I think some people are upset because he’s not going the proper route. He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now. Because he knows that something like this would be held up in Congress by the Democrats.
Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “compelled speech”). Although, yes, we should wait for the courts to (hopefully) strike it down.
There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely detrimental to the internet. Sure, decentralize it all, but, as it stands now, that’s not what the majority of the public want; They want centralization because it makes things easier. Facebook, Twitter, Google/YouTube, etc. are the size they are today because they’re centralized; it makes finding what you want easier.
I don't see how this is repealing anything. It seems like the order is saying that if a company wants Section 230 protection, they have to be very strict about not editorializing anything, and if they do even a little bit, they have to go all the way.
>He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now.
And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here.
>as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech
Not quite sure this is actually the question at hand. It's about choice of moderation is it not? In any case ... thankfully we have a Court system that is designed to handle these types of questions.
>There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely detrimental to the internet.
Not following you. Maybe the social media and tech companies have to hire a lot more layers instead of bloating their HR departments. Probably a good development imo, since HR people like to pretend they work in tech but what they really do is bureaucracy.
> And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here.
If you truly think that Obama invented the Executive Order or was the first to use them frequently, you are laughably misinformed. Use of Executive Order has been common for at least 150 years.
I don't. I wasn't clear. EO abuses have been ongoing for at least 150 years, like you said. I'm merely pointing out that we're now only worried about it because Trump is bad and thus now EOs are bad.
This isn't true. Both Bush and Obama were criticized for them (probably other Presidents as well, I just wasn't following politics before then). But that's not what your original statement said:
> And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order.
> And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here.
What is this argument? Why is it always “look at what Obama did! Therefore it’s ok!” when Trump does something bad?
I'm making an argument that Executive Order abuse is bad, but for whatever reason we're only worried about it now. When the guy in charge isn't the usual kind of ... uh ... President. If you want me to say it George W. Bush's EO abuses were also bad.
What? No. Executive order is an order to the executive branch from it's boss the President. It's not going around Congress at all- it's separate from Congress. It's not changing law. All Presidents do this and are allowed to.
You can't do whatever you want via executive order. This is Trump telling the FCC, one of his departments, how to operate, which he can do, as much as I disagree with it.
The powers of the executive branch are not unlimited and not every order is Constitutionally valid. Especially ones restricting freedom of speech by private individuals.
What of the President's freedom of speech? In one possible (IMO likely) context that it will be viewed in by courts or at least the FCC, Twitter edited this President's speech to contradict himself.
In the US, Congress must explicitly delegate rulemaking powers to an executive agency. Absent such delegation, they cannot issue rules that would change the execution or implementation of the relevant statute. (Rules in this context are federal agency interpretations defining or implementing statutes passed by Congress.)
It appears that Congress did not delegate to the FCC the power to make rules under/implementing the CDA, so regardless of Trump's order, the FCC can do precisely diddly squat about changing the rules of the CDA.
The headline looks a little repulsive to start but I agree with you that this would be beneficial to start holding companies accountable for the content on their platforms.
That said, I'm not quite sure why Trump would call for it. Doesn't seem like something that would help him.
This isn’t about repealing section 230, it’s about enforcing it. Twitter is exercising editorial control over users’ posts. That makes them a publisher. I don’t like Trump either but I think he has a point here.
The issue is that it's impossible to run a viable user generated site without some moderation. The difference between 4chan & 8chan is some level of moderation (in addition to removing illegal content).
Although less extreme, conspiracy theories and fake news are bad PR for social media platforms & thus impact their bottom line. Additionally, many platforms currently are under pressure from investors and ad-networks to maintain certain standards.
Section 230 does not say “any form of moderation or editorialization makes them liable.” In fact, this what §230(c)(1) says:
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Enforcing section 230 would actually mean that Twitter is not liable for what Trump posts. Which is already the case. If Trump were to advocate violence, Twitter would not be liable.
Yes, I read the Wikipedia article as well. Read the section on application and limits:
In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[9]
1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
By adding "fact checks" to Trump's tweets, they are acting as his editor. This makes them the provider of the information, just as a newspaper editor is the provider despite not necessarily being the original author.
Imagine if dang, the moderator here on HN, decided to edit people's posts with addenda or disclaimers about the factual content of the writing. That'd make him an editor too, rather than a moderator, and then should in fairness be subject to all of the liabilities that publishers face.
> Imagine if dang, the moderator here on HN, decided to edit people's posts with addenda or disclaimers about the factual content of the writing. That'd make him an editor too, rather than a moderator, and then should in fairness be subject to all of the liabilities that publishers face.
Sure, that’d be editing, but what Twitter did was not editing. It’s akin to a reply tweet that was pinned to the top. They did not edit Trump’s tweet at all.
It's not akin to a reply tweet. It was attached directly to his message. It's like if you sent out political campaign literature in the mail and the post office attached a "fact check" sticker to it. That is very obvious editorializing.
If Twitter wants to give their opinions, they should do it through their own official accounts. Inserting content into other people's tweets is not participating on a level playing field. It's subordinating all of the users to Twitter's editorial control.
Twitter's opinions posted next to others still belong to Twitter though. Of course they're liable for the things they say directly.
Section 230 is specifically about removing liability for content they aren't directly responsible for. If you don't want Twitter to have control over their what you post on their platform the only reasonable solution is post elsewhere.
Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “compelled speech”). Although, yes, we should wait for the courts to (hopefully) strike it down.
There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely detrimental to the internet. Sure, decentralize it all, but, as it stands now, that’s not what the majority of the public want; They want centralization because it makes things easier. Facebook, Twitter, Google/YouTube, etc. are the size they are today because they’re centralized; it makes finding what you want easier.