Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

The head of integrity has unabashedly showcased his strong political bias on Twitter, and I suspect things will begin going poorly for either him or Twitter shortly.

lol what, he is biased for pointing out misinformation from a prominent public figure, after years of Twitter being criticised for allowing false information to proliferate?

twitter is a private organization. Regulating the speech of private organizations is a dangerous slope to be on.

Sorry, what "bias" is that?

As a hill to die on though, it's certainly revealing!

No no, he is biased from his own Twitter history. It is clear he despises Trump and conservatives more generally. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would certainly pause to consider the ramifications of this individual being the source of truthiness for Twitter b

I think he is referencing those tweets: https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/126545757821512499...

Turns out, people with important jobs that require impartiality (like judges) have real, personal, opinions and feelings.

but judges are publicly accountable, while corporations (and their agents) can do what they want. Comes back down to the publisher/curator debate.

Everyone hates change. Twitter wants to live in the future so it has to change and show behaviors more like the news and information service it currently is, And trump and others don't want twitter to change because currently they can communicate with bubbles isolated from reality.

I really don't like twitter for all the crap and bots that's on there. I think it's a terrible format. But I think we are in a middle time, were new publishers and formats are rising at the same time as traditional media is falling. Hopefully larger publisher's and media organizations such as Facebook, Google and Twitter take the power and responsibility they have seriously.

Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways.

You can hold private companies accountable via secondary boycott. It's more complicated but it can be done.

He dismissed the entire Midwest as lunatics to be ignored. There’s a lot of hackers and engineers and amazing companies in the Midwest.

He’s mindless in his opinions. He’s not against a policy or a politician. He’s separating society.

Maybe an ignorant question but how would classifying Twitter as a publisher solve the issue?

I’m guessing you mean that they should be held accountable for what people post there? Or is there a different angle I’m not seeing?

> Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways.

You absolutely can, and that's even been a norm in the US since CDA Section 230 was implemented specifically to make that possible, within certain bounds, which Twitter sits well within.

Admittedly, that's been progressively chipped away recently.

When private organizations are regulating the speech of the population? It's a necessary slope.

Because doing it without centralized government control is bad. But regulation of speech can be good. Take a look at https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189120.shtml for an interesting discussion.

Wow! I would say, unless Twitter has double standards, it should fact-check the tweets of its own "head of integrity".

I'm from the midwest. I usually get fucking pissed when people call them flyover states, caused major friction with a cofounder for years.

But seeing this mislabeled as "bias" has got to be the silliest and most hyperbolic over-reaction I've ever seen.

It's somebody being a minor asshole on Twitter. That is not bias of any substantial sort.

Feelings are important, but as somebody who does get his (overly sensitive) feelings hurt by that statement, I'm at least mature enough to place it in context.

We need to grow up as a society. There are faaaaaar worse actual biases on display everyday on Twitter, from people with far more power. We have a president who's threatening to use his own political bias to shut down or regulate companies based only in what he perceives as politics.

Yup I agree. Internet companies have enjoyed the cost benefits from being classified as both a platform and a publisher.

It was clever of them to convince the internet community that it's about "free speech" when it's actually always about the costs.

ha oh, in that case that's a bit of an own goal from Twitter.

Although I doubt he put that fact checking warning up all on his own, there must have been a policy in place that senior management agreed to, and legal have presumably okayed.

Yes I am aware of CDA section 230. Another way of saying what I said is I think CDA section 230 needs to be repealed, or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking against free speech to qualify for protection under the act.

Joe Biden is for the idea: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...

the real shame is that integrity is a politically biased position now.

This article does a good job of explaining the issue (if you can stomach viewing an article on a conservative site, I know many here can't, but the information is good) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi...

Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history

Also preempting the brigade downvoting anything that has the word 'conservative' in it by pointing out that Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...

If fact-checking the President when he says untrue things is "strong political bias," there are larger problems than the fate of one employee at Twitter.

