problem is. We are working hard to do that and we are constantly changing the rules and setting up additional mechanisms,” said Dors, who is the founder of Twitter.
Google believes that the problem is large-scale and the flow of information can not be processed in a timely manner.
“It ‘s really great and we’re working hard on it. Although the flow is very large, more than 500 hours a day are just uploading videos to YouTube, other content is also available, time is short, content is large, making it difficult to respond in a timely manner,” said Sundar Pichai. General Director of Google.
The fact is that social media blocks and removes billions of users and content from the platform over the years, however the flow is large and its filtering often fails in a timely manner. Rules, tools and regulations are updated monthly, though the fact is that this is not enough.
On the one hand, companies fight misinformation, on the other hand, the algorithm helps to spread the content containing incorrect information until it is destroyed, in order to leave you on the platform as long as possible.
Technology companies say there is no problem with them, while lawmakers think they can better get effective mechanisms. It is therefore possible to change US legislation. In particular, we are talking about the 230th amendment, which exempts technology giants from liability for content created by third parties.
“I’ve been learning how your companies work for a long time. Your goal is for people to stay on the platform for a long time and make a lot of money. I’ve wondered what people think about the rules you’ve developed and I’ve conducted a survey. 82 per cent do not share your rules and think they’re wrong. “You’re operating,” said Republican Congressman Gus Bilikrak of Florida.
The 5-hour meeting, held March 25, confirms that for various reasons, congressmen agree that the legislation is outdated and needs to be changed. However, according to experts, the process is sensitive and lawmakers will have to go through a narrow line. Technology companies even think that they should fight the problem together and the law should not restrict freedom of expression.