Trump's Executive Order Against Social Media

But you said

So which is it? Do you think social media should, or should not have the ability to remove posts?

And if the platform is liable for something, surely the person who posted the objectionable content would also be liable. Probably more liable, but at least jointly and severally. It would warm my heart to see Trump held to account for all the lies he spreads on Twitter.

 

Yeah, I knew that you were going to say that! The problem is that everyone knows that social media companies have automated systems in place for finding extremist content and the fact that they've had no problem discovering such content in the past.

 

hosts of child pronography or direct cause of violence shirt because you'd get arrested for doing that in public.

not in reality the platform wouldn't be liable for what publishers publish the publisher would be like it is with everybody else the president is just removing special protections.

If you think the platform is liable does AT&t get criminally charged if someone refused child pronography using their service?

again not in this reality. The phone company isn't liable for people making threatening phone calls. The phone company is a platform.

so why don't you hold Twitter liable for it?

 

It shouldn't be removing extremist content that's free speech.
it should just be removing illegal content I don't care if they use an algorithm to do that.

 

Yeah, @Polydectes made that point too in an earlier post.

Held to account by the law?

 

Wouldn't communicating plans for a terrorist attack be "illegal content?"

 

is the phone company held liable for that or the people using the platform to discuss it?

 

"Refused?"

The phone calls aren't available to the public.

 

I apologize I read that and I tried to figure out what I was saying and I couldn't.

So let me rephrase.

Is AT&t responsible if someone uses their bandwidth to distribute child pronography?

that's not true I have a phone right here in my hand they can call anybody in the world I want.

 

you do have a point, I guess Twitter would have to black all Trump's posts to people not signed into twitter

course those rules would apply to this site too, in fact all free sites

and when we get all these liabilities, people will have to pay $$$ to use these sites

 

Why do you mention Trump in relation to "people making threatening phone calls?"

Why are you making a distinction between free site and paid sites?

 

How would AT&T know that their customer is doing that?

Yes, but whoever you call, your conversation is not publicly available is it.

 

Held to account financially. He wants to remove protection for social media but there are individuals who post content. If - as polydactes wants - the platform is liable, then the person who posts the content should also be liable.

TBH I find polydactes’ positions completely confusing. Often contradictory.

 

cause Trump has made threatening tweets, ect...

I am saying lawyers cost money and if sites had to defend against liability of their users posts, they would need to pass that cost on to users and there would be no more free sites

 

Why would Trump be held to account financially for his lies?

What content?

@Polydectes's point is that ONLY the user should be liable.

 

You said, "I guess Twitter would have to black all Trump's posts to people not signed into twitter", but wouldn't Twitter have to black all of Trump's posts to users signed in too?

Oh I see what you mean. Yes, that's probably what would happen actually, although it would cut the user base back about 80% or something - those who wouldn't be able to afford it, or just don't think it's worth the money. Only companies and celebrities would remain!

 

I'll take that as a YES @bx4!

 

they wouldn't care there a platform publishers are held liable for content.

so what?

 

I do apologize. I will make it clear.

Platforms aren't liable for the content publishers are. Platforms don't make content publishers do.

 

The point is that AT&T wouldn't know that their customer is doing illegal acts with the service.

So it's quite a bit different to Twitter and other social media isn't it?

 

what point are you making?

not in that they are a platform.

 

That they are different to Twitter and other social media.

Does "platform" have some sort of legal definition? I've always thought of internet ISP's and phone companies as service providers or public utilities.

 

not in that they are a platform.

Not that I'm aware of but you can switch any other word in there that's not publisher and it means they are not the publisher.

 

I said that because if they are a members only club, they get additional rights a public site would not - if anyone can read their content without a membership, then it's open to the public

 

yep, that is what I meant, if Trump gets his way with his EO, it would hinder free speech, only the rich could afford to take the risk to speak - due to fears of some rich person like Trump tieing them up in court for years