WASHINGTON — Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., D-N.J., and three other colleagues announced last week the introduction of the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act (JAMAA) of 2021, presented as a legislative fix to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
“Social media platforms like Facebook continue to actively amplify content that endangers our families, promotes conspiracy theories, and incites extremism to generate more clicks and ad dollars,” said Pallone. “These platforms are not passive bystanders – they are knowingly choosing profits over people, and our country is paying the price. The time for self-regulation is over, and this bill holds them accountable.”
“Designing personalized algorithms that promote extremism, disinformation, and harmful content is a conscious choice, and platforms should have to answer for it,” added Pallone.
Pallone proposed JAMAA with Reps. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.).
To all four lawmakers, Section 230 liability protections shouldn’t cover online platforms that “knowingly or recklessly use an algorithm or other technology to recommend content that materially contributes to physical or severe emotional injury.”
“The era of self-regulation is ending, and apologies and promises are no longer acceptable: today I join my colleagues to protect American consumers from companies that consistently put profits over people,” said Schakowsky.
“Technology companies like Facebook say their platforms give every user a voice, but they amplify some voices over others. The Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act holds these companies accountable for the severe harm they cause by spreading dangerous information.”
According to the lawmakers, the act targets the Section 230 immunity of an online platform if the algorithm is used to recommend content to a user based on that personal information and if that recommendation materially contributes to physical or severe emotional injury.
“Section 230 would no longer fully protect social media platforms from all responsibility for the harm they do to our society,” Doyle said.
“It’s my hope that by making it possible to hold social media platforms accountable for the harm they cause, we can help optimize the internet’s impact on our society.”
Telecoms and big technology organizations are concerned over JAMAA. These include groups like the Internet Association.
“Algorithms are crucial to the benefits the internet provides,” said K. Dane Snowden, the chief executive officer and president of the Internet Association, in a statement on JAMAA. “They enable sending email, shopping online, messaging friends, recommending shows to stream, or building a playlist of your music. Algorithms are also often the answer to improving and addressing content challenges.”
“No amount of good intention can compensate for the harmful ramifications of a bill that includes overly broad and unworkable definitions,” said Snowden. “Internet companies work constantly to fine-tune the algorithms that keep pace with changing tactics of bad actors, making frequent adjustments as often as daily — or even multiple times a day — if a new challenge arises.”
The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) has also issued a statement reflecting concerns about JAMAA.
“The Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act of 2021, introduced in the House of Representatives, is an extreme way to address a legitimate and critical concern – the spread of hate speech and misinformation,” notes a statement from SIIA. “We need a thoughtful and consensus-driven approach to these problems that does not stifle innovation, regardless of the businesses’ size or popularity.
“The new bill is open-ended about what sorts of harmful content are creating problems, relies on standards that will be impossible to implement, and undercuts First Amendment values,” the association added.
Digital rights organizations are also concerned. Fight for the Future, a group that has stood in support of sex workers’ rights on the internet in the past, also finds JAMAA to be a problematic proposal.
“Like with SESTA/FOSTA, lawmakers are failing to understand how these policies will actually play out in the real world,” says Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future. “Because of the way that 230 actually functions, a change like this would essentially gut the law.”
“SESTA/FOSTA is a harrowing example,” said Greer. “Rather than try to figure out which user-generated content might result in liability, platforms would likely suppress all organic user content while pumping your feed full of engaging but safe content from corporate partners.”
Greer also mentioned how sex worker advocacy groups and human rights organizations have cautioned against drastic changes to Section 230. None of the lawmakers who have proposed the JAMAA legislation haven’t endorsed the Safe Sex Worker Study Act. This act would investigate the harm done by the Section 230 carve-outs implemented by the controversial SESTA/FOSTA legislation from the Trump era.
Greer asked: “How can Democrats responsibly propose more changes to Section 230 without supporting a bill to investigate whether the last changes did more harm than good?”
Mike Stabile, director of public affairs for the Free Speech Coalition (the adult industry’s chamber of commerce), posted observations to his personal Twitter after JAMAA was introduced by Rep. Pallone and the other legislative sponsors.
“House Dems will introduce a bill to remove Section 230 protections for platforms that make a personalized recommendation that ‘materially contributed to a physical or severe emotional injury to any person,'” Stabile tweeted. “I can not think of dumber language.”
“As much as I despise Big Tech, the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act (JAMAA!) language is so obnoxiously broad that it literally could mean anything — and no disclaimer that the platform had to know a thing could be bad for you (personally),” he added.
Capitol building image by Kendall Hoopes from Pexels
