Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 229

Global platforms face regulatory threats

The year 1995 was three years before Google was founded, nine years ahead of Facebook, a decade before YouTube and 11 years earlier than Twitter. US lawmakers, concerned a recent court ruling would stifle innovation, introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act to ensure “providers of an interactive computer service” were not liable for what people might say and do on their websites. The amendment contrasted with how publishers and broadcasters are legally accountable in the US and elsewhere for the content they make public in traditional or online form.

The amendment, which became Section 230 in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (known as CDA 230), enabled companies such as Facebook, Google, LinkedIn (Microsoft owned since 2016), Reddit, Snapchat, Tumblr, Twitter and YouTube (Google owned since 2006) to emerge as human ingenuity allowed.

Will future restrictions stifle profit growth?

The growth of these companies seems to have outpaced their ability to police misuse of their products without them incurring any legal penalty. Across these platforms the world over, examples of compromised quality include:

  • fake news and cheapened facts
  • manipulation of algorithms to promote articles to ‘trending’ status
  • troll armies
  • bogus ‘likes’
  • web-based smear campaigns
  • viral conspiracy theories with hyped partisanship

They have amplified the role that emotion has played in discourse on these for-profit ‘public squares’ such that social media is accused of being a ‘threat to democracy’.

The controversies have roused policymakers, egged on by traditional media that has lost advertising income to these newcomers. Moves are underway in the US to extend to the internet the same regulations that govern political advertising in traditional media. Some people even question the rationale behind CDA 230.

US lawmakers are restrained when taking on the tech giants on content for two main reasons.

First, the products of these companies are beloved by their billions of users so anything that would disrupt these services would prove unpopular.

Second, digital platforms are difficult to regulate, no matter their size, because they are different from traditional publishers and broadcasters.

The content-heavy business models of the platforms are likely safe for now.

That said, the tech companies (as distinct from their products) have shed much goodwill in recent years as these and other controversies have swirled. With so many controversies raging, the platforms are under pressure to limit abuses on their inventions that have a more sinister side than their creators perhaps expected.

Platforms must take more control or regulators will force them to

It’s already happening. US Republican and Democratic senators are pushing (via the Honest Ads Act) to end the exception from laws governing advertising that online has enjoyed since 2006. While legislation on political ads stands a fair chance of being passed, the challenge for lawmakers on content remains that the internet is unique. Digital platforms refute suggestions they are publishers or broadcasters even though many people go to them for their news.

The tech industry overall says that CDA 230 is a needed protection for online services that provide third-party content and for bloggers who host comments from readers. Without the exception, sites would either forgo hosting content or be forced to ensure content didn’t breach laws – a claim that would apply differently across the platforms.

The solution for US politicians would seem to be to impose content rules on the digital platforms that are forceful but less stringent than those governing traditional media. Germany’s new Network Enforcement Law is a portent of regulation to come – it is regarded as the toughest of laws passed recently to regulate internet content in more than 50 countries. Under the German law effective from October 1, digital platforms face fines for hosting for more than 24 hours any content that “manifestly” violates the country’s Criminal Code, which bars incitement to hatred or crime.

In the US, a workable compromise on regulating content could take time, even years, to work out. With the public still enamoured with their favourite platforms, the tech companies will enjoy the protections that flow from CDA 230 for a while yet.

 

Michael Collins is an Investment Specialist at Magellan Asset Management, a sponsor of Cuffelinks. This material is general informational and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product.


 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

The future of media: It's game on, now!

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Latest Updates

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Superannuation

How to prevent excessive superannuation balances

There is an alternative, simpler approach which could be used to mitigate some of the difficulties that the proposed super tax has for holders of large assets such as properties, businesses and farms in SMSFs.

Shares

US shares: Ambitious multiples on ambitious EPS forecasts

Here's a detailed look at how current valuations and profit forecasts for the S&P 500 stack up versus history. The answer? Both seem excessive, making the market vulnerable to a correction or worse.

Taxation

Family trust tax: When is a loan not a loan?

A recent ruling could change the tax payable by beneficiaries of family trusts. If the ATO has previously demanded extra payments on unpaid present entitlements in your family group, you should watch this space.

Property

Things you must consider before subdividing a property

Subdividing can offer a lucrative first step into property development. Yet it comes with legal, planning and unexpected tax considerations that should be understood from an early stage to avoid surprises.

Investment strategies

5 insights that put market volatility in perspective

Though it may feel like this time is different, markets have shown resilience throughout history when confronted by wars, pandemics and other crises. In many cases, the best course of action has been none at all.

Strategy

Concerns about China's rise to power seem overblown

China has always managed its affairs in a very different way to Western countries and empires. For those concerned about China's rise as a global power, the big question is whether this approach could change.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.