Facebook Is Already Preparing for a Biden Presidency
By: Will Oremus
Tags: Pattern Matching, Facebook, Election 2020

Facebook Is Already Preparing for a Biden Presidency

How the prospect of a “blue wave” is changing content moderation.

Photo: Jim Watson/Getty Images

Up until two weeks ago, Facebook was a place where QAnon conspiracy groups flourished, aided by its recommendation algorithms; where you could pay to promote anti-vaccine misinformation; where Holocaust denial was treated as a legitimate political opinion; and where conservative news outlets were known to get a pass on rule enforcement to avoid upsetting the right.

As of today, none of those things are true. A series of dramatic policy reversals by the dominant social network, followed by an aggressive crackdown on a dubious New York Post story alleging corruption by the Biden family, amount to a transformation in the company’s official posture toward online speech (if not the underlying dynamics that make it such a potent vector for misinformation). One year after Mark Zuckerberg delivered a full-throated defense of free speech at Georgetown University, emphatically rejecting calls to broaden restrictions on what views Facebook users can express, his company has done just that. The moves to ban QAnon accounts, ban anti-vaxx ads, and ban content that “denies or distorts the Holocaust” come on top of recently announced bans of post-election political ads and ads that attempt to delegitimize U.S. election results.

What, some observers wondered, could account for the sudden shift? No doubt some of these changes had been in the works for a while and were moving along separate tracks within the organization. But the timing cannot be pure coincidence. The moves come just as Biden has firmly reestablished himself as the heavy favorite to win the presidency in three weeks, and amid growing odds of a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress. The changes position Facebook to better defend itself against a potential president and party that has raised the specter of regulations that could seriously damage its business.

The Pattern

Social platforms are hedging against a potential Biden presidency.

Undercurrents

Under-the-radar trends, stories, and random anecdotes worth your time.

While Democrats may be up in the polls, Republicans aren’t about to give up on settling their own scores with Big Tech . On Thursday, Trump’s FCC Chair Ajit Pai said the agency will issue new rules to “clarify” how Section 230 is applied. That came after the Supreme Court declined to take up a review of the statute — for now. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas published a statement signaling interest in reviewing Section 230 in the future. In particular, as Lawfare’s Anna Salvatore explained, he argued that it has been interpreted to confer more immunity on platforms than the text of the law requires. As a side note, Trump — who tweeted yet again this week that Section 230 should be repealed — has invoked the law on his own behalf in the past, including to defend himself against a defamation charge stemming from something he retweeted. (Who knew “retweets are not endorsements” was an actual legal argument?) Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, suggested that platforms be regulated as “common carriers” and blocked from “censoring messages.” No word on whether he’s prepared for the avalanche of scams, spam, and pornography that would quickly inundate a truly unmoderated social network.

. On Thursday, Trump’s FCC Chair Ajit Pai said the agency will issue new rules to “clarify” how Section 230 is applied. That came after the Supreme Court declined to take up a review of the statute — for now. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas published a statement signaling interest in reviewing Section 230 in the future. In particular, as Lawfare’s Anna Salvatore explained, he argued that it has been interpreted to confer more immunity on platforms than the text of the law requires. As a side note, Trump — who tweeted yet again this week that Section 230 should be repealed — has invoked the law on his own behalf in the past, including to defend himself against a defamation charge stemming from something he retweeted. (Who knew “retweets are not endorsements” was an actual legal argument?) Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, suggested that platforms be regulated as “common carriers” and blocked from “censoring messages.” No word on whether he’s prepared for the avalanche of scams, spam, and pornography that would quickly inundate a truly unmoderated social network. At Google, employees are encouraged to speak their mind — unless it’s about antitrust, the New York Times’ Daisuke Wakabayashi reports. The story is a revealing look at an internal taboo at the search giant, which is the subject of an impending antitrust lawsuit by the Department of Justice, along with inquiries by state attorneys general and the aforementioned House subcommittee. “They don’t address it in emails,” Wakabayashi writes. “They don’t bring it up in big company meetings. […] And if you hope to land an executive job at the internet company, do not bring up the A-word in the interview process.” It makes for an eyebrow-raising read, especially when juxtaposed with Google’s own official mission statement: to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” On Thursday, meanwhile, Google held an event to highlight new “helpful” search products, playing up the competition that the company faces in the realm of information discovery.

Idea of the Week

To mend a broken internet, create online parks.

— Eli Pariser, Wired

Chart of the Week

New iPhones don’t create as much buzz as they used to.

— Felix Richter, Statista

Tweet of the Week

“Tech platforms designing their policies.” (GIF)

— Brian Fung, @b_fung