Facebook has made a statement saying that they won't take any action on the exact same posts which were cross-posted to Facebook and Instagram. Here's Mark Zuckerberg's explanation, copy-pasted...
Facebook has made a statement saying that they won't take any action on the exact same posts which were cross-posted to Facebook and Instagram. Here's Mark Zuckerberg's explanation, copy-pasted here so you don't have to go to Facebook to read it:
This has been an incredibly tough week after a string of tough weeks. The killing of George Floyd showed yet again that for Black people in America, just existing means risking your life. This comes weeks after the killing of Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor, and in the midst of Covid having a disproportionate impact on the black community in the US. It continues a long and devastating history of human loss going back centuries. I know the conversations happening amongst our Black friends, colleagues and neighbors are incredibly painful. As Americans, this affects all of us and we all have an obligation to help address the inequality in how justice is served. This is something I care deeply about.
I've been struggling with how to respond to the President's tweets and posts all day. Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. This moment calls for unity and calmness, and we need empathy for the people and communities who are hurting. We need to come together as a country to pursue justice and break this cycle.
But I'm responsible for reacting not just in my personal capacity but as the leader of an institution committed to free expression. I know many people are upset that we've left the President's posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies. We looked very closely at the post that discussed the protests in Minnesota to evaluate whether it violated our policies. Although the post had a troubling historical reference, we decided to leave it up because the National Guard references meant we read it as a warning about state action, and we think people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force. Our policy around incitement of violence allows discussion around state use of force, although I think today's situation raises important questions about what potential limits of that discussion should be. The President later posted again, saying that the original post was warning about the possibility that looting could lead to violence. We decided that this post, which explicitly discouraged violence, also does not violate our policies and is important for people to see. Unlike Twitter, we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician. We have been in touch with the White House today to explain these policies as well.
There are heated debates about how we apply our policies during moments like this. I know people are frustrated when we take a long time to make these decisions. These are difficult decisions and, just like today, the content we leave up I often find deeply offensive. We try to think through all the consequences, and we keep our policies under constant review because the context is always evolving. People can agree or disagree on where we should draw the line, but I hope they understand our overall philosophy is that it is better to have this discussion out in the open, especially when the stakes are so high. I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open.
So it's a dangerous thing to be cavalier about allowing politicians to post misinformation, and it may not be the right thing to do, but I could just about understand their position and be on...
So it's a dangerous thing to be cavalier about allowing politicians to post misinformation, and it may not be the right thing to do, but I could just about understand their position and be on board with it. EXCEPT, that they've proven themselves to be corrupt on a number of occasions and bully anyone who doesn't agree with them, so I'm a little less assured of whatever good intentions that may supposedly have
Yeah I'm sure it's been tough for him, having to decide whether to do the right thing and continue adding more money to his hoard or don't do the right thing and add even more money to his hoard.
Yeah I'm sure it's been tough for him, having to decide whether to do the right thing and continue adding more money to his hoard or don't do the right thing and add even more money to his hoard.
It amazes me that Trump has been saying reprehensible things for so long. Americans expect first graders to have higher standards than the American President. What Twitter is doing is utterly...
It amazes me that Trump has been saying reprehensible things for so long.
Americans expect first graders to have higher standards than the American President.
What Twitter is doing is utterly simple yet incredibly devastating by simply labeling the presidents tweets for what they are.
Hopefully the amount of press coverage this generates reminds the American public that this is not normal, is not acceptable, and doesn't distract the conversation from what is important, which is a competent administrative response to COVID.
They can't flag his tweets anymore, so they'll hide them.
They can't flag his tweets anymore, so they'll hide them.
Twitter has hidden one of Donald Trump’s tweets behind a warning that it “glorifies violence”, further escalating the social media company’s row with the US president.
“When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” Trump wrote, apparently quoting the former Miami police chief Walter Headley, who in December 1967 promised violent reprisals to protests over stop-and-frisk tactics.
Two hours later, Twitter added a notice to the tweet: “This tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the tweet to remain accessible.”
The warning was accompanied by a link to its policies about public interest exceptions.
For people visiting Trump’s Twitter timeline, or seeing the tweet retweeted on their feed, the warning obscures the content unless they tap to view it.
Users who try to reply to the tweet are instead presented with a second notice that reads: “We try to prevent a tweet like this that otherwise breaks the Twitter rules from reaching more people, so we have disabled most of the ways to engage with it.” Existing replies no longer appear below it.
I'd say that hiding his tweets is worse than merely posting a fact-check link on them. This isn't backing down, it's stepping up. Twitter has escalated this conflict.
They can't flag his tweets anymore, so they'll hide them.
I'd say that hiding his tweets is worse than merely posting a fact-check link on them. This isn't backing down, it's stepping up. Twitter has escalated this conflict.
I mean more so that his executive order forbids Twitter from fact-checking him, so they'll do the next best thing to hold him accountable, which is hide his tweet. This is worse because the facts...
I mean more so that his executive order forbids Twitter from fact-checking him, so they'll do the next best thing to hold him accountable, which is hide his tweet. This is worse because the facts can't be linked and so his tweets are just hidden without context for his supporters.
Which executive order is that? The executive order I saw here on Tildes doesn't forbid anyone from anything. It: Instructs "all executive departments and agencies [to] ensure that their...
