Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

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.

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 Another way of saying what I said is I think CDA section 230 needs to be repealed, or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking against free speech to qualify for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

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.

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?

> 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.