It's Spreading: Lindsey Graham Now Insisting 'Fairness Doctrine' Applies To The Internet

from the aren't-you-supposed-to-understand-law? dept

Remember when Republicans were against the "Fairness Doctrine"? Apparently, that's now out the window, so long as they can attack Facebook. As we noted recently, Senator Ted Cruz appears to be pushing for the strangest interpretation of Section 230 around (in direct conflict with (a) what the law says and (b) how the courts have interpreted it) saying that in order to make use of CDA 230's immunity "good samaritan" clause, internet service providers need to be "neutral." Again, that's not what the law says. It's also an impossible standard, and one that would lead to results that would piss off lots of people. The similarities to the FCC's concept of the "Fairness Doctrine" are pretty clear, though such a rule on the internet would be an even bigger deal, since the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast TV.

And, it appears that Cruz's incorrect interpretation is spreading like a virus. Senator Lindsey Graham is now spewing the same nonsense.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a subcommittee chairman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told MT that he remains concerned about potential bias when it comes to content moderation on social media platforms. “They enjoy liability protections because they’re neutral platforms. At the end of the day, we’ve got to prove to the American people that these platforms are neutral,” he said. “You’ve got to have a validating system where the government can come in and validate that this whole system is neutral.”

So much about this is wrong. First, Section 230 of the CDA has never required platforms to be neutral. Indeed, it would be silly to do so because what the hell does "neutral" even mean in this context? Second, claiming that someone needs to "prove" that the platforms are neutral. What does that even mean? How would you prove that anything is "neutral" anyway? Finally, saying that the government has to validate that your internet service is neutral raises a very large number of very serious First Amendment questions. What kind of Senator is not only so wrong about the law, but thinks that the appropriate role of government is to "validate" internet platforms over what kind of speech they allow?

Separately, this is the same Lindsey Graham who just recently was demanding that social media sites do more to takedown content he didn't like. Now, apparently, he's up in arms over the fact that the sites took down content he did like. If Graham truly wants websites to "do everything possible to combat" terrorist groups using the internet, then attacking CDA 230 is the worst possible way to do that. CDA 230 gives websites the power to moderate and filter out such content without fear of facing legal liability. In other words, it's an excellent tool for getting websites to takedown extremist content. To then turn around and insist that sites should lose CDA 230 protections because they also took down some content you like... raises all sorts of First Amendment issues. You're basically saying websites should only remove the content I dislike, and if they remove content I like I'm going to put their existence at risk. Guess what happens then? Sites will stop moderating entirely, leaving up more of the "bad" content you dislike.

Oh, and back to that whole "fairness doctrine" thing. Guess who is vehemently against it? You guessed right: Lindsey Graham. Opposing the Fairness Doctrine is one of the few issues on his tech campaign platform and a few years back he put out a press release touting his conservative credentials including "barring the use of federal funds to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine" (which was silly anyway, because there was no appetite to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine).

Except, now, as soon as he can pretend to be up in arms over Facebook, Graham seems to jump on the idea of a Fairness Doctrine for the internet. Not only that, but he seems to think it's already in place (it isn't) and requires the government to go in and validate platforms over what speech they allow.

Filed Under: cda 230, fairness doctrine, first amendment, intermediary liability, lindsey graham, neutral platform, ted cruz, validation
Companies: facebook, google

Crowd Funding: Also A Method For Proving Marketability To Investors

from the in-the-pudding dept

As crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter continue to be a rising trend in content production, there's an important lesson that both successful and failed attempts can teach us all. That lesson is that the turnout for such a project tells the producer everything they need to know about the combination of the saleability of their project and their ability to properly market it. In fact, Mark Cuban recently came out in strong support of crowd funding, going so far as to suggest that every startup should be required to do a Kickstarter campaign.

"It's a way for you create demand and sell the product without giving up any equity. That is a compliment to what an investor might do. In terms of PE (price to equity), there are strategic investors and then there's just money. I'm not a big fan of money investors, which is what most angel investors turn out to be, because they just want their money back. I try to be very strategic, I try to add value, or I don't make the investment."

It's a great way to look at things, but I wonder if we can take it a step further. There is no reason that a Kickstarter project cannot also woo more traditional investors. This is all the moreso if the Kickstarter campaign takes off like a rocket. Why wouldn't an investor want to back a project that has shown it is both in-demand and managed by competent business folks? Serving as one example of the ability to do this, not to mention the leverage such an approach provides content creators, is Chris Roberts, developer of the Star Citizen game, which was wildly popular on Kickstarter.

“We’re still doing investment,” Roberts explained to RPS, “but I’m going to be a bit more picky in choosing it, and I’m getting to dictate the terms better. I’m saying, ‘You guys have to realize about making the game as good as possible. No forcing us to go public or to sell out.’”

Far from well-known conditions of corporate or investor interests forcing an early release of a game, or nixing important but difficult to create aspects of one (ahem, Mass Effect 3), this diversification of backing dollars protects the creator and his or her vision for their creation. There are still going to be stipulations under which an investor may hand over their cash, but the control over the creator is mitigated by the other sources of funds.

Beyond that, Chris explains how crowd funding can be a great proving ground to current or new investors.

"It’s actually funny. Everyone I lined up is basically over the moon. Your big risk as an investor is, “I’m backing this thing. Does anyone really want it?” At this point there’s no question that people want it, and maybe a lot more than anyone was expecting."

What does this mean in practical terms? Well, far from the the caution some issue that crowd-funded projects will naturally be lower-budget cousins to their corporate largers, being able to attract money from multiple sources, including a wider internet public, could make for huge budgets in games, films, and music. I would suggest creators heed Mark Cuban's words: crowdfund, both for the money you can generate for your product, but also to prove to traditional investors that you're going to be successful.

Filed Under: attracting investors, chris roberts, crowdfunding, entrepreneurs, mark cuban, market research, star citizen, validation