Executive order removes immunity for social media

[Esternial]

Let's first please stop referring to books. Books and social media platforms are a cute superficial analogy but this is going down "guns and cars" avenue and it is detracting from any argument you have there.

It's basically a thinly veiled threat, attempting to intimidate platforms into stopping their attempts to curate content. The end goal isn't for these platforms to actually attempt to curate content more fairly, but rather to back off or implement mutually assured destruction for all content on these platforms. If I felt strongly about this, I wouldn't accept backing off to be a viable option, as it means reprehensible content is still on these platforms. In other words, it's less about the content and more about a "they get to do it, why can't we?" entitlement.

I get that you find it problematic and I agree that content should be judged objectively rather than through a political lens, but I disagree with the approach being taken.

He's left them the option of consistency or barbarism. I quite agree that it's Trumps goal to get them to back off curating content at all. But nonetheless the option remains for them to curate it more evenly, and that's an important element of the order that means I support it. It will be up to the publisher to decide whether they want all hate speech, or no hate speech.

Ergo, blackmail.

Pity the downtrodden tech billionaires.

I'll mostly pity the platforms and the people (developers, etc.) supporting these platforms.

I don't agree with any one-sided curation of content, so I do hope some fairness can be introduced in these platforms' curation that doesn't amount to blackmail spawned from some petty, self-righteous indignation (by you-know-who).

[Ostroeuropa]

He's left them the option of consistency or barbarism. I quite agree that it's Trumps goal to get them to back off curating content at all. But nonetheless the option remains for them to curate it more evenly, and that's an important element of the order that means I support it. It will be up to the publisher to decide whether they want all hate speech, or no hate speech.


Pity the downtrodden tech billionaires.

I'll mostly pity the platforms and the people (developers, etc.) supporting these platforms.

I don't agree with any one-sided curation of content, so I do hope some fairness can be introduced in these platforms' curation that doesn't amount to blackmail spawned from some petty, self-righteous indignation.

I don't much care for his motivations and even agree they're likely petty. Nonetheless I don't see an alternative mechanism for enforcing this kind of fairness, what would you suggest?

[Dresderstan]

"Twitter fact checked me waaaaaaaaaaaaaa"- Trump

Ironically, his order will make him be fact checked every time. Love it.

Regardless, social media was a mistake.

EMP the world, bring us back to the stone age.

[Esternial]

I'll mostly pity the platforms and the people (developers, etc.) supporting these platforms.

I don't agree with any one-sided curation of content, so I do hope some fairness can be introduced in these platforms' curation that doesn't amount to blackmail spawned from some petty, self-righteous indignation.

I don't much care for his motivations and even agree they're likely petty. Nonetheless I don't see an alternative mechanism for enforcing this kind of fairness, what would you suggest?

I definitely don't have a satisfactory answer to that, but I disagree with the notion that it should be enforced in a way where the alternative is such a serious impact on the quality of the platform.

As I mentioned, the only way I can see these platforms coping with legal accountability for all its user-made content is through an automatic system, and YouTube is already a good example of how this is open to abuse, which would ultimately impact the frailer voices on these platforms.

It's overkill, it's blackmail and it's dangerous. That's how I see it. I truly wish I knew of an easy solution, but I don't.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't much care for his motivations and even agree they're likely petty. Nonetheless I don't see an alternative mechanism for enforcing this kind of fairness, what would you suggest?

I definitely don't have a satisfactory answer to that, but I disagree with the notion that it should be enforced in a way where the alternative is such a serious impact on the quality of the platform.

As I mentioned, the only way I can see these platforms coping with legal accountability for all its user-made content is through an automatic system, and YouTube is already a good example of how this is open to abuse, which would ultimately impact the frailer voices on these platforms.

It's overkill, it's blackmail and it's dangerous. That's how I see it. I truly wish I knew of an easy solution, but I don't.

I understand your concern but I think the continued immunity for platforms that curate content in an evenhanded way addresses them adequately. That's separate to whether Trump would be satisfied with that, i'm inclined to say he probably wouldn't, and would regard curation of his false statements as somehow more egregious than curation of opponents false statements even if the system were applied evenly. But in terms of the actual wording of the EO, I don't see an issue.

