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

[Jack V Savage]

This is actually one of my main concerns here. While I agree this is an important step to prevent corporate overreach into speech, i am seriously worried about Trump not understanding the "Platform vs. Publisher" problem.

It's not a real thing, though. The distinction was just invented as a justification for shutting down disagreeable speech. Tech Dirt did a good piece on the issue: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-distinction-between-platform-publisher.shtml

And if legislators want to make it so that people are liable for what unaffiliated commentators put on their site, they should do that regardless of whether the gov't decides that they're "neutral."

 

[giusti825]

This is actually a lot less complicated the more i think of it.

This is not a first amendment issue. Nobody is being charged with a crime for fact checking Trump.

This is about an entity with special legal protections forfeiting those protections.

Twitter is a platform with special legal protections under section 230 releasing them from a requirement to curate content.

Twitter has decided to start curating content; they are themselves suggesting that they do not need that legal protection.

They can either be a platform or a publisher, but not both.

 

[giusti825]

It's not a real thing, though. The distinction was just invented as a justification for shutting down disagreeable speech. Tech Dirt did a good piece on the issue: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-distinction-between-platform-publisher.shtml

And if legislators want to make it so that people are liable for what unaffiliated commentators put on their site, they should do that regardless of whether the gov't decides that they're "neutral."

This isn't about "neutrality." Corporations aren't people. They are inanimate social legal and economic constructs.

If 1000 twitter employees negatively comment on every post, no problem. But whenadmin rights are being used to advance some speech and limit or ban others, there is a problem.

Selective curation in matters of politics is meddling. Even if its being done to people I disagree with politically.

Twitter has 335 million users. This isn't moderation, it's selective manipulation with a bias.

There can not be an unbiased ministry of truth. This is NOT the function of a platform.

If they are allowed to continue selective curation, they can do so as a publisher; where they would become legally responsible for what's on their site.

If there is no distinction as your article (erroneously, i believe) suggests, then it might be time to dust of some old anti-trust statues to deal with tech giants thinking they are allowed to manipulate the political discourse.

 

[uppercutbus]

This is not a first amendment issue.

The corps themselves know the first amendment can't even be used as a defense to have it both ways and be both a publisher and a platform. Existing publishers knows this too.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This isn't about "neutrality." Corporations aren't people. They are inanimate social legal and economic constructs.

The "neutrality" point is relevant because that's the justification that Republicans are offering for the action, with the implication that if people are "neutral" (i.e., if they are expressing the correct opinions and not fact-checking), then they can continue to operate.

If there is no distinction as your article (erroneously, i believe) suggests, then it might be time to dust of some old anti-trust statues to deal with tech giants thinking they are allowed to manipulate the political discourse.

You're describing pointing to factual corrections as "manipulating the political discourse," which reflects an anti-free-speech position. As I've been saying, it's a fundamental values issue. You either believe that people should be able to criticize the gov't or you don't. If you don't, you're going to have trouble understanding the liberal POV here.

"People shouldn't be able to manipulate the political discourse with facts" = "people shouldn't be able to speak freely if I don't like what they say."

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is actually a lot less complicated the more i think of it.

This is not a first amendment issue. Nobody is being charged with a crime for fact checking Trump.

This is about an entity with special legal protections forfeiting those protections.

Twitter is a platform with special legal protections under section 230 releasing them from a requirement to curate content.

Twitter has decided to start curating content; they are themselves suggesting that they do not need that legal protection.

They can either be a platform or a publisher, but not both.

It doesn't matter what you call them. And "you get special protections if the gov't approves of you" is just the flip side of "you can't criticize the gov't."

 

[giusti825]

The "neutrality" point is relevant because that's the justification that Republicans are offering for the action, with the implication that if people are "neutral" (i.e., if they are expressing the correct opinions and not fact-checking), then they can continue to operate.



You're describing pointing to factual corrections as "manipulating the political discourse," which reflects an anti-free-speech position. As I've been saying, it's a fundamental values issue. You either believe that people should be able to criticize the gov't or you don't. If you don't, you're going to have trouble understanding the liberal POV here.

"People shouldn't be able to manipulate the political discourse with facts" = "people shouldn't be able to speak freely if I don't like what they say."

Again. WHO fact checks the fact checkers?

