So, Twitter put a fact-check on two of Trump's tweets.
The president duly went ballistic. It's worth noting that Twitter specifically re-wrote its policies to give national leaders special privileges to lie and bullshit - Trump, we might note, recently falsely accused a TV host of murder. However, it deemed Trump's tweet infringed another policy on civic responsibility by spreading election misinformation.
Trump has consequently threatened to strongly "regulate" or close down social media platforms that do not conform to what he sees as ideological balance. Initially this threat was unspecified, but detail is trickling through and it now appears that Trump is going to sign an executive order , which in draft form, will both to investigate and review social media companies and their moderation, and to change the exemption social media firms have from liability for user content. There are also plans for a working group to collect complaints about censorship for legal review, and monitor and create watch lists of certain users.
* * *
Holy shit.
Now, personally, I think we need to point out Twitter did not restrict Trump's free speech at all. It merely pointed users to additional (accurate) information. Free speech is not immunity from other people disagreeing with you or pointing out you are wrong.
Trump, however, explicitly has threatened to control social media companies. He's certainly attempting to legally and financially punish them, in one of his typical, childish overreactions. And the draft plans are certainly also about the government using its powers to monitor and hold information on the public on what seem to me to be extremely weak grounds. I totally wouldn't put it past this early draft being a lot more severe than the end result. (I wouldn't put it past being deliberately OTT in order to seem what it does end up saying appear more reasonable.) But even still, this is astonishing stuff.
I should point out that I am not wedded by any means to social media's immunity from responsibility for the content of its users (in fact, arguably it very much is an unreasonable exemption compared to other media). However, I think this needs to take place as part of a much more considered approach to what social media is - whether it is the private space of the owning company to run as it pleases, or should be recognised as a de facto public space, because this is an extremely complex issue.
Nevertheless, this is plain authoritarianism and government infringement on free speech, potentially giving the executive branch powers to intervene with and punish media companies and individuals. Government departments with political appointees judging social media corporations. I suppose at least it's not the secret police, but I don't think being in plain sight makes it that much better.
The president duly went ballistic. It's worth noting that Twitter specifically re-wrote its policies to give national leaders special privileges to lie and bullshit - Trump, we might note, recently falsely accused a TV host of murder. However, it deemed Trump's tweet infringed another policy on civic responsibility by spreading election misinformation.
Trump has consequently threatened to strongly "regulate" or close down social media platforms that do not conform to what he sees as ideological balance. Initially this threat was unspecified, but detail is trickling through and it now appears that Trump is going to sign an executive order , which in draft form, will both to investigate and review social media companies and their moderation, and to change the exemption social media firms have from liability for user content. There are also plans for a working group to collect complaints about censorship for legal review, and monitor and create watch lists of certain users.
* * *
Holy shit.
Now, personally, I think we need to point out Twitter did not restrict Trump's free speech at all. It merely pointed users to additional (accurate) information. Free speech is not immunity from other people disagreeing with you or pointing out you are wrong.
Trump, however, explicitly has threatened to control social media companies. He's certainly attempting to legally and financially punish them, in one of his typical, childish overreactions. And the draft plans are certainly also about the government using its powers to monitor and hold information on the public on what seem to me to be extremely weak grounds. I totally wouldn't put it past this early draft being a lot more severe than the end result. (I wouldn't put it past being deliberately OTT in order to seem what it does end up saying appear more reasonable.) But even still, this is astonishing stuff.
I should point out that I am not wedded by any means to social media's immunity from responsibility for the content of its users (in fact, arguably it very much is an unreasonable exemption compared to other media). However, I think this needs to take place as part of a much more considered approach to what social media is - whether it is the private space of the owning company to run as it pleases, or should be recognised as a de facto public space, because this is an extremely complex issue.
Nevertheless, this is plain authoritarianism and government infringement on free speech, potentially giving the executive branch powers to intervene with and punish media companies and individuals. Government departments with political appointees judging social media corporations. I suppose at least it's not the secret police, but I don't think being in plain sight makes it that much better.