[Gravlen]

The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media:
(1) It's A Distraction
(2) It's Legally Meaningless

The EO claims tech platforms are doing something they’re not, in violation of an incorrect interpretation of law, and tasks agencies it can’t task to look into the things that aren’t being done that wouldn’t be wrong.

Based!

The key element is that the protections require "Good faith" enforcement by the company in order for the company to be protected by section 230.

The executive order draws explicit comparison to the differing treatment of Chinese officials pushing violence/genocide denial and misinformation and so on, and American ones to make a case, a pretty strong one in my opinion, that Twitter does not act in good faith and is thus no longer protected by section 230. It's enough to go to trial at least at which point you've got a jury deciding since it's no longer "What is the law" as a question, but "Do you believe the this company is censoring for the reasons they say they are".

You'll have to actually get to trial before a jury gets involved. The EO doesn't change anything in that regard; it does not change the law nor is it the start of a lawsuit.

The article you've posted argued it's "Obvious" Twitter is acting in good faith and doesn't address that point beyond that simple statement they made without any evidence, instead spending its time nitpicking other elements while acting as though the main thrust of the point, that Twitter acts in bad faith with its content moderation, can be dismissed without evidence or argument (Despite Trump using comparative examples to demonstrate this bad faith in fact is present). I disagree Social media platforms act in good faith and so do many people who view the actions of Twitter and social media publishers, as well as the ideology behind it, to be based in bad faith.

It is obvious because what's being examined is individual moderating choices. It doesn't matter if the don't moderate chinese posts with the same intensity as US posts, what matters is if the moderators in good faith determine that this specific post is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, and that the moderation isn't malicious (for example editing posts to change their meaning while making it seem like that's what the content provider ment to post).

Even if you make an argument about bad faith moderation, you then have to show Twitter's decision to remove content isn't protected First Amendment speech. Anything that curbs editorial freedom is censorship, including trying to force the service to publish or not publish something.

[Dumb Ideologies]

If this has any impact at all it will be in the opposite direction from what Trump intends. So poetic if the head narcissist accidentally helped to demolish the very ecosystem that made him as a politician.

[Gravlen]

The "Publisher or platform?" argument has been lurking in the background for a while now.

Oh yeah, it should also be mentioned that publisher versus platform is not a thing, and that Ted Cruz is an idiot.

[Atheris]

"Twitter fact checked me waaaaaaaaaaaaaa"- Trump

Ironically, his order will make him be fact checked every time. Love it.

Regardless, social media was a mistake.

based

[Nevertopia]

"Twitter fact checked me waaaaaaaaaaaaaa"- Trump

pretty much. this law wont change anything, itll hurt social media outlets but it wont stop people talking.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media:
(1) It's A Distraction
(2) It's Legally Meaningless

The EO claims tech platforms are doing something they’re not, in violation of an incorrect interpretation of law, and tasks agencies it can’t task to look into the things that aren’t being done that wouldn’t be wrong.

Based!

No surprise it’s legally meaningless and stupid, Trump wouldn’t want his beloved Fox News to be put under Fair and Balanced Reporting regulations, they might just have to tell the truth then.

[Gravlen]

The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media:
(1) It's A Distraction
(2) It's Legally Meaningless

The EO claims tech platforms are doing something they’re not, in violation of an incorrect interpretation of law, and tasks agencies it can’t task to look into the things that aren’t being done that wouldn’t be wrong.

Based!

No surprise it’s legally meaningless and stupid, Trump wouldn’t want his beloved Fox News to be put under Fair and Balanced Reporting regulations, they might just have to tell the truth then.

Hasn't he broken up with Fox News now? He's at least having an affair with OANN, who really goes deep when they kiss his ass.

[Tekania]

The case law behind section 230 is not easily unwound by an executive order. Really.

This executive order will be essentially disregarded by the courts at the lowest levels and all the way up, as section 230 is what it is.

The publisher/platform argument is a fun and good one we should have as a society, but whatever we decide, it has to go through Congress.

