4 ms·

After Barring Trump, Facebook and Twitter Face Scrutiny About Inaction Abroad

commandlinefan 6y ago
They (Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Bezos) haven't spent a lot of time expounding on exactly why they banned Trump (and in Amazon's case, an entire app as collateral damage), but the gist I seem to see is that they didn't do it because they, personally, didn't like Trump but because they were afraid of potential legal reprisal. In the 90's, Howard Stern spent his career being chased from one radio station to the next because the FCC had what seemed to be a vendetta against him: they would apply the incredibly vague standard of "obscenity" to his broadcasts and use that as an excuse to fine the radio station that carried him, relenting only when they dropped him. What's happening to outspoken conservatives right now on social media isn't quite parellel, since the government itself isn't taking action against these platforms, but the threat is real. Jack Dorsey hasn't come out and said, "I kicked Donald Trump off of my platform because it's my platform, my rules and I don't like the guy" but rather "leaving him here has the potential to cause harm" - the unspoken part of which is "that Twitter may be found liable for".
- bitwize 6y ago
  > but the gist I seem to see is that they didn't do it because they, personally, didn't like Trump but because they were afraid of potential legal reprisal. He's technically a terrorist leader now. There are big consequences for aiding, supporting, or harboring a terrorist.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    "technically" by what technical definition?
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I’m not a lawyer, but this seems reasonable on their part. Section 230 protects against civil liability, but not criminal liability, in my understanding. I assume social media companies have legal teams which are advising them on this stuff.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Section 230 protects against civil liability It provides them from liability as a publisher, which generally does not require notice of the content to be liable. Some courts have found (despite the fact that on its face 230 is explicitly limited to addressing liability as a publisher or speaker) that it also protects against civil liability as a distributor (which kicks in with actual notice of the illegal content), but there is some controversy over that.
  - commandlinefan 6y ago
    If that's the case, then this is no longer a "private company doing whatever they like" and now a government-mandated free speech issue - although Twitter and Facebook have been carefully walking a tightrope to avoid admitting to that.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > ... the unspoken part of which is "that Twitter may be found liable for". That seems probable to my cynical side, but it doesn't have to be that. Dorsey could be sincerely troubled by what happened on January 6, and could want nothing to do with enabling Act II. (Or, more likely, it could be both.)
  - Traster 6y ago
    Twitter is a company with lots of employees and each of those employees are going to have varying views. I'm certain that there are people at twitter who are genuinely concerned about being an enabler of this violence. I'm sure lots of them also personally dislike Trump. I'm sure lots of them desparately want the platform to be as relevant as possible. I'm also sur ethat they desparately don't want to be the arbiters of free speech despite what concervatives claim. There are going to be a million dynamics in these situations and it's impossible to disaggregate them.

They (Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Bezos) haven't spent a lot of time expounding on exactly why they banned Trump (and in Amazon's case, an entire app as collateral damage), but the gist I seem to see is that they didn't do it because they, personally, didn't like Trump but because they were afraid of potential legal reprisal. In the 90's, Howard Stern spent his career being chased from one radio station to the next because the FCC had what seemed to be a vendetta against him: they would apply the incredibly vague standard of "obscenity" to his broadcasts and use that as an excuse to fine the radio station that carried him, relenting only when they dropped him. What's happening to outspoken conservatives right now on social media isn't quite parellel, since the government itself isn't taking action against these platforms, but the threat is real. Jack Dorsey hasn't come out and said, "I kicked Donald Trump off of my platform because it's my platform, my rules and I don't like the guy" but rather "leaving him here has the potential to cause harm" - the unspoken part of which is "that Twitter may be found liable for".

bitwize 6y ago
> but the gist I seem to see is that they didn't do it because they, personally, didn't like Trump but because they were afraid of potential legal reprisal. He's technically a terrorist leader now. There are big consequences for aiding, supporting, or harboring a terrorist.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  "technically" by what technical definition?
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I’m not a lawyer, but this seems reasonable on their part. Section 230 protects against civil liability, but not criminal liability, in my understanding. I assume social media companies have legal teams which are advising them on this stuff.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Section 230 protects against civil liability It provides them from liability as a publisher, which generally does not require notice of the content to be liable. Some courts have found (despite the fact that on its face 230 is explicitly limited to addressing liability as a publisher or speaker) that it also protects against civil liability as a distributor (which kicks in with actual notice of the illegal content), but there is some controversy over that.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  If that's the case, then this is no longer a "private company doing whatever they like" and now a government-mandated free speech issue - although Twitter and Facebook have been carefully walking a tightrope to avoid admitting to that.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> ... the unspoken part of which is "that Twitter may be found liable for". That seems probable to my cynical side, but it doesn't have to be that. Dorsey could be sincerely troubled by what happened on January 6, and could want nothing to do with enabling Act II. (Or, more likely, it could be both.)
- Traster 6y ago
  Twitter is a company with lots of employees and each of those employees are going to have varying views. I'm certain that there are people at twitter who are genuinely concerned about being an enabler of this violence. I'm sure lots of them also personally dislike Trump. I'm sure lots of them desparately want the platform to be as relevant as possible. I'm also sur ethat they desparately don't want to be the arbiters of free speech despite what concervatives claim. There are going to be a million dynamics in these situations and it's impossible to disaggregate them.