Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 Another way of saying what I said is I think CDA section 230 needs to be repealed, or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking against free speech to qualify for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

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...

> 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?

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.

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

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?

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.

> 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.