I mean more so that his executive order forbids Twitter from fact-checking him,
Which executive order is that? The executive order I saw here on Tildes doesn't forbid anyone from anything.
It:
Instructs "all executive departments and agencies [to] ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard".
Instructs "The head of each executive department and agency (agency) [to] review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms."
And various other policies and actions, which mostly seem to be reviews looking at possible legal actions in the future.
But nowhere in that order is any social media company forbidden from doing anything.
Is there another executive order floating around which forbids Twitter from fact-checking President Trump? I'll admit I'm not keeping up with every twist and turn in this story, so I might have missed that.
That's really not what the executive order does. In fact, what it does is kinda stupid. So what it does is that it modifies the second clause of section 203, changing it so that places found not...
That's really not what the executive order does. In fact, what it does is kinda stupid.
So what it does is that it modifies the second clause of section 203, changing it so that places found not acting in "good faith" (which has traditionally just meant anti-trust moves) can cause companies to lose part a), which is obviously very important for their function. But it's so incredibly vague and stupid that it's difficult to tell what it actually accomplishes as opposed to what they want it to accomplish.
I don't think this order modifies that clause. I don't think presidential executive orders have the power to modify legislation. I think only Congress can modify legislation. According to the copy...
So what it does is that it modifies the second clause of section 230,
I don't think this order modifies that clause. I don't think presidential executive orders have the power to modify legislation. I think only Congress can modify legislation.
[...] all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.
[...] the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify [clause 230].
So, Trump hasn't modified Section 230. He doesn't have that power. He's just asking executive agencies to interpret the clause more narrowly, and asked the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General to look into writing some regulations to narrow the scope of the clause.
The executive order "forbids" Twitter from restricting content. It honestly doesn't actually mention fact checking or flagging at all. And violence actually still can be restricted, as per the...
The executive order "forbids" Twitter from restricting content.
It honestly doesn't actually mention fact checking or flagging at all.
And violence actually still can be restricted, as per the executive order, section 230 and the twitter terms of service.
Plus you can't really fact check violence.
Lastly, the entire executive order is generally considered by lawyers to be "bogus."
Facebook has made a statement saying that they won't take any action on the exact same posts which were cross-posted to Facebook and Instagram. Here's Mark Zuckerberg's explanation, copy-pasted here so you don't have to go to Facebook to read it:
So it's a dangerous thing to be cavalier about allowing politicians to post misinformation, and it may not be the right thing to do, but I could just about understand their position and be on board with it. EXCEPT, that they've proven themselves to be corrupt on a number of occasions and bully anyone who doesn't agree with them, so I'm a little less assured of whatever good intentions that may supposedly have
Yeah I'm sure it's been tough for him, having to decide whether to do the right thing and continue adding more money to his hoard or don't do the right thing and add even more money to his hoard.
It amazes me that Trump has been saying reprehensible things for so long.
Americans expect first graders to have higher standards than the American President.
What Twitter is doing is utterly simple yet incredibly devastating by simply labeling the presidents tweets for what they are.
Hopefully the amount of press coverage this generates reminds the American public that this is not normal, is not acceptable, and doesn't distract the conversation from what is important, which is a competent administrative response to COVID.
Some existing discussion about this here: https://tildes.net/~news/p98/protests_over_death_of_george_floyd_disrupt_minneapolis_and_beyond#comment-544b
They can't flag his tweets anymore, so they'll hide them.
I'd say that hiding his tweets is worse than merely posting a fact-check link on them. This isn't backing down, it's stepping up. Twitter has escalated this conflict.
I mean more so that his executive order forbids Twitter from fact-checking him, so they'll do the next best thing to hold him accountable, which is hide his tweet. This is worse because the facts can't be linked and so his tweets are just hidden without context for his supporters.
Which executive order is that? The executive order I saw here on Tildes doesn't forbid anyone from anything.
It:
Instructs "all executive departments and agencies [to] ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard".
Instructs "The head of each executive department and agency (agency) [to] review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms."
And various other policies and actions, which mostly seem to be reviews looking at possible legal actions in the future.
But nowhere in that order is any social media company forbidden from doing anything.
Is there another executive order floating around which forbids Twitter from fact-checking President Trump? I'll admit I'm not keeping up with every twist and turn in this story, so I might have missed that.
That's really not what the executive order does. In fact, what it does is kinda stupid.
So what it does is that it modifies the second clause of section 203, changing it so that places found not acting in "good faith" (which has traditionally just meant anti-trust moves) can cause companies to lose part a), which is obviously very important for their function. But it's so incredibly vague and stupid that it's difficult to tell what it actually accomplishes as opposed to what they want it to accomplish.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
I don't think this order modifies that clause. I don't think presidential executive orders have the power to modify legislation. I think only Congress can modify legislation.
According to the copy of the order linked on Tildes,
So, Trump hasn't modified Section 230. He doesn't have that power. He's just asking executive agencies to interpret the clause more narrowly, and asked the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General to look into writing some regulations to narrow the scope of the clause.
Related: ‘I’m furious and you should be too’: Biden condemns Trump tweet ‘glorifying violence’
The executive order "forbids" Twitter from restricting content.
It honestly doesn't actually mention fact checking or flagging at all.
And violence actually still can be restricted, as per the executive order, section 230 and the twitter terms of service.
Plus you can't really fact check violence.
Lastly, the entire executive order is generally considered by lawyers to be "bogus."