Twitter CEO To Trump: Eh, Whatever (Update Added)
[guest post by Dana]
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has no intention of caving into President Trump’s demands to curtail speech on social media that he doesn’t like:
Dorsey’s company has become the target of President Trump’s fury after it added a disclaimer to one of his tweets earlier this week. First, Trump threatened to close down social-media companies who he thinks are “show bias” against conservatives, and it was reported late Wednesday that he will sign an executive order to remove important legal protections from sites like Twitter and Facebook. In a series of tweets, Dorsey wrote that Twitter will “continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.” He added: “This does not make us an ‘arbiter of truth.’ Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves.”
Meanwhile, Trump is expected to announce the signing of his “Preventing Online Censorship” executive order today. Or, as he refers to it, “fairness” in social media:
This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2020
The draft order, which was reviewed by CNN, targets a law known as the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the legislation provides broad immunity to websites that curate and moderate their own platforms, and has been described by legal experts as “the 26 words that created the internet.”
It argues that the protections hinge mainly on tech platforms operating in “good faith,” and that social media companies have not.
“In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online,” the draft order says. “This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.”
The draft order also accuses social media platforms of “invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise punish Americans’ speech here at home.” It also faults Google for helping the Chinese government surveil its citizens; Twitter for spreading Chinese propaganda; and Facebook for profiting from Chinese advertising.
Here’s how the order would work:
Under the order, the Commerce Department would ask the Federal Communications Commission for new regulations clarifying when a company’s conduct might violate the good faith provisions of Section 230 — potentially making it easier for tech companies to be sued.
…
The draft order instructs the Justice Department to consult with state attorneys general on allegations of anti-conservative bias. It bans federal agencies from advertising on platforms that have allegedly violated Section 230’s good-faith principles.
Finally, the draft order would direct the Federal Trade Commission to report on complaints about political bias collected by the White House and to consider bringing lawsuits against companies accused of violating the administration’s interpretation of Section 230.
The provisions regarding the FTC could raise additional legal questions, as the FTC is an independent agency that does not take orders from the President.
Eugene Volokh has an informative analysis of 47 U.S.C. § 230 here.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg weighs in on the issue:
In an upcoming interview on Fox News’ “The Daily Briefing,” Zuckerberg said that private companies probably shouldn’t be “the arbiter of truth,” and that social media platforms especially “shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”
He added, however, that he doesn’t think regulations on social media would be the right approach. “I have to understand what they actually would intend to do,” Zuckerberg said. “But in general, I think a government choosing to censor a platform because they’re worried about censorship doesn’t exactly strike me as the right reflex there.”
Facebook uses independent checkers to catch the really bad stuff, according to Zuckerberg. “The point of that program isn’t to try to parse words on is something slightly true or false. In terms of political speech, again, I think you want to give broad deference to the political process and political speech,” he said.
Trump is a drama queen, and a professional victim. There are 100,000 people dead from coronavirus and the economy is a mess, so it’s perfectly natural in Trump World to go after his critics on social media. Everything else has changed, but Trump is as predictable as the day is long. Ginning up controversies, making threats, and playing the perpetual victim are his trademarks. As much as our daily lives have changed, it’s remarkable that nothing in his world has changed.
UPDATE:So far, the FCC Commissioners are divided on Trump’s draft order:
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, harshly criticized the order in a statement Thursday, framing it as a threat to free speech.
“This does not work. Social media can be frustrating. But an Executive Order that would turn the Federal Communications Commission into the President’s speech police is not the answer,” she said. “It’s time for those in Washington to speak up for the First Amendment. History won’t be kind to silence.”
Meanwhile, Republican FCC commissioner Brendan Carr voiced support for the executive order in an interview with Yahoo Finance, arguing that Section 230 should be reexamined if not overhauled.
“I think given what we’ve seen over the last few weeks, it makes sense to let the public weigh-in and say ‘is that really what Congress meant’ when they passed and provided those special protections,” Carr said.
Commissioner Mike O’Rielly, another Republican, said on Twitter that he sees both sides of the debate and urged his followers to “take [a] deep breath.”
–Dana
So typical.
