{"id":18910,"date":"2020-05-29T05:04:55","date_gmt":"2020-05-29T05:04:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rbsitsoftwaresolution.com\/blog\/trump-signs-an-executive-order-taking-direct-aim-at-social-media-companies.html"},"modified":"2020-05-29T05:04:55","modified_gmt":"2020-05-29T05:04:55","slug":"trump-signs-an-executive-order-taking-direct-aim-at-social-media-companies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rbsitsoftwaresolution.in\/blog\/trump-signs-an-executive-order-taking-direct-aim-at-social-media-companies.html","title":{"rendered":"Trump signs an executive order taking direct aim at social media companies"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Thursday, President Trump signed an executive order<\/a> targeting the legal shield that internet companies rely on to protect them from liability for user-created content. That law, known as Section 230<\/a> of the Communications Decency Act, is essential to large social platforms like Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, the kind of companies the president has long accused, without evidence, of deliberately suppressing conservative views.<\/p>\n

Trump was joined during the signing by Attorney General William Barr, who has previously expressed interest<\/a> in stripping away or limiting the same legal protections for tech companies.<\/p>\n

We previously examined a draft of the executive order<\/a> that\u2019s nearly identical to the just-released final version<\/a>, embedded below. Among other things, the draft argued that platforms forfeit their rights to legal protection when they moderate content, as in the case of Twitter modifying the president\u2019s tweet with a fact-checking disclaimer.<\/p>\n

\n

This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!<\/p>\n

\u2014 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2020<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u201cThe choices Twitter makes when it chooses to edit, blacklist, shadowban are editorial decisions, pure and simple,\u201d Trump said during the signing. \u201cIn those moments, Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform and they become an editor with a viewpoint. And I think we can say that about others also, whether you\u2019re looking at Google, whether you\u2019re looking at Facebook.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tech companies and internet rights advocates believe that interpretation of Section 230 inverts the original spirit of the act. They say Section 230 was designed to protect internet companies from being sued for the content they host while also empowering them to make moderation choices without being liable for those decisions.<\/p>\n

Twitter itself called the order a \u201creactionary and politicized approach to a landmark law.\u201d Facebook also released a statement, asserting that the company \u201cbelieve[s] in protecting freedom of expression on our services, while protecting our community from harmful content including content designed to stop voters from exercising their right to vote.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

This EO is a reactionary and politicized approach to a landmark law. #Section230<\/a> protects American innovation and freedom of expression, and it\u2019s underpinned by democratic values. Attempts to unilaterally erode it threaten the future of online speech and Internet freedoms.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Twitter Public Policy (@Policy) May 29, 2020<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Google also weighed in against the order. \u201cWe have clear content policies and we enforce them without regard to political viewpoint,\u201d a Google spokesperson said. \u201cOur platforms have empowered a wide range of people and organizations from across the political spectrum, giving them a voice and new ways to reach their audiences. Undermining Section 230 in this way would hurt America\u2019s economy and its global leadership on internet freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n

While the idea of dismantling Section 230 does pose an existential threat to internet companies, it\u2019s not clear that the White House will be able to actually legally enforce its threats. But even if the order doesn\u2019t result in substantial repercussions for social media companies, it might serve to intimidate them from further enforcing platform policy decisions like ones that inspired the president to retaliate against Twitter this week.<\/p>\n

\n

Going to war with Twitter, Trump threatens critical social media legal protections<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

On Tuesday, Twitter added warning labels<\/a> to two tweets from the president that made false claims about vote-by-mail systems. The labels, which did not hide the tweets or even actually outright call them false, pointed users toward a fact-checking page. The move enraged the president, who lashed out at the company through tweets, specifically targeting Yoel Roth, Twitter\u2019s head of site integrity.<\/p>\n

The executive order makes it clear that the president\u2019s spat with Twitter inspired the action, though some of its language is likely recycled from an abandoned effort at a similar order<\/a> last August.<\/p>\n

\u201cTwitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias,\u201d the unusual order reads. \u201cAs has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician\u2019s tweet.\u201d<\/p>\n

Civil rights groups and internet freedom watchdogs denounced the order Thursday, with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, the co-creator of the law in Trump\u2019s crosshairs, denouncing his actions as \u201cplainly illegal.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAs the co-author of Section 230, let me make this clear \u2014 there is nothing in the law about political neutrality,\u201d Wyden said of the order.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt does not say companies like Twitter are forced to carry misinformation about voting, especially from the president. Efforts to erode Section 230 will only make online content more likely to be false and dangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whatever happens with Trump\u2019s big move against social media companies, it\u2019s likely to energize the president\u2019s base and his allies in Congress and other corners of the government around the issue. And even if adding politically advantageous stipulations to Section 230 proves legally difficult or untenable for the White House, the threat may allow the president to wield new power over some of tech\u2019s most powerful, often untouchable companies just the same.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Jack Dorsey explains why Twitter fact-checked Trump\u2019s false voting claims<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Article source: http:\/\/feedproxy.google.com\/~r\/techcrunch\/social\/~3\/7zvdgRN-rIY\/<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Thursday, President Trump signed an executive order targeting the legal shield that internet companies rely on to protect them from liability for user-created content. That law, known as Section <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3],"tags":[10,7,14,15,6,12,11],"class_list":["post-18910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-latest-update","tag-computer-news","tag-downloads","tag-microsoft-download-news","tag-networking-updates","tag-technology-update","tag-wordpress-plugin-download","tag-wordpress-theme-download"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t