Today, Donald Trump issued an executive order regarding "censorship" on social media.
You can read the order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...ne-censorship/
It's an interesting order. The core issue is that once upon a time, in a section of the Communications Decency Act, there was a provision that declared internet sites to be people providing a place for speech, as opposed to publishing content. In other words, my words here are not the opinion of ISF. ISF is just presenting a platform that I, and a lot of other people, can post in. They are not publishing my work, so ISF cannot be held to account if I say something bad.
The basis of that judgement is that they aren't picking and choosing what goes in here. They are just providing a platform.
As part of that act, media giants like Twitter (I don't know if it existed yet, but maybe Myspace would be a better example) would also be allowed to eliminate "harmful" material, like pornography. Court rulings had said that if they edited data, removing objectionable material, that meant that they ceased being a public platform, and became a publisher, because they were influencing the content. The CDA provision got rid of that idea, at least in part.
The executive order calls that into question, saying that if the media platforms are exercising editorial control based on politics or ideology, they should be treated as publishers. Sure it's ok to take down pictures of naked ladies, but if they start messing with political content, they become publishers, and subject to the rules that apply to publishers. Most importantly, if I say something libelous on a site that engages in political censorship, they are publishing my libel, and can be held accountable.
In the midst of it, there was a rant about how horribly unfair Twitter was because they labelled Trump's tweets about Joe Scarborough as false, or whatever it said about them, but didn't say anything about Adam Schiff. It was somewhat embarrassing to read, but it wasn't clear how it related to the rest of the order. Had they deleted Trump's tweets it would have made some sense, but as it was, it just seemed stuck in there as a Trump tantrum.
Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of it. On the one hand, I do think it's dangerous to have a company like youtube having so much power to exercise censorship, because although they are technically a private company, their near monopoly gives them almost governmental power. This order doesn't say it, but it is a lot more about Dennis Praeger than about Donald Trump. Praeger has been involved in long standing legal disputes with youtube.
On the other hand, this order will likely result in more litigation, especially of a political nature, directed at companies, and I certainly don't trust the Trump administration to make anything remotely resembling fair judgements on any aspect of this law over which the executive branch could exert control.
I've only read through the order once, and quickly, so I'm not an expert on it. I hope my summary is adequate and doesn't contain significant error, but it could. However, I found it interesting and could be an interesting topic, so I thought it deserved its own thread.
Note to Mods: I chose "Social Issues and Current Events" for this thread. I tend to reserve "Politics" for things specifically about whether someone ought to be elected, or whether a specific politician was an awful person. This one is more about how government ought to behave with respect to social media companies, so I thought SI&CE was a better fit, but it could go either way. I promise not to whine if it's moved.
You can read the order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...ne-censorship/
It's an interesting order. The core issue is that once upon a time, in a section of the Communications Decency Act, there was a provision that declared internet sites to be people providing a place for speech, as opposed to publishing content. In other words, my words here are not the opinion of ISF. ISF is just presenting a platform that I, and a lot of other people, can post in. They are not publishing my work, so ISF cannot be held to account if I say something bad.
The basis of that judgement is that they aren't picking and choosing what goes in here. They are just providing a platform.
As part of that act, media giants like Twitter (I don't know if it existed yet, but maybe Myspace would be a better example) would also be allowed to eliminate "harmful" material, like pornography. Court rulings had said that if they edited data, removing objectionable material, that meant that they ceased being a public platform, and became a publisher, because they were influencing the content. The CDA provision got rid of that idea, at least in part.
The executive order calls that into question, saying that if the media platforms are exercising editorial control based on politics or ideology, they should be treated as publishers. Sure it's ok to take down pictures of naked ladies, but if they start messing with political content, they become publishers, and subject to the rules that apply to publishers. Most importantly, if I say something libelous on a site that engages in political censorship, they are publishing my libel, and can be held accountable.
In the midst of it, there was a rant about how horribly unfair Twitter was because they labelled Trump's tweets about Joe Scarborough as false, or whatever it said about them, but didn't say anything about Adam Schiff. It was somewhat embarrassing to read, but it wasn't clear how it related to the rest of the order. Had they deleted Trump's tweets it would have made some sense, but as it was, it just seemed stuck in there as a Trump tantrum.
Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of it. On the one hand, I do think it's dangerous to have a company like youtube having so much power to exercise censorship, because although they are technically a private company, their near monopoly gives them almost governmental power. This order doesn't say it, but it is a lot more about Dennis Praeger than about Donald Trump. Praeger has been involved in long standing legal disputes with youtube.
On the other hand, this order will likely result in more litigation, especially of a political nature, directed at companies, and I certainly don't trust the Trump administration to make anything remotely resembling fair judgements on any aspect of this law over which the executive branch could exert control.
I've only read through the order once, and quickly, so I'm not an expert on it. I hope my summary is adequate and doesn't contain significant error, but it could. However, I found it interesting and could be an interesting topic, so I thought it deserved its own thread.
Note to Mods: I chose "Social Issues and Current Events" for this thread. I tend to reserve "Politics" for things specifically about whether someone ought to be elected, or whether a specific politician was an awful person. This one is more about how government ought to behave with respect to social media companies, so I thought SI&CE was a better fit, but it could go either way. I promise not to whine if it's moved.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2zJfhkB
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire