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

[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.

 

[Ayo]

I simply asked you the same question that you asked of me. I also gave me explantion multiple times, but you didn't like my answer. Were you trolling when you asked me the same question earlier?

You didn't answer it, though. I asked why you thought the Biden campaign ad was more like the CNN Copyrighted video than the Trump campaign ad.

You still haven't explained it.

As opposed to the question above re: my naked link. My post was not a naked link. I quoted my own thoughts, which are re-visited in the link. Your post was merely a link. Those two things are very different. So, no, not trolling. You had a naked link. I did not.

So the questions are the same, but neither context is.

You made a point and all you've said is "they labeled the Trump ad and they should have done the same for Biden."

That's it. You've offered no more.

 

[Ayo]

I'll even embed the videos. What makes Video C more like Video B than Video A is like Video B?

Video A:



Video B:



Video C:

 

[Saintamaniac]

I'll even embed the videos. What makes Video C more like Video B than Video A is like Video B?

Video A:



Video B:



Video C:

One would have to try excessively hard to NOT understand how adding a fake chyron to a video is not the same as cutting off video at a certain point to try to show someone in a negative light.

 

[brandon]

One would have to try excessively hard to NOT understand how adding a fake chyron to a video is not the same as cutting off video at a certain point to try to show someone in a negative light.

 

[Ayo]

Another one got tagged

 

[Ayo]

Guess we'll see if this one stays up.

Trump: THANKS TO THESE GREAT PEOPLE!

Great Person 1: "WHITE POWER! WHITE POWER"

Great Person 2: "There you go - WHITE POWER!"

And "Corrupt Joe is shot" is an interesting phrase.

 

[superchuck500]

Sen. Tim Scott has called on Trump to take it down.

 

[Ayo]

Sen. Tim Scott has called on Trump to take it down.

And I am sure, somewhere, Susan Collins is contemplating the possibility of maybe saying Trump ought to consider possibly taking it down.

 

[brandon]

Guess we'll see if this one stays up.

Trump: THANKS TO THESE GREAT PEOPLE!

Great Person 1: "WHITE POWER! WHITE POWER"

Great Person 2: "There you go - WHITE POWER!"

And "Corrupt Joe is shot" is an interesting phrase.

Nope. It’s gone. Can you explain what was going on here? Was this a rally or something?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Nope. It’s gone. Can you explain what was going on here? Was this a rally or something?

Found it. He apparently tweeted this:

Thank you to the great people of The Villages. The Radical Left Do Nothing Democrats will Fall in the Fall. Corrupt Joe is shot. See you soon!!! https://t.co/4Gg1iGOhyG

Found here: http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive

 

[Goatman saint]

Nope. It’s gone. Can you explain what was going on here? Was this a rally or something?

It was Trump supporters in their golf carts having a “parade” to support him. There were some counter protesters chanting against them. The first person in the parade and featured prominently was yelling white power over and over at the protestors. You could not have missed it. I’m not going to get into the filth that the counter demonstrates were yelling back as that language is completely inappropriate for any situation.

 

[Ayo]

Katie Hopkins, former Apprentice contestant and blatant racist and someone Trump likes to re-tweet, was permanently booted of Twitter yesterday, so that's good news.

Facebook is a total cesspool. I understand Twitter can be an awful place, too, without a doubt. But Facebook as a place that targets a specific demographic and caters to their close-mindedness is a special breed of cesspool.

North Face just took their page down off of Facebook as part of a business-boycott of Facebook. And shortly after that REI joined, too. These are the biggest names so far. I'm interested to see how much further it goes.

But his latest strategy strikes me as someone who wants to have his cake and eat it, too. I'm not versed in all this business stuff so I'll admit that this is a totally unschooled opinion and biased because I want to see him have to make an actual decision.

I see lip service paid against some of Trump's rhetoric with some token gestures toward separating himself from Trump, but at the same time a lot of pro-Trump propaganda is being allowed because it's clear it drives clicks and views and ad revenues. It seems he can also plausibly give himself an out for being against Trump's divisive rhetoric if it ends up being too costly. While I don't know business, I know ambiguity and equivocating rhetoric and that is what this strikes me as.

What staying power does Facebook have if it's not catering to this demographic? Young people are not using it. The stock price has done pretty well over the last five years and to keep it profitable, where do you go? This isn't an 18-34 demographic. Who gets targeted next? Serious question, because I'm not an ad guy.

I do not, however, trust Zuckerberg to come remotely close to a moral or ethical decision.

He's three algorithms standing on top of each other in a suit.

I know I am beginning to be a bore with this. But I’ve never let that stop me before

A breakdown of the communication between Trump and Facebook. It is obvious, and has been, that Facebook views Presidents as critical to their position. They leveraged it with Obama.

And again with Trump. Trump and Facebook news each other. Facebook has become the right and alt-right playground and a central hub for misinformation. And the right bloggers have lined up in queue behind them.

Facebook lost tens of billions last week and as those numbers continue to drop, I expect the proliferation of hatred and manipulation to amplify. Something is going to have to cover some of that loss. And hate had been the most profitable machine as facebook’s symbiotic relationship with the fat and alt right has grown.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Dragon]

One of the biggest danish advertisers (Lego) has also decided to join the boycott against FB

 

[Saintamaniac]

This boycott couldn't happen to a more deserving platform or CEO.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This boycott couldn't happen to a more deserving platform or CEO.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to care.

Zuckerberg said to say of Facebook ad boycott: ‘All these advertisers will be back’ soon enough

Hundreds of companies around the world have joined a temporary ad boycott against Facebook Inc., but Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg says he’s not worried...

www.marketwatch.com

 

[Dragon]

Well he wouldn't be the first CEO who dismiss public oppinion only to have to change his mind later on. It all depends on whether this goes away or escalates

 

[The moose]

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to care.

Zuckerberg said to say of Facebook ad boycott: ‘All these advertisers will be back’ soon enough

Hundreds of companies around the world have joined a temporary ad boycott against Facebook Inc., but Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg says he’s not worried...

www.marketwatch.com

That is because he takes plenty of rubles!


The thing is the big companies can just shift the advertisement money elsewhere. They don't really ever have to come back. That goose won't lay golden eggs without big advertising money. If smaller businesses follow their lead Facebook is in trouble.



Old mark should pay attention. FedEx is putting a squeeze on Dan Snyder.