Dana (0feb77) — 5/28/2020 @ 9:38 amFairness…where have I heard that before?
Gryph (08c844) — 5/28/2020 @ 9:45 amTrump is a drama queen and professional victim indeed, but Jack Dorsey is being pretty disingenuous. Last night he came out with a series of Tweets and he went from declaring that Twitter will “continue to point out incorrect or disputed information” to claiming that Twitter isn’t “an arbiter of truth,” which I think is his response to Mark Zuckerberg’s backhanded criticism of Twitter’s fact-checking pretensions. So Dorsey really is trying to have it both ways, telling us that Twitter reserves the right to decide that a politician is spreading misinformation while at the same time insisting that they don’t consider themselves the final word. I think Zuckerberg and Facebook have the better argument that this stuff is best left alone.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/28/2020 @ 9:59 amI agree, JVW. The reason we have a First Amendment is to encourage discussion so people can decide for themselves.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:07 amSometimes I wonder if we have such easy lives that we don’t even want to do the work of informing ourselves about topics. Trump strikes me that way, as do online commenters who can’t be bothered to write thoughtful comments.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:10 amI think Zuckerberg is misrepresenting his social media competitor with that “arbiter of truth” schtick.
Paul Montagu (b3f51b) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:22 amTwitter only called out one of Trump’s clearly provable lies, and must’ve hit close to the mark because Trump is having one of his spoon-banging temper tantrums over the matter. Twitter should keep it up. What’s Trump gonna do, move over to Instagram? Violate the 1st Amendment?
What’s Trump gonna do, move over to Instagram? Violate the 1st Amendment?
He might follow precedent and launch an investigation into election interference, including surveillance, leaks, warrants, perjury traps, the whole nine yards.
beer ‘n pretzels (73045a) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:35 am“In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online,” the draft order says. “This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.”
Well, there’s a fundamental lie embedded in there.
Nobody is compelling ANY American to use the platforms in question. I don’t use Twatter or Defacebook at all. I consider both various degrees of toxic.
The FACT that many Americans chose to use them NEVER gives the feds ANY business screwing with them.
“When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.”
And that’s a lie. They have NO “power”. They MAY have persuasion IF you CHOSE to consume their stuff. The flucking feds have POWER. And this needs to be fought.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:42 amLike everyone that values free speech I’m glad to see the government getting involved to make sure that people don’t say wrong things or show disrespect to conservatives. This business of people doing what they want with their property and letting individual choices decide outcomes clearly isn’t working. Plus once a social media site like MySpace or a communication tool like ICQ is established they’re essentially permanent and immune to market forces.
When enacted Trump’s threats will make us all more free and better off. I don’t think there’s any risk that a future administration will misuse these powers. It’s just as crazy as expecting established companies to use regulation to create requirements that make it harder for new companies to enter the market.
People need to understand that this is a principled position in favor of free speech. It’s clearly not an attempt to discourage people from hurting the feelings of a petulant garbage baby who is much happier talking about a culture war fight than his numerous failures as leader.
Time123 (457a1d) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:43 amJVW,
This is just Toddler Trump throwing another hissy fit because he doesn’t like being criticized. With that, it is ridiculous to believe that there can be any real neutrality in determining the fitness of a comment or tweet. However, it is different when there are hard facts that are easily disproven, or as Montagu said, “clearly provable lies”. Regardless, 1A should be protected and preserved at all costs, and not encroached upon because of a petty president.
Dana (0feb77) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:44 amThis business of people doing what they want with their property and letting individual choices decide outcomes clearly isn’t working.
Lord, not another ignorant screed against lockdowns and face masks.
beer ‘n pretzels (efe0ef) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:47 amDana, plus there’s no cost to this for Trump. Most people will interpret this as a tribal thing. Trump is attacking the elite that don’t show them respect. So the base will like it and the fight alone might discourage other tech sites from upsetting him.
Time123 (235fc4) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:48 amMy only nitpick in this whole situation is that the 1st amendment says “Congress shall make no law…” and Congress has made no law, so if Trump is going to rule by executive order, Jack Dorsey should proceed as if such order has no force of law and dare Trump to take him to court over it.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:51 amAnd Mr. Trump became a conservative … when?
