“This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations.
Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”
I don't think that section 230 is about First Amendment. I thought it was about whether a company can be shielded from law suit on the content published on the company's website. That is, how to classify a company as a platform or as a publisher.
Its an interesting thought experiment to assess in what ways Twitter is a "private website".
It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts comprehension.
> affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations
FWIW this is only thematically related, the order concerns the distinction between immune or non-immune activities under Section 230.
If you publish something defamatory on your blog, and you operate it, you may be liable. Section 230 is there to say that if a website merely retransmits your publication, it is not liable for it, so if you publish that same defamatory statement on Facebook, Facebook is not then liable.
However, the argument with the executive order is that if you exercise a level of deliberate control over the content beyond some threshold, or you augment expression (like Twitter did the other day, adding links to contrary opinion pieces next to the President's opinion), you effectively become a publisher of that content.
It's not a completely ridiculous idea either. Consider how diverse the expressions published to Twitter are; at some point it's not that different to choose not to publish some expression, than to express the complement of that expression yourself.
Repealing section 230 would make twitter liable for publishing trump’s libelous murder accusations and incitement to violence. They’d be forced to ban him.
I don't know why everyone here is upset by this. Isn't this what we wanted? An actual policy debate, decided by the three branches of government - the executive, congress, the Courts - about what kinds of regulations these super powerful social media companies should have to submit to.
Don't fool yourselves, if Facebook or Twitter wanted to swing an election they absolutely have the power to do that. Isn't that a problem that government is supposed to solve? I'm sorry, and I don't like the guy in charge right now either, but regulation really is the only answer here. Maybe calm down for a minute and let this make its way through the Circuit Courts, refined, watered down, etc etc.
All of that aside, I want my distributed and independent internet back. Maybe we should just be teaching our kids the command line from now on because that might be the only way that we can communicate over this protocol in a civil way.
I think some people are upset because he’s not going the proper route. He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now. Because he knows that something like this would be held up in Congress by the Democrats.
Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “compelled speech”). Although, yes, we should wait for the courts to (hopefully) strike it down.
There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely detrimental to the internet. Sure, decentralize it all, but, as it stands now, that’s not what the majority of the public want; They want centralization because it makes things easier. Facebook, Twitter, Google/YouTube, etc. are the size they are today because they’re centralized; it makes finding what you want easier.
I don't understand this point. This is not thoughtful legislation being debated. This is one guy writing some executive order out of spite, which will soon be reversed by the.courts
I don't disagree that policy is required, but expecting policy to correct problems is asking too much. Policy is there to provide guidelines, not create an exhaustive list of what is ok and what is not.
If we do not police ourselves, the government will do it for us. When law enforcement is expected to deal with everything, they become militarized. I'm not sure what this means for the internet.
Could share what regulation you’re talking about? I’m sorry I don’t follow your position when it comes to regulating social media and what regulations are needed. If we use the oil industry as an example I think it’s clear that environmental regulations are needed to preserve ecological environments. What is the end goal to regulating tech giants?
The concept of regulation in this space may make sense, but that doesn't mean just any regulation will do, and the fact that it's come in the form of government retaliation to Twitter publishing a fact check of a public official is scary.
The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that the lines are getting blurry with regards to public vs private. Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. Not saying I have any answers, just saying it's definitely not a clear issue anymore.
Seems like having the president attack Twitter for their speech (adding extra speech that suggests that some shared information is disputed) is the actual violation of Free Speech. The First Amendment says that the federal government can't stifle free speech, which seems like what is happening here.
Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares.
I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. And if we're going to make them into public spaces legally, it's certainly not going to happen through an executive order. It would require an act of Congress, similar to the restrictions and obligations placed on broadcasters.
This is a valid argument, but it seems like the proper government response would be to use the tools that were designed to address issues like this such as antitrust law. We shouldn't be bestowing governmental responsibilities on these companies just because we let them become monopolies.
Thats true it’s becoming unclear, but only sociologically.
