Posted on 05/28/2020 1:42:16 PM PDT by Helicondelta
Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at curbing protections for social media giants.
The US president is engaged in a public feud with the companies, which he has accused of censoring free speech and bias, and said: "We're fed up with it."
It comes as Twitter flagged one of Mr Trump's tweets about mail-in ballots in California with a fact-check warning.
The executive order points out that social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should forgo their legal immunity from the law, should they edit users' content on their platforms.
Currently, Section 230 offers legal protections to social media platforms, and makes it clear that those companies are not responsible for the content posted on their sites, and therefore should not interfere with it.
However, they are allowed to act when content is violent or harassment.
The order will direct executive branch agencies to speak to independent rule-making agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commissioner, to look at whether new regulations can be enforced on the Silicon Valley giants.
Mr Trump argues that the fact-checking on his tweets amounts to "editorial decisions" by Twitter, adding is akin to political activism.
(Excerpt) Read more at wessexfm.com ...
They can deny service. True.
But they have special statutory protection from being sued based on what customers post. However, once they engage in the substance (unless violent, plus a couple of specific exclusions), they become a publisher and liable for content (defamation, etc.)
Section 230 protections is a very big deal. They do not want to lose.
It’s certainly not clear whether Trump’s E.O. will actually take effect (layers of arms-length authority in the way, as I read it). However, IMHO, removing the protection of S.230 is exactly the right remedy. If a social-media company chooses to continue censoring, they will be exposed to ruinous lawsuits. That’s got to make a difference.
>>It’s a free service not sure why they can’t do what they want.<<
De facto monopoly dominating social discourse. This is closer to easement than freedom of speech/association.
If EVERYONE gets to use it, then you have to let all do so equally.
twitter and facebook have become de-facto utilities. Just like Ma Bell and ALCOA, they can be broken up even if private (or semi-private).
Yup I get that.
What I am not clear on is how the EO text being reported here actually removes those protections.
Just BAN the Domain for any company that Censors Political Speech or Discriminates against differing view points.
There is a movement in the Millennial circles the make basic internet a government paid for “free service” I.e. a right. If they do that, then it should be regulated by the FCC.
Think about that.
‘look at whether’ ???
More WINNING.
Maybe he could do both. Post on Twitter just to drive them bat guano crazy but also post on Gab.com; a relatively uncensored platform aimed at keeping the free flow of information alive on the Internet.
<><><>Can Instagram and Facebook and Twitter simply refuse service to someone?
<><><>I don’t think a person has a right to access these platforms.
<><><> Those that do, do so under their rules.
NOTE These social media platforms are not private businesses——these are publicly-held companies subject to SEC laws.
They raise money from the public and are traded on the stock exchange,
They “say” they are common carriers-—like planes, trains, cabs, buses........
Twitter is not a common carrier-——it is a publicly-held company subject to the laws of the SEC.
TWITTERS IPO-——2013 PROSPECTUS filed with the SEC
LINK-—https://wwwsec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312513390321/d564001ds1.htm
To report your concerns about Twitter censoring Trump:
email .... enforcement@SEC.gov
If YouTube allows everything shy of calls for violence, then YouTube can't be sued for allowing that video on its platform. However, if YouTube picks and chooses what videos it will allow, then it becomes a publisher. Then if some kid followed the advice and died, his parents can sue YouTube.
YouTube and Facebook want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to be able to control their content (i.e. be publishers) but be free of lawsuits like common carriers (i.e. the phone companies).
YouTube and Facebook have to make a choice. They can either behave like a common carrier and allow a wealth of content and be free of lawsuits, or they can limit content to politically correct leftism and risk being sued when someone dies from eating Tide Pods, mimicking a bad prank, etc.
HOORAY Chief. Game changer BUMP! GREAT post. Thanks.
The reason we know certain things that the MSM would otherwise have suppressed is in no small part due to YouTubers who post tweets, videos, etc. that go viral.
These YouTubers have in some cases quit their jobs and spend full time gathering and disseminating content that the MSM is either to scared or too self-interested-in to publish.
YouTube, Facebook, and now Twitter are going out of their way to ban and suppress channels that don't toe the liberal line.
If these channels all go away then we will be stuck with CNN, MSNBC, and F(au)X. Yes they could go to BitChute, Minds, or other YouTube alternatives, but those sites don't have the same reach. We conservatives might go to these alternative sites to watch content that reaffirms our conservative beliefs. However, the real goal is to get normies and Karens and "OK Boomers" to see this content so that they will move toward the right positions on the issues.
“When the product is free, YOU are actually the product.”
BUMP!
The problem is that standard services such as payment, hosting, and connectivity have been withdrawn to stop alternatives. Second, such competition has been prevented from appearing on application stores under the dubious claims of “hate speech”.
In short, they’re restraining competition from forming or growing.
The argument is sound.
But the law is in the way.
Absent new law there is little that can be done besides harassing these companies over every infraction of every law still on the books. Even some BS laws and regulations. And twisted logic in their application.
Just like the commies would do.
Until/unless Congress acts, that’s all we’ve got.
Your logic is sound and correct.
Not on the basis of any philosophy, per statute.
Only race/ethnicity is protected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.