Twitter obviously has double standards; has for years. Remember when the US elected a troll and Twitter responded to calls they enforce their own TOS by modifying the TOS to have a carve-out for "newsworthiness?"

We'll see how it goes. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone with strong personal biases was put in a position to editorialize on someone else's signal.

That isn't the bias, check his Twitter history there are links all over this thread

> Twitter already regulates speech though, to their own agenda.

Are you saying that if someone has a website, they shouldn't be allowed to set the rules for that site. Are you going to allow me to post whatever I want on your website?

That's attacking the person rather than the action - were the fact checking moderations wrong?

Sure, their personal political bias should put them up to a greater level of scrutiny; but it they can still fact check without bias.

So, have they?

Not parent commenter, but ... Actually, I think certain sites are so prolific as to basically amount to public spaces and that we should have agreed principles by which they can[|not] moderate an individual's speech, because they effectively can have a real effect on a person's ability to "speak" in "public".

I can immediately think of sites that are open to gender critical discussion. Voat, 4chan, and many other message boards exist for such. It isn't a topic I'm particulaly interested in, but if you start there I'm sure you can find more spaces where that type of discussion is accepted and embraced.

"Freedom of speech" isn't freedom to force private businesses to provide a platform for your content. There are plenty of businesses besides Twitter that will provide a platform for the type of discourse you are looking for.

Perhaps certain sites became prolific due in part to the moderation decisions they make for their platforms.

For instance, there are other sites that take a very different moderation strategy (4chan comes to mind.) If Twitter developed a moderation strategy like Voat or 4chan, likely people would leave for a company that utilized a different moderation style. Then you'd be wondering why there isn't "free speech" on that platform.

This gets to the root of the issue, the crux of the argument isn't whether one is entitled to have a public space to spread ideas, but whether one is entitled to a platform by which their ideas can be spread. A platform whose ubiquity is paradoxically dependent on that platform's ability to moderate what type of discourse is permitted.

Thanks for the links and diversity of sources.

> or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking

The government being selective about which expressive choices by a platform operator are get favorable treatment under law rapidly gets into violations of actual Constitutional free speech protections, unlike the private actions that people are making fake “free speech” claims about.

I can rewrite your post:

```

This article does a good job of explaining the issue https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi...

Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history

This is not a conservative-only point of view: Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...

```

You are allowed to be informative without being obnoxious. I was not aware of this issue and the article on theamericanconservative have an interesting point of view. The tone you used however will make most people here ignore or dismiss you. Yes, there is an anti-conservative bias on HN, but most people will still read an argument even on breibart if it is good.

I understand the concern of the article but imho cancelling 230 might cripple them, and the propostion of state regulation will make them lost their power overseas. Will it allow other, european, asian or SA platforms to emerge? If the answer is yes it might have interesting side effects.

The amount of leeway given to one side of the political spectrum is what causes this whole heated political climate.

Whenever some known person from the "right side of history" says something clearly bad, there are always comments like yours "but but but", whereas when the source is on the "wrong side of history" it is taken as final and irrefutable proof of their evilness and no amount of perspective or depth is allowed.

Things will get better when we can give a level headed non-partisan response to statements like

>Today on Meet The Press, we're speaking with Joseph Goebbels about the first 100 days...' - What I hear whenever Kellyanne is on a news show.'

If that's the case, maybe the government should buy them out at market price and then it can do whatever it wants.

It is not misinformation to be concerned about mail-in ballots. There have been screw ups with mail in ballots in the past. For example: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=964371...

For more stories just google "Military main-in ballots lost"

The appearance is disqualifying on its own.

They're gonna get dragged for these tweets any time they fact check anything, even if their judgment is always impeccable.

