Business & Finance Trump Signs Executive Order that Reduces Liability Protections of Companies that Censure Content (ie Social Media)

[Terthna]

I should clarify what I mean. Publishers and platforms (and distributors) are real things, but the publisher/platform abuse thing that people claim is abusing the law isn't actually abusing the law. It's functioning exactly as Congress intended.

By that logic, there's no saving 230; it's going to get struck down.

 

[King Krávoka]

KF is in for big trouble is this repeals 230

You, the humble, docile niggercattle, don't think two steps ahead. You, the humble, docile niggercattle, are property, and are treated as property, and you enjoy being treated as property, and that is why I give up. I don't have any urge to be the owner of nigglecattle. I am a space alien and I will have my alien temple.

This man reverberates into my skeleton. 😍

 

[bullethead]

An actual lawyer explains Section 230:


Basically, we're in this mess because no one put any provisions demanding unbiased, competent moderation.

Sadly, we're unlikely to just get a simple, effective bill passed to amend Section 230 to provide that unbiased, competent moderation (and the guidelines for what constitutes that), so we'll probably get some weird regulatory BS.

 

[Zachowon]

An actual lawyer explains Section 230:


Basically, we're in this mess because no one put any provisions demanding unbiased, competent moderation.

Sadly, we're unlikely to just get a simple, effective bill passed to amend Section 230 to provide that unbiased, competent moderation (and the guidelines for what constitutes that), so we'll probably get some weird regulatory BS.

He is a Lawyer I trust the most. This is very interesting

 

[bullethead]

Here's a good article diving into what the finalized Executive Order actually aims at:

The New Executive Order on Social Media Is Primarily About Consumer Protection Laws, Not “Publisher” Status - Yale Journal on Regulation

By the time he actually signed it, President Trump's "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship" was no surprise. His complaints about social media platforms, and his calls for Congress to rescind Internet platform companies' immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act...

www.yalejreg.com

But critics of Trump’s executive order need to recognize that the final version of the executive order actually deemphasized the Section 230(c)(1) argument, taking what was a nearly page-long discussion in the draft order and reducing it to just a few sentences in a sub-sub-section of the final order.

Instead, the final executive order now makes Section 230(c)(2), not Section 230(c)(1)’s “publisher” rule, the centerpiece of President’s new social media policy. The order asserts that social media companies’ editorial activities are often not “good faith” efforts to remove inappropriate content, but rather “deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they agree.”

And the legal mechanism for its implementation is also slightly more nuanced that many commentators have highlighted. So far, attention is being paid mostly to the order’s direction to the Secretary of Commerce (via the National Telecommunications and Information Administration) to petition the Federal Communications Commission for a new rulemaking to specify what editorial activities do or do not merit civil liability protection under Section 230(c)(2). The Commerce/NTIA/FCC provision is important, but it is only one part of the order’s regulatory enforcement mechanism.

The other part of the enforcement mechanism—perhaps the more important part—is Section 4 of the order, which directs the Federal Trade Commission to “consider taking action” to deem particular Internet platform companies’ editorial practices as “unfair or deceptive acts or practice” because they “restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.”

 

[Deleted member]

It might not matter what rules Zoe enforces. She would have to go to court to prove that the stuff was against Ts&Cs, and be out a lot of money doing so.

Also not a good idea. If you treat US stuff as a utility, then that means no moderation anywhere, even forums. So offtopic posts everywhere, as just a small example.

That’s ridiculous. Common Carriers can throw people off of trains and planes for misbehaving.

 

[Bacle]

Here's a good article diving into what the finalized Executive Order actually aims at:

The New Executive Order on Social Media Is Primarily About Consumer Protection Laws, Not “Publisher” Status - Yale Journal on Regulation

By the time he actually signed it, President Trump's "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship" was no surprise. His complaints about social media platforms, and his calls for Congress to rescind Internet platform companies' immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act...

www.yalejreg.com

Oh, that's nice, a bit more power and clarity to the order now.

Cannot wait for it to cause a hammer to be dropped on SB and SV for thier mod practices.

 

[Abhorsen]

That’s ridiculous. Common Carriers can throw people off of trains and planes for misbehaving.

Those aren't utilities. At all. A utility is like a water company or phone company. You can cut access to it for not paying, but a phone company can't cut access for talking about white supremacy, for example.


Also, here's a lawyer talking about section 230, including publishers, platforms,etc:

 

[Deleted member]

@Abhorsen you’re ... wrong. A deregulated utility is essentially a common carrier for water or electricity or what have you; a pipeline and a railway fall under the same scope of common law.

 

[Abhorsen]

@Abhorsen you’re ... wrong. A deregulated utility is essentially a common carrier for water or electricity or what have you; a pipeline and a railway fall under the same scope of common law.

I am wrong about this. Whoops.

 

[Husky_Khan]

There's a big gulf between a Punch Card fascistista oppressing her web board (which just surpassed 70,000 posts btw) with text based infractions and threadbans and a major media platform/publisher/whatever like Twitter which is arguably as big a platform as any major media company but singling out a few major individuals for censoring or "fact checking," one of whom happens to be the President of the most powerful country in the world during an election year.

The fact that lawyers, regulators and politicians are too stupid to find a way to solve this conundrum isn't surprising of course.

 

[bullethead]

Well, let's see how Trump and his administration react to this:

YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer, and more for hate speech

YouTube is taking more action against supremacy channels and hate speech

web.archive.org

YouTube has banned several prominent white supremacist channels, including those belonging to Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, and Richard Spencer.

Other channels banned include American Renaissance (with its associated channel AmRen Podcasts) and the channel for Spencer’s National Policy Institute. The channels repeatedly violated YouTube’s policies, a YouTube spokesperson said, by alleging that members of protected groups were inferior. These come alongside other violations that led to YouTube taking action.

...

YouTube’s ban of the six channels comes after Reddit banned a number of high-profile and controversial subreddits earlier today, including r/The_Donald, and Twitch temporarily banned President Donald Trump for hateful conduct over comments made in two different streams. YouTube has faced pressure from critics for years to remove Molyneux’s channel. Molyneux was banned by Mailchimp earlier this year.

The thing that gets me is that Twitch banned Trump himself, so that might run afoul of the Supreme Court ruling that a politician's social media presence is in the public interest and thus you can't restrict people's access to that account (IIRC).

 

[Abhorsen]

The thing that gets me is that Twitch banned Trump himself, so that might run afoul of the Supreme Court ruling that a politician's social media presence is in the public interest and thus you can't restrict people's access to that account (IIRC).

The government can't restrict access to that account, was the ruling (for example, AOC can't block people on twitter). Any private company can.

 

[Doomsought]

The government can't restrict access to that account, was the ruling. Any private company can.

Any company that has as much power over a person as a government must suffer the same restrictions.

 

[Abhorsen]

Any company that has as much power over a person as a government must suffer the same restrictions.

Legally, you are wrong. Also, Twitter has no where near as much power as a government until they can literally blow up your house and pay you nothing in exchange.

 

[Doomsought]

Also, Twitter has no where near as much power as a government until they can literally blow up your house and pay you nothing in exchange.

They can stop me from speaking in the public forum. That is power.

 

[Abhorsen]

They can stop me from speaking in the public forum. That is power.

Sure, but it's nowhere near the power of government. Like, the US government can literally nuke the world. Multiple times. There isn't a company anywhere near as powerful.

 

[Jormungandr]

...You know what? When Trump does win in November (unless complacency among Republicans kicks in), I personally want these companies broken.

 

[Floridaman]

Sure, but it's nowhere near the power of government. Like, the US government can literally nuke the world. Multiple times. There isn't a company anywhere near as powerful.

Does it really count as power if using those tools, means they die as well?

 

[Cherico]

...You know what? When Trump does win in November (unless complacency among Republicans kicks in), I personally want these companies broken.

These companies are going all in on the left because they fucked up bad as in people can go to prison bad (see googles project dragonfly) and know they will be crushed so they picked a side and are praying the dems win.