Social media and the 1st Amendment (Formerly: Trump seeks to punish Twitter) (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Despite Twitter historically granting Trump far more latitude with violations of Twitter terms of service than average members would get, a recent tagging of a Trump tweet with Twitter's fact-checking tool enraged the president. He announced yesterday that he will take retribution via executive order seeking to remove statutory legal protections in place for social media companies, and instructing his executive agencies (the FCC an DOJ) to formulate plans to take legal action against social media companies for "political bias."

A draft of the order has been released . . . and it is troubling to say the least.

According to analysis, the order will "reinterpret" a key provision of the Communications Decency Act (Sec. 230) that previously protected social media companies for responsibility for the content on their sites. That section works by declaring that social media companies are not "publishers" of the content posted by third-party account holders (members) - and it is statutory. The Trump order apparently also instructs the FCC to create regulations to make this new "interpretation" of Sec. 230 actionable against social media companies. In addition, the order apparently instructs the FTC (which is not an executive agency) to report to Congress on "political bias" in social media - and to consider using the reinterpreted Section 230 to bring actions against social media companies for political bias.

Apparently the order also instructs DOJ to work with state AGs to determine what state laws may be used against social media companies for political bias.

So yep, a Republican president is attempting to restructure the statutory framework that has allowed American social media companies - which are private business by the way - to grow into corporate giants without having to be answerable in court for the content posted by their members. And will do so based on the notion that private business should be held to some standard of political neutrality.

Further legal analysis will be needed, but it seems highly suspect on several important grounds (including the fact that Section 230 is statutory and is very explicit - it's not subject to rewrite by executive order). More importantly this idea that "political bias" can be defined and made actionable by federal agencies against private companies seems a patent violation of the First Amendment.

 

[DaveXA]

I have always been confused how people consider Facebook, Twitter, etc as legit media sites.
Banning people from Twitter is no different than Andrus banning people on SR. I have ZERO doubt that if Trump was a member of SR, he would have been banned a long time ago.

They're legit media, just not legit sources of news media more specifically. I'm guessing you meant news media, but just wanted to clarify that.

 

[wardorican]

I have always been confused how people consider Facebook, Twitter, etc as legit media sites.
Banning people from Twitter is no different than Andrus banning people on SR. I have ZERO doubt that if Trump was a member of SR, he would have been banned a long time ago.

I think because you can run a business on it, you can pay facebook to broadcast your posts to the public or a specific public.

You'd have to ask someone in the news business to explain better how they view FB as a publisher and drowning out media companies.

 

[SystemShock]

The My Pillow dude has reached a new low. He was invited to a segment on Newsmax to talk about being cancelled by Twitter; 2 minutes into the segment, he gets cancelled by the Newsmax anchor.

 

[Complex Kid]

The My Pillow dude has reached a new low. He was invited to a segment on Newsmax to talk about being cancelled by Twitter; 2 minutes into the segment, he gets cancelled by the Newsmax anchor.

Middle dudes teeth are freaking me out man.

Also someone on twitter said "can we get out of here please" should be Newsmax's slogan.

 

[Goatman saint]

Invite crazy-get crazy. Now with all of that they knew what was going to happen and it worked perfectly. Now they are the hot flash story of the day. Biden has for the most part taken away the news media’s crack hit of the day, so now some in the media will start doing exactly this just to keep the drama going.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Gotta suck to get fired by the company you helped start...

Parler’s CEO has been fired

John Matze is out

www.theverge.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting read
=============
At a Twitter all-hands meeting on March 22, an employee asked a blunt question: Twitter has largely eradicated Islamic State propaganda off its platform. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacist content?

An executive responded by explaining that Twitter follows the law, and a technical employee who works on machine learning and artificial intelligence issues went up to the mic to add some context.

(As Motherboard has previously reported, algorithms are the next great hope for platforms trying to moderate the posts of their hundreds of millions, or billions, of users.)



With every sort of content filter, there is a tradeoff, he explained. When a platform aggressively enforces against ISIS content, for instance, it can also flag innocent accounts as well, such as Arabic language broadcasters.

Society, in general, accepts the benefit of banning ISIS for inconveniencing some others, he said.
In separate discussions verified by Motherboard, that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians........

Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too.

A Twitter employee who works on machine learning believes that a proactive, algorithmic solution to white supremacy would also catch Republican politicians.

www.vice.com

 

[B4YOU]

So, my account was banned over at tigerdroppings because I made fun of QAnon. But I can still log in and read there and know a few people who have access to some inner circle stuff. Their was talk - without mentioning any names - about TD being on the radar of some of the internet sleuthing going on. I didn't put a lot of stock into it. Then I saw a post by Chicken (Brian Fiegel, the owner) that said they needed to curtail some of the violent talk on TD because external trolls might use it to make the site look bad.

Immediately I went back to what I'd caught through the grapevine. And it gave me pause. Because they have NEVER done that before. You could post any racist, inflammatory, sexist nonsense and it's fine. It'll get upvoted with a 95+ approval and likes.

I can say that there were reports that went to the FBI regarding people active on that site. I have *NO* idea if it contributed to that particular post and I have no idea what will come of it. But there were FBI reports and flags.

