Meta Hit With Lawsuits Over Allegations Of Promoting Hate Speech | Robinson + Cole Data Privacy + Security Insider

[ad_1]

[author: C. Blair Robinson]*

Meta was the subject of two related lawsuits totaling more than $ 150 billion in its first major legal challenge since the rebranding. The lawsuits (one filed in California Superior Court and the other in the UK) come from a class representing the Rohingya, a minority Muslim population who have suffered systematic severe violence in Myanmar. The lawsuits allege that Facebook’s algorithm promoted hate speech targeting the Rohingya. The complaint claims that Facebook is actively directing users to extremist groups and contributing to the worsening situation of the Rohingya. The lawsuit further alleges that senior Meta leaders were aware of the anti-Rohingya hate speech on the platform and allowed him to stay.

The lawsuit comes at a time when Meta faces an increase in calls for regulation from both sides of the political aisle. Many commentators also blame Facebook for contributing to deepening political divisions in the United States. The elephant in the room is Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, which immunizes online platforms from legal repercussions based on content posted by their users. This lawsuit looks set to pull that thread in what could be the start of a new era for online moderation – does the law protect companies that promote hate speech, or this safe haven stops – to accommodation? While section 230 protects businesses that host hate speech, it is silent on the issue of promotion and dissemination.

The claim that Meta is actively and knowingly contributing to the polarization and expansion of hate groups goes to the heart of social media as an industry. Social media giants make money by keeping users engaged with their platforms, which allows them to both serve ads and collect user profile information to sell to advertisers. Unfortunately, nothing forces users to engage like righteous anger, so content delivery algorithms learn to favor inflammatory content that confirms users’ existing biases. This phenomenon, known as the “filter bubble,” tends to foster echo chambers and ideological extremism within different pockets of a platform’s user base. If the court in this case finds that Meta breached an obligation by encouraging hate speech, it has the potential to upend the industry’s traditional business model.

* This post was written by C. Blair Robinson, Legal Intern at Robinson + Cole. Blair is not yet admitted to practice law.

[View source.]

[ad_2]