 |
| Wikipedia must be sued to stop antisemitic atrocities like this |
For the greater part of the year, this blog has been documenting Wikipedia's pro-Hamas bias. One question that we frequently get is simple: "What can I do about it?"
The answer, unfortunately, has been "Not much." Early on, we published a guide on how to navigate Wikipedia's contradictory rules. But Wikipedia regulars and "power users" are hostile to new editors, and it's easy to get blocked even if you follow the rules.
Wikipedia acts as if it is responsible to no one, and even its top body, its "Arbitration Committee," wields enormous power without accountability. It can't be sued if Wikipedia acts as an outlet for Hamas propaganda, allowing antisemitism and anti-Israel extremism to infect its thousands of articles on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The reason for this is an outcome liability shield called Section 230.
Fortunately, the new Trump Administration has pointed the way toward a solution. According to the New York Post, Trump's new Federal Communications Committee chairman Brendan is weighing steps to curb Section 230:
Congress passed the Section 230 provision as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 — essentially giving tech a pass for third-party postings on their platforms.
The thinking was that lawsuits over defamation, etc., created by third parties could cripple innovation in the new economy.
Plus, unlike traditional media, they’re simply unbiased conduits of information.
They don’t operate as a traditional publisher by hosting a message board, chat room and should not accept the liability that goes along with it.
But Carr, my sources say, believes the world has changed dramatically since the early days of the Internet.
Social media has replaced chat rooms.
The operators of these sites make all sorts of editorial decisions.
That certainly applies to Wikipedia, which is specifically cited in the article: "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, publishes consequence-free stuff based on the mostly progressive political views of the volunteers who supply its content, critics allege."
It's not clear what Carr can do to force Wikipedia to be forced to take responsibility for its content. Post columnist and Fox News reporter Charles Gasparino says as follows:
How he gets there is the great unknown among telecom lawyers I spoke to.
The FCC — with a new GOP majority led by Carr — is the top regulator of media, new and old.
It has the legal authority to interpret Section 230, and change the prior guidance that has given those expansive protections to Big Tech.
He can weaken or eliminate the shield by issuing a so-called advisory opinion.
Then it’s up to the courts to decide if they should use his guidance when they weigh Section 230 cases.
There’s a good chance many will, particularly in litigation before conservative judges.
That means defamation cases against Big Tech that have been dismissed in the past on summary judgments could have “standing” in the courts and move toward discovery depending on how a judge interprets the FCC edict.
Tech firms could settle rather than fight because litigation is never cheap.
So watch this space. Focus on this. Wikipedia must be defunded. It must also be sued. Legal and financial pressure are the only solution to the takeover of Wikipedia by pro-Hamas operatives.