Cancelling 230 IMO is the wrong thing to do as well, but it, at minimum, needs to be modified to lay out some sort of "minimum neutrality / anti-bias criteria" and provisions for holding these Tech companies accountable -- something like 3 strikes and you're out -- you lose your platform status -- hey! kind of how like they treat the rest of us! Bonus points if we can algorithmically determine it so they lose it without human input or consideration of context and then have to beg not to be "deplatformed" by yelling for help from an actual human on other social media sites.

By the same token, the government enacting legislation that gives these same tech companies blanket protection over the clear bias they institute is by extension limiting free speech by government law. In other words, the government passed a law that enabled others to limit free speech. Wonder if this angle has been tried in court yet?

> They're gonna get dragged for these tweets

They’ll get dragged for doing anything that doesn’t align with X party. If not his tweets than something else.

Not saying people shouldn’t have common sense about what they post on a public forum tho...

I think it's a much greater stretch to pretend that this person's obvious political bias doesn't leak into the "fact checking" they choose to do - or not to do, which is kind of the bigger issue. They may "correctly", ignoring the philosophically charged issue of "correct", fact check a certain politician but choose to ignore a different politician's statements that would otherwise be noted as incorrect under the same or similar standard.

Yeah, but why hand them ammo. Like you say.

I'm pretty sure most judges would recuse if they had statements like that surface.

Sections (a) (1) and especially (a) (5) here, for example: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...

I'm not advocating for the right to a platform.

The ability to control the "public" spaces gives one effective control over "speech". That's a lot of power.

Having that power entirely outside of democratic control troubles me.

I am as annoyed by all the feelings getting hurt as you are, but this guy is directing a sizeable amount of money in some backward intra-nationalist way, which only slows down progress, even if it is 'only perception'. It is open bigotry plain and simple.

'Are held' and 'can be done' are obscenely different to conflate them.

Which neither Twitter nor Trump posess in great margin.

Correct. Also, you won’t be dragged to a keyboard connected to a computer logged in to Twitter at gunpoint, but you sure will be dragged to court to face a judge at gunpoint. There are different standards of accountability that match the standards of compulsion and violence.

What's he covering up? Twitter has provided sources for their fact-check. The President is more than welcome to provide sources for his fraud claims any time he chooses. Via Twitter. Same medium that is fact-checking him.

The fact he says what he does un-sourced, and people believe him because he speaks from the authority of his office, is the troubling thing.

> By the same token, the government enacting legislation that gives these same tech companies blanket protection over the clear bias they institute is by extension limiting free speech by government law.

No, it's not. Permitting private bias without government consequence is the definition of free speech. Restricting it is contrary to free speech, and is permitted only to the extent that it fits within recognized Constitutional limitations on the right of free speech.

>The ability to control the "public" spaces gives one effective control over "speech".

Let's suppose, for instance, that Twitter is deemed large enough to be a "public forum" and no longer makes moderation decisions outside of removing illegal content. The clear, obvious consequence for such a decision would be that most people would cease to use Twitter. It would no longer be a "public space" because that "public" would no longer be there.

People would stop using Twitter for the same reason the public doesn't use 4chan. Anecdotally, I don't want to be harassed for my sexuality on Twitter. I wouldn't feel safe, or want to participate in a site that allows open attacks against people due to their gender identity, race, or religion. And let's not kid ourselves, the "conservative" view points being "censored" on Twitter aren't really "conservative" views at all, it's just hate speech, harassment, and attacks against marginalized people. Even semi-famous self-described fascist content creators continue to use Twitter above radar, provided they don't explicitly distribute hate speech on the platform.

Marginalized people of every form would find another place that is moderated to flock to. That would become the new "public place" that so-called "conservatives" would wish to invade.

I'm not saying he is covering anything up right now. But as I argued, IF there were anything to cover up, his bias means that he would. Since he's gonna say nothing is up whether it is or isn't I'm just gonna tune it out entirely. It carries no signal.

Biased signal is still signal.

A data source that only reports facts that support its theory is still reporting facts. I think, rather than tune it out, combining it with other sources gives a richer picture.