Trump vs Social Media
So Trump wants social media giants to be treated as publishers, not platforms, and therefore responsible for the content that they host.
I have no doubt that Trump is primarily motivated by pique, self-aggrandisement, and the need to create a distraction. And the argument that the President's freedom of speech is threatened is unmitigated bollocks. But although it goes greatly against the grain to say so, does he have a point about social media giants being publishers?
AIUI, Facebook and Twitter currently argue that they are just platforms, and therefore, if someone wants to post that bleach cures autism or that Clinton murdered Epstein, Facebook and Twitter are not themselves responsible for the consequences of that post (although the posters as individuals may be) - just as, if I repeat such things to my mates over a few pints at the Dog & Duck, then I may personally be a dick, but the landlord of the Dog & Duck isn't guilty of anything.
To my mind this is anomalous, because it means that if I write an article in The Ricardusborough Advertiser saying that bleach cures autism, then The Ricardusborough Advertiser can be sued for the consequences, whereas if I post the same article on Facebook, Facebook argues that it's nothing to do with them, even though their 'platform' allows my rubbish to reach a much wider audience (and thus do more damage) than The Ricardusborough Advertiser. But anyone who looks like having a decent legal argument that social media giants are really publishers tends to be given a large amount of money to go away (e.g., Martin Lewis).
Marco Rubio's argument, which seems to me non-stupid even though it's Marco Rubio, is that once Twitter start posting fact-checking warnings, then it is editorialising and as such acting more like a publisher than a platform. IOW, the only logical options are either that it's a platform and a total free-for-all, or else it's a publisher that makes some attempt to editorialise its content.
I have no doubt that Trump is primarily motivated by pique, self-aggrandisement, and the need to create a distraction. And the argument that the President's freedom of speech is threatened is unmitigated bollocks. But although it goes greatly against the grain to say so, does he have a point about social media giants being publishers?
AIUI, Facebook and Twitter currently argue that they are just platforms, and therefore, if someone wants to post that bleach cures autism or that Clinton murdered Epstein, Facebook and Twitter are not themselves responsible for the consequences of that post (although the posters as individuals may be) - just as, if I repeat such things to my mates over a few pints at the Dog & Duck, then I may personally be a dick, but the landlord of the Dog & Duck isn't guilty of anything.
To my mind this is anomalous, because it means that if I write an article in The Ricardusborough Advertiser saying that bleach cures autism, then The Ricardusborough Advertiser can be sued for the consequences, whereas if I post the same article on Facebook, Facebook argues that it's nothing to do with them, even though their 'platform' allows my rubbish to reach a much wider audience (and thus do more damage) than The Ricardusborough Advertiser. But anyone who looks like having a decent legal argument that social media giants are really publishers tends to be given a large amount of money to go away (e.g., Martin Lewis).
Marco Rubio's argument, which seems to me non-stupid even though it's Marco Rubio, is that once Twitter start posting fact-checking warnings, then it is editorialising and as such acting more like a publisher than a platform. IOW, the only logical options are either that it's a platform and a total free-for-all, or else it's a publisher that makes some attempt to editorialise its content.
Tagged:
Comments
I think Trump is facing a backlash from the far right Republicans precisely because this measure interferes with the concept of free speech, which is a lot freer in the US than in Europe.
My preferred way out of this dilemma is to allow the freest of free speech, but accompanied (at least in the media) by consumer education by the media company in terms of fact-checking and so on. In this I find Twitter's stance, posting the comment but inviting people to investigate, better than Facebook's.
There is a spectrum of different mixes of user-generated content and editorial content; I'm not sure there's anything which sits at either extreme end of the spectrum anymore. Social media is much closer to the fully user-generated end of the spectrum, a newspaper much closer to the other end. Social media platforms are legally constrained in many jurisdictions, so have legal obligations to remove illegal material as soon as possible, and also from a practical view that without some form of monitoring and intervention platforms can rapidly become unusable because most people don't want to swim in an ocean of trolls and misinformation.
And, in relation to the particular foot-stumping tantrum from Trump, banning someone from a particular social media platform doesn't impact their rights for free speech. There are other social media platforms where he might be able to say what he wants. Or, he can build his own website or blog, or even found his own social media platform where he's not going to be restricted by rules and terms that mean the content he generates gets warnings appended.
We do know that the potus never backs down, he digs in. This isn’t going to go away.
There will be many unintended and unexpected consequences - especially for the potus.
But, once again, he’s successfully deflected attention from the his terrible record on Covid19.
Well, Trump and Rubio's argument is that once a platform starts posting fact-checking warnings, or 'removing a post for reasons other than those described in a website's terms of service' (not sure what that's referring to), then they are de facto acting as editors.
But even setting that aside, I'm not sure that the lack of an editor *ought* to make a difference. Suppose:
Alice reads an article in The Ricardusborough Advertiser and, in consequence, force-feeds her toddler bleach.
Bob reads a post on Facebook and, in consequence, force-feeds his toddler bleach.
The toddler is equally poisoned in both cases, and in both cases the action wouldn't have happened without the platform/publisher, so, at least from a purely consequentialist perspective, why should one be treated differently from the other?
My understanding is that part of the reason the distinction ends up being drawn this way stems from the different treatment of media vs carriers - so in the past an organisation sending mail/cold calling advocating bleaching toddlers would be liable, the liability wouldn't be shared by the UPS or Ma Bell, and then this gets carried over to ISPs in the information age and Facebook want to argue that they are more like the latter than they are Fox News.
Actually, he does, if he feels it's in his best interest. He runs ideas up the proverbial flagpole all the time, to test the wind. If people he wants to like him and/or vote for him don't like that flag, he often backs off, lowers the flag, and says/does the opposite thing.
The problem is his perception of his best interest--and generally not giving a damn about anything else.
Something else I worry about: the changes in his behavior and functioning over the years. He used to have attacks of speaking word salad; and of saying the beginning sound of a word, and losing track of the rest of the word. He doesn't bounce around as much as he used to. He doesn't get distracted as easily. ISTM he's much more narrowly focused on getting re-elected.
I think "they" have put him on some kind of med(s). While I don't begrudge him meds if they help improve/heal some of his problems, they also make him appear more normal. Not that his ideas are good, wholesome, intelligent, or even sane. But he carries himself better. And we've had other presidents who battled with the press and with Congress.
And some people may think he's (mostly) cured--or even forget what he was like.
:fear: :votive:
I think I need popcorn! 🍿
I think he's already cited (his own) free speech rights regarding the current mess with Twitter.
B--
Thanks for the link. I've seen elsewhere that he also retweeted something about killing Democrats.
FWIW: I just plugged your "unelected Republican" quote into Duck Duck Go, and got many hits that had "dead Republican". And they were specifically in response to T's retweet.
And I agree about getting them out of office. Needs to be legally and non-violently. I don't necessarily care about trials or prison. Just getting T out.
No problem.
Did Mr Obama use social media to any extent when he was POTUS?
How time flies when you're having fun (so they say - I wouldn't know).
Did he use his cell phone for social media purposes, given how many malefactors, malcontents, and miscreants would probably be queuing up to hack his account(s)?
And yes, there were major security concerns about his *phone* possibly being hacked.
One of the benefits of such a rule is that the platform would have to hire a great many people to review complaints all around the world. In a post-Covid world, this will be a boon to the economies of all.
The family were begging Twitter to take action on *those* tweets. And yet somehow it's gotten deflected to the ones about mail-in vote fraud, which isn't at all the same thing.
A better analogy for Facebook (AIUI, I'm not a member) is the supermarket queue - you overhear some people ahead of you discussing the amount of bleach one is buying, with the answer that it's to give the toddler as a prophylactic against Covid-19. Is the supermarket owner liable? Should the owner be liable? I'd say no to both.
But Facebook, unlike the supermarket, actively pushes content towards you according to what its algorithm thinks you want to hear.
It would be as if the supermarket owner ran up and down the queue saying 'Hey, did you hear what Alice just said?', and did this as part of his business model to entice people to the shop.
[ETA: although in accordance with the principle that if you aren't paying, then you're not the customer, you're the product - it would be his way of enticing cans of baked beans and loaves of bread to the shop ...]
However, this is going to backfire on the President, probably very quickly. If he says that social media sites have to accept responsibility for what people post on their sites, the simple and starting response is to block him, totally, 100%.
If you have to carry the risk of what he utters, and to check every word that comes off the end of his chubby little fingers, that's too high a risk for anyone commercially to be expected to carry.
I don't think he, or anyone else, could come up with a challenge to that.
What if it the plan was overheard by a member of shop staff? If they do nothing to protect the child from harm, they as an individual and the business are morally cuplable.
Isn't that the definition of marketing? But the supermarkets do it too -- displaying certain items in more prominent places, and arranged more provocatively on the shelves, than others.
In practice I think I agree with your conclusion, but I think the part I've bolded needs further exploration. That is: just because Twitter doesn't review stuff before publication doesn't make it exempt from the consequences of choosing not to do so.
Suppose Ricardus Electronics sells electric widgets really cheaply, and that I am able to sell them so cheaply because I don't do any quality control but rely on users telling me that their widget doesn't work. If someone then complains that they were electrocuted by my widget, I can't just say 'Well how was I supposed to know? I didn't test it', and if I further argue that my very business model depends on me saving costs by not testing, you would probably reasonably conclude that my business model is one that does not deserve to exist.
Now I accept that social media has more of a social benefit than really cheap electronic widgets, but I don't think the lack of pre-publication review exempts Twitter from all liability when not reviewing posts is, ultimately, a choice on their part.
I agree.
If Twitter backs down (in the sense of not tagging any more of his posts), then he looks strong.
If Twitter bans him, then he gets to tell his supporters: 'Look - the liberals really are trying to silence the conservatives!'
I agree, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a social benefit, as a sort of accidental by-product.
What I'm getting at is: if Ricardus Electronics is made to QC everything it sells beforehand, then that's probably the end of Ricardus Electronics, and if Twitter is made to review everything before publication, then that's probably the end of Twitter. But the loss of Twitter probably has more of a negative impact on the world than the loss of Ricardus Electronics.
(Probably. I'm not a Twitter fan and am open to persuasion ...)
Things can still have a social benefit even if they are operated to make money. Mobile phone networks make money but still have a social benefit. So do bookshops.
Money is their point, so money drives their actions and reactions.
If it was legal and didn't risk the company being sued, they'd probably do it.
What if it the plan was overheard by a member of shop staff? If they do nothing to protect the child from harm, they as an individual and the business are morally cuplable.[/quote]
Why would they be morally culpable? If in the USA, the staff member may well have heard Trump say it, and think that if the President says it, it must be right. But even here, I'd be very reluctant to interfere, and certainly would not expect a staff member to do so either.
I'm uncomfortable with the comparison between a manufacturer of a faulty product and the operator of a social media platform which the President of the United States graces with his bile. My discomfort stems in part from the different natures of the product and the intended use. I think it unnecessarily clogs the issue. It certainly clogs my brain, as I try to think clearly about the differences.
The essence is this: The person who makes and maintains a social media platform makes just that. It works as intended: as a place for people to post messages online, and as a way to collect a great deal of information about those people. That information is then packaged and sold, and so that is really the widget. The purchasers would have causes of action if the information sold was somehow faulty. The people who have freely consented for their information to be so used do not. The analogy for social media posts are probably the stuff out of which your widgets are made. If the materials are faulty, then you have a cause of action presumably against the supplier. The analogy breaks down, as hopefully, will the President of the United States.
Why would they be morally culpable? If in the USA, the staff member may well have heard Trump say it, and think that if the President says it, it must be right. But even here, I'd be very reluctant to interfere, and certainly would not expect a staff member to do so either.[/quote]
Are you for real? Someone overhears someone planning to harm a child, possibly kill them, and you'd be reluctant to interfere? I'd do my utmost to ensure the police and social services were there within the hour!
That's a fair comment but I'm not sure it changes my overall point.
So a better analogy is: Ricardus Electronics produces really cheap widgets that work exactly as intended (= the personal data harvested from social media posts and sold to advertisers), but I don't bother testing the waste products that are emitted from the factory when the widgets are manufactured (= what people are actually saying in those social media posts), so I don't know if they are toxic or not.
If the waste products end up poisoning some third party, I don't think I can get off the hook by saying 'Well I don't test the waste products for poison so I couldn't know about it'.
But you wouldn't alert the authorities?