3 ms·

Does Trump still want to repeal Section 230? He was in favor in 2020, but that was a long time ago. Now he’s co-governing with Musk. Both billionaires own soci

by pavlov 2y ago

Does Trump still want to repeal Section 230? He was in favor in 2020, but that was a long time ago. Now he’s co-governing with Musk. Both billionaires own social media platforms that benefit from Section 230 protections. What’s the incentive for them to push for a repeal?

sroussey 2y ago
Trump will only do what is in his personal self interest.
icu 2y ago
Anyone who thinks they can say with certainty what Trump will do just isn't credible. That said, my guess is that Trump will change Section 230 to force neutrality and free speech or Section 230 protections will be lost. I don't see how that is incompatible with X or Truth Social.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Maybe there will be a requirement for X style public algorithms.
  - pavlov 2y ago
    Does anyone actually believe Twitter’s algorithm is public? When the company’s mercurial owner wants to amplify some voices and silence others, does he make a pull request on the GitHub repo? If you don’t think that kind of thing happens on Twitter/X, you haven’t been paying attention. Anyway, Republicans generally favor less regulation and less enforcement, not more. If there’s a new rule that requires companies to publish something, but it’s not actually enforced, then it doesn’t mean anything. Companies can just publish something vaguely plausible out of some old code snapshot (like Twitter does today).
- pavlov 2y ago
  > “change Section 230 to force neutrality and free speech” How would that revised law look like? Would courts be tasked with determining whether a defendant in a Section 230 lawsuit had been sufficiently neutral? The standard for libel is extremely high in America compared to many other countries. By the same logic, the standard for losing Section 230 protections should be similarly high. Otherwise courts become unwilling arbiters of what’s acceptable speech.
AzzyHN 2y ago
Twitter has already changed their TOS so that any legal challenges happen in a district with a Trump-appointed judge. I imagine similar tactics would be used to create a "rules for thee but not for me" situation. There are a lot of Trump-appointed judges now.
- tzs 2y ago
  I'm not sure their TOS would protect them. Say someone posts things on Twitter calling for violence against some group, and members of that group get harassed or attacked and they sue the poster and they sue Twitter. All they need to do is choose plaintiffs who have not agreed to Twitter's TOS.
ttyprintk 2y ago
There will be very little accountability that the change they desire matches the rhetoric. In his first term, Trump's DOJ and FCC tried weakening 230 -- not repealing it. The most useful Section 230 might: - Intimidate fact checkers - Promote new "outsiders", conveniently approved with a polished message - Sew a framework of attribution, especially between loyal states versus blue states. - Obscure that some messages are paid, while others just win an algorithmic jumble. - Sew a framework of counter-attribution, where a platform may challenge my message as untruthful. Regardless, if I seem to pass a particular loyalty test, I win the right not just to promote it harder, but also advertise "what they don't want you to know" and they must carry it as such.
bediger4000 2y ago
Aren't you assuming that laws will be applied uniformly? It's entirely possible that Musk thinks a repealed Section 230 wouldn't harm X because of that co-governing.

by pavlov 2y ago

sroussey 2y ago

Trump will only do what is in his personal self interest.

icu 2y ago

Anyone who thinks they can say with certainty what Trump will do just isn't credible. That said, my guess is that Trump will change Section 230 to force neutrality and free speech or Section 230 protections will be lost. I don't see how that is incompatible with X or Truth Social.

throwaway48476 2y ago
Maybe there will be a requirement for X style public algorithms.
- pavlov 2y ago
  Does anyone actually believe Twitter’s algorithm is public? When the company’s mercurial owner wants to amplify some voices and silence others, does he make a pull request on the GitHub repo? If you don’t think that kind of thing happens on Twitter/X, you haven’t been paying attention. Anyway, Republicans generally favor less regulation and less enforcement, not more. If there’s a new rule that requires companies to publish something, but it’s not actually enforced, then it doesn’t mean anything. Companies can just publish something vaguely plausible out of some old code snapshot (like Twitter does today).
pavlov 2y ago
> “change Section 230 to force neutrality and free speech” How would that revised law look like? Would courts be tasked with determining whether a defendant in a Section 230 lawsuit had been sufficiently neutral? The standard for libel is extremely high in America compared to many other countries. By the same logic, the standard for losing Section 230 protections should be similarly high. Otherwise courts become unwilling arbiters of what’s acceptable speech.

AzzyHN 2y ago

Twitter has already changed their TOS so that any legal challenges happen in a district with a Trump-appointed judge. I imagine similar tactics would be used to create a "rules for thee but not for me" situation. There are a lot of Trump-appointed judges now.

tzs 2y ago
I'm not sure their TOS would protect them. Say someone posts things on Twitter calling for violence against some group, and members of that group get harassed or attacked and they sue the poster and they sue Twitter. All they need to do is choose plaintiffs who have not agreed to Twitter's TOS.

ttyprintk 2y ago

There will be very little accountability that the change they desire matches the rhetoric. In his first term, Trump's DOJ and FCC tried weakening 230 -- not repealing it. The most useful Section 230 might: - Intimidate fact checkers - Promote new "outsiders", conveniently approved with a polished message - Sew a framework of attribution, especially between loyal states versus blue states. - Obscure that some messages are paid, while others just win an algorithmic jumble. - Sew a framework of counter-attribution, where a platform may challenge my message as untruthful. Regardless, if I seem to pass a particular loyalty test, I win the right not just to promote it harder, but also advertise "what they don't want you to know" and they must carry it as such.

bediger4000 2y ago

Aren't you assuming that laws will be applied uniformly? It's entirely possible that Musk thinks a repealed Section 230 wouldn't harm X because of that co-governing.