Deepfakes Could Finally Bring Accountability to Big Tech Companies

Lawmakers see these fake videos as potential justification to crack down on companies’ legal immunity.

An AFP journalist views a "deepfake" video on January 25, 2019, in Washington, DC. Alexandra Robinson/AFP/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Long-frustrated efforts to crack down on harmful content on social media sites may finally get some momentum thanks to an unlikely source: counterfeit videos known as “deepfakes” that experts worry could undermine democracies around the world.

The House Intelligence Committee held its first-ever hearing on deepfakes Thursday, probing the implications of AI technology that can create realistic, counterfeit videos. At the hearing, members of Congress, including committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), argued that deepfakes could be justification for altering laws that exempt technology companies from legal liability for harmful content on their platforms.

“If the social media companies can’t exercise the proper standard of care when it comes to a variety of fraudulent or illicit content, then we have to think about whether that immunity still makes sense,” Schiff said. He was referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which gives internet companies immunity from liability for harmful content on their sites. Section 230 was a bipartisan effort, intended to “encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the internet,” as one judge said later.

If lawmakers significantly alter Section 230, it could be one of the first cracks in the dam of relative inaction on regulating the tech industry.

Lawmakers have expressed concern over the potential damage deepfakes could do. With the technology, someone could make a fake video of Jeff Bezos saying something he never actually said that would cause the share price of Amazon to tank. Groups could undermine elections by issuing fake statements from candidates and politicians. Across the world, in countries like Myanmar and Gabon, the mere potential of deepfakes is already causing confusion.

On Thursday, several members of Congress asked expert witnesses to weigh in on changing the regulation. “I just want to ask each of you whether we should get back to the requirement of an editorial function and a reasonable standard of care by treating these platforms as publishers,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) “That seems like one fundamental question that we would have to ask because that would be a legislative action.”

Schiff told reporters after the hearing that he’s open to working with other committees on these potential legislative changes.

“The Intelligence Committee has a unique perspective and concern about this issue because of the prospect of foreign interference and manipulation,” he said, noting that other committees will have different but relevant interests in reforming Section 230. “So I think this is an oversight issue for several committees—a legislative issue for several committees. And we’ll be working with our colleagues to determine the right response.”

While Republicans and Democrats in Congress agree that technology companies need to reform their content moderation practices (though they don’t necessarily agree on how), a small number are concerned about unraveling it in potentially damning ways. That includes Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), an original sponsor of the legislation that included Section 230. Wyden opposed 2018 legislation that reformed Section 230 to make technology companies liable for sex trafficking content. The measure ended up hurting sex workers by taking away avenues for them to advertise online and forcing many onto the streets, into the hands of exploitative pimps. Wyden has said he’s worried future reforms to Section 230 could cause other unforeseen problems.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate