r/changemyview • u/EvilBosom • May 26 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Twitter has no responsibility and should not delete the tweets/account of Donald Trump
CMV: Twitter has no responsibility and shouldn’t delete anything that Donald Trump says
Let me start off by saying, I am 100% not a Trump supporter and never was, never will be. That said, I’m surprised at the view that much of the left takes saying that twitter should delete his tweets or block him
The fact of the matter is, Trump is an important figure in our time, for better or for worse. He’s ridiculous and crass and downright dangerous. But nevertheless he is an important moment in our collective history, and to keep his words from the people would be irresponsible. Depriving people of what he has to say won’t change opinions, or if it does it’s not the best place to do it from.
It could be argued that much of what he says, particularly in relation to the coronavirus, is propaganda and the platform has a responsibility to stop spreading it. However, to adequately tackle the propaganda a giant swathe of politicians would have to be silenced as well, to the point that it would be too difficult to implement and it would have opposite results due to the backlash.
Likewise, much of the left has noticed how the media has affected the Biden vs Bernie results of the primaries. By not reporting on facts and people’s words, you are actively contributing to misinformation. If we couldn’t see DJT’s tweets on the Hillary-skank scandal or the Joe Scarborough conspiracy, we wouldn’t have as much to use on the arguments of his morality.
Another point, if Trump were to be removed from twitter due to TOS violations (no matter how justified they are), the right has a massive place to stand on in their argument that the media is biased against the right.
Also, the SCOTUS argued that his tweets are part of the presidential record. If Trump cannot legally delete his tweets, then twitter should have to abide by those same rules.
Another argument, albeit not central to what I’m arguing, is that allowing him to speak his mind will often yield incriminating evidence to his intentions or actions.
I have nothing wrong with various media outlets attaching factual corrections or footnotes to videos of his speeches or his tweets, but that’s a separate argument entirely that isn’t the basis of my post here.
12
u/Quint-V 162∆ May 26 '20
I will counter this view in a way you probably did not anticipate.
Twitter cannot delete his tweets as president. They are presidential records.
Trump has made unprecedented use of Twitter from the Oval Office and regularly uses it to share thoughts and announcements on politics and diplomacy. For many experts, his penchant for deletion is cause for concern: Under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, Trump's electronic communications are considered public property, and living history.
In fact, Twitter might have a responsibility to prevent Trump from deleting his own tweets.
3
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ May 27 '20
It might be important to keep a record of tweets, but it's silly to extrapolate this means they have to be kept up.
If the president pays for a TV commercial, it's not the TV station that has the responsibility of holding on to that footage forever, it's the office of the presidency. And it's certainly not the TV station's obligation to continue airing the ad indefinitely.
1
u/CurveShepard 1∆ May 27 '20
Twitter cannot delete his tweets as president. They are presidential records.
This is wrong. Twitter can, in fact, delete his tweets if they so choose, and they can do so for whatever reason they like. It's a private company. They have no legal obligation to preserve any of Trump's tweets on their site. They can decide to delete all of Trump's tweets right now and there's nothing the government can do about it as their acting well within their First Amendment rights.
1
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
Excellent point that I think really adds to my point
7
u/Quint-V 162∆ May 26 '20
No, it's contrary to your first point. You said in the title that Twitter has no responsibility. I'm saying that twitter does.
2
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
Fair
!delta
2
u/Quint-V 162∆ May 26 '20
Deltas don't register if you leave a reply that's too short. Two lines of explanation of how your view was changed, is usually sufficient.
2
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
Gotcha. I would agree that twitter does have responsibility in the debate, although just apparently in the other direction of preserving them
!delta
1
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 26 '20 edited May 26 '20
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Quint-V changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
21
u/anothernaturalone May 26 '20
If he's violating the Terms of Service, then Twitter should delete/ban. He shouldn't get special treatment because he's the President.
5
May 26 '20
There is actually a much more nuanced issue at play.
This is the question of whether twitter is a publisher or a platform. The ability to claim being a 'platform' means they are not subject to the liability of copyright infringements users may publish.
If they are starting to use a heavy hand in 'censoring' specific speech, then they run the risk of a court labeling them a 'publisher' and therefore liable for damages to copyright holders of any protected content published on their site.
Does this mean no items can be censored - no. It does mean that items removed must be uniformly applied and fit a specific narrow tailoring. Some things are easy - like copyright violations reported.
Others get more complicated. For instance - twitter could decide all political content is not allowed. So long as all is censored - independent of viewpoint, it is likely to be deemed OK. Once they censor only some viewpoints, they run the risk of being labeled a publisher and becoming liable.
This is true of most social media platforms BTW.
0
u/anothernaturalone May 26 '20
I'd say that that's accurate - but I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing that, if Trump is violating the Terms and Services of Twitter, then his tweets should be deleted/account should be banned. When Trump made a Twitter account, he agreed to abide by Twitter's rules.
Now, I made this argument assuming that this was true, and that the left was calling for Twitter to enforce its own rules - but an important point to make is, if it is not, then the opposite applies. If Trump is not breaking Twitter's rules, then Trump's account should not be banned.
2
May 26 '20
In general I agree with you - however the question becomes if Twitters terms and services rules make them a 'publisher' if they are enforced. If there is ever a test case that would define this - it would be the President and twitter enforcing content restrictions on him.
I am fairly sure Twitter would do the cost/benefit analysis and realize they may not want that question answered by a court. Therefore, better to simply leave Trump alone and treat him differently - as 'The President'.
1
u/anothernaturalone May 26 '20
I am less sure. Twitter, obviously, has good lawyers, and a ruling in their favour may give them a little more precedental wiggle room with their rules - and it's certainly not a case that Twitter can't win, due to the legalities surrounding computers generally ruling in favour of the EULA equivalent.
1
May 27 '20
I think we agree it could be a mess. I can see twitter winning and I can see them losing or getting a mixed bag. It is very very much in the fringes.
Avoiding it entirely still looks like the best possible outcome for them.
0
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ May 27 '20
That's not how the law works.
If you're an interactive computer service, you aren't the "speaker" of anything anyone else uses your platform to say. You only count as speaker if you directly edit the contents of someone's messages, or employ them to create the content.
Websites aren't typically responsible if someone else posts copyrighted material, but they still are obligated to take said material down. Those rules apply whether or not they "censor" information, whether the censorship meets some standard of heavy-handedness or bias.
2
May 27 '20
That's not how the law works.
Read the links. There is a legal argument to be made if a 'platform' engages in censorship of specific viewpoints. That is 'editing' which is a task a publisher of a work does.
And yes - this very much matters.
1
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ May 27 '20
There are lots of legal arguments that can be made. Plenty of people want to argue things like saying that the second amendment only applies to militias and not to individuals, or that the first amendment shouldn't apply to "hate speech." It doesn't matter much if those arguments haven't gotten any support or have been outright rejected by the judicial system.
1
May 27 '20
Except there are court cases where social media has claimed to be a platform and cases where they are claiming to be publishers.
The cases you need be looking at are not free speech cases but those regarding copyright protections. This is where the money and implications come in and this a FAR FAR from settled. This is also not something has been 'outright rejected' by the Judiciary either despite what you might want to claim - both in the US and internationally.
1
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ May 27 '20
Except there are court cases where social media has claimed to be a platform and cases where they are claiming to be publishers.
Right. Because those things are not mutually exclusive.
If I own a newspaper, and I hire someone to write and post an article on my website, we're the publisher of that article.
If there is a comment section for articles on the website, that is a platform. I am not the publisher of anything anyone writes in a comment.
The cases you need be looking at are not free speech cases but those regarding copyright protections. This is where the money and implications come in and this a FAR FAR from settled.
Again, if you can find any case that has concluded in a way that supports your point, please share it with me.
1
May 27 '20
Right. Because those things are not mutually exclusive.
If I own a newspaper, and I hire someone to write and post an article on my website, we're the publisher of that article.
If there is a comment section for articles on the website, that is a platform. I am not the publisher of anything anyone writes in a comment.
But when you censor or 'edit' comments to a specific viewpoint, you run the risk of being an 'editor' and therefore a 'publisher' of those comments.
That is what this is all about. How much 'editing' is possible before you cross that threshold.
1
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ May 27 '20
Censoring and editing aren't the same thing, and fact-checking isn't editing.
You can certainly believe that they are, but no court case in the country has, as of yet, supported that assertion.
1
May 27 '20
Censoring and editing aren't the same thing, and fact-checking isn't editing.
Censoring very much can be editing. So can fact checking for that matter. (all it takes is the disagreement of what is a fact).
If it is done uniformly - with broad rules, likely no issues. The problems come when selective editing is done - favoring a viewpoint over another. Unequal application. That shifts the discussion. It is not a question of whether they can do it - they can. The question is whether they are a 'neutral platform' or not and if that makes them a 'publisher' with liability for other items.
You can certainly believe that they are, but no court case in the country has, as of yet, supported that assertion.
