What will Facebook do as the country’s top lobbying force?
Facebook is now the biggest corporate lobbying spender in the United States. How big? The tech titan spent $19.7 million on lobbying in 2020, more than twice as much as Big Oil’s Exxon Mobil ($8.7 million) and Big Tobacco’s Philip Morris ($7 million), according to a new report published by Public Citizen.
My, how things have changed.
For decades tech firms largely ignored Washington politics with the hope they would be left alone. The tech industry spent less than $20 million on lobbying as recently as 2010. No longer. In 2020, Big Tech spent $124 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. In addition to Facebook, the list of tech lobbyists includes Amazon ($18 million), Alphabet ($7.5 million) and Apple ($6.7 million).
Lobbying isn’t inherently wrong. Business should have a voice on political issues. But too often it turns into political bribery, giving politicians money in return for favorable legislation and regulation.
Today’s fear is that Facebook is in the game for all the wrong reasons. That because it now has the loudest voice in Washington, its needs and wants will be at the expense of its users and the foundation of our democracy.
Facebook claims its mission is “to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.”
Instead, it facilitates the country’s greatest political divide since the Civil War. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly failed to take responsibility for Facebook’s role in the increase in extremism, misinformation and hate speech that helped spark the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Similar viral misinformation on its platform promotes false COVID-19 cures and spreads baseless rumors that vaccines aren’t safe.
That, in turn, has Congress thinking it needs to write new regulations governing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996. The law says “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. In general, it protects websites from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal or factually incorrect.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls it “the most important law protecting internet speech.” The benefits to free expression are obvious. Tech experts largely agree that if Section 230 was revoked, it would be challenging for startups to enter the online market because of high legal costs and liability risks.
The challenge for Washington is to find a way to update the law to prevent the proliferation of misinformation and hate speech while also retaining a free flow of information.
Zuckerberg’s solution misses the point. Testifying before Congress on March 24, the Facebook CEO said, “Instead of being granted immunity, platforms should be required to demonstrate that they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it.”
Facebook and other major social media players already have systems in place for identifying unlawful content. But hate speech and misinformation still proliferate.
Facebook’s investment in Washington lobbyists suggests that Zuckerberg remains more interested in improving his bottom line than protecting American democracy. In 2019, Forbes estimated Zuckerberg’s net worth at $76 billion. Today, following a historically divisive election and a disastrous pandemic, Zuckerberg’s net worth has increased to $109 billion.
Zuckerberg needs to decide whether Facebook will leave a legacy of divisiveness that threatens American democracy or help craft new internet regulations that will rein in abuses without breaking the internet.