6 ms·

> This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in t

> This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. That is the impetus in this case, but that doesn't mean it doesn't border on questions we've been slowly grappling with for some time now, nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. > the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that menace I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? In a sense, I think it's an interesting question, if you're willing to editorialize content on behalf of your users why should you get safe-harbor protection? You clearly are willing to put the man power and technology into it, shouldn't you then be liable for content posted on your site? > It's about Americans hating "the left" so much that they'll support an obvious violation of the First Amendment as long as it silences their ideological enemies. What's the obvious First Amendment violation here? If you act as a conduit for certain types of speech, you're liable for that speech. We're just bringing "content neutral providers" into the same realm that everyone else already was.

krapp 6y ago
>I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters. >nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer. >What's the obvious First Amendment violation here? The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent. Granted, the First Amendment only explicitly applies to Congress, but I feel like if states can be accused of violating it (as they often were regarding quarantine and shelter-at-home orders) then the President can as well.
- 2019-nCoV 6y ago
  > If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters. This is literally what Twitter has been doing. Trump's order puts an end to it. > We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer. Exactly why Twitter needs to be stripped of their 230 protections. > The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent. This is the government upholding free speech. Twitter's policies and their selective enforcement of such run directly contrary to the underlying tenets of free speech. This holds Twitter accountable for their "un-American" practices. Although it may be hard to see through the vitriolic debates currently raging, this will be a net win for the internet. This will encourage decentralisation in so far as there is now a soft power cap on these big tech companies.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    > This is literally what Twitter has been doing. Trump's order puts an end to it. Debatable, on both points. There have been studies[1] that show that accounts are banned, but it's not necessarily because they are conservative accounts or conservative content. In a civil or criminal case, causation must be established. In this case, the president is making it very much more expensive for certain companies to defend themselves. This EO is more likely to hurt YouTube than Twitter because it has the ability to get the Federal Government to no longer approve grants to Google subsidiaries and for government agencies to stop advertising with them. > to be stripped of their 203 protections. You mean The Communications Decency Act, Section 230? > Twitter's policies and their selective enforcement of such run directly contrary to the underlying tenets of free speech. That's interesting. Government law enforcers and prosecutors have the ability to use prosecutorial discretion. Are you saying that the government should be able to select who they prosecute, but that private organizations should not be allowed discretion to enforce their own contracts? If ISPs (where content in a pipe is pretty close to comparable to Common Carrier standards) can't be held up to the standards of Net Neutrality, how can social media companies (where content is much more subjective to interpret as violations of their contract)? > this will be a net win for the internet That remains to be seen. I can see it being another tool where the executive branch gets to unilaterally change the definition of which internet companies get protections, not leveling the playing field. > This will encourage decentralisation in so far as there is now a soft power cap on these big tech companies. More likely there will be some obvious "unintended consequences" similar to what happened after Trump signed the FOSTA bill in 2018[2] (hint: multiple dating sites, including Craigslist sections, closed up shop). It will very likely increase the cost of being a user-generated content host to the point that only a very select few companies would do it and they will all require arbitration clauses in the ToS to avoid extremely expensive litigation of the CDA230 rules. I expect a handful of forums and lots of news comments sections to close due to this "free speech" Executive Order. [1] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php [2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/23/596460672/craigslist-shuts-down-personals-section-after-congress-passes-bill-on-traffickin https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/23/596460672...
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, thats an interestating take, considering trump is trying to stop the selective editorialization of individuals covered by the first amendment. are we really taking twitters side of this because we hate trump so much?
  - krapp 6y ago