When the Douma false flag took place, they were "fact-checking" ndependent journalists on the ground as not reporting the truth.

Silicon valley office heads thought they knew better than reporters that were there. Even Seymore Hersh.

It wasn't until the leaked UN report was released that the fact checks on their posts was deleted.

The fact checkers in that scenario were the same people pulling of the fraud; those with interest in overthrowing Assad, including the US State Department.

If they want to fact check, they better be right every time.

You can't have unbiased arbiters of truth.

 

[giusti825]

I don't recognize it as legitimate.

Please elaborate on this. Im curious how someone cannot tell the difference between a living person and a social construct as far as rights are concerned.

To say you can't recognize a distinction between individuals and corporations seems a bit off.

Unless they want to fact-check a false statement made by a gov't official, apparently.

They're not supposed to be fact-checking anything. It's the reason you can sue the NYT for something they publish, but you can't sue twitther because johnny456 posted that you're a homosexual.

You would think they wouldnt be so stupid as to abuse their statustoward the people who can do something about it;but i guess they thought they'd get away with it.

Once again, nobody is being arrested for fact-checking Trump. It's just a platform showing that they're ready to push their views as a publisher and not just observe the discussion as a platform.

It actually is not, as our first amendment also guarantees a free press, as it is understood that people communicate through institutions. The notion that if the gov't certifies you as "neutral" (which fact-checking the president threatens), you can speak freely, but otherwise you cannot is abhorrent to people who truly believe in free speech as a principle.

I don't want the government certifying anybody neutral....i don't want private corporations trying to do it either.

Just let people have discussions and provide their own evidence.

Fact-checking in geopolitical terms means the fact check comes from interested parties.

How can you not see the danger for manipulation and disinformation this would give the platforms?

They were already on the wrong side of fact checks on a significant geopolitical event [Douma).

I don't want their "facts." Ill get mine from journalists who are actually present at these events and their aftermath.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Please elaborate on this. Im curious how someone cannot tell the difference between a living person and a social construct as far as rights are concerned.

You can't ban free speech by institutions or organizations while still allowing it for individuals. People speak through institutions and organizations.

They're not supposed to be fact-checking anything. It's the reason you can sure the NYT for something they publish, but you can't sue twitther because johnny456 posted that you're a homosexual.

I understand that you don't think that some people should be allowed to check facts. I disagree. And if you can sue Twitter for hosting Johnny's defamation, that should be independent of whether Twitter is allowed to point out when someone is saying something false.

I don't want the government ceiling anybody neutral....i don't want private corporations trying to do it either.

But you're pushing that "platform/publisher" distinction and the interpretation that neutrality is crucial to it. In practice that means the gov't has to certify your speech as acceptable and you get special rights/if the gov't doesn't like what you're saying, you lose your free speech rights.

 

[A Lurker]

Oh great, Trump is now going to fuck up the internet.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Again. WHO fact checks the fact checkers?

Anyone who wants to. If you believe in free speech, you believe in it for everyone--not just people who the president approves of.

 

[giusti825]

You can't ban free speech by institutions or organizations while still allowing it for individuals. People speak through institutions and organizations.

Nobody is banning any individual from speaking. They are making a company choose if it wants to be a publisher or a platform. Nobody has been charged with a crime.

Twitter employees can reply to trumps tweets whenever they like, but not change or editorialize the post while enjoying special legal protections against liability.

This isn't speech infringement. Twitter can intervene all they want in the public discourse, they just can't pretend that they are a platform for legal purposes while being a publisher in practice.

I understand that you don't think that some people should be allowed to check facts. I disagree. And if you can sue Twitter for hosting Johnny's defamation, that should be independent of whether Twitter is allowed to point out when someone is saying something false.

I think you are intentionally misstating my position to argue against something i never said. If you're nor going to debate in good faith then just stop.

All individuals have speech rights. Companies given huge leeway on speech liability should not get to both interfere and enjoy extra speech protections.

They can let the conversation happen as a viewer with extra speech protections or they can join the conversation on an equal footing as everyone else.

but you're pushing that "platform/publisher" distinction and the interpretation that neutrality is crucial to it. In practice that means the gov't has to certify your speech as acceptable and you get special rights/if the gov't doesn't like what you're saying, you lose your free speech rights.

Its not about neutrality....for the third time.

