Law Trump issues EO to reclassify social media as publishers, legally liable for user content

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, when it comes to libelous speech, the government has to determine many things. I understand and sympathize with the criticism of the new policy as laying the groundwork for an expansion of government bureaucracy in this area. But that's all we are talking about here. Nothing is happening to Twitter that isn't already the case with the Wall Street Journal or the NYT. Given the strength of libel protections in the US, I don't think there's likely to be much effect.

And no, I don't support such regs because of a fact check. I don't even know the facts about the fact check, as I don't usually follow such stories. I've supported treating Twitter and other social media entities like publishers for years now.

This is a typically dishonest post, Inga. Trump's outrage and hastily put-together EO were in response to a statement of his being flagged as inaccurate (something Twitter has shown extreme restraint in). The determination that it's not "neutral" (like the assertion that neutrality as determined by the president is a necessity for freedom of speech) is wholly baseless.

The comparison to the WSJ or the NYT is also very disingenuous. The WSJ and NYT don't have millions of writers working every day. It would be impossible to monitor every tweeter, and thus the practical effect of Twitter not obeying the president would be that it gets shut down. So, again, we're looking at a situation where a company has to meet arbitrary standards of the president (which includes not criticizing him) or they get shut down. You can say "I support freedom of speech" all you want, but if you don't strenuously object to a real-world example of the gov't suppressing criticism like this, it's meaningless. The whole point of having the right enshrined in our Constitution is to prevent exactly the kind of action that you're cheering on.

 

[vengeful]

Lol, did you not know that sherdog is an MMA site? Yes, they are publishers with employees, reporters, articles, interviews and rules for their user forum. No, it is not a neutral social media platform and I don't think it ever claimed to be nor was it treated like one. The rules of the forum specifically, which is a comment section in addition to the published articles, is still content neutral though, so their rules, for example, don't state that you can bash Stipe Miocic but not Robert Whittaker, or that you can post porn, but only if it's certain porn stars and you can. The people are the content on social media, it's not a comment section of a news publisher.

Apparently your reading comprehension must not be up to snuff.... I didn't ask anything in regards to reporters or articles.... I specifically mentioned your posts. The people arent the content on social media, their comments are. And according to the Trump supporters on here its not content neutral as they have said their posts receive increased chances of being moderated (deleted, moved, carded etc) which seems eerily similar to the complaints against social media.

And unfortunately, a private company indiscriminately choosing what content to and not to allow is in no way a free speech violation. I have no idea how or why you people keep acting like these private companies are the government restricting your speech ability. It's quite strange.

 

[bobgeese]

Things aren't going smoothly and any recovery we are seeing is only because Trillions of dollars have been handed out to Wallstreet like candy on Halloween.

Yup, welcome to modern society. I don’t know about you, but I am sure as shit thankful for Amazon right about now.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

This is a typically dishonest post, Inga. Trump's outrage and hastily put-together EO were in response to a statement of his being flagged as inaccurate (something Twitter has shown extreme restraint in). The determination that it's not "neutral" (like the assertion that neutrality as determined by the president is a necessity for freedom of speech) is wholly baseless.

Ah, the inevitable resort to calculated lies and character attacks. Nothing dishonest about saying I don't really care nor know much about Trump's fact checking problems. His incessant sparring with the media is rarely of interest to me. I don't follow Trump's social media and I've never watched one of his press briefings.

However, I don't think the assertion that Twitter isn't neutral is baseless. It's something people have been observing for a long time. There have been calls to treat Twitter like a publisher since prior to Trump's presidency. Not everything is about Trump.

I've already stated, when Trump was threatening the EO but before it was made plain what it would entail, that I think legislative action would be a better route to fix increasing censorship of the national conversation by a big tech oligarchy. I don't think Trump's EO will change much, even if it stands. But your contention that it is a blow against freedom of speech is hysterical. Twitter will remain as free to say and censor as any newspaper or cable TV show.

