# Platforms should be liable for algorithmically boosted defamation

Markdown copy of https://realalpha.app/s/platforms-should-be-liable-for-algorithmically-boosted/ on Real Alpha, the best minutes from long interviews with the people building AI. Cite and link the page, not this copy.

- Speaker: [Scott Galloway](https://realalpha.app/people/scott-galloway/) · Professor
- Host: [Steven Bartlett](https://realalpha.app/people/steven-bartlett/) · Host, The Diary Of A CEO
- Show: The Diary Of A CEO
- Episode: [US ELECTION DEBATE: What Trump’s Return REALLY Means For The World! Is The UK About To Collapse?](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/), Jan 23, 2025
- Moment: 1:08:11 to 1:14:50 of the episode (7 min), playing on https://realalpha.app/s/platforms-should-be-liable-for-algorithmically-boosted/; the episode from there: https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4091

## Quote

> “there's something wrong when we have algorithms that have a **profit incentive around rage**, conspiracy theory, and lies”
> — [Scott Galloway](https://realalpha.app/people/scott-galloway/) at [1:10:51](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4251) · The Diary Of A CEO

## Takeaways

1. Distinguish users' speech from platforms' amplification of it.
2. Algorithmic reach can reward rage, conspiracy theories and lies.
3. Scott proposes removing legal protections for boosted defamatory content.

## About this segment

Scott Galloway argues that platforms make editorial choices when algorithms amplify content beyond its organic reach. He says that amplification should carry legal responsibility when it spreads defamatory claims.

From “US ELECTION DEBATE: What Trump’s Return REALLY Means For The World! Is The UK About To Collapse?”, Jan 23, 2025. [Watch the full episode](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/)

## Transcript

Transcribed by machine (Whisper) from the episode’s audio, so a word may be off here and there.

[1:08:19](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4099) the just the topic of censorship though as it relates to meta a hallmark of a free society and a democracy is that pretty much anyone can say pretty much anything about pretty much anybody I believe that. The question is, do machines and bots have free speech rights? Because if I say something, I believe, and I may be paranoid, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. I believe VCs whose portfolio companies I've said have overvalued have enlisted thousands of bots to basically just shitpost me over and over on X to diminish my credibility.

[1:08:54](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4134) I think because I've been critical of Putin that the GRU has hired troll farms to create lists of thousands of people to weaponize bots to say disparaging things about them. Do those bots have free speech rights? In addition, when Fox News distributes information to its anchors saying Dominion voting machines were weaponized by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, despite the fact they knew that was not true, but they tell their broadcasters to do it anyways.

[1:09:23](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4163) And then Dominion says, this hurt our business, and you knew it was false, and you decided to communicate it anyways. Their courts find them liable, and they have to pay three quarters of a billion dollars. What happened at Fox News was a dumpster fire compared to the nuclear mushroom cloud on Meta. So a lot of what we're talking about here, if you want to say that mRNA vaccines alter your DNA, I think you should have the right to say that.

[1:09:50](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4190) The dissenter's voice is important because occasionally the conspiracy theorist ends up being correct. The question is, when you have a business model that elevates the most incendiary, ugly content beyond its organic reach, should you then be exonerated from all liability and slander that traditional media companies are liable to? If we were to say that Elon Musk is a pedophile and start stating facts and evidence of it, and he could show that it's hurt his ability to raise money for Tesla, and he filed legal action against this podcast, I think we would be in a world of hurt, and that legal liability is warranted.

[1:10:33](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4233) But the most powerful media companies in the world have Section 230 protection, so they have a business model where conspiracy theory or novel content, which is Latin for bullshit and lies. The more angry it is, it gets elevated beyond its organic reach. So while I'm kind of down with the notion that we should have free speech and anybody should be able to say pretty much whatever they want, there's something wrong when we have algorithms that have a profit incentive around rage, conspiracy theory, and lies, and two-thirds of Republicans believe that the election was stolen.

[1:11:09](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4269) and when one in five Americans think that 9-11 was an inside job. I mean, we are- Let's be honest. They thought that before the internet. I remember watching all the 9-11 truth of movies and all of that. But your point overall is right. I totally agree. And by the way, Elon agrees with you. When he bought X, he talked about the bot problem. He talked about the amplification of outrage. He hasn't done as much as I hoped he would have done so far, But I hope that they do address that, because that isn't an Elon or an X problem.

[1:11:41](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4301) It's a technology problem of the modern world. The reality is that the more we live our lives online, the more you're going to have the problem of the ability of foreign governments, of individual people to create fake accounts, bot farms, etc., to influence the way we look at all of these things. and we are going to have to come to terms with that reality because it's a technological issue that we're going to have to solve for and we haven't yet.

[1:12:10](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4330) It's also very easy for people to get caught in their own bubbles as well, which is a new phenomenon. There was a time where if you believed crazy things, you still had to sit next to someone else in church and talk to them about their life and what they believe and you encountered dissenting voices, you encountered sane, rational people who had very different views to you that you had to be friends with long-term.

[1:12:32](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4352) Whereas where we are right now is if you've got some sort of a crazy view, you can find yourself only talking to people who share those views and only sharing content that reinforces those views until such time that you become extremely radicalized. I think that's such an important point because I think it's a real shame that AI LLMs aren't crawling the real world. I was at Granger's yesterday. Someone comes up to me, love your content.

[1:12:58](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4378) Let's take a picture. They're so nice. another person comes up to me and say i disagree with your view on this but we have a civil conversation and then i come home to 40 bots telling me i'm professor genocide i mean people in the real world generally speaking i don't know if it's because of the threat of physical violence so they want to have sex with you or maybe they think some some point you'll hire their kid or generally just a comity of man but people in real life i find are just lovely and wonderful and it's a shame that these llms aren't calling this because the treif and some of the vile shit they're crawling online, which I don't even think reflects our species. I think it reflects technology that has a profit motive around promoting the most incendiary, hateful content.

[1:13:41](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4421) So there's got to be some sort of medium speed here. And also, I got off X, Steve, because you don't like Chick-fil-A, don't eat a Chick-fil-A. If Musk wants to pay $44 billion and turn it into a Nazi porn bar, that's his right. I don't think it's illegal. I don't think the government should step in. But I don't have to paint his fence. And I can go to another platform. That's my right too. And everyone says, oh, you're against free speech. I'm like, no, I'm not. I'm against being on a platform that makes me feel bad. So he has the right. And all this notion around meta, free speech, it's a little different because they control so much of the media.

[1:14:19](https://realalpha.app/v/qpBnYB0I6_0/?t=4459) But these are media companies, and they should be liable for slander or defamation, the same way traditional media companies are involved. I think we could solve a lot of this problem by just removing 230 protections for algorithmically elevated content. If you decide to elevate content beyond its organic reach, then you are making an editorial decision and you should be liable if that in fact is slanderous or defamatory.