Social media enjoy special legal protections as a facilitator of the discourse....if They want to join the discourse they can do so with the same protections as everyone else.

Trump took a stand. It was a good one.

Surprisingly,these two statements are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nobody is banning any individual from speaking. They are making a company choose if they want to be a publisher or a platform. Nobody has been charged with a crime.

Twitter employees can reply to trumps party whenever they like, but not change or editorialize the post while enjoying special legal protections against liability.

As I pointed out, giving special legal protections (if you believe, I think wrongly, that that's what's happening) to companies that are on the president's good side is just the flip side of taking them away if they're on his bad side. It's not a disagreement on substance here; it's just that you're comfortable with the gov't limiting speech and I'm not.

I think you are intentionally misstating my position to argue against something i never said. If you're nor going to debate in good faith then just stop.

I think you're just not seeing or acknowledging the implications of your own position. If you don't think that "Twitter" should be allowed to check facts without losing some special protection, you don't think that "some people" should be allowed to check facts. Same point, expressed in different ways.

If the gov't likes you, they call you a "platform" which some people oddly think confers special privileges. And if they don't like you, you're a "publisher," which means that you're responsible for the words of people you have no connection to. This is an attack on free speech.

All individuals have speech rights. Companies given huge leeway on speech liability should not get to both interfere and enjoy extra speech protections.

They can let the conversation happen as a viewer with extra speech protections or they can join the conversation on an equal footing add everyone else.

But everyone else is not on the footing that if they say something the president doesn't like, they get shut down or are held liable for something that someone else says.

 

[giusti825]

As I pointed out, giving special legal protections (if you believe, I think wrongly, that that's what's happening) to companies that are on the president's good side is just the flip side of taking them away if they're on his bad side. It's not a disagreement on substance here; it's just that you're comfortable with the gov't limiting speech and I'm not.

Section 230 shields Twitter from the requirement to curate content for liability.

I cant believe i have to say this, but Twitter is not a person. Twitter is a company legally safeguarded from liability so they do not have to curate the posts of 335 million+ users.

If they are choosing to curate and correct then they clearly no longer need the protection. They could be as liable for everything posted on their site as the NYT is for everything they publish.

If you can't see the danger of letting a company engaged in a medium for the free exchange of ideas that they can censor and edit those they disagree with, i don't know what to tell you.

I think you're just not seeing or acknowledging the implications of your own position. If you don't think that "Twitter" should be allowed to check facts without losing some special protection, you don't think that "some people" should be allowed to check facts. Same point, expressed in different ways.

Once again Twitter is not people....twitter is not person.

This isn't about someone being attacked by the state for something they said. This is about a specialized civil protection for social media companies.

A lot of political discourse tales place on social media. Twitter is welcome to join the discussion as a participant, but not as a platform.

If the gov't likes you, they call you a "platform" which some people oddly think confers special privileges. And if they don't like you, you're a "publisher," which means that you're responsible for the words of people you have no connection to. This is an attack on free speech.

It isnt. Tell me 1 person who had been held criminally liable for fact-checking trump.

This issue is completely centered in civil law about the boundaries between platform and publisher.

Once again if a writer for the New York Times erroneously calls you a homosexual, you can sure the writer and the publication.

However johnny456 on Twitter can state the same thing every day and you cant sure Twitter for what he says.

If there was no distinction between liability for platforms and publishers, Twitter would have been sued to extinction in under a year.

But everyone else is not on the footing that if they say something the president doesn't like, they get shut down or are held liable for something that someone else says.

Everyone else isnt enjoying the extra civil protections social media companies do.

Nobody is shutting down Twitter. I think the company is both successful and savvy enough to make the right decisions about whether it wants to be a platform or publisher.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I cant believe i have to say this, but Twitter is not a person. Twitter is a company legally safeguarded from liability so they do not have to curate the posts of 335 million+ users.

Twitter has people working for it, who may choose to express views or just point out that claims made on the site are false. This is what the gov't is trying to prevent.

If they are choosing to curate and correct then they clearly no longer need the protection. They could be as liable for everything posted on their site as the NYT is for everything they publish.

The NYT has a limited number of writers, and a staff to edit content. It's not in any way comparable to Twitter.

If you can't see the danger of letting a company engaged in a medium for the free exchange of ideas that they can censor and edit those they disagree with, i don't know what to tell you.