 

[AndroidRage]

Yup, welcome to modern society. I don’t know about you, but I am sure as shit thankful for Amazon right about now.

No, my stance is still firmly fuck Amazon and Bezos. I can wear a mask and go to a store and buy my shit or find another service.

 

[bobgeese]

No, my stance is still firmly fuck Amazon and Bezos. I can wear a mask and go to a store and buy my shit or find another service.

Jeff, send me my shit. Pronto.

 

[BarryDillon]

Good thing Trump isn't a neofascist cunt.

 

[MilesAbove]

Their value in 2016, was $14 genius.

There is zero argument, Trump is their golden goose.

If Trump is the golden goose, why doesn't he just stop using it and take his bots wherever he wants them to go?

 

[bobgeese]

If Trump is the golden goose, why doesn't he just stop using it and take his bots wherever he wants them to go?

Why would he? He hits a button and the whole world listens.

 

[AndroidRage]

Yup, welcome to modern society. I don’t know about you, but I am sure as shit thankful for Amazon right about now.

Wait I got more to bitch about. This shouldn't be modern society. The fact that we are bailing out Multibillion dollar corporations out that do all they can to pay their employees shit wages, send jobs overseas, avoid paying taxes, and hiding their money in tax havens is bullshit. It was bullshit under Bush and Obama and it is bullshit under Trump. I remember alot of people having a big problem when Obama bailed out the Wallstreet scum. But not as many people are complaining any more. That is 3 Presidencies in a fucking row that we have done this shit now. And nothing is really getting fixed and this can is just getting kicked a bit further down the road again.

 

[bobgeese]

Wait I got more to bitch about. This shouldn't be modern society. The fact that we are bailing out Multibillion dollar corporations out that do all they can to pay their employees shit wages, send jobs overseas, avoid paying taxes, and hiding their money in tax havens is bullshit. It was bullshit under Bush and Obama and it is bullshit under Trump. I remember alot of people having a big problem when Obama bailed out the Wallstreet scum. But not as many people are complaining any more. That is 3 Presidencies in a fucking row that we have done this shit now. And nothing is really getting fixed and this can is just getting kicked a bit further down the road again.

Yup.


It’s always been that way unfortunately.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Ah, the inevitable resort to calculated lies and character attacks. Nothing dishonest about saying I don't really care nor know much about Trump's fact checking problems. His incessant sparring with the media is rarely of interest to me. I don't follow Trump's social media and I've never watched one of his press briefings.

However, I don't think the assertion that Twitter isn't neutral is baseless. It's something people have been observing for a long time. There have been calls to treat Twitter like a publisher since prior to Trump's presidency. Not everything is about Trump.

I've already stated, when Trump was threatening the EO but before it was made plain what it would entail, that I think legislative action would be a better route to fix increasing censorship of the national conversation by a big tech oligarchy. I don't think Trump's EO will change much, even if it stands. But your contention that it is a blow against freedom of speech is hysterical. Twitter will remain as free to say and censor as any newspaper or cable TV show.

Comparing Twitter to the NYT or WSJ seems so off to me. Those are papers that carefully edit and select who and what gets published, Twitter is an open platform for anyone. What Twitter does is not censorship, its moderation. And moderation always leaves some people feeling like they get the short end of the stick, you see that even on this site. This time since it right wingers feeling like they're getting the short end of the stick they're quick to enact regulations that undermine these tech companies which they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as biased against them. The petty partisanship behind this EO and the support for it is so apparent and of course you add in Trump's impulsiveness to it and all around its an ugly affair.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Comparing Twitter to the NYT or WSJ seems so off to me. Those are papers that carefully edit and select who and what gets published, Twitter is an open platform for anyone. What Twitter does is not censorship, its moderation. And moderation always leaves some people feeling like they get the short end of the stick, you see that even on this site. This time since it right wingers feeling like they're getting the short end of the stick they're quick to enact regulations that undermine these tech companies which they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as biased against them. The petty partisanship behind this EO and the support for it is so apparent and of course you add in Trump's impulsiveness to it and all around its an ugly affair.

