Trump's Social Media Executive Order

[Giordano]

This is not accurate. The problem is that Twitter, in this case, is acting as a public forum, like a town hall meeting. A town hall meeting is not allowed to engage in viewpoint-based discrimination when it comes to public input. This is true even if the meeting is held in a privately-owned convention center. As such, it applies to a digital discussion forum, as well.

A townhall meeting held under the auspices of the local or state government is not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination, even if the meeting is held in a privately owned convention center. But Facebook, etc.are privately held entities. They have no such legal obligation.

In fact does a political convention have to allow all viewpoints to be presented, even though they filled by members of the government and play a key role in democratic governing? Of course not. They are considered to be sponsored by private organizations. In many ways the Republican and Democratic Parties are huge monopolies that restrict access to the political system far more effectively than any imagined restrictions by Facebook, etc.

I would even argue that even government sponsored townhall meetings don’t permit all views to be presented. I don’t believe one can call for violence or engage in rabid hate speech, for example.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Zuckerberg's claim that FB doesn't factcheck is rather disingenuous.
True, they might not decide whether something so see is true or not, but they do decide what you see in the first place.
Because of the gatekeeping power of FB, them not doing any fact-checking is very irresponsible.

In short, Mark doesn't want Twitter's example to become best practice, because FB business model requires them to let the trash flow freely.

 

[p0lka]

Zuckerberg's claim that FB doesn't factcheck is rather disingenuous.
True, they might not decide whether something so see is true or not, but they do decide what you see in the first place.
Because of the gatekeeping power of FB, them not doing any fact-checking is very irresponsible.

In short, Mark doesn't want Twitter's example to become best practice, because FB business model requires them to let the trash flow freely.

Their business practices seem to be pulling in different directions, could be interesting to see where this goes.

 

[pharphis]

for the record, although I get annoyed by political and social double standards employed by entities like twitter or facebook (ie. effectively monopolies) I personally think it's a bit scarier that banks can do whatever they want. I've heard of many cases where people's payment processing is ended abruptly with no explanation given - there's no legal recourse for this, as far as I know. Then keeping in mind that Stripe, for example, controls a huge amount of payment processing you again have an effective monopoly not only on speech but also on business itself.

 

[Belz...]

... entities like twitter or facebook (ie. effectively monopolies)

Monopolies on what, exactly?

 

[pharphis]

Monopolies on what, exactly?

I don't know a good term for it. Social Media is the catch-all term for these things but the reason I call them effective monopolies is that you can't just "create your own" and expect it to have anywhere near the same reach as those. This is before even considering possible issues of collusion.

 

[pgwenthold]

A townhall meeting held under the auspices of the local or state government is not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination, even if the meeting is held in a privately owned convention center. But Facebook, etc.are privately held entities. They have no such legal obligation.

In fact does a political convention have to allow all viewpoints to be presented, even though they filled by members of the government and play a key role in democratic governing? Of course not. They are considered to be sponsored by private organizations. In many ways the Republican and Democratic Parties are huge monopolies that restrict access to the political system far more effectively than any imagined restrictions by Facebook, etc.

I would even argue that even government sponsored townhall meetings don’t permit all views to be presented. I don’t believe one can call for violence or engage in rabid hate speech, for example.

John McCain famously shot down the woman ("provided a fact check") when the dingbat woman accused Obama of hating the US, or whatever it was.

 

[Cavemonster]

I don't know a good term for it. Social Media is the catch-all term for these things but the reason I call them effective monopolies is that you can't just "create your own" and expect it to have anywhere near the same reach as those. This is before even considering possible issues of collusion.

Does that make any big company a monopoly? The barrier to unseat most very large established businesses is incredibly high. I can't just create my own airline or power company or international fast food conglomerate and have the same reach as Burger King.

Instagram is 6-8 years old, Tiktok is even newer and you can have a massive reach on either. It is not insurmountably difficult to create an internationally reaching social media platform. It's difficult in the same way creating any new massive business is difficult. You can't do EXACTLY the same thing on one service as another, but you also can't get EXACTLY the same burger at one fast food chain and another.

I get the idea that these spaces are sort of unique and they fill a role that isn't easily filled without them, but I don't think monopoly is the word you're looking for.

 

[pharphis]

Does that make any big company a monopoly? The barrier to unseat most very large established businesses is incredibly high. I can't just create my own airline or power company or international fast food conglomerate and have the same reach as Burger King.

Instagram is 6-8 years old, Tiktok is even newer and you can have a massive reach on either. It is not insurmountably difficult to create an internationally reaching social media platform. It's difficult in the same way creating any new massive business is difficult. You can't do EXACTLY the same thing on one service as another, but you also can't get EXACTLY the same burger at one fast food chain and another.

I get the idea that these spaces are sort of unique and they fill a role that isn't easily filled without them, but I don't think monopoly is the word you're looking for.

I think you're right that I don't have the right word. I'm not sure how to better express it.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't know a good term for it. Social Media is the catch-all term for these things but the reason I call them effective monopolies is that you can't just "create your own" and expect it to have anywhere near the same reach as those. This is before even considering possible issues of collusion.

At the beginning of the internet era, I remember thinking that this would be a bonanza for entrepeneurs, because anyone could go into business on the internet. There was this one company selling books, but not yet turning a profit, that I remember arguing on a stock discussion board that it was a terrible investment because anyone could do it. I could open a competing bookstore myself on a small scale, and anyone with capital could open up a great big bookstore. How could this one company be worth as much as people thought it was?

Well, that turned out to be a pretty poor investment decision on my part. I (and almost everyone else, except some people who are now rich) really underestimated how much value there was to being the one internet site where people would go in order to do …. X.

It's not hard to copy twitter, but it wouldn't be twitter. Somehow, these things have effective monopolies. The one thing that makes them different is that it is possible for someone to come along to replace them, the way Facebook replaced Myspace, but they do crowd out small competitors.

 

[pgwenthold]

At the beginning of the internet era, I remember thinking that this would be a bonanza for entrepeneurs, because anyone could go into business on the internet. There was this one company selling books, but not yet turning a profit, that I remember arguing on a stock discussion board that it was a terrible investment because anyone could do it. I could open a competing bookstore myself on a small scale, and anyone with capital could open up a great big bookstore. How could this one company be worth as much as people thought it was?

Well, that turned out to be a pretty poor investment decision on my part. I (and almost everyone else, except some people who are now rich) really underestimated how much value there was to being the one internet site where people would go in order to do …. X.

It's not hard to copy twitter, but it wouldn't be twitter. Somehow, these things have effective monopolies. The one thing that makes them different is that it is possible for someone to come along to replace them, the way Facebook replaced Myspace, but they do crowd out small competitors.

Before there was Facebook, there was MySpace.

Then there was Facebook, where people could write things and post their status.

Then there was Twitter, which just had their status, basically (it used to be 140 characters)

Then there as Instagram, where people could add pictures

Then there was SnapChat, where .... I never really figured that out.

And then there was TikTok, where .... I still don't know that either.

Then there's LinkedIn, which is Facebook for business types.

Then there is Reddit.

And Quora.

And WhatsApp chats, where people make smaller communities.

Yes, they all have different niches that they fill, but they are all social media of some sort.

Hard to claim there is a "monopoly" when competitors come in regularly and take over as the not hot spot.

 

[rjh01]

Before there was Facebook, there was MySpace.

Then there was Facebook, where people could write things and post their status.

Then there was Twitter, which just had their status, basically (it used to be 140 characters)

Then there as Instagram, where people could add pictures

Then there was SnapChat, where .... I never really figured that out.

And then there was TikTok, where .... I still don't know that either.

Then there's LinkedIn, which is Facebook for business types.

Then there is Reddit.

And Quora.

And WhatsApp chats, where people make smaller communities.

Yes, they all have different niches that they fill, but they are all social media of some sort.

Hard to claim there is a "monopoly" when competitors come in regularly and take over as the not hot spot.

You mention several different social media platforms. All of them are newer than Facebook and Facebook is bigger than ever. None of them perform the same role as Facebook. That is how Facebook has a monopoly. It is the only app that performs this role. I am active on Facebook. For me to go to another platform my friends and the groups I follow would also have to go to that platform before I will go to that platform. This would be extremely difficult for any organisation to persuade many people to switch. So Facebook will be around for a long time without any direct competition.

The biggest threat would be for another app to persuade people to spend time on their platform at the expense of other social media, just like Facebook did to discussion boards and MySpace.

 

[smartcooky]

Twitter should either troll Trump like the little bitch that he is or kick him off their platform. Leaving him alone and on their platform will only hurt Twitter. If Twitter accepts this as de facto regulation they will be tying their own hands for years. This is going to court no matter what. All of Silicon Valley will send an army of lawyers to support them. They will also max out political contributions to the Biden campaigns and Democratic PACs. Twitter picked this fight and now they need to go for the proverbial throat.

Indeed. Twitter should just basically ignore the executive order. If Herr Trump and his goons try any kind of heavy handed approach, twiiter can simply relocate all their operations, including servers, outside the USA thereby putting them out of reach of the US government.

 

[smartcooky]

This is not accurate. The problem is that Twitter, in this case, is acting as a public forum, like a town hall meeting. A town hall meeting is not allowed to engage in viewpoint-based discrimination when it comes to public input. This is true even if the meeting is held in a privately-owned convention center. As such, it applies to a digital discussion forum, as well.

Actually, Twitter is not so much like the Town Hall meeting as it is the Town Hall itself - and the owners/managers of that Town Hall can deny anyone to use their facilities.

 

[pharphis]

Indeed. Twitter should just basically ignore the executive order. If Herr Trump and his goons try any kind of heavy handed approach, twiiter can simply relocate all their operations, including servers, outside the USA thereby putting them out of reach of the US government.

My understanding is the reason that almost all relevant internet online THINGS are situations in the US is because of section 230. Hence, if it is messed with, lots of services will relocate from the US. That's not necessarily a good thing compared to the current situation.

 

[Meadmaker]

My understanding is the reason that almost all relevant internet online THINGS are situations in the US is because of section 230. Hence, if it is messed with, lots of services will relocate from the US. That's not necessarily a good thing compared to the current situation.

That's right.

This is America so lots of people can sue for darned near anything. Suppose someone on this board calls me a Mega-weenie, and the moderator who reviewed the post decided that in context it was ok, and didn't take it down. Sure, when Darat got around to looking at it he took it down, but that took 36 hours! I could sue the owner of the board because he allowed defamatory information to be present on this board for 36 hours and caused me great emotional distress. As publisher of this board, it's his job to make sure that wouldn't happen. At least, that's what my lawsuit would allege.

However, it would be immediately dismissed because, according to section 230, he's not a publisher. He just allowed the other poster to put something there. Even if he exercises some form of editorial control through the mod team he is still not a publisher, according to section 230.

What this executive order does is to say that section 230 should be interpreted differently, to lower the threshold of editorial control required before someone passes from a platform provider to a publisher. Once they are a publisher, more lawsuits are likely.

So, basically, Trump wants to make it easier to sue people if he doesn't like the way they run their business.


It's really unclear exactly where the law stands on a lot of issues about whether the executive order has any effect at all, and exactly where the underlying legislation ends, i.e. when someone becomes a publisher and loses section 230 protection.

It's all very well to say that Twitter, or ISF, or anyplace where the public can post is a private business and can do whatever they want, but this is America, and they can be sued for doing whatever they want.

(ETA: And I know that there are many, many, reasons why ISF isn't really much like Twitter as far as this executinve order goes. I was just using it as an analogy.)

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Before there was Facebook, there was MySpace.

Then there was Facebook, where people could write things and post their status.

Then there was Twitter, which just had their status, basically (it used to be 140 characters)

Then there as Instagram, where people could add pictures

Then there was SnapChat, where .... I never really figured that out.

And then there was TikTok, where .... I still don't know that either.

Then there's LinkedIn, which is Facebook for business types.

Then there is Reddit.

And Quora.

And WhatsApp chats, where people make smaller communities.

Yes, they all have different niches that they fill, but they are all social media of some sort.

Hard to claim there is a "monopoly" when competitors come in regularly and take over as the not hot spot.

Instagram is owned by FB. There may not be a true monopoly, but FB, MS and Apple have grown into monsters. It's absurd the wealth the owners of those companies have accumulated.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Instagram is owned by FB. There may not be a true monopoly, but FB, MS and Apple have grown into monsters. It's absurd the wealth the owners of those companies have accumulated.

What is absurd about people willing to purchase stuff they own?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not that long ago, Trump wanted Twitter to mark Tweets that said he said COVID 19 was a hoax as manipulated media.

HuffPo: The Trump campaign has asked Twitter to t_g* videos claiming that Trump called the virus a hoax as “manipulated media,” but, so far, the social media network hasn’t complied, according to The Hill.

I didn't chase the link. Maybe The Hill has more to say about it.


Aaaaaaahhhhh! Or maybe I should just laugh.


*The code with the word 'tag' mucked up the url ergo: t_g.

 

[smartcooky]

That's right.

This is America so lots of people can sue for darned near anything. Suppose someone on this board calls me a Mega-weenie, and the moderator who reviewed the post decided that in context it was ok, and didn't take it down. Sure, when Darat got around to looking at it he took it down, but that took 36 hours! I could sue the owner of the board because he allowed defamatory information to be present on this board for 36 hours and caused me great emotional distress. As publisher of this board, it's his job to make sure that wouldn't happen. At least, that's what my lawsuit would allege.

Which, of course, will fail right out of the starting gate, because you would have to show that this affected you (not your online persona, but you personally) and since your actual name is not "Meadmaker", that would be an impossibility.

If this were not the case, there would be full time lawsuits running on Twitter, Reddid, Facebook, Instagram etc.