    >thats an interestating take, considering trump is trying to stop the selective editorialization of individuals covered by the first amendment. Again, the first amendment protects those individuals from being censored by the government. Twitter is not bound by the first amendment. They're allowed to editorialize content. They're allowed to curate, moderate, deplatform and ban people. However, Twitter is also protected by the first amendment, and Trump's executive order is an attempt to erode those protections. >are we really taking twitters side of this because we hate trump so much? No. I believe in the right of platforms to censor content as an extension of their own freedom of speech and association, because that still leaves the internet itself free. If one objects to Twitter's behavior, one can always find a new platform or create one. However, when the government attempts to assert censorship over the entire network, that reduces freedom for everyone.
    - unishark 6y ago
      The executive order is not touching the protections of the first amendment. The courts are still to protect them for that as always. The order regards the additional protections of section 230 which even protect twitter for content that is not protected by the first amendment. Trump is essentially trying to say if Twitter takes sides by fact-checking some tweets, then they are also responsible for all the other "facts" they allow to be posted on their platform without fact-checking. And by the way the courts are still perfectly capable of deciding in favor of twitter regarding blame for all those other posts too. Twitter just won't be shielded by a special law from such decisions.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Anyone who replies to you is guilty of selective editorialization of an individual covered by the first amendment. Except me. I'm not expressing an opinion. It seems unwise in an age like this.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  The talk is about rolling back special privileges that platforms get. Privileges that you and I don't have. If you publish something illegal then you bear the consequences. If a user on Twitter does it then Twitter doesn't bear the consequences, but the user does instead. Doesn't this mean it's the user that's expressing speech rather than Twitter?
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    > Privileges that you and I don't have. You absolutely do. The same protection that applies to Twitter applies to a personal blog that allows comments, or any site that allows users to post.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    > If you publish something illegal then you bear the consequences. So let's look at today. You have a tweet from a conservative group that "concludes" that the only way forward for America is violent action, up to and including murder of political opponents. "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat". To me, it seems that there is a plausible argument to be made that this group is inciting violence. And then Trump re-tweeted it, with the additional commentary, "Thanks, Cowboys of America!". If we want to compare "consequences of speech and platforms", then on one hand we have hand-wringing about "Twitter _annotated_ a tweet with links to resources about the substance of that tweet", versus "group hints at violent oppression of political opponents, and is given the thumbs up by political leader". I was going to say "I know which one I find more problematic", but lest someone attempt a slippery slope retort, I'll be more clear: I find only one of these actions at all problematic (and it's not annotation of tweets).
anigbrowl 6y ago
If you act as a conduit for certain types of speech, you're liable for that speech. There's some merit to that position, but things like adding a fact check (which you might or might not agree with) do not incur any sort of civil or criminal liability. You make good points, but we should also engage with the reality that the president and his supporters are demanding a quality of representation/protection for their political views that they don't have any particular entitlement to, and for which no mechanism currently exists in law; it seems (going by the general tenor of their arguments over the last few years) like they want to bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine' that obtained for broadcast media up to the Reagan era to create some protected space for their viewpoint.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I didn't know the Fairness Doctrine was a mechanism to prevent the juxtaposition of opposing views.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    > to prevent the juxtaposition of opposing views The way I interpreted it, your parent comment was arguing the opposite of the way you framed it. It's a long run-on sentence, but the `;` is meant to be interpreted as "start a new sentence that is related to the previous one"
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I don't know what it was arguing. It seemed to be implying that the Fairness Doctrine created a protected space. Didn't it do the opposite?
visarga 6y ago
> You clearly are willing to put the man power and technology into it, shouldn't you then be liable for content posted on your site? Power and technology can't curate content to the level where you are safe from lawsuits. What you're saying is that if they are willing to do a bit of moderation they should do total moderation.