Legally, it doesn’t matter if people think of Twitter as a public space. No amount of perception turns twitter into a governmental organization or subjects it to laws that only pertain to the government.
This case is even further from the first amendment because Twitter didn’t prevent any speech. It just exercised its own right to free speech alongside the president’s free speech.
Nobody has the right to uncontested or un-responded-to speech.
Furthermore (IANAL) there's a long history of conflict around the boundaries of private vs. public. "Private" clubs (as with companies) are subject to civil rights and other equal protection legislation (sometimes) for example in a way that your outdoor BBQ isn't.
Someone that spends too much time at the bar might mistake that for the town square, as might someone who spends too much time on Twitter.
The more foolish aspect of this is that the President doesn’t have a direct means of striking back against what Twitter actually did (post a Get the Facts link), so he’s trying to punish them by reinterpreting Section 230. This EO definitely has some teeth, but there are provisions in it that I can’t wait to see in court.
Now I'm curious what the historical precedent is for this. What happens (first-amendment-wise) when a company town has a literal private-property town square? Could the company control speech in "its" town square?
For that matter: what about malls? Or university campuses? Or public transit infrastructure provided by private government contractors? What are your free-speech rights when in one of these (privately-owned, public use) places?
I feel like a very extreme edge-case situation could be constructed to test the law here: incorporate a town; and then, as your first act as mayor, sell the whole of the town's incorporated territory to a private corporation. Have the corporation declare that anyone engaging in democratic actions on "its property" (e.g. holding a municipal election) is trespassing. Are you now the town's autocratic mayor-for-life, however-many people may move in?
- The First Amendment is content-neutral and provides a nonpolitical framework for regulating speech. It would behoove social media companies to abide by it.
- Rather than resort to censorship, social media companies can offer users tools that block unwanted content, including content that could be hurtful or offensive.
- Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms have become the new public square. Rather than resorting to corporate speech policies, these companies should promote free speech principles in the U.S. and abroad.
- Social media companies are global. The U.S. Constitution is based on American values and, therefore, should not be used to regulate international platforms.
- The spread of hateful digital content dilutes meaningful discourse and, in some cases, causes emotional and physical harm. Social media companies have a duty to offer safe, welcoming platforms for users.
From election interference to “fake news,” nefarious actors are using social media to undermine democracies and deepen partisan divides. Social media companies must act to prevent this type of conduct.
The Debaters
David French - Senior Writer, National Review
Corynne McSherry - Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Nathaniel Persily - Professor, Stanford Law
Marietje Schaake - International Policy Director, Stanford's Cyber Policy Center & Fmr. Member, European Parliament
Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples posts. The people made the platform successful, let the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction.
> ... does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"?
This has nothing to do with any real person, but is just a hypothetical situation pertaining to this question in your post:
Let's say an account X with many followers calls you a pedophile. You're not, of course, so you responded and said you weren't, but since the followers tend to like X, they don't listen to you. X's followers then dox you, find your address, and start making threats to you outside of the realm of social media.
Does the model of "the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction" hold up here?
We've always had these "arbiters of truth", and I don't know of a good way around it. As long as someone's filtering what you see (be it journalists, or recommendation algorithms on social media platforms), they're influencing what gets presented to you and how - and if you don't do filtering, there's simply too much for you to get any useful information.
I think they should have just banned him without any reason but that they felt like it and they could.
Instead, this was an attempt to high-road one of the most powerful trolls in history, and high-roading a troll is the absolute most losing strategy around. Basically, however imperfect you are, that's how much ammo you've just given the troll. Twitter is very imperfect, so 1/10, tactless strats imo.
And the whole "fact-check" thing is just such a bad idea in general. Twitter really needs to hire some trolls to pass these ideas passed first.
At the risk of this being downvoted to oblivion, why doesn't he think that Twitter, a privately run company, has the right to fact-check claims made on their site? Even if there were some secret evil liberal agenda on Twitter, which there absolutely is not, why aren't they allowed to do that exactly? Is he planning on holding Fox News to the same standard and make them put less racism apologia on their network?
Of course this is being handled ham-handedly, but it seems to me that section 230 is a ludicrous piece of legislative malfeasance that allows content publishers to duck the legal responsibilities of publishing while profiting from behavior that is obviously publishing.
I can't see how a Twitter/FB feed is substantively different from a curated "letters to the editor" section in a newspaper and I cannot for the life of me understand why it is treated different legally.
Would love to hear arguments that either 1) these social media sites are not actually publishing or 2) social media publishing is somehow different from publishing in other media.
I’d much rather platforms like Twitter just ban users who violate the TOS even if they’re politicians. If you’ve ever followed Twitter accounts of local politicians you can see that it provides a framework for civil debate without restricting speech.
What our president doing is abusing opponents using his popular twitter account as a megaphone while violating the TOS.
I wonder how upset free speech advocates will be about an executive order that trumpets free speech but is intended to punish twitter for exercising free speech?
Twitter responded to a message from authority by adding their own, dissenting message, not censoring the first message.
I guess this kind of double-speak is what we can expect now.
Wait, if this was somehow enforceable wouldn’t the order make Twitter liable for trump posting misinformation essentially making them legally required to censor or flag him?
Without any attempt to weigh in on political sides, this debate made me think of an interesting "hack" to act as a publisher while enjoying the protections of a platform:
1. Start a website where users are able to write arbitrary articles.
2. Have a bot systematically spam your site with all possible articles (suitably limited so as to make this technically doable).
3. Systematically weed out all the articles which are NOT equal to the articles you actually wanted to publish.
Voila, now you've published all and only the articles you wanted, and yet you're just an innocent platform, not a publisher!
If your site is sufficiently widely used, you can even cut out step 2 and replace it with organic human beings.
> Worried about the future of free speech online and responding directly to Stratton Oakmont, Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act that would end up becoming Section 230. The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability. Section 230 had two purposes: the first was to "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it; the other was to allow online services to implement their own standards for policing content and provide for child safety. Seeing the crucial importance of the amendment, the House passed it 420-4.
"encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it" is being forgotten by a lot of comments here.
EDIT: I seem to get downvoted on anything remotely political on HN. So I am glad this EO was passed and hoping it gets enforced.
Until the tools, devices and technology needed to access the internet are free and universally available to all without restriction, these sites/services are no more of a public square than a country club is a public park.
And no. A public library terminal is not universal access...
Given the concentration of user-generated content on these platforms' market regulation is needed. Twitter/Facebook have a monopoly by virtue of the "moat". Once someone generates their own content it's only accessible through one platform - that is a monopoly. This market needs innovation and competition. Don't break them up just force them to compete by removing the moat.
The big problem that needs to be addressed is network effects. When the feature that matters most to users is the presence of other users, the result is a platform that can do all kinds of harm.
The power and money in Big Tech result from platforms where network effects leave users, businesses, competitors, even other countries unable to switch to or create viable alternatives. In theory they can, but in practice, they have to be where everyone else is.
If Twitter, for example, were an open protocol that you accessed through your ISP like email to join the world conversation, their own opinions wouldn't matter more than anyone else's. If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable.
[+] [-] cdolan|5 years ago|reply
“This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations.
Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”
[+] [-] hintymad|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheColorYellow|5 years ago|reply
It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts comprehension.
[+] [-] microcolonel|5 years ago|reply
FWIW this is only thematically related, the order concerns the distinction between immune or non-immune activities under Section 230.
If you publish something defamatory on your blog, and you operate it, you may be liable. Section 230 is there to say that if a website merely retransmits your publication, it is not liable for it, so if you publish that same defamatory statement on Facebook, Facebook is not then liable.
However, the argument with the executive order is that if you exercise a level of deliberate control over the content beyond some threshold, or you augment expression (like Twitter did the other day, adding links to contrary opinion pieces next to the President's opinion), you effectively become a publisher of that content.
It's not a completely ridiculous idea either. Consider how diverse the expressions published to Twitter are; at some point it's not that different to choose not to publish some expression, than to express the complement of that expression yourself.
[+] [-] nostromo|5 years ago|reply
The Supreme Court may eventually take one of these cases and come to a different conclusion.
[+] [-] meragrin_|5 years ago|reply
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
[+] [-] empath75|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hindsightbias|5 years ago|reply
Perhaps this will end the same way codifying the word “Marriage” in the Defense of Marriage Act did. Nothing like Federalizing a word.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] remarkEon|5 years ago|reply
Don't fool yourselves, if Facebook or Twitter wanted to swing an election they absolutely have the power to do that. Isn't that a problem that government is supposed to solve? I'm sorry, and I don't like the guy in charge right now either, but regulation really is the only answer here. Maybe calm down for a minute and let this make its way through the Circuit Courts, refined, watered down, etc etc.
All of that aside, I want my distributed and independent internet back. Maybe we should just be teaching our kids the command line from now on because that might be the only way that we can communicate over this protocol in a civil way.
[+] [-] colejohnson66|5 years ago|reply
Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “compelled speech”). Although, yes, we should wait for the courts to (hopefully) strike it down.
There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely detrimental to the internet. Sure, decentralize it all, but, as it stands now, that’s not what the majority of the public want; They want centralization because it makes things easier. Facebook, Twitter, Google/YouTube, etc. are the size they are today because they’re centralized; it makes finding what you want easier.
[+] [-] dmode|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oldsklgdfth|5 years ago|reply
If we do not police ourselves, the government will do it for us. When law enforcement is expected to deal with everything, they become militarized. I'm not sure what this means for the internet.
[+] [-] confusedcli|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AgentME|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bedhead|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viscanti|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vannevar|5 years ago|reply
I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. And if we're going to make them into public spaces legally, it's certainly not going to happen through an executive order. It would require an act of Congress, similar to the restrictions and obligations placed on broadcasters.
[+] [-] slg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kgin|5 years ago|reply
Legally, it doesn’t matter if people think of Twitter as a public space. No amount of perception turns twitter into a governmental organization or subjects it to laws that only pertain to the government.
This case is even further from the first amendment because Twitter didn’t prevent any speech. It just exercised its own right to free speech alongside the president’s free speech.
Nobody has the right to uncontested or un-responded-to speech.
[+] [-] ghaff|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SllX|5 years ago|reply
The more foolish aspect of this is that the President doesn’t have a direct means of striking back against what Twitter actually did (post a Get the Facts link), so he’s trying to punish them by reinterpreting Section 230. This EO definitely has some teeth, but there are provisions in it that I can’t wait to see in court.
[+] [-] derefr|5 years ago|reply
For that matter: what about malls? Or university campuses? Or public transit infrastructure provided by private government contractors? What are your free-speech rights when in one of these (privately-owned, public use) places?
I feel like a very extreme edge-case situation could be constructed to test the law here: incorporate a town; and then, as your first act as mayor, sell the whole of the town's incorporated territory to a private corporation. Have the corporation declare that anyone engaging in democratic actions on "its property" (e.g. holding a municipal election) is trespassing. Are you now the town's autocratic mayor-for-life, however-many people may move in?
[+] [-] 0xEFF|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bosswipe|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sreedhark|5 years ago|reply
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/constitutional....
Main Points from the page.
- The First Amendment is content-neutral and provides a nonpolitical framework for regulating speech. It would behoove social media companies to abide by it.
- Rather than resort to censorship, social media companies can offer users tools that block unwanted content, including content that could be hurtful or offensive.
- Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms have become the new public square. Rather than resorting to corporate speech policies, these companies should promote free speech principles in the U.S. and abroad.
- Social media companies are global. The U.S. Constitution is based on American values and, therefore, should not be used to regulate international platforms.
- The spread of hateful digital content dilutes meaningful discourse and, in some cases, causes emotional and physical harm. Social media companies have a duty to offer safe, welcoming platforms for users.
From election interference to “fake news,” nefarious actors are using social media to undermine democracies and deepen partisan divides. Social media companies must act to prevent this type of conduct.