Pretty much this. This EO is likely to have it's teeth pulled in judicial review.

At least this one isn't as ballsy as his attempt to EO away birthright citizenship........ the courts neutered that one.

[Tekania]

"Twitter fact checked me waaaaaaaaaaaaaa"- Trump

pretty much. this law wont change anything, itll hurt social media outlets but it wont stop people talking.

Won't do much to social media outlets. They have legal departments and money enough to power this through the courts to its inevitable neutering via judicial review.

[Shofercia]

The "Publisher or platform?" argument has been lurking in the background for a while now. Trump recently signed an executive order affirming that social media that engages in curating political comments through moderation, they are a publisher, not a platform.

This renders them liable for all speech that occurs on their site.
(So, on facebook, if I publish "Theresa May raped a man", there's two ways to view that. 1. It's user generated content on a neutral platform. or 2. It's content published by facebook.).

In the former case, facebook can't be sued for libel. In the latter, they can. Same for copyright violations and so on.

This also applies to criminal posts like incitement to violence and so on.

Zuckerberg and facebook have been insistent they are a platform, not a publisher, and recently told civil rights leaders they weren't in the business of curating political content despite political agitators trying to get them to censor things.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-post

(We can see here how the left wing press is insisting platforms begin to shift into curating political content. Something that a section of the left has been vocally demanding and advancing for what seems like decades now, with this outcome having been warned for ages as an inevitable consequence of continuing to push that.).

Conversely there is Twitter, which has been curating political content openly and adopting a narrow political view of what content is acceptable. They may well now be liable for all content on their platform unless they cease the practice.

I support the move as an important step in reversing the toxic atmosphere that has been cultivated by political agitators engaged in double standards, bad faith arguments, and calls for censorship of political opponents. It's a good day for free speech.

The Order;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ensorship/
Discuss?

Good, except let me explain what most people are going to miss in this thread: without Section 230, you cannot have Twitter, or Facebook, or Youtube, or Instagram, or any major media giant above a certain number of subscribers. They simply won't be able to monitor it all. Losing Section 230 protection will lead to a break up of the media giants that will lose it, and the democratization of the social media marketplace. Ironically, President Trump hit the jackpot with this Executive Order, which is why Zuck's freaking out, why Google/Youtube are suddenly silent on President Trump when they're usually critical, and why anti-Trump Bezos' Amazon isn't taking a risk to massively censor Conservatives. Dorsey didn't get the memo; he gets the dunce hat and lawsuits instead.

Even if all you're doing is "fact-checking" - it's impossible to do so without discrimination when you have a user base of a million plus people. There are always going to be posts that are worse than President Trump's, and those posts won't get fact-checked. The president set a trap, and Dorsey walked into it.

Furthermore, there's also the issue of patent protection, which President Trump can simply ignore by pardoning anyone who rips off Twitter's patents; with patent protection, and with the loss of Section 230 protection, Twitter will get pwnd in a few months, tops. Their code ain't that special.

[Albrenia]

The "Publisher or platform?" argument has been lurking in the background for a while now. Trump recently signed an executive order affirming that social media that engages in curating political comments through moderation, they are a publisher, not a platform.

This renders them liable for all speech that occurs on their site.
(So, on facebook, if I publish "Theresa May raped a man", there's two ways to view that. 1. It's user generated content on a neutral platform. or 2. It's content published by facebook.).

In the former case, facebook can't be sued for libel. In the latter, they can. Same for copyright violations and so on.

This also applies to criminal posts like incitement to violence and so on.

Zuckerberg and facebook have been insistent they are a platform, not a publisher, and recently told civil rights leaders they weren't in the business of curating political content despite political agitators trying to get them to censor things.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-post

(We can see here how the left wing press is insisting platforms begin to shift into curating political content. Something that a section of the left has been vocally demanding and advancing for what seems like decades now, with this outcome having been warned for ages as an inevitable consequence of continuing to push that.).

Conversely there is Twitter, which has been curating political content openly and adopting a narrow political view of what content is acceptable. They may well now be liable for all content on their platform unless they cease the practice.