krapp 6y ago

>I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters. >nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer. >What's the obvious First Amendment violation here? The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent. Granted, the First Amendment only explicitly applies to Congress, but I feel like if states can be accused of violating it (as they often were regarding quarantine and shelter-at-home orders) then the President can as well.

2019-nCoV 6y ago
> If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters. This is literally what Twitter has been doing. Trump's order puts an end to it. > We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer. Exactly why Twitter needs to be stripped of their 230 protections. > The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent. This is the government upholding free speech. Twitter's policies and their selective enforcement of such run directly contrary to the underlying tenets of free speech. This holds Twitter accountable for their "un-American" practices. Although it may be hard to see through the vitriolic debates currently raging, this will be a net win for the internet. This will encourage decentralisation in so far as there is now a soft power cap on these big tech companies.
- thephyber 6y ago
  > This is literally what Twitter has been doing. Trump's order puts an end to it. Debatable, on both points. There have been studies[1] that show that accounts are banned, but it's not necessarily because they are conservative accounts or conservative content. In a civil or criminal case, causation must be established. In this case, the president is making it very much more expensive for certain companies to defend themselves. This EO is more likely to hurt YouTube than Twitter because it has the ability to get the Federal Government to no longer approve grants to Google subsidiaries and for government agencies to stop advertising with them. > to be stripped of their 203 protections. You mean The Communications Decency Act, Section 230? > Twitter's policies and their selective enforcement of such run directly contrary to the underlying tenets of free speech. That's interesting. Government law enforcers and prosecutors have the ability to use prosecutorial discretion. Are you saying that the government should be able to select who they prosecute, but that private organizations should not be allowed discretion to enforce their own contracts? If ISPs (where content in a pipe is pretty close to comparable to Common Carrier standards) can't be held up to the standards of Net Neutrality, how can social media companies (where content is much more subjective to interpret as violations of their contract)? > this will be a net win for the internet That remains to be seen. I can see it being another tool where the executive branch gets to unilaterally change the definition of which internet companies get protections, not leveling the playing field. > This will encourage decentralisation in so far as there is now a soft power cap on these big tech companies. More likely there will be some obvious "unintended consequences" similar to what happened after Trump signed the FOSTA bill in 2018[2] (hint: multiple dating sites, including Craigslist sections, closed up shop). It will very likely increase the cost of being a user-generated content host to the point that only a very select few companies would do it and they will all require arbitration clauses in the ToS to avoid extremely expensive litigation of the CDA230 rules. I expect a handful of forums and lots of news comments sections to close due to this "free speech" Executive Order. [1] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php [2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/23/596460672/craigslist-shuts-down-personals-section-after-congress-passes-bill-on-traffickin https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/23/596460672...
kryogen1c 6y ago
> the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, thats an interestating take, considering trump is trying to stop the selective editorialization of individuals covered by the first amendment. are we really taking twitters side of this because we hate trump so much?
- krapp 6y ago
  >thats an interestating take, considering trump is trying to stop the selective editorialization of individuals covered by the first amendment. Again, the first amendment protects those individuals from being censored by the government. Twitter is not bound by the first amendment. They're allowed to editorialize content. They're allowed to curate, moderate, deplatform and ban people. However, Twitter is also protected by the first amendment, and Trump's executive order is an attempt to erode those protections. >are we really taking twitters side of this because we hate trump so much? No. I believe in the right of platforms to censor content as an extension of their own freedom of speech and association, because that still leaves the internet itself free. If one objects to Twitter's behavior, one can always find a new platform or create one. However, when the government attempts to assert censorship over the entire network, that reduces freedom for everyone.
  - unishark 6y ago
    The executive order is not touching the protections of the first amendment. The courts are still to protect them for that as always. The order regards the additional protections of section 230 which even protect twitter for content that is not protected by the first amendment. Trump is essentially trying to say if Twitter takes sides by fact-checking some tweets, then they are also responsible for all the other "facts" they allow to be posted on their platform without fact-checking. And by the way the courts are still perfectly capable of deciding in favor of twitter regarding blame for all those other posts too. Twitter just won't be shielded by a special law from such decisions.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Anyone who replies to you is guilty of selective editorialization of an individual covered by the first amendment. Except me. I'm not expressing an opinion. It seems unwise in an age like this.
Mirioron 6y ago
The talk is about rolling back special privileges that platforms get. Privileges that you and I don't have. If you publish something illegal then you bear the consequences. If a user on Twitter does it then Twitter doesn't bear the consequences, but the user does instead. Doesn't this mean it's the user that's expressing speech rather than Twitter?
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  > Privileges that you and I don't have. You absolutely do. The same protection that applies to Twitter applies to a personal blog that allows comments, or any site that allows users to post.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  > If you publish something illegal then you bear the consequences. So let's look at today. You have a tweet from a conservative group that "concludes" that the only way forward for America is violent action, up to and including murder of political opponents. "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat". To me, it seems that there is a plausible argument to be made that this group is inciting violence. And then Trump re-tweeted it, with the additional commentary, "Thanks, Cowboys of America!". If we want to compare "consequences of speech and platforms", then on one hand we have hand-wringing about "Twitter _annotated_ a tweet with links to resources about the substance of that tweet", versus "group hints at violent oppression of political opponents, and is given the thumbs up by political leader". I was going to say "I know which one I find more problematic", but lest someone attempt a slippery slope retort, I'll be more clear: I find only one of these actions at all problematic (and it's not annotation of tweets).

anigbrowl 6y ago

If you act as a conduit for certain types of speech, you're liable for that speech. There's some merit to that position, but things like adding a fact check (which you might or might not agree with) do not incur any sort of civil or criminal liability. You make good points, but we should also engage with the reality that the president and his supporters are demanding a quality of representation/protection for their political views that they don't have any particular entitlement to, and for which no mechanism currently exists in law; it seems (going by the general tenor of their arguments over the last few years) like they want to bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine' that obtained for broadcast media up to the Reagan era to create some protected space for their viewpoint.

perl4ever 6y ago
I didn't know the Fairness Doctrine was a mechanism to prevent the juxtaposition of opposing views.
- thephyber 6y ago
  > to prevent the juxtaposition of opposing views The way I interpreted it, your parent comment was arguing the opposite of the way you framed it. It's a long run-on sentence, but the `;` is meant to be interpreted as "start a new sentence that is related to the previous one"
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I don't know what it was arguing. It seemed to be implying that the Fairness Doctrine created a protected space. Didn't it do the opposite?

visarga 6y ago

> You clearly are willing to put the man power and technology into it, shouldn't you then be liable for content posted on your site? Power and technology can't curate content to the level where you are safe from lawsuits. What you're saying is that if they are willing to do a bit of moderation they should do total moderation.