I doubt anything actually happens, but even making those dudes stain their Fruit of the Looms is amusing enough, in and of itself.

There’s a reason their “Election” page was taken down just after the 6th and word went out to stop the calls for violence. It’s one of those “dark places” where open racism and calls for violence are cheered.

 

[Optimus Prime]

well that's that
==================================

Donald Trump’s account is dead, kaput, slain, slaughtered, drawn and quartered, left out to rot and never coming back, according to Twitter.

Twitter addicts are willing to do some frankly disturbing things to get back their accounts after a ban, including switching to alt accounts that also end up banned, launching doomed lawsuits, and chaining themselves to the company’s headquarters. One particularly notorious provocateur even ran for office, apparently in the hopes that being elected would somehow trap the company in a “gotcha” scenario where they would become retroactively eligible for the special treatment Twitter affords to public figures. None of those zany schemes usually pay off, and it would seem they’ll be just as much of a waste of time if Trump attempts them.

During an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, Twitter chief financial officer Ned Segal clarified that the company will never allow @realDonaldTrump to return, even in the dystopian scenario where Trump somehow manages to facehug the nation again in 2024 and inject himself into another term in office..................

Twitter Clarifies That Trump Can't Just Run for President Again to Get His Account Back

Donald Trump’s account is dead, kaput, slain, slaughtered, drawn and quartered, left out to rot and never coming back, according to Twitter. Twitter

gizmodo.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Twitter better watch its back...

Trump is returning to social media in a few months with his own platform, spokesman says | CNN Business

Former President Donald Trump is coming back to social media – but this time with his own network, a Trump spokesperson told Fox News on Sunday.

www.cnn.com

 

[DaveXA]

Twitter better watch its back...

Trump is returning to social media in a few months with his own platform, spokesman says | CNN Business

Former President Donald Trump is coming back to social media – but this time with his own network, a Trump spokesperson told Fox News on Sunday.

www.cnn.com

Wait, what happened to that other one? Parler?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Wait, what happened to that other one? Parler?

They supposedly found another host, but I don't know if they survived the time away or not.

 

[DaveXA]

They supposedly found another host, but I don't know if they survived the time away or not.

Yeah, I remember them finding another host, but hadn't heard anything since. If they're having trouble getting relaunched, that's not too surprising. One run by Trump? Who knows. Maybe it becomes Parler lite. Heh.

 

[JRad]

Yeah, I remember them finding another host, but hadn't heard anything since. If they're having trouble getting relaunched, that's not too surprising. One run by Trump? Who knows. Maybe it becomes Parler lite. Heh.

You know who I want to trust with hosting a social media platform? The guy who named Rudy Giuliani as his cybersecurity advisor.

 

[JRad]

And I’m just reading the article..

“Jason Miller, a long-time adviser and spokesperson for Trump's 2020 campaign told Howard Kurtz on Fox's "MediaBuzz" that Trump will be "returning to social media in probably about two or three months.”

Yea, they clearly have no idea of the monetary and time investments to build and code something like this. Unless they’ve already been working on it, but the “having meetings” part makes me doubt that.

 

[MT15]

Well, I have no idea why you would question the expertise between Trump and Jason Miller. Both are just great people with stellar reputations and records.

 

[Nebaghead]

And I’m just reading the article..

“Jason Miller, a long-time adviser and spokesperson for Trump's 2020 campaign told Howard Kurtz on Fox's "MediaBuzz" that Trump will be "returning to social media in probably about two or three months.”

Yea, they clearly have no idea of the monetary and time investments to build and code something like this. Unless they’ve already been working on it, but the “having meetings” part makes me doubt that.

That thing will be hacked so fast if he is building it ground up. He doesn’t have enough money to buy a startup.

 

[Optimus Prime]

guess I’ll leave this here
============


A new outside report found that Facebook has allowed groups — many tied to QAnon, boogaloo and militia movements — to glorify violence during the 2020 election and in the weeks leading up to the deadly riots on the U.S. Capitol in January.

Avaaz, a nonprofit advocacy group that says it seeks to protect democracies from misinformation, identified 267 pages and groups on Facebook that it says spread violence-glorifying material in the heat of the 2020 election to a combined following of 32 million users.


More than two-thirds of the groups and pages had names that aligned with several domestic extremist movements, the report found. The first, boogaloo, promotes a second U.S. civil war and the breakdown of modern society.

The second is the QAnon conspiracy, which claims that Donald Trump is waging a secret battle against the “deep state” and a sect of powerful Satan-worshipping pedophiles who dominate Hollywood, big business, the media and government. The rest are various anti-government militias. All have been largely banned from Facebook since 2020.

But despite what Avaaz called “clear violations” of Facebook’s policies, it found that 119 of these pages and groups were still active on the platform as of Feb. 24 and had just under 27 million followers.

Facebook said late Monday that of the 119 that Avaaz found, only 18 “actually violated” Facebook’s policies. Four had already been removed before Monday and Facebook has now taken down the remaining 14.........

Report: Extremist groups thrive on Facebook despite bans

A new outside report found that Facebook has allowed groups — many tied to QAnon, boogaloo and militia movements — to glorify violence during the 2020 election and in the weeks leading up to the deadly riots on the U.S.

apnews.com