ANGELO LYNN

If you’re a reader of headlines and don’t often read the full story, you might delve deeper into the story where Meta czar Mark Zuckerberg regrets caving to “censorship” imposed by the Biden administration over Facebook’s posting of misinformation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Now pressured by GOP House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordon, R-Ohio, Zuckerberg caved to Jordon’s pressure to now say he regrets removing posts (on his own volition, he admits) that contained misinformation about Covid.

In short, the Meta chief is taking the position that their multiple platforms — Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads — will no longer “demote” potentially false stories or posts while its fact-checking partners determine if the post is factual or a blatant lie.

Opposite of the Hippocratic Oath doctors embrace to “first, do no harm,” Zuckerberg’s approach is to allow whatever harm may occur until someone tells him differently and then he’ll take down the post but make no effort to correct the misinformation.

Imagine if any newspaper did the same. Suppose we printed letters to the editor sliming a candidate or anyone in public office or private business with the attitude we’ll run with what we have until factfinders prove differently and then, perhaps, we’ll post counter letters redeeming the person’s character? We wouldn’t print a retraction, according to current rules that govern platforms, but others might correct the falsehoods, even as those would be challenged by other falsehoods. Truth is the ultimate casualty.

As a newspaper, of course, we can’t publish letters or stories we suspect might be injurious to others without being subject to libel suits. And because of that threat to our bottom line and our integrity, we work hard to avoid publishing what we might know to be untrue. It’s what makes newspapers a trusted source of information.

In a major mistake in governance in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress gave Internet platforms an exemption to the libel laws that govern all other publishing concerns by saying the content posted on their platforms is not their responsibility. Almost 30 years later, it’s time to admit the exemption was ill-advised and make the platforms live by the same laws radio, television and print journalism live by.

In theory, the original intent was reasonable. Back when the Internet was a concept and only good things were imagined by the free flow of information with a diversity of opinion, the Internet held a sliver of promise.

In reality, the lack of responsibility has created a cesspool of misinformation on social media platforms that are now dominated by forces seeking to undermine accurate information that informs public opinion. Just like in the novel “Animal Farm,” without rules anarchy prevails and debauchery (if not political dictatorship and suppression of free will) is its outcome.

Several European nations have responded by implementing measures to hold platforms accountable for egregious misinformation. Congress should do the same, which is the opposite of what the House GOP is pursuing under Jordon’s committee.

Angelo Lynn