![]() ![]() Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, posted an annotated, color-coded copy of the order to Google Docs, with red highlights signifying “atmospherics,” orange ones indicating “legally dubious” arguments, and yellow ones identifying assertions about which “reasonable minds can differ” the document looked like it had been soaked in fruit punch. To some, the document was so incoherent that it read like a highly specific form of trolling. Many pointed out that, if it were implemented, the order would stifle speech rather than allow it to flourish: without Section 230, many of the President’s tweets-such as those suggesting that the MSNBC host Joe Scarborough had murdered a staff member-would likely be removed for liability reasons. Legal scholars were quick to explain that the executive order fundamentally misinterpreted Section 230, and therefore had little legal basis in any case, changes to the law would need to go through Congress. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.” “Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. ![]() “Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse,” it read. Two days later, Trump issued an “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.” Ostensibly, the order took aim at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act-a crucial snippet of legislation that grants Internet companies immunity from liability for the content posted by their users. The notes urged readers to “get the facts about mail-in ballots,” and linked to a Twitter “Events” page on the topic, with the headline “Trump Makes Unsubstantiated Claim That Mail-In Ballots Will Lead to Voter Fraud.”Ī war had been declared. Around two weeks after that, as coronavirus deaths in the United States approached six figures, Trump went on Twitter to sound an alarm about mail-in ballots, claiming, erroneously, that they were “substantially fraudulent” and that their use would lead to a “Rigged Election.” Twitter, explaining that the tweets violated the “suppression and intimidation” section of its civic-integrity policy, appended fact-checking notes to them. On May 11th, Twitter announced that its warning system would be expanded to cover misinformation about COVID-19. It ran alongside a small error symbol, rendered in the service’s signature blue. This time, though, they footnoted the tweet with a warning label. Twitter has long avoided taking a stance on incendiary and factually inaccurate communiqués from political figures, including the President. The tweet went viral, and users, who noticed that the video had been selectively edited, reported it to Twitter’s moderators they, in turn, determined that Scavino’s tweet had violated the company’s new policy on “ synthetic and manipulated video,” which had been introduced in February. It depicted Joe Biden endorsing his opponent: “We can only reëlect Donald Trump,” Biden seemed to say. On March 7th, Dan Scavino, Donald Trump’s director of social media, posted a video to Twitter.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |