A Publisher’s Duties (Editorial)

On Thursday, Facebook said that it had removed pages linked to two “Russia-based misinformation campaigns.” The Wall Street Journal called it “the latest step in the social-media company’s effort to prevent misuse of its service.”

Facebook claims that it’s a technology company and that its “service” is providing, more or less, a neutral platform for grandma to keep up with the grandchildren. Russia knows better. It, along with many other thug governments, has known better for years.

Last week’s controversy over Roku’s offering of Infowars, the channel belonging to conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, highlighted the danger to companies of serving as conduits for lies.

Roku initially defended providing a mainstream forum to Jones, who has called the slaughter of kindergartners at Sandy Hook Elementary a hoax, as a free speech issue. Lawyers for the Sandy Hook parents assailed Roku, one saying, “There is no amount of anticipated revenue that could possibly justify Roku’s calculated decision.”

A massive backlash led the company to reconsider and drop Jones’ channel. But another consideration may have been at work. Sandy Hook parents have sued Jones for defamation, alleging he profits from his lies. And on Jan. 11, a judge ruled that the families must be given access to internal Infowars documents about its business model and marketing strategies.

Do legacy media outlets, traditional publishers, sometimes disseminate lies? Sure. But those hurt by those lies have a legal remedy. They can file libel or defamation suits.

Facebook itself has claimed the publisher mantle when it served the company’s purpose, arguing in a court case last summer that the “publisher discretion is a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used.”

If Facebook is a publisher, with free speech rights, then it should have the same responsibility of trying to ensure, to the best of its ability, that the information it disseminates is true.