7 comments

[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 29.2 ms ] thread
From the article:

The draft order, which was reviewed by CNN, targets a law known as the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the legislation provides broad immunity to websites that curate and moderate their own platforms, and has been described by legal experts as "the 26 words that created the internet."

It argues that the protections hinge mainly on tech platforms operating in "good faith," and that social media companies have not.

"In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online," the draft order says. "This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power."

What’s your take on social media sites curating user-generated content for accuracy? It seems like it might be worth it, but I’m not so sure. Thoughts?
Regardless of what Trump's intents are and what his plans are for this EO, I think most rational people can agree that social media companies are not providing a healthy environment for discourse and that this is causing real damage to the nation. I don't know what the solution is but all I know is that there is something really wrong.
(comment deleted)
Free speech for me but not for thee
I wonder what would happen if Twitter banned Trump, would be the ultimate social experiment.

Would he create his own app?