We essentially “wouldn't have social media companies” without Section 230: Marty Baron

Former Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron joins 'Influencers with Andy Serwer' to discuss the social media giants and their impact on the news business.

Video transcript

ANDY SERWER: Let me ask you about that law in Australia that requires Facebook and Google to negotiate with media companies and pay for the content that appears on their platforms. What do you think about that? Should we have that here?

MARTY BARON: Well, look, and I do think that social media companies have been able to take advantage of the fact that we are providing all this so-called content-- I call it journalism-- that-- and they're making money off it. They're vacuuming up essentially all the advertising that's out there. They've also been able to-- so in the process, they've been able to gain the revenue without taking on any responsibility.

I do think that there has to be a recalculation of what these platforms owe the entities whose content they're using on their site. And now, how much that should be I think is a very difficult thing to calculate, because we also derive value from our presence on social media platforms. If we work at the Washington Post and we're not on Google or-- and Google News, that would be a real-- that would be a real problem for the Washington Post. It would lose revenue as a result of that.

If we're not on-- if we're not on Facebook, same thing. So calculating, you know, what the transfer of value should be I think is a really difficult calculation. And I would like to see further study of what is a fair-- what is a fair sum of money.

ANDY SERWER: So are YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter media companies, to your mind, Marty? And should they continue to be protected under Section 230 or not?

MARTY BARON: You know, I don't know the answer to that question. It's something that I've thought about a fair amount, but I think it's a really difficult question. I mean, I think that, essentially, if they were not subject to 230, if that were rescinded in its entirety, we wouldn't have social media companies. Now, people can decide whether they think that's a good thing or a bad thing, but clearly, they can't be responsible, held liable for every single thing everybody says that's on their platforms. That would be impossible for them to-- impossible for them to do.

So-- and you know, the public does derive value from these social platforms. They come with a lot of disadvantages, too, and a lot of harm, but there are also advantages. I mean, if anybody thinks through how they manage their life and how often they use Google, they will appreciate how much value is provided.

So I don't know the answer. I mean, it obviously needs to be reconsidered. It needs to be re-evaluated. I think it should be done in a dispassionate, considered way, as opposed to with political motivations.

ANDY SERWER: You know, President Biden recently said social media companies are, quote, killing people, end quote, with vaccine disinformation. He later walked that back, but does he have a point about this spread of misinformation? And how responsible is a platform like Facebook?

MARTY BARON: Well, I think it should take more responsibility. As I indicated before, they've gained a lot of revenue, and they should take responsibility, particularly for something as consequential as a pandemic. So I do think that there is undoubtedly more that the platforms can do to ensure that information is not spreading on their platforms. That's difficult. I recognize they operate in every country in the world, under-- and every language in the world, and there are hundreds of millions of people posting things on these sites at all hours of the day and night, so at every second of the day. So it is a huge challenge, but certainly I think that there's probably more that they can do.