Section 230: Donald Trump vs. Twitter
BoringButVeryNastyHat Retweeted
Out from behind the paywall, the Section 230 explainer that cuts through all the legal misinformation you read on Twitter. And it ends with a modest proposal for Trump's Twitter feed:
Section 230: Donald Trump vs. Twitter
Explaining the law that created the modern internet marketplace of ideas.
David French | 9 hr
This piece has been adapted from David Frenchs French Press latest newsletter, which is available to subscribers only. Were making this version available to all readers. One note: It was sent early Thursday evening, before Twitter appended a warning to one of Donald Trumps tweets about the riots in Minneapolis.
Boy, that escalated quickly. Those words, from the greatest journalist of all time San Diegos own Ron Burgundyhave echoed in my mind ever since word leaked that Donald Trump was responding to Twitters decision to fact-check a series of his tweets by issuing an executive order targeting social media. Long-simmering battles about social media censorship and social media bias are coming to a head. The president isnt just tweeting. Hes taking legal action. This afternoon he signed an
executive order that takes aim at the speech policies private online platforms..
What the heck is going on? What should we think about the exchange? Is there a solution to our social media wars?
The issues are so complex that I feel a bit like Inigo Montoya in the film
Princess Bride. Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. The online cannon shot that brought long-simmering tensions to a head was a tiny blue exclamation point attached to two Trump tweets. You can see them here:
{snip}
Clicking the exclamation point led you to this statement:
{snip}
Twitter didnt censor the president, but it did single out his tweets, exercised editorial discretion to rebut his tweet, and did so in its corporate voice. Twitters action thus was almost perfectly constructed to reignite a raging legal argument that centered around two often-misunderstood termspublisher and platform.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has two key provisions. The first simply declares that No provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. In plain language this means that Facebook cant be held liable for the content of my posts. Facebook is a platform for my speech, but Im still the speaker. Facebook is not.
{snip}