I support the move as an important step in reversing the toxic atmosphere that has been cultivated by political agitators engaged in double standards, bad faith arguments, and calls for censorship of political opponents. It's a good day for free speech.

The Order;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ensorship/
Discuss?

Good, except let me explain what most people are going to miss in this thread: without Section 230, you cannot have Twitter, or Facebook, or Youtube, or Instagram, or any major media giant above a certain number of subscribers. They simply won't be able to monitor it all. Losing Section 230 protection will lead to a break up of the media giants that will lose it, and the democratization of the social media marketplace. Ironically, President Trump hit the jackpot with this Executive Order, which is why Zuck's freaking out, why Google/Youtube are suddenly silent on President Trump when they're usually critical, and why anti-Trump Bezos' Amazon isn't taking a risk to massively censor Conservatives. Dorsey didn't get the memo; he gets the dunce hat and lawsuits instead.

Even if all you're doing is "fact-checking" - it's impossible to do so without discrimination when you have a user base of a million plus people. There are always going to be posts that are worse than President Trump's, and those posts won't get fact-checked. The president set a trap, and Dorsey walked into it.

Furthermore, there's also the issue of patent protection, which President Trump can simply ignore by pardoning anyone who rips off Twitter's patents; with patent protection, and with the loss of Section 230 protection, Twitter will get pwnd in a few months, tops. Their code ain't that special.

Can you pardon away suing for damages, though? If someone 'steals' code they generally get a pretty hefty payment to make, rather than jail time which Trump can pardon away.

[Gravlen]

Good, except let me explain what most people are going to miss in this thread: without Section 230, you cannot have Twitter, or Facebook, or Youtube, or Instagram, or any major media giant above a certain number of subscribers. They simply won't be able to monitor it all. Losing Section 230 protection will lead to a break up of the media giants that will lose it, and the democratization of the social media marketplace. Ironically, President Trump hit the jackpot with this Executive Order, which is why Zuck's freaking out, why Google/Youtube are suddenly silent on President Trump when they're usually critical, and why anti-Trump Bezos' Amazon isn't taking a risk to massively censor Conservatives. Dorsey didn't get the memo; he gets the dunce hat and lawsuits instead.

Even if all you're doing is "fact-checking" - it's impossible to do so without discrimination when you have a user base of a million plus people. There are always going to be posts that are worse than President Trump's, and those posts won't get fact-checked. The president set a trap, and Dorsey walked into it.

Furthermore, there's also the issue of patent protection, which President Trump can simply ignore by pardoning anyone who rips off Twitter's patents; with patent protection, and with the loss of Section 230 protection, Twitter will get pwnd in a few months, tops. Their code ain't that special.

Can you pardon away suing for damages, though? If someone 'steals' code they generally get a pretty hefty payment to make, rather than jail time which Trump can pardon away.

You can't pardon away civil suits or damages, no.

The President [...] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States

Find a billionaire to pay the damages instead, if you want to go this route.

[Shofercia]

The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media:
(1) It's A Distraction
(2) It's Legally Meaningless

The EO claims tech platforms are doing something they’re not, in violation of an incorrect interpretation of law, and tasks agencies it can’t task to look into the things that aren’t being done that wouldn’t be wrong.

Based!

The key element is that the protections require "Good faith" enforcement by the company in order for the company to be protected by section 230.

The executive order draws explicit comparison to the differing treatment of Chinese officials pushing violence/genocide denial and misinformation and so on, and American ones to make a case, a pretty strong one in my opinion, that Twitter does not act in good faith and is thus no longer protected by section 230. It's enough to go to trial at least at which point you've got a jury deciding since it's no longer "What is the law" as a question, but "Do you believe the this company is censoring for the reasons they say they are".

The article you've posted argued it's "Obvious" Twitter is acting in good faith and doesn't address that point beyond that simple statement they made without any evidence, instead spending its time nitpicking other elements while acting as though the main thrust of the point, that Twitter acts in bad faith with its content moderation, can be dismissed without evidence or argument (Despite Trump using comparative examples to demonstrate this bad faith in fact is present). I disagree Social media platforms act in good faith and so do many people who view the actions of Twitter and social media publishers, as well as the ideology behind it, to be based in bad faith.

