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

Do you agree with this EO?


  • Total voters
    142
  • Poll closed .
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.

I'm being as genuine as can be. Twitter is a known echo chamber and I'm sure jack Dorsey wants to fix the issue but unfortunately his bias along with anyone in that bubble over there runs way too deep.

What he admitted too was that the rules absolutely lean in favor of the left because of that bias.
 
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?
They can stop curating,editing and directing traffic and remain a platform....They only have to curate the entirety of their site if they want to be a publisher.

This is only forcing then to make a choice. They can either be a platform and host a conversation or a publisher that edits and directs conversation.....but not both.
 
Last edited:
I thought corporations were people. Didn't Citizens United teach me that?
 
image.jpg


Flanked by Attorney General Bill Barr, President Trump signed an executive order in the Oval Office on Thursday that calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) to remove statutory liability protections and cut federal funding for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct.

The president's order came just two days after Twitter took the unprecedented step of slapping a "misleading" warning label on two of Trump's tweets concerning the fraud risks of nationwide mail-in balloting. The move immediately backfired: Experts disputed that Trump's tweet was actually misleading, in part because mail-in balloting has been linked to ongoing fraud; Twitter's fact-check itself contained false statements; and Twitter failed to apply the standard of review to other users.

At Thursday's signing ceremony, Trump called the fact-check "egregious," and held up a photo of Twitter executive Yoel Roth, who heads up the site's fact-checking and rules-making operation. Fox News reported on Wednesday that Roth has mocked Trump supporters, called Trump's team "ACTUAL NAZIS," slammed "scary trannies" in New York City, and called GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a "bag of farts." (In a statement, Twitter did not dispute Fox News' reporting, but called it "unfortunate.")

"My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield," the president said.

Continue reading

What is Section 230?

The Communications Decency Act was established as Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, right as the internet was growing and expanding amid the first big tech boom of the 1990s. It was initially created to regulate pornographic material on the internet.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) created Section 230 within the Communications Decency Act to protect speech on the internet.

Long before social networking, Section 230 was meant to cover sites like news outlets with comment sections, online forums, and other websites where people could contribute their thoughts. Without Section 230, most of the sites we use today — including Google and Facebook — would not exist as we know them.

“It was very relevant 20 years ago for certain websites to happen,” said Zohar Levkovitz, CEO of anti online toxicity company L1ght.

What protections does it provide?

Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Continue reading

Social media companies have been abusing this loophole for too long. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a beginning (maybe the beginning of the end for Twitter).
Those companies are abusing their power to manipulate our perception of reality, effectively manufacturing consent.
Federal legislation is being prepared at the moment.
They have a monopoly and are creating an echo chamber of left-wing nonsense. Something absolutely needs to be done.
 
Last edited:
They can stop curating,editing and directing traffic and remain a platform....They only have to curate the entirety of their site if they want to be a publisher.

This is only forcing then to make a choice. They can either be a platform and host a conversation or a publisher that edits and directs conversation.....but not both.
That's not a choice Trump can force on them, though. That is prohibited under 230(c)(1), which cannot be amended by Trump. This is a basic separation of powers constitutional issue.
 
I agree with the sentiment though not Trump’s motive. Twitter/Facebook are media platforms that should be beholden to the same standards as news papers and television stations.

Trump does not seem to realize this EO would leave him vulnerable to libel suits for his Twitter untruths but let’s not tell him that.
 
Did Twitter have immunity though? And considering the rampant untruths and libel that infects Americans right wing discourse, I believe conservatives would rue the day this came into effect.
Twitter has immunity to "publisher liability" under 47 U.S.C. s 230(c)(1). The next subsection of the statute, 47 U.S.C. s 230(c)(2), prohibits civil liability on the basis of "censorship" by twitter. These are actually two separate issues. And neither are things Trump can actually revoke - it would need to be through legislation. To the extent the executive order says otherwise, it does not survive a constitutional challenge.
 
Last edited:
Twitter has immunity to "publisher liability" under 47 U.S.C. s 230(c)(1). The next subsection of the statute, 47 U.S.C. s 230(c)(2), prohibits civil liability on the basis of "censorship" by twitter. These are actually two separate issues. And neither are things Trump can actually revoke - it would need to be through legislation. To the extent the executive order says otherwise, it does not survive a constitutional challenge.
Thank you for the clarification. Another toothless sop to his base.
 
That's not a choice Trump can force on them, though. That is prohibited under 230(c)(1), which cannot be amended by Trump. This is a basic separation of powers constitutional issue.

He's not forcing the choice on them. They are making the choice to act as a publisher on their own.
 
image.jpg


Flanked by Attorney General Bill Barr, President Trump signed an executive order in the Oval Office on Thursday that calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) to remove statutory liability protections and cut federal funding for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct.

The president's order came just two days after Twitter took the unprecedented step of slapping a "misleading" warning label on two of Trump's tweets concerning the fraud risks of nationwide mail-in balloting. The move immediately backfired: Experts disputed that Trump's tweet was actually misleading, in part because mail-in balloting has been linked to ongoing fraud; Twitter's fact-check itself contained false statements; and Twitter failed to apply the standard of review to other users.

At Thursday's signing ceremony, Trump called the fact-check "egregious," and held up a photo of Twitter executive Yoel Roth, who heads up the site's fact-checking and rules-making operation. Fox News reported on Wednesday that Roth has mocked Trump supporters, called Trump's team "ACTUAL NAZIS," slammed "scary trannies" in New York City, and called GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a "bag of farts." (In a statement, Twitter did not dispute Fox News' reporting, but called it "unfortunate.")

"My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield," the president said.

Continue reading

What is Section 230?

The Communications Decency Act was established as Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, right as the internet was growing and expanding amid the first big tech boom of the 1990s. It was initially created to regulate pornographic material on the internet.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) created Section 230 within the Communications Decency Act to protect speech on the internet.

Long before social networking, Section 230 was meant to cover sites like news outlets with comment sections, online forums, and other websites where people could contribute their thoughts. Without Section 230, most of the sites we use today — including Google and Facebook — would not exist as we know them.

“It was very relevant 20 years ago for certain websites to happen,” said Zohar Levkovitz, CEO of anti online toxicity company L1ght.

What protections does it provide?

Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Continue reading

Social media companies have been abusing this loophole for too long. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a beginning (maybe the beginning of the end for Twitter).
Those companies are abusing their power to manipulate our perception of reality, effectively manufacturing consent.
Federal legislation is being prepared at the moment.
Maybe you want to move to Saudi Arabia, they like to censor shit as well.
 
Back
Top