Carr Rejects Zuckerberg’s Government ‘Censorship’ Plan; Reaction Mixed
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s call to regulate online content moderation is a “bad idea,” FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr told us Monday, calling it “outsourcing of censorship to government.” The Zuckerberg proposal drew mixed reaction from lawmakers, industry groups and consumer advocates.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“The solution is not to pass the buck to government to step in and solve everything,” Carr said. “It’s a violation of the First Amendment. … I’m for the free exchange of information and ideas and less government regulation and control over speech, not more.”
Policymakers shouldn’t jump to conclusions about censorship, Public Knowledge Vice President Chris Lewis told us. Setting regulatory standards doesn’t mean government will have power to decide what’s being posted online, Lewis argued. It’s not unprecedented for government to look at media and decide standards for how companies moderate, he said. There’s a lot of debate about whether platforms should have sole discretion over content on these platforms, he noted.
Zuckerberg sought regulation in four areas: privacy, political advertising, harmful content and data portability. He supports a global privacy framework modeled after the EU’s general data protection regulation, which the CEO wants federal legislation to build on. “It should establish a way to hold companies such as Facebook accountable by imposing sanctions when we make mistakes,” Zuckerberg wrote. For political ads, regulation should set common standards for “verifying political actors.” Zuckerberg said regulation should also set “baselines for what’s prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum.” The company supports a standard data transfer format so users can move their information.
Zuckerberg is right that tech companies should be held accountable for protecting users against violent extremists and foreign enemies, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., tweeted. “There must be strict legal limits on how platforms use our data. It’s time for Congress to set clear & common sense rules.” House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., quipped that Zuckberg’s four-point proposal should include a fifth item, that the CEO “doesn’t get to make the rules anymore. Facebook is under criminal and civil investigation. It has shown it cannot regulate itself. Does anyone even want his advice?”
Elements of the proposal make sense to Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Vice President Daniel Castro. He cited guidelines for election campaigns, online hate speech, data portability and the need for better data privacy laws. But he rejected the notion the U.S. should follow the EU over "an economic cliff" by enacting a GDPR-like privacy framework: "This would create massive compliance costs for businesses, make digital services more expensive for consumers and discourage the sorts of innovation that make new products and services possible." NetChoice praised Zuckerberg’s argument against data “nationalization laws around the world, many of which intentionally target the U.S. tech economy.”
Zuckerberg’s proposal could “indicate a willingness among tech leaders to confront the forces of hate that threaten our democracies,” but Silicon Valley needs to show its serious about changing “the terms,” said Free Press Senior Policy Counsel Carmen Scurato. Free Press is advocating for ChangetheTerms.org, which offers recommendations for enforcement, transparency, staff training, governance and appeal rights.