Ouch!

They're not being forced into the role of publishers by anyone except the far-left and feminists and so on. This merely recognizes that that is in fact the role they have taken on after the prolonged lobbying by those factions.

There is no censorship here unless you also think that any book should be able to say whatever it likes, libel and so on, with no consequences. Nobody is being forced into this either. The companies can take a step back and stop acting like publishers and behave more like platforms, OR they can curate content *in good faith* instead of inconsistently to serve an ideological goal.

You're also ignoring that they're *not liable if they don't curate content.*, so an alternative is they stop censoring political content at all. But so long as they insist on doing that, they are held responsible for what remains on their site *unless* they treat all political content equally.

One example is;

"Kill All Women" gets censored/warned by Twitter. "Kill All Men" does not. This is a political decision to curate content to serve a political agenda. It makes them a publisher, not a platform, and this kind of thing suggests that they should be held liable for hate speech for all the anti-male stuff on their platform given their direct decision not to curate it in a way they also curate this stuff against women.

Let's first please stop referring to books. Books and social media platforms are a cute superficial analogy but this is going down "guns and cars" avenue and it is detracting from any argument you have there.

It's basically a thinly veiled threat, attempting to intimidate platforms into stopping their attempts to curate content. The end goal isn't for these platforms to actually attempt to curate content more fairly, but rather to back off or implement mutually assured destruction for all content on these platforms. If I felt strongly about this, I wouldn't accept backing off to be a viable option, as it means reprehensible content is still on these platforms. In other words, it's less about the content and more about a "they get to do it, why can't we?" entitlement.

I get that you find it problematic and I agree that content should be judged objectively rather than through a political lens, but I disagree with the approach being taken.

They can still curate inappropriate content, like website telling people how to get away with murder, but they cannot curate political content. I'm not seeing how this is problematic.

The key element is that the protections require "Good faith" enforcement by the company in order for the company to be protected by section 230.

The executive order draws explicit comparison to the differing treatment of Chinese officials pushing violence/genocide denial and misinformation and so on, and American ones to make a case, a pretty strong one in my opinion, that Twitter does not act in good faith and is thus no longer protected by section 230. It's enough to go to trial at least at which point you've got a jury deciding since it's no longer "What is the law" as a question, but "Do you believe the this company is censoring for the reasons they say they are".

You'll have to actually get to trial before a jury gets involved. The EO doesn't change anything in that regard; it does not change the law nor is it the start of a lawsuit.

The article you've posted argued it's "Obvious" Twitter is acting in good faith and doesn't address that point beyond that simple statement they made without any evidence, instead spending its time nitpicking other elements while acting as though the main thrust of the point, that Twitter acts in bad faith with its content moderation, can be dismissed without evidence or argument (Despite Trump using comparative examples to demonstrate this bad faith in fact is present). I disagree Social media platforms act in good faith and so do many people who view the actions of Twitter and social media publishers, as well as the ideology behind it, to be based in bad faith.

It is obvious because what's being examined is individual moderating choices. It doesn't matter if the don't moderate chinese posts with the same intensity as US posts, what matters is if the moderators in good faith determine that this specific post is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, and that the moderation isn't malicious (for example editing posts to change their meaning while making it seem like that's what the content provider ment to post).

Even if you make an argument about bad faith moderation, you then have to show Twitter's decision to remove content isn't protected First Amendment speech. Anything that curbs editorial freedom is censorship, including trying to force the service to publish or not publish something.

Ah, but it does when it comes to "fact-checking" because if you're only, or even primarily, "fact-checking" your opponents, but not your own political party, you're no longer providing a forum - you're publishing. Section 230 goes bye-bye. Also, the First Amendment doesn't guarantee you protection from lawsuits, I thought that someone claiming to be a lawyer would know that.

President Trump is talking about removing Section 230 protection, not about silencing them. Dorsey can yap all he wants, he just won't have Section 230 protection against lawsuits, that's all. Twitter can still publish. However, if Twitter acts as a publisher, rather than an open forum, Twitter can get sued. I can say "Poster X is a retard!" I can also get warned for saying that, if I actually named Poster X.

[Shofercia]

The "Publisher or platform?" argument has been lurking in the background for a while now.

Oh yeah, it should also be mentioned that publisher versus platform is not a thing, and that Ted Cruz is an idiot.

It is, because, once again, we're talking about removing Section 230 protection. That's all. It's not about violating the First Amendment. I get that you want this to be about the First Amendment, but it's really not.

Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Huh. I guess publisher vs platform is a thing.

Good, except let me explain what most people are going to miss in this thread: without Section 230, you cannot have Twitter, or Facebook, or Youtube, or Instagram, or any major media giant above a certain number of subscribers. They simply won't be able to monitor it all. Losing Section 230 protection will lead to a break up of the media giants that will lose it, and the democratization of the social media marketplace. Ironically, President Trump hit the jackpot with this Executive Order, which is why Zuck's freaking out, why Google/Youtube are suddenly silent on President Trump when they're usually critical, and why anti-Trump Bezos' Amazon isn't taking a risk to massively censor Conservatives. Dorsey didn't get the memo; he gets the dunce hat and lawsuits instead.

Even if all you're doing is "fact-checking" - it's impossible to do so without discrimination when you have a user base of a million plus people. There are always going to be posts that are worse than President Trump's, and those posts won't get fact-checked. The president set a trap, and Dorsey walked into it.

Furthermore, there's also the issue of patent protection, which President Trump can simply ignore by pardoning anyone who rips off Twitter's patents; with patent protection, and with the loss of Section 230 protection, Twitter will get pwnd in a few months, tops. Their code ain't that special.

Can you pardon away suing for damages, though? If someone 'steals' code they generally get a pretty hefty payment to make, rather than jail time which Trump can pardon away.

You don't need to steal a code, you can write your own. And yeah, you'll be hit with damages, but now you're in the realm of civil law, rather than criminal law, where you're sued for patent infringement. If enough people do it, it'll cost Twitter more in legal fees to go after all of those companies, than it would to simply let that money go.

[Tekania]

The "Publisher or platform?" argument has been lurking in the background for a while now. Trump recently signed an executive order affirming that social media that engages in curating political comments through moderation, they are a publisher, not a platform.

This renders them liable for all speech that occurs on their site.
(So, on facebook, if I publish "Theresa May raped a man", there's two ways to view that. 1. It's user generated content on a neutral platform. or 2. It's content published by facebook.).

In the former case, facebook can't be sued for libel. In the latter, they can. Same for copyright violations and so on.

This also applies to criminal posts like incitement to violence and so on.

Zuckerberg and facebook have been insistent they are a platform, not a publisher, and recently told civil rights leaders they weren't in the business of curating political content despite political agitators trying to get them to censor things.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-post

(We can see here how the left wing press is insisting platforms begin to shift into curating political content. Something that a section of the left has been vocally demanding and advancing for what seems like decades now, with this outcome having been warned for ages as an inevitable consequence of continuing to push that.).

Conversely there is Twitter, which has been curating political content openly and adopting a narrow political view of what content is acceptable. They may well now be liable for all content on their platform unless they cease the practice.

I support the move as an important step in reversing the toxic atmosphere that has been cultivated by political agitators engaged in double standards, bad faith arguments, and calls for censorship of political opponents. It's a good day for free speech.

The Order;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ensorship/
Discuss?

Good, except let me explain what most people are going to miss in this thread: without Section 230, you cannot have Twitter, or Facebook, or Youtube, or Instagram, or any major media giant above a certain number of subscribers. They simply won't be able to monitor it all. Losing Section 230 protection will lead to a break up of the media giants that will lose it, and the democratization of the social media marketplace. Ironically, President Trump hit the jackpot with this Executive Order, which is why Zuck's freaking out, why Google/Youtube are suddenly silent on President Trump when they're usually critical, and why anti-Trump Bezos' Amazon isn't taking a risk to massively censor Conservatives. Dorsey didn't get the memo; he gets the dunce hat and lawsuits instead.

Even if all you're doing is "fact-checking" - it's impossible to do so without discrimination when you have a user base of a million plus people. There are always going to be posts that are worse than President Trump's, and those posts won't get fact-checked. The president set a trap, and Dorsey walked into it.

Furthermore, there's also the issue of patent protection, which President Trump can simply ignore by pardoning anyone who rips off Twitter's patents; with patent protection, and with the loss of Section 230 protection, Twitter will get pwnd in a few months, tops. Their code ain't that special.

The thing is, Trump can't EO away Section 230 protections. He can draft the EO sure and sign it. But ultimately what will happen as soon as it goes before the court when the challenge comes the portions of the EO that purport to take away the section 230 protections just gets neutered. And this would not be the first EO neutered via judicial review, and not eve Trump's first either. EOs are limited in legal power in that they have to have a statute or constitutional basis. Trump's Executive Order is subservient to the codifications in Section 230 as Executive Orders are inferior to statutes. So even if the EO purports to take them away, they are still covered under the codification in Section 230.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This really boils down to Trump being nothing more than an overgrown toddler. It also means nothing. His sorry excuse of an executive order means pretty much just hot air.

[Albrenia]

If I was social media companies, I'd just fact check everything Trump posts just to piss him off. Show him how much his EO actually means.

[Shofercia]

Good, except let me explain what most people are going to miss in this thread: without Section 230, you cannot have Twitter, or Facebook, or Youtube, or Instagram, or any major media giant above a certain number of subscribers. They simply won't be able to monitor it all. Losing Section 230 protection will lead to a break up of the media giants that will lose it, and the democratization of the social media marketplace. Ironically, President Trump hit the jackpot with this Executive Order, which is why Zuck's freaking out, why Google/Youtube are suddenly silent on President Trump when they're usually critical, and why anti-Trump Bezos' Amazon isn't taking a risk to massively censor Conservatives. Dorsey didn't get the memo; he gets the dunce hat and lawsuits instead.

Even if all you're doing is "fact-checking" - it's impossible to do so without discrimination when you have a user base of a million plus people. There are always going to be posts that are worse than President Trump's, and those posts won't get fact-checked. The president set a trap, and Dorsey walked into it.

Furthermore, there's also the issue of patent protection, which President Trump can simply ignore by pardoning anyone who rips off Twitter's patents; with patent protection, and with the loss of Section 230 protection, Twitter will get pwnd in a few months, tops. Their code ain't that special.

The thing is, Trump can't EO away Section 230 protections. He can draft the EO sure and sign it. But ultimately what will happen as soon as it goes before the court when the challenge comes the portions of the EO that purport to take away the section 230 protections just gets neutered. And this would not be the first EO neutered via judicial review, and not eve Trump's first either. EOs are limited in legal power in that they have to have a statute or constitutional basis. Trump's Executive Order is subservient to the codifications in Section 230 as Executive Orders are inferior to statutes. So even if the EO purports to take them away, they are still covered under the codification in Section 230.

If it was legally black and white, Facebook wouldn't be pissing their pants and conservative pundits wouldn't be having such a hard on for it. I agree that you cannot EO Section 230 protections, but you can EO certain lawsuits, which might get the Court to clarify Section 230, and said clarification might take away Section 230 protections, which seems to be what President Trump is attempting to do. For instance, he can EO government lawyers to look into whether or not Twitter is violating Section 230, and to have said lawyers bring those case to the Court. And that's where the fun begins.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If I was social media companies, I'd just fact check everything Trump posts just to piss him off. Show him how much his EO actually means.

If only to make him rage. It’s incredibly amusing.

[Shofercia]

If I was social media companies, I'd just fact check everything Trump posts just to piss him off. Show him how much his EO actually means.

And then he'll use it to rally voters that already distrust the media in swing districts, have Republicans gain control of Congress, and edit Section 230 a bit. Again, there's a reason that FB's supporting President Trump on this, and it's not because Zuck wants to make sweet love to President Trump.