Management and policing of consumer tech platforms is at a pivotal moment. Let’s get this right.

In light of a new U.S.-China trade deal, and pending FTC and DOJ investigations of Amazon, Google and Facebook, we’ve now seen the pendulum of public sentiment on tech swing from unfettered praise to almost universal criticism. But these extremes are simplistic and overlook an important truth: consumer platforms solve important problems for billions of people around the world, while supporting millions of direct and indirect jobs, even while a small number of people use them to engage in objectionable behavior. Promoting the good while stopping the outlying bad has always been a central challenge in tech. As policy leaders and pundits rush forward new ideas and solutions, the most thoughtful will recognize that all the tough issues require balancing important interests. The policing of platforms is complex and it requires the right tradeoffs.

Because people engage in illegal activity online, just as they always have offline, responsible platforms take measures to self-police. Most use a combination of algorithmic tools, community reporting and human review to enforce the rules. But given the scale of activity and the endless effort of bad actors to circumvent rules, 100% prevention is next to impossible. Extreme enforcement efforts can seriously undermine the value of the platforms to the large majority of honest users. So, accepting some uncertainty while pushing for the best results on a case-by-case basis is the appropriate reaction by responsible leaders.

When a platform combats illegal activity, there is certainty over what is acceptable and what is not. It is often an operational matter of fine-tuning the tools and resources to strike the right balance.

However, when a platform faces user activity that is legal, but perceived as conflicting with its brand or values, things get harder.

Consider the challenge of a social media influencer who posts content that promotes vaping. Or, a merchant who sells guns. In these cases, each platform needs to make its own call, set rules and commit enforcement resources along a spectrum of content. There is a wide range of corporate stakeholders, internal and external, with potentially different views and levels of intensity. Companies are free to make these decisions in their own best interest, and consumers are likewise free to express approval or disapproval with their business.

A platform that consistently chooses hands-off policies can face intense media and political criticism, as well as consumer and employee backlash. On the other hand, when taking selective action, platforms can encounter a slippery slope of pressure from a growing array of interest groups and government officials who want their issue addressed. Platforms have been pressured to remove everything from the Russian flag to fast foods. Businesses must be clear and transparent around these decisions, and clearly link them to the values or brand attributes in conflict. And public officials should recognize that finding balance is subjective and not one-size-fits-all.

Expect the tsunami of the 2020 elections to only amplify scrutiny of the role social media platforms take to police “fake news” and deceptive political advertising. Foreign interference in the 2016 election was a wake-up call, and all the major platforms have rolled out and revised rules and policies in democracies globally. We could consider the recent general election in the United Kingdom as a test run for the main event -- the U.S. presidential election -- where platforms are taking a range of action, from banning political advertising entirely, to fact-checking and limiting micro-targeting of political ads.

Yet, every approach has limitations and challenges. Consumer platforms are not in a good position to be the arbiters of political fact. If truthfulness in political advertising and content is in the public interest, regulators should look to put that burden on the advertiser, the best party to bear that burden. Regulating prescription drug advertising is a good analogy; drug manufacturers have the burden of fact and disclosure. Platforms distribute on their behalf. 

Consumer platforms are important to the modern economy and society. Policing negative behaviors, both illegal and just plain objectionable, has always been an important responsibility for technology leaders. And public officials are appropriately increasing their scrutiny. But simplicity and stridency are the enemy of the balance and creativity needed to promote stronger communities, diversity, innovation and economic opportunity.