I understand that many people believe that freedom of speech is dangerous. I think that allowing the gov't to take it away is more dangerous. The world is not always a safe place.

This isn't about someone being attacked by the state for something they said. This is about a specialized civil protection for social media companies.

It is exactly about people being attacked by the state for what they said. As I said before, "the gov't gives you special privileges as long as you don't criticize them" is just the reverse of "the gov't sanctions you for criticizing them."

It isnt. Tell me 1 person who had been held criminally liable for fact-checking trump.

Trump is trying to sanction Twitter for fact-checking him.

Once again if a writer for the New York Times erroneously calls you a homosexual, you can sure the writer and the publication.

Yes, if an employee of the NYT libels you, the institution can be liable. That's comparable to saying that if a Twitter flag were defamatory, the company could be liable for it. It's not comparable to saying that Twitter can be liable for something a non-employee says. And furthermore, it's especially not comparable to this idea that the gov't has to make an irrelevant distinction between "platform" and "publisher," and that you get/lose special privileges depending on whether they find you to be acceptable.

I think we're pretty much at an end here. I believe strongly in the principle of free speech, and you don't. That seems to be irreconcilable. The problem I have is when people simultaneously advance the kinds of authoritarian positions you've been advancing *and* try to claim that it's in the name of liberal principles. If someone wants to go full-on rightist and say that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize the gov't, that is certainly something I would strenuously disagree with, but it's an issue that can't be settled with clarification. It just comes down to what will prevail. But if someone genuinely holds liberal ideals, they should understand the ways rightists are trying to mislead on this issue.

 

[djacobox372]

This is actually a lot less complicated the more i think of it.

This is not a first amendment issue. Nobody is being charged with a crime for fact checking Trump.

This is about an entity with special legal protections forfeiting those protections.

Twitter is a platform with special legal protections under section 230 releasing them from a requirement to curate content.

Twitter has decided to start curating content; they are themselves suggesting that they do not need that legal protection.

They can either be a platform or a publisher, but not both.

What's nonsensical is that Trump's order will basically force Twitter to curate, correct, and censor content.

WTF is he trying to accomplish other than just simple revenge?

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

What's nonsensical is that Trump's order will basically force Twitter to curate, correct, and censor content.

WTF is he trying to accomplish other than just simple revenge?

It would make for a more balanced conversation. It's either one side of the debate constantly silenced or both equally.

I mean I have no clue how it would actually play out in the end but I'm assuming that's the objective?

 

[aitkenmike]

It would make for a more balanced conversation. It's either one side of the debate constantly silenced or both equally.

I mean I have no clue how it would actually play out in the end but I'm assuming that's the objective?

How is one side being silenced when my twitter feed is flooded with Red X's, QANONs, MAGA's...? I think all this arguing over whether twitter is allowed to discriminate against conservatives is obfuscating the debate over whether twitter IS discriminating against conservative views. From my point of view, it clearly isn't.

By allowing the narrative to be shifted, we seem to be granting Trump and the GOP the premise that twitter unfairly acts against conservatives, when this is questionable at best.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

How is one side being silenced when my twitter feed is flooded with Red X's, QANONs, MAGA's...? I think all this arguing over whether twitter is allowed to discriminate against conservatives is obfuscating the debate over whether twitter IS discriminating against conservative views. From my point of view, it clearly isn't.

By allowing the narrative to be shifted, we seem to be granting Trump and the GOP the premise that twitter unfairly acts against conservatives, when this is questionable at best.

It's not questionable not even close. Even Jack Dorsey has admitted to it and wanted to fix it but ultimatley ended in disaster once they fact checked an opinion. You seeing some MAGA here and there doesn't really mean much.

The rules are created by some dorks who all congregate in the same silicone valley bubble. You think THEY are making the rules fairly? No chance.

 

[aitkenmike]

It's not questionable not even close. Even Jack Dorsey has admitted to it

He's admitted that the people generally lean left but to quote him "the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," Dorsey said in response to a question about "shadow bans," Twitter's practice of using algorithms to limit the visibility of certain tweets. "We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoints or ideology, we look at behavior."

I think you are being disingenuous when you try to imply he has said that twitter itself carries out actions to discriminate against conservatives.