John B Boddie (f44786) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:52 am14. When he decided it’s what he needed to do to run against Obama, which turned out to work great for him.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:59 amAny court case on this will likely rise or fall on the terms of the Act that implemented 230 regarding appropriate regulation, and whether the parts of the Executive Order purporting to do anything meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Since Trump is rushing to do something before the election, he’ll probably foul this part of it up.
No court wants to dive into 1st amendment issues if it can avoid it.
Appalled (1a17de) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:02 amZuckerberg seems to get that Trump’s jerkiness on Twitter doesn’t offset the reality that social media portals can either be common carriers like the phone company or content arbiters like newspapers or broadcast channels. To be both is to give Twitter and the others even more of a First Amendment opening than Times v. Sullivan provided to print and broadcast outlets, and which made it almost impossible for a public figure in the U.S. to sue successfully for libel or slander.
Take Trump out of the equation, and replace it with some non-public figure at a far lower level, and you could have a situation where they’re allowed to post libelous comments on Twitter, but the portal as an editor can ban the person they’re libeling from replying to dispute the accusation, because the editor likes the positions of Person A and abhors the ones of Person B. If The New York Times tries that, they end up with a Vicki Iseman situation on their hands — Twitter at the very least needs to face the same risks as the Times, if they want to play editor. Facebook doesn’t want to go there, which is why Zuckerberg is attempting to maintain neutrality in this dispute.
John (c7bcb1) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:04 amQuery — do the substantive due process rulings addressing the 14th Amendment and “incorporating” the 1st amendment (so that the 1st applies to state government actions) deal with Presidential and regulatory actions? I assume they do, or some other ruling has the same function. Not being a lawyer, I don’t know.
Appalled (1a17de) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:05 am@17, so you want to go back to all or nothing? Either twitter lets everything in or they’re liable as a publisher?
Time123 (457a1d) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:12 amThis will be a golden time for First Amendment and Constitutional lawyers!
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:23 amMeanwhile in Bluegrass country
Kishnevi (21985c) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:36 amhttps://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wireStory/man-hanged-effigy-kentucky-governor-fired-job-70908368
Appeals court ruling suggests little legal traction for Trump’s anti-Twitter campaign
A ruling that emerged from a powerful federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday morning is strong evidence that the courts are unlikely to be receptive to President Donald Trump’s claims that he and his political supporters are being silenced by social media platforms like Twitter.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit resoundingly rejected a lawsuit the conservative legal organization Freedom Watch and right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer filed in 2018 against four major technology companies: Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple.
…..
The appeals court judges said that, despite the companies’ power, they cannot violate the First Amendment because it regulates only governments, not the private sector.
“Freedom Watch’s First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,’” the court said.
“Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But … ‘a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.’ … Freedom Watch fails to point to additional facts indicating that these Platforms are engaged in state action and thus fails to state a viable First Amendment claim,” the judges added.
…..
Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman called the decision “outrageous” and vowed to press on with the case.
“We’re going to obviously move for en banc reconsideration and go to the Supremes, if we have to,” he said.
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:38 am……
Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman called the decision “outrageous” and vowed to press on with the case.
“We’re going to obviously move for en banc reconsideration and go to the Supremes, if we have to,” he said.
Well, that’ll be embarrassing.
Jeeebus…!!!
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:42 amWith that, it is ridiculous to believe that there can be any real neutrality in determining the fitness of a comment or tweet.
Yep, especially when this guy is the Head of Site Integrity which oversees the fact-checking operation.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:45 amYep, Whatever…
Just declare social media companies public utilities subject to anti-discrimination laws and settle it already.
MJN1957 (0140eb) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:50 amJust declare social media companies public utilities subject to anti-discrimination laws and settle it already.
1. You can’t because they are not, and
2. WTF?
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:55 amJVW, sounds like it’s true for a limited amount of ‘in charge’
Time123 (457a1d) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:56 amI may be missing something but, “arbiter of truth” isn’t really needed since most of Trump’s claims 3rd grade level lies, or bullying (again 3rd grade). So it’s not some abstract “truth”, Trump claims water is dry and dust is wet. The counter isn’t “aktshually, there is space between the molecules that is neither wet or dry because…” Uh, no. Water wet/not dry.
So, Twitter should just delete Trump as a user because he appears to either be a bot or a child, both things not allowed. Let Trump sue them and prove he’s neither.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:58 am“We’re going to obviously move for en banc reconsideration and go to the Supremes, if we have to,” he said.
MDiana Ross had no comment on the matter.
Kishnevi (21985c) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:58 amWonder why Twitter acted against Trump’s vote by mail tweets, and not some of the other ones? Take a look at this.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-integrity-policy
My guess is that garden variety Trump will continue to go unchallenged, but his election stuff will get hit with the fact check.
Appalled (1a17de) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:59 amHe has a lapdog AG, and clearly Barr isn’t afraid to do his boss’s bidding.
Paul Montagu (b3f51b) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:59 amDiana Ross, obviously.
I’m getting used to a new phone.
Kishnevi (21985c) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:00 pm@22
The issues in the DC Circuit case are different from those raised by Trump’s latest stupidity. That the First Amendment only protects against Government (or State) action is long-established law. You have no First Amendment rights against private parties. That is really basic stuff.
Trump’s issue is how to interpret a statutory immunity. Section 230 of the CDA. He is wrong, of course, every court has held differently. But I don’t see the two cases as related.
Bored Lawyer (56c962) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:21 pmJVW, sounds like it’s true for a limited amount of ‘in charge’
Yeah, I read the same article, but I’m wondering if this isn’t Twitter doing some CYA and hiding the amount of influence he wields. His LinkedIn account seems to portray a more substantial role in the department.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:30 pmAppalled (1a17de) — 5/28/2020 @ 11:05 am
They don’t need to. From the post:
This is standard EO stuff although we’ve gotten used to the newer EOs. This is a directive by POTUS for one department to ask another department to clarify how a law should be implemented.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/28/2020 @ 10:51 am
This turns out not to be the case. Congress did indeed make a law and there is no need to rule by decree.
frosty (f27e97) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:36 pm@19
Twitter can either be a common carrier or it can be an editor, and while you do have your beyond-the-pale areas such as posting child p0rn, you want to keep those restrictions very tightly limited. Once you start limiting comments because of the poster’s general a-holiness or even just the questionable political point of view in the post, you’re really giving the carrier too much control over what passes through their pipeline to allow them a complete pass on the negative consequences of bias, unless Jack Dorsey plans to have King Solomon as the moderator on all Twitter feuds.
John (c7bcb1) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:42 pmTwitter might be thinking that Trump’s Tweets hurt Trump.
AZ Bob (885937) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:44 pmfrosty:
I am aware the Exec Order calls for additional regulations under 230 and so, on the surface, the 1st Amendment is not called is not question. (The Regulations would be proposed, and have to go through a notice and comment period before being finalized and made effective).
The effect of a violation of 230’s requirement that deletions be made in good faith would be exposure of Twitter to litigation if I post on twitter something that is actionable for being defamatory. So, if Twitter deletes Trump’s account and that isn’t “good faith” under regulations,Twitter can be sued for something completely unrelated to Trump.
This all gets to the meaning of good faith for purposes of the statute. If you think the 1st amendment isn’t going to get dragged into that analysis somehow, well you might be a judge (probably Trump’s sister)
Appalled (1a17de) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:53 pmThis is a tough one. Trump can write lies sent through the mail. He can speak them aloud and FoxNews might play them unchallenged. An opinion column or letters to the editor, of course, will be accepted by many newspapers.
On the other hand, we know that ads can be fact-checked by the news division or even refused altogether. Historically, the media have been given great latitude to do as they see fit.
What Trump always wants is for all media to do as he demands or he will attack. Should he be able to force them to carry any false or dangerous message that he comes up with? I don’t think so. I guess I would prefer that if a tweet or message is verifiably untrue, and of consequence, they should be able to at least warn their readers as Twitter has done in this case.
Trump is thinking only of himself. He wants unchecked power. Surprise, surprise. So, the real problem here is that this President’s view of the Constitution also happens to align with his own desires. “I, the people…”
noel (4d3313) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:58 pmI’ve just updated the post with FCC Commissioners’ response to Trump’s draft order thus far:
Dana (0feb77) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:58 pmThe Volokh analysis is very good for 230 but I think the Twitter analysis is incomplete.
This is generally true for the average Twitter user but it doesn’t apply to famous or controversial users. Twitter carefully reads Trump’s posts enough to decide which ones need to be fact-checked. This isn’t simply a case of them reacting to the equivalent of a take-down request. Actively reviewing content and facilitating this fact-checking is basically the job of the Trust and Safety team.
frosty (f27e97) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:03 pmThis should make Gryph happy:
‘Sorry, no mask allowed’: Some businesses pledge to keep out customers who cover their faces
For 64 days, Kevin Smith had shut down the Liberty Tree Tavern to comply with government orders. Now he was cleaning and disinfecting and removing stools to cut seating by three-quarters as he prepared to reopen the bar.
Plexiglass screens had gone up at the supermarket checkout. His neighbors in Elgin, Tex., were still wearing masks outside, even after it was no longer mandated by the county. He did not think such a response was necessary, he said, and he wanted to push back.
“Sorry, no mask allowed,” read the poster taped to the front door of his bar Friday. “Please bare with us thru the ridiculous fearful times.”
……
If we’re only allowed to be at 25 percent capacity, I want them to be the 25 percent of people that aren’t p—–, that aren’t sheep,” Smith told The Washington Post. “Being scared all the time isn’t good for your health. It suppresses your immune system.”
At one Kentucky gas station, no one is allowed inside the adjacent convenience store if they are wearing a mask. Near Los Angeles, a flooring store encourages hugs and handshakes while prohibiting face coverings. The owner of a campground in rural Wisconsin vowed to treat clients sporting them inside her facilities as she would “a robbery in progress.”
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:14 pm…..
Kellyanne Conway Voted By Mail — But She Thinks You Should Have To Wait In Line
White House aide Kellyanne Conway — who, like her boss, the president, is falsely attacking voting by mail as prone to fraud — cast her own ballot by mail to vote in Bergen County, New Jersey, in the 2018 midterm election.
On Wednesday, Conway said voters should vote in person and compared it to the sacrifice involved in buying designer cupcakes.
“I mean, they wait in line for a Georgetown Cupcake for an hour, to get a cupcake,” she told reporters at the White House. “So, I think they can probably wait in line to do something as consequential and critical and constitutionally significant as cast their ballot.”
Yet Conway was apparently unwilling to make that time commitment herself on Nov. 6, 2018, when she voted by mail, according to the Bergen County supervisor of elections.
…..
Conway, who with her husband continues to own a home in northern New Jersey, tried to draw a distinction between an absentee ballot and a mail ballot, although many states — including New Jersey ― have no such distinction and allow voters to cast ballots by mail without having to assert that they will be out of town.
“That’s called an absentee ballot. One completes it and posts it by U.S. Mail,” Conway wrote in response to a HuffPost query. “Don’t confuse it with a (non-absentee) ‘mail-in ballot’ to serve your purposes.”
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:18 pm……
“This all comes from fear by Trump and like Republicans that more people voting means more non-white voters,” said Stuart Stevens, a GOP consultant who worked on the campaigns of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. “Data doesn’t support that, but data doesn’t support hydroxychloroquine, either.”
……
meanwhile twitter organizes the black bloc in the ‘liberating of target’ courtesy of andy ngo,
narciso (7404b5) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:20 pmAppalled (1a17de) — 5/28/2020 @ 12:53 pm
I never said
in relation to the effect of any changes to 230, especially as it relates to you and Twitter.
You asked a
This is a question independent of the issue with Twitter about EOs, the 1st, the 14th, and incorporation. I don’t think that question has any legs. If the EO, as this post suggests, simply directs one department to ask another department to clarify regulations the EO itself doesn’t seem to involve the 1st or the 14th.
frosty (f27e97) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:22 pmJVW@34, He’s far from a simple cog.
