Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

Post by Izkata » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:32 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #451

rbanffy wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't remove his message. They merely pointed out it was misinforming the public. Speaking of which, shouldn't we make it a crime to lie or substantially mislead the public while holding public office?

Yeah, I don't disagree with their actions in this case -- if anything, they didn't phrase it strongly enough. ("Get the facts about voting by mail," as opposed to "Caution: this Tweet is unadulterated horseshit.") But I also think that the more Twitter is used to disintermediate political communication, the more it starts to look like a vital public utility. It's tough to say where the line will or should be drawn. I…

Post by pnw_hazor » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:32 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #115

thrusong wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have the right to stand in your community's biggest mall screaming racist things or does the property owner/operator have the right to remove you from the premise?

The Pruneyard decision [1] though did conclude that the sidewalks (even privately owned walkways) outside a business were quasi-public spaces analogous to public squares. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/74 About your specific question, I would say "standing INSIDE the mall screaming" (screaming anything) would be more similar to posting large amounts of text on someone else's personal Twitter fe…

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #196

akersten wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a government official, you cannot take action to try to impede someone's access to your official statements. That is independent of the platform, and independent of how much work someone has to do to still access the information.

But a private company can take action to impede everyone’s access to an official’s statements if they “suppress” those statements... that would mean Twitter has to allow anything any public official, at least in the US, broadcasts via that medium...

Post by rbanffy » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #459

rbanffy wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you need Twitter to interact with your bank? To pay your taxes? To buy groceries? Is it the only way you have to reach your family?

When my Twitter account was suspended recently after 12 years, I also lost access to my DM history, including usernames which I had not memorized. For some of my friends, Twitter was the only contact information I had for them. I have now totally lost the ability to communicate with those friends in the midst of a global emergency, even if I make a new account (which itself would be subject to immediate termination a…

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

meragrin_ wrote: post #476

cdolan wrote: post #2

The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline: “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.”

There is already a ruling by the Supreme Court where social media sites are referred as the modern public square. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf