LAST WEEK there was a ray of hope for local journalism. The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) was included in Congress’ annual defense authorization bill.
This bi-partisan bill (Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker is a co-sponsor) would force Google and Facebook into mandatory arbitration to determine fair compensation for the use of local news on these platforms.
Spotify has to pay musicians. But Google and Facebook don’t have to pay journalists. It’s just not right.
It didn’t take long for Google and Facebook to swing into action. Facebook announced it would delete all news from its platform if the legislation passed. Google was more subtle. Hundreds of Google-funded think tanks started releasing “studies” exposing supposed flaws in the legislation. The U. S. Senate backed down, fearful the controversy would hinder passage of the defense bill. Google and Facebook won again. It was so easy for them to do.
That’s what happens when you let two companies become ruthless monopolies, two of the richest companies in the history of the world, and give them unlimited power to manipulate public opinion.
J. P. Morgan and Standard Oil, Carnegie Mellon and the railroads, these titans were pipsqueaks compared to the power of Google and Facebook. Having a monopoly on oil and trains is one thing. Having a monopoly on public discourse is far, far more powerful and far more dangerous.
The JCPA gives small newspapers, radio stations and television stations an eight-year exemption from the antitrust laws so they can bargain collectively against Google and Facebook. But it was quashed. Google and Facebook don’t want anybody to have power but themselves. Here’s the absurdity: All the small newspapers, radio and television stations combined, are only one one-hundredth the size of Google and Facebook.
The question is this: What happened to the application of the antitrust laws when it comes to Google and Facebook? How has our government allowed two companies to take over American media?
This scary scenario was created by Congress when they exempted internet platforms from our libel laws. Traditional media is responsible for every word they produce. Any damaging falsehoods are subject to libel and slander laws, common laws that were a thousand years in the making.
But Congress decided in 1996 that the poor Internet companies needed a helping hand. They were too small and fragile to have to fight possible libel lawsuits. So, for the first time in human history, Congress exempted a segment of the media from any accountability to our legal system. They got a free pass.
Dear readers, if I were allowed to publish anything I wanted in my newspapers, without any regard for truthfulness or who I wrongfully hurt, I could, if evilly inclined, sell more newspapers than I could ever print.
That’s exactly where we are with these Internet platforms. Facebook and Google have no liability for what is on their platform. Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996 saw to that. Congress created a monster. It is destroying legitimate journalism in America. And when journalists fight back, they are squashed like a bug. The monster Congress created is out of its cage. It now controls Congress. Freedom is at stake.
So Facebook can allow a terrorist group to use its platform to mount a terrorist attack, killing hundreds, and Facebook is immune from legal liability.
Voice of America reports: “Relatives of people killed in terrorist attacks in France and Turkey had sued Google, Twitter and Facebook. They accused the companies of helping terrorists spread their message and radicalize new recruits.
“Nohemi Gonzalez, was a 23-year-old U.S. citizen studying in Paris. The Cal State Long Beach student was one of 130 people killed in Islamic State group attacks in November 2015.
“Gonzalez's relatives sued Google, which owns YouTube, saying the platform had helped the Islamic State group by allowing it to post hundreds of videos that helped incite violence and recruit potential supporters. Gonzalez's relatives said that the company's computer algorithms recommended those videos to viewers most likely to be interested in them.
“But a judge dismissed the case and a federal appeals court upheld the ruling. Under U.S. law — specifically Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material users post on their networks.”