Sounds more technical than journalistic to me…but I could be wrong. One thing is clear Jack Dorsey has made it crystal clear the buck stops with him on this.
Time123 (457a1d) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:35 pmFrosty:
My number #18 was inspired by Gryph’s comment — and really was just a question. I agree that action taken under the EO will be attacked primarily on statutory rather than Constitutional grounds. Still, 1st Amendment concerns will motivate the jurists, no matter what they are saying in their decisions.
Appalled (1a17de) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:37 pmAbout the same time Bruce Jenner became a woman.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:48 pmPew Research Center
@pewresearch
COVID-19 deaths have declined in Democratic congressional districts since mid-April, but remained relatively steady in districts controlled by Republicans. https://pewrsr.ch/3gsPnCl
__ _
Bongino Report
@BonginoReport
•
That’s what you think this graph shows?
https://twitter.com/BonginoReport/status/1265645447567286273?s=20
__ _
DURTY Wordsmith
@durtyshotz
·
The point is look at the graph. I think it shows mismanagement in democratic districts. The headline is deceiving as usual.
https://twitter.com/durtyshotz/status/1265650126707552256?s=20
harkin (9c4571) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:54 pm__ _
Appalled (1a17de) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:37 pm
It seemed like you were asking a technical question relating to EOs and incorporation. I wasn’t sure why but I was trying to respond to that technical question.
I’d like to see the actual EO before staking out battlelines. It would be helpful if people weren’t so careless with terminology but “Trump pens EO calling for clarification of 47 U.S.C. § 230” just doesn’t sound as sexy as “Trump uses EO to violate the 1st Amendment and destroy the Internet”.
frosty (f27e97) — 5/28/2020 @ 1:58 pmTwitter fact checks CCP propaganda, proving they aren’t pushing a double standard.
Except, that tweet is two months old and was fact checked only because they were called out on their double standard.
https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-fact-checks-china-government-spokesman-2020-5
Four years ago that would be called a form of election interference on behalf of a foreign power.
beer ‘n pretzels (09bd57) — 5/28/2020 @ 2:05 pm35. Congress has made no law repealing, revising, or otherwise changing Section 230. If I’m Jack Dorsey, I’d proceed as if Section 230 stands as-written. Because it does.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/28/2020 @ 2:06 pm50. Section 230 is, as some have helpfully pointed out to me here, well-established. If all Trump’s doing is asking for clarification(c’mon, does that sound like Trump?!), I don’t see a damn thing changing, except maybe a little more drooling from the Trump Humpers.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/28/2020 @ 2:09 pmHe supposedly signed the executive order, does anyone have a link to it yet? I can’t seem to find the actual text, just the leaked version. I don’t know if that’s the definitive version, but it’s plainly a non-starter, it’s not worth the paper, it’s written on. Maybe they figured another hook, or this is just PR BS as is typical with this guy.
He wanna, so he did, now daddy is going to have to remind him that he’s only a child. I’m not exactly sure who “daddy” is in this case, Congress who passed the law with plain English language, the courts who’ve ruled on it as recently as yesterday (kinda), or Jack Dorsey (a true d-bag). If Fred would have disciplined the little juvenile delinquent a 70 years ago, everyone’s life would be better.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827) — 5/28/2020 @ 2:09 pm54. Dorsey is a douchebag to be sure, but he’s operating within the confines of the law.
And as for Trump, remember that if Fred would have donated his fortune to charity instead of leaving it to Donald, this whole question of Trump’s childish behavior would be a complete non-starter. No one outside of New York City would know who he is.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/28/2020 @ 2:13 pmMy read of the leaked version, makes it more likely that Twitter/Facebook etc. will ban people like Trump for putting stuff up that may make the company liable for the libelous things Trump says.
So even if he had standing, the outcome would be the opposite of what Trump thinks he wants.
Why am I not surprise?
Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827) — 5/28/2020 @ 2:14 pm56. The problem that Section 230 was supposed to address, as I understand it upon further research, is that there is a rich history of case law dealing with publishers that repeat libelous statements in quoting others. It seems to be on the basis of this “reckless disregard for the truth,” such as it is, that Section 230 came into being; letting a comment or other third-party content stand does not necessarily constitute reckless disregard for the truth.
And there is absolutely nothing in any statutory or case law to prevent publishers from repeating or making false statements that aren’t defamatory.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/28/2020 @ 2:21 pmI don’t think any adjustment is needed for the existing section 230 regulation and I wish everyone would simply read what it does and does NOT do. Lots of misconception are flying about this…
One idea I wish Twitter would employ, is that if they’re going to place a link to “fact check” things, then they need to follow a Red Team/Blue Team model:
https://www.csoonline.com/article/2122440/emergency-preparedness-red-team-versus-blue-team-how-to-run-an-effective-simulation.html
Where such link would provide information from each side… and let the viewers form their opinions.
However, I’d like to see some discussions on whether big tech companies can ever be a “public-nongovernmental” entity.
We have a legal regime that covers the following:
Government entity
Private entity
Public-nongovernmental (common carriers, public accommodation, etc…)
Public-nongovernmental entities are governed by nondiscrimination duties and has existed for a very long time, and our laws regulating “public accommodations” law depends on it.
However, I’m struggling how entities like Twitter and Facebook could be reclassified as a “Public-nongovernmental” entity.
Do you do it by market share?
Whether or not its publicly traded?
What would be the parameters?
whembly (c30c83) — 5/28/2020 @ 3:33 pmWell, when I got my real estate license way back in 2003, I had to take a course and pass tests on marketing and advertising. The Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) takes a hard stance on false advertising, and it is strictly enforced.
Do you know what the vast majority of lawsuits against realtors are filed for? Square footage. Yep, that’s why we don’t advertise it.
Suppose a buyer asks what the square footage is, and the realtor says it’s #XXXX. The buyer moves in, measures the square footage himself and finds out it isn’t #XXXX. You lied to me! I’ll sue.
That’s the way it goes. So, if a potential buyer asks me what the square footage is, all I can say is, according to the county records, it’s #XXXX, but if you want to know the actual square footage, you’ll have to measure it yourself.
Of course, that’s not possible unless he actually buys the house, moves in and measures the square footage. If it’s off, who’s he going to sue? Not me, I merely told him what the county records showed. Is he going to sue the county appraiser now? What about the private appraiser he paid for before buying the house? All of their guestimates were off.
The only way to know the square footage after purchase is to measure it yourself. That’s a lot of work after the fact. It requires measuring every interior wall and floor space. And who’s to say those measurements are accurate?
The way I guestimate square footage of a house is to take a tape measurer around the house. Calculate and guestimate. The same way the county and private appraisers do.
I never know what the exact square footage is. All I know is what is in the county records. The interior floor space will not match the county records, because it doesn’t include wall space, which could be up to two feet, around the house.
Advertising in real estate is strictly enforced. It’s full discloser all around. You cannot lie about the condition of the property in question. That’s actionable, and will cost you your license, plus multiple fines, treble damages on every property.
Trump, as a realtor and supposed developer–actually all he’s ever done is sell his brand name to gullible investors, who went bankrupt and sued–should know that. But he doesn’t.
This whole thing is about two Tweets that were flagged for questionable misstatements, and lies.
Now, he’s signed an executive order. And Barr is threatening to sue social media, for what?
If I lied to a potential buyer about the condition of a house, I would be sued. But I don’t lie to potential buyers, and I don’t falsely advertise a property.
Trump does and has for decades. He is a total fraud. Why anyone would support, defend or vote for him is beyond my ability to imagine.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 5/28/2020 @ 5:02 pmI’ll say you’re confused. What you call “public-nongovernmental” entities are private entities that, because of the business they do, fall under particular law and regulation which evolved over our history. For instance, to foster interstate commerce, no inn on a public road could turn away an out-of-state traveler, which was not uncommon. The passions between states and their people were quite strong, and often based on religion.
Merritt and Hilton are private enterprises. If they ceased doing business as hospitality companies, they’d cease to be under law and regulation peculiar to those businesses.
Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 5/28/2020 @ 5:05 pm