The Debaters
David French - Senior Writer, National Review
Corynne McSherry - Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Nathaniel Persily - Professor, Stanford Law
Marietje Schaake - International Policy Director, Stanford's Cyber Policy Center & Fmr. Member, European Parliament
[+] [-] JacobGoodson|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tenebrisalietum|5 years ago|reply
This has nothing to do with any real person, but is just a hypothetical situation pertaining to this question in your post:
Let's say an account X with many followers calls you a pedophile. You're not, of course, so you responded and said you weren't, but since the followers tend to like X, they don't listen to you. X's followers then dox you, find your address, and start making threats to you outside of the realm of social media.
Does the model of "the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction" hold up here?
[+] [-] augustt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vinnl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seph-reed|5 years ago|reply
Instead, this was an attempt to high-road one of the most powerful trolls in history, and high-roading a troll is the absolute most losing strategy around. Basically, however imperfect you are, that's how much ammo you've just given the troll. Twitter is very imperfect, so 1/10, tactless strats imo.
And the whole "fact-check" thing is just such a bad idea in general. Twitter really needs to hire some trolls to pass these ideas passed first.
[+] [-] soheil|5 years ago|reply
Here is the audio version: https://playthis.link/https://pastebin.com/0mzv8heR
[+] [-] s1artibartfast|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pas|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tombert|5 years ago|reply
At the risk of this being downvoted to oblivion, why doesn't he think that Twitter, a privately run company, has the right to fact-check claims made on their site? Even if there were some secret evil liberal agenda on Twitter, which there absolutely is not, why aren't they allowed to do that exactly? Is he planning on holding Fox News to the same standard and make them put less racism apologia on their network?
[+] [-] jtchang|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheColorYellow|5 years ago|reply
Is this not similar to the approach and actions of other large State actors out there that hold a lot of authoritative power?
[+] [-] smeeth|5 years ago|reply
I can't see how a Twitter/FB feed is substantively different from a curated "letters to the editor" section in a newspaper and I cannot for the life of me understand why it is treated different legally.
Would love to hear arguments that either 1) these social media sites are not actually publishing or 2) social media publishing is somehow different from publishing in other media.
[+] [-] elpool2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davewritescode|5 years ago|reply
What our president doing is abusing opponents using his popular twitter account as a megaphone while violating the TOS.
[+] [-] jmull|5 years ago|reply
Twitter responded to a message from authority by adding their own, dissenting message, not censoring the first message.
I guess this kind of double-speak is what we can expect now.
[+] [-] mint2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xamuel|5 years ago|reply
1. Start a website where users are able to write arbitrary articles.
2. Have a bot systematically spam your site with all possible articles (suitably limited so as to make this technically doable).
3. Systematically weed out all the articles which are NOT equal to the articles you actually wanted to publish.
Voila, now you've published all and only the articles you wanted, and yet you're just an innocent platform, not a publisher!
If your site is sufficiently widely used, you can even cut out step 2 and replace it with organic human beings.
[+] [-] busymom0|5 years ago|reply
> The Cox-Wyden Amendment: Section 230
> Worried about the future of free speech online and responding directly to Stratton Oakmont, Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act that would end up becoming Section 230. The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability. Section 230 had two purposes: the first was to "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it; the other was to allow online services to implement their own standards for policing content and provide for child safety. Seeing the crucial importance of the amendment, the House passed it 420-4.
"encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it" is being forgotten by a lot of comments here.
EDIT: I seem to get downvoted on anything remotely political on HN. So I am glad this EO was passed and hoping it gets enforced.
[+] [-] 12xo|5 years ago|reply
And no. A public library terminal is not universal access...
[+] [-] thoughtstheseus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SiVal|5 years ago|reply
The power and money in Big Tech result from platforms where network effects leave users, businesses, competitors, even other countries unable to switch to or create viable alternatives. In theory they can, but in practice, they have to be where everyone else is.
If Twitter, for example, were an open protocol that you accessed through your ISP like email to join the world conversation, their own opinions wouldn't matter more than anyone else's. If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable.