It remains unclear what clout local law holds in other jurisdictions, and Facebook might still appeal against the finding, but it remains an important case to take notice of. 

My problem with Facebook, and many other social media platforms, is that they benefit from being publishers, including posting and making money from advertisements. Yet despite benefiting grandly from other news organisation’s republished stories and/or other user-generated content, it generally refuses to take any responsibility for what that content includes or implies.

All other publishers abide by a journalistic code of ethics set by their countries’ Press Councils and the laws of defamation and libel applicable to their jurisdiction. 

My Editor-in-Chief at Daily Maverick Branko Brkic has previously argued that “social networks may claim they are ‘only’ platforms for others to publish, but the moment they apply algorithms to bring specific content to the users, they are in the business of curation, which is also the business of publishing. We go to extreme lengths to ensure what we publish is accurate and fair, and we are responsible for every word we publish,” he says. 

“They serve as an amplifying station for the most dangerous groups and ideologies on Earth. Facebook, Twitter and many others may feel they can have the best of both worlds, and they will continue to do so until humanity puts the stop to it. It is up to all of us to break the cycle of abuse.”

A recent court finding in South Africa might be an indication that the tide is turning. The media release issued by local law firm, Cawood Attorneys, has already been run extensively on various platforms. The case pertains to social media slander against the firm and one of its directors, but on the face of it the court case has set a precedent for other courts to follow.

In the case, the respondent, a single service provider for Eskom Rotek Industries, posted unfortunate comments that were rooted in the fact that her company applied for business rescue, but the practitioner decided to wind up the business for liquidation, stating that it was “beyond saving”. 

The business owner posted claims on Facebook, calling the law firm’s honesty and integrity into question, including falsely claiming it had stolen Covid-19 funds. 

The firm responded to the comment online, requesting that she delete her defamatory remarks. She responded by identifying the business rescue director by name and claiming, among other severely slanderous remarks, that the firm was racist and sexist and that they took advantage of a black female in distress. 

Requests from Cawoods to Facebook itself to have the offending untruthful comments removed, were met with the following response from Facebook:

“…we reviewed the comment that you reported and found that it doesn’t go against any of our Community Standards. For this reason, we didn’t take the comment down.” 

Not at all happy with this blasé brush-off, the law firm took the social media trio to court, successfully serving papers on Facebook. Facebook removed the offending remarks before the case was heard in court. 

Facebook SA’s response to Business Maverick’s questions was a simple statement that the matter has been settled. 

But the finding has set an important precedent, according to media expert Reg Rumney. Significant within South African law, it has also set a critical practice for companies around the world, that holds social media platforms responsible for the content they publish in the jurisdictions where it has representation.

What will set a serious standard for the American-based tech giants is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which hinges on the executive order which Donald Trump signed in June, calling on federal regulators to review whether Section 230 should be revised or completely abolished. 

Bloomberg reported that the law allows social media companies to provide a forum for users without being held liable for what they post. Experts and businesses often credit the protection, passed in 1996, as one of the major reasons behind the rise of the internet economy. 

If social media companies were liable for what their users posted, they might not allow discussion of controversial topics or provide any opportunity for users to comment.

“It will restrict more speech online, not less,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement. 

“By exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say, this would penalise companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that might offend anyone.” 

Social media has enabled activists to create movements like #FeesmustFall, #BlackLivesMatter and was significant in the Arab Spring. 

“If these platforms were not there to provide that reach, who knows if [the movements] ever would’ve had the same magnitude as they do, or enabled people to bring down toleration or corrupt regimes,” the Facebook spokesperson said.

Despite there being some truth in that, Facebook cannot elude accountability that easily. It’s time to man up. BM/DM