Eh, it's not just about right and left, though it's clearly unbalanced in that way as well. Twitter mobs have nasty real world consequences beyond even what papers can have. Not sure why they shouldn't have any liability for the havoc wreaked by Twitter mobs.

 

[nostradumbass]

Apparently your reading comprehension must not be up to snuff.... I didn't ask anything in regards to reporters or articles.... I specifically mentioned your posts. The people arent the content on social media, their comments are. And according to the Trump supporters on here its not content neutral as they have said their posts receive increased chances of being moderated (deleted, moved, carded etc) which seems eerily similar to the complaints against social media.

And unfortunately, a private company indiscriminately choosing what content to and not to allow is in no way a free speech violation. I have no idea how or why you people keep acting like these private companies are the government restricting your speech ability. It's quite strange.

And unfortunately for you and for twitter, they are not "indiscriminately choosing what to allow and not to", they are discriminately doing so.

And again, comcast is also a private company, and so are other utilities, but they also aren't allowed to selectively remove services over political disagreement.

Twitter, or Facebook or any of the others can still censor whatever they'd like, they just won't retain their section 230 protection if they engage in content biased censorship and trying to control public dialogue. The forum part of sherdog probably would be treated the same as the mma journalism side of sherdog if they had biased forum rules. It would never come up, since there are 100,000 sherdog members vs 335 million twitter users, but that would be the case.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Eh, it's not just about right and left, though it's clearly unbalanced in that way as well. Twitter mobs have nasty real world consequences beyond even what papers can have. Not sure why they shouldn't have any liability for the havoc wreaked by Twitter mobs.

That would kill the platform because there are millions upon millions of Twitter users, probably thousands of new ones a day, so to expect Twitter to carefully curate that volume is just ridiculous. The very nature of the platform makes its untenable which would mean it would have to radically change. Imagine if Twitter, to conform to this, only allowed verified, blue check mark accounts to post and carefully curated their posts. Would be lame.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That would kill the platform because there are millions upon millions of Twitter users, probably thousands of new ones a day, so to expect Twitter to carefully curate that volume is just ridiculous. The very nature of the platform makes its untenable which would mean it would have to radically change. Imagine if Twitter, to conform to this, only allowed verified, blue check mark accounts to post and carefully curated their posts. Would be lame.

I strongly doubt that this EO will kill Twitter or even change much about how it functions. I look at it more as a shot across the bow to social media that they need to change things up. They are exercising too much editorial control over the national discourse.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I strongly doubt that this EO will kill Twitter or even change much about how it functions. I look at it more as a shot across the bow to social media that they need to change things up. They are exercising too much editorial control over the national discourse.

I doubt it changes much as well but that's due to the limits of what Trump can actually do with an EO, if he could get legislative action on the matter I am sure he can radically change the social media landscape and he's clearly motivated by partisanship so I'd expect it to be for the worse.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I doubt it changes much as well but that's due to the limits of what Trump can actually do with an EO, if he could get legislative action on the matter I am sure he can radically change the social media landscape and he's clearly motivated by partisanship so I'd expect it to be for the worse.

It's a bi-partisan position. Biden strongly supports repealing Section 230 of the CDA entirely, so his stance is more aggressive than the tentative steps Trump has taken.

 

[PEB]

Because the right is so happy about this I have to remind them what if Obama did the same would you still think this action was great. If you do your lying plan and simple.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's a bi-partisan position. Biden strongly supports repealing Section 230 of the CDA entirely, so his stance is more aggressive than the tentative steps Trump has taken.

Sure I believe something needs to be done as well but let's look at the specifics here. Is Trump writing this EO due to bipartisan momentum for this kind of law or because he was unhappy about his tweet being fact checked and because he perceives tech companies as being against him? To me all signs point to the latter. Being right for the wrong reason matters because it can lead to the wrong solution to a legitimate problem.