Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

The problem inevitably has flared up: Twitter's head of integrity leading this push has previously tweeted that Trump is a Nazi and accused the flyover states of being racist.

https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/1265463081997484032

This isn't going to end well, and unless Twitter is going to exercise this impartially (which is impossible given a human is involved), they are going to lose their platform status, and justifiably so.

What’s “platform status”?

What is the justification?

Blue Check mark.

I’m assuming Section 230?

You can either be a 'platform' for other people to speak, where you aren't held responsible for the content you host, or you can be a 'curator' where you control the content and are responsible or what you host.

The trouble with Twitter (in some people's view) is that they play both sides- they're just a public platform when there is something illegal that they're hosting, but they're a curator when they don't like what you've posted.

> This isn't going to end well, and unless Twitter is going to exercise this impartially (which is impossible given a human is involved), they are going to lose their platform status, and justifiably so.

This isn’t how the law works, and Trump’s enemies, the Democrats, control the House of Representatives.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the ability of online services to moderate content, this has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. The only way it could change is if the Senate, House, and President agree on a new law and pass it.

If you want to learn more, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

To clarify, he didn't call Trump a Nazi. He said there are "actual Nazis in the White House" which could be a reference to staff or appointees.

Regardless, that would need to be fact checked?

Doesn’t just about every platform, forum, blog comment section, etc. do this? It seems untenable not to allow moderation.

You can also be both.

Like every newspaper website that has a comment section. They are responsible for the parts they publish but not the user generated comments. There is no legal requirement to be one or the other.

For whatever reason, most people seem to get this backwards.

Here is the relevant legal code Section 230 C1: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service, a platform, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

There is nothing in the law that says a publisher is responsible for user generated contact (even if they moderate it). In fact the law says just the opposite.

Edit: added note in parenthesis

I agree and I'm generally anti-regulation of the media.

But the argument would be that your average forum, blog comment section, etc. isn't one of the most important mediums of communication in the world's leading superpower's democracy

Who cares? This is about ethics, not laws. If you are a proponent of this argument you would just advocate for changing the law

>There is nothing in the law that says a publisher is responsible for user generated contact. In fact the law says just the opposite.

I think you're misunderstanding the section. A publisher of content is very much responsible for it. After all, it says that "no provider [...], a platform, shall be treated as the publisher" i.e. a platform is not a publisher (so therefore a platform is not liable).

However, if you stop being just a 'platform', you could become liable for the content you host. I think moderation in general is fine, but if you started curating the content I think you could get in trouble.

People have read a lot into section 230 that they want to see there to imply there's some distinction between unmoderated (AKA 'platform status') and moderated platforms. In fact the only thing it really does is provide that 1) providers or users can't be held liable things users say and 2) if you voluntarily moderate your service you aren't incurring a civil liability.

Check the text yourself [0] there's nothing in there about having to either be a complete free zone or even to moderate neutrally to get protection from civil liabilities. Personally I wish they'd take a tougher stance but legally they don't have to and I /really/ don't think it's a good idea to legally require them to because the definition of what is and isn't moderation worthy will change on a dime. [1]

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[1] Especially under the 'unitary executive' theory which is used a lot to try to undermine any congressional restrictions or accountability on the executive branch. That means the interpretation and enforcement can and will switch overnight every 4-8 years.

This is not how the experts explain it. Section 230 is not about splitting providers in publishers and platforms. That is the common misunderstanding. The Verge has done several articles on this very subject[0].

0. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...

Section 230 is not about splitting them, but the first amendment itself already makes that distinction (as your article points out).

I think the article's headline "says it doesn’t matter if you’re a publisher or a platform" is incorrect, because if sec 230 eliminated that distinction it would be in conflict with the first amendment. The interviewee also never makes this claim. It's more so that current rulings of section 230 simply say that you don't "publish" but "platform" user generated content.

As far as I know the contention is where the limits of this are. There definitely is a point where it stops, since a digital magazine very much is a publisher and responsible for the articles it puts out. Some people think heavily curating already means that it's not just user generated content, while others think it's fine.

In the end, I think this is something that will eventually be decided by a (supreme?) court ruling. Trump won't get to decide this alone, but I don't think it's impossible for him to escalate this.