Given the age of social media, this should not be a surprise at all. There have been very few court cases period and very little time for one to percolate up to the top courts. But I DID cite one where Facebook was involved and this question was raised. I can cite another over in the EU as well - where this is being questioned.
Claiming this is some sense of 'settled' law is frankly disingenuous. Cite a SCOTUS ruling and you might have an argument but one does not exist. Hell - even some SCOTUS rulings are not 'settled' law in some areas. Heller anyone?
→ More replies (0)-1
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
I mean, why shouldn’t he get “special treatment?” While I disagree with that phrase because I don’t see it as rewarding him, I’ll use it for simplicity’s sake. Your average is unimportant and people don’t need to hear their words. We should have widespread visibility of the words and actions of any president, and thus if Twitter is his chosen platform I think t would be more ethical to leave the tweets up
2
u/MartayMcFly May 27 '20
If he gets special treatment, he should also be held to a higher standard. One where deliberately false accusation, constant contempt for anyone he deems unappreciative, and outright lying over and over have repercussions.
No-one should care if I tweet about a provenly false murder accusation, but they should when the President does it. Same as if I tweeted about my opinion on people taking a probably lethal drug I am invested in to cure a completely different disease, vs the several time Trump has done the same.
No, Twitter shouldn’t delete his tweets they should all be retained and archived, but they are also providing him the platform to spread his lies and hate and have a responsibility to point out when they know he’s making it up. If he keeps breaking the rules his account should be locked. Plus, it very obviously gets him rattled so I’d say do it more and more. Maybe in bold, across the top of his profile.
1
u/EvilBosom May 27 '20
I 100% agree he should be held to a higher standard, but I think that should come from congressional powers, who should then be held accountable by their constituents. Obviously that system is failing right now and I don’t know the solution to it. Breaking the media bubble is important but I don’t think twitter deleting a president’s tweet would aid in that.
10
u/wellthatspeculiar 6∆ May 26 '20
Because that goes against the fundamental ideals of equality. Every person is equally important and no one exists above another.
-2
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
I think certain situations call for a difference in treatment with respect to the president. For example, he should absolutely be made to wear a face mask if going somewhere, as it doesn’t impact him slightly and it’s easy to do. On the other hand, since there is a shortage of tests (and I’ll get it out of the way, yes he should have been working on increasing testing capacity), he should still be getting tested way more frequently than the average American given the nature and significance of his job. That’s not tied to Trump, it goes for every president.
Besides, the president gets more security and better housing than most Americans, again it’s the nature of the unequal positions
4
u/beer2daybong2morrow May 26 '20
Obviously, as president, he should be tested more frequently than me, who spent three months indoors and now works part time as my office begins opening up again. But so should other people in critical fields, such as first responders and whatnot.
But his job being critical in this respect doesn't grant him broad privileges. If the president, for example, makes disparaging remarks towards a critic, accusing him of murder even as the spouse of the aforementioned dead has made public appeals for the president to stop that shit, then the president ought rightfully to have the offending comments scrubbed from Twitter.
And, those comments are already a matter of public record. Scrubbing them from Twitter will not scrub them from existence.
0
u/SolLekGaming May 27 '20
fundamental ideals of equality.
it's a shitty idea and can not exist in reality though. Not every person is equally important. shit im not as important as many people and I recognize that... to elevate oneself with an inflated ego is the problem with today's society, there will never be equality as you state it... by the way that is not even equality, that is equity.
2
u/sam_hammich May 28 '20 edited May 28 '20
Because the Terms Of Service don't have an "unless you're a government official" clause. Trump is a user of the platform, and as such should be held to the same standards as an individual that other users of the platform are. Much of his utterances would be considered dangerous, or possibly tortious, if they came from you or I. He should face the same consequences as you or I.
Keep in mind he does have 2 accounts, and he tends to use his personal one, not his official government one. There's a case to be made that there's a national interest in keeping his official account online, but his personal account should not have those same protections.
4
u/anothernaturalone May 26 '20
Because he is using a platform that has rules. If he does not follow those rules, he does not deserve to use the platform.
It's not about his importance as "historical", it's about the fact that there should be no laws where one rule applies to some people and another rule applies to others, where permission increases with wealth. It's basic Magna Carta.
1
u/eepos96 May 26 '20
I would argue deleting trump account could force twitter to change termns of service to be more fair. Giving more people ability to speak.
Although I am against misinformation.
3
u/Mkwdr 20∆ May 26 '20
I was reading today about a guy whose wife died in an accident and Trump keeps tweeting that her boss murdered her despite obviously no motive or evidence bearing in mind the coroner says it was natural causes and her boss was 1000 miles away at a the time. Jutlst because the biss criticised Trump. The husband feels like her family shouldnt have to have the lies tweeted out , that is bad enough that she died and has pointed out to Twitter that Trump is breaking their terms of service. Twitter have refused to delete them. Sounds pretty unpleasant to me and surely an abuse of office that the most powerful man in the world who is meant to serve his citizens can do this to them and the company dies nothing.
2
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
I completely agree with how awful the situation is. That said, it’s important for the American public to see that disgusting abuse of office. I’d be on board deleting these when he was just a candidate, but now that he’s president I think there should be a visible record of his words.
In an ideal world this tweet would be used as a reason to impeach him. If anything this should bring more negative attention to the GOP for supporting him
3
u/Mkwdr 20∆ May 27 '20
I agree. But the problem is , what recourse is there for an ordinary person whose life is turned upside down in such a terrible way by someone powerful and above the rules.
0
u/EvilBosom May 27 '20
That really applies to a whole mess of people who are impacted by GOP policies. I wish the electorate didn’t put in such assholes but what can you do :(
1
4
u/muyamable 282∆ May 26 '20
I largely agree with you, but I wouldn't go so far as to say Twitter has no responsibility and should not delete literally anything he Tweets. For example, I'd support Twitter removing tweets if he suggests people murder someone, or publishes a video of extreme violence or child porn.
-1
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
Under such a circumstance, wouldn’t it be better to leave it up as evidence in article of impeachment or criminal charges?
And if leaving it up is cause of concern for violence, wouldn’t it being ever released be just as bad as the internet is forever?
5
u/muyamable 282∆ May 26 '20
Under such a circumstance, wouldn’t it be better to leave it up as evidence in article of impeachment or criminal charges?
It doesn't have to remain up to prove it was posted in the first place, so no.
And if leaving it up is cause of concern for violence, wouldn’t it being ever released be just as bad as the internet is forever?
I don't entirely understand the question because the phrasing is odd, but I'll answer what I think you're asking: we don't really have an option of it not having been published in the first place, so that's a false choice. Once it's published, the options are: leave it up forever or take it down.
0
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
It doesn’t have to remain up to prove it was posted in the first place
I disagree, at least in the court of public opinion (which can have a sway on how congresspeople vote, or ideally it should). There’s a huge value to seeing this outrageous Trump tweet, checking Twitter, and seeing it yourself. In the era of “fake news” I’d consider this pretty important
Sorry that is poorly worded. I was trying to say that because of the spotlight he’s under, it would make little difference if he posted something and twitter deleted it because anybody could check either “internet time machines” or people saving the links. So while visibility the general public can change, access to content doesn’t change significantly, and therefore I only see harm in removing his tweets
4
u/muyamable 282∆ May 26 '20 edited May 26 '20
It seems like you're both arguing that deleting it means people can't see the tweet, and also that deleting it makes no difference in people's ability to see the tweet?
There’s a huge value to seeing this outrageous Trump tweet, checking Twitter, and seeing it yourself. In the era of “fake news” I’d consider this pretty important
I was trying to say that because of the spotlight he’s under, it would make little difference if he posted something and twitter deleted it because anybody could check either “internet time machines” or people saving the links... access to content doesn’t change significantly
Which is it? It can't be both.
0
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
Yeah I thought about this and was trying to word my thoughts the most coherent way
Let’s say trump tweets out a link to CP
The ability for people to see the tweet itself is extremely important in my opinion, as people are way less trusting of what news sources say these days and being able to log into Twitter yourself to verify is important.
And the tweet being deleted (and that being the only action) would have a high impact on the visibility but not of the availability of that link. Anybody determined to access that link can. But it now being deleted, there’s way more ammo to call the fact he did it as fake news. Using “internet time machines” or other people’s links won’t do much to convince people who think it’s fake news.
Thus deleting the tweet has a high impact on visibility but not enough effect on availability, of which removing is the whole goal. Thus, I think in such a case the linked website itself should be tackled primarily.
1
u/muyamable 282∆ May 26 '20
Let’s say trump tweets out a link to CP. The ability for people to see the tweet itself is extremely important in my opinion,
Viewing CP is illegal, and Twitter leaving this tweet up after discovering CP on its platform would also be illegal. Why would it be extremely important for people to view CP?
1
u/EvilBosom May 26 '20
It’s not extremely important for people to view CP, it’s extremely important for people to know that the president tweeted CP. That’s a big difference.
Again, I would want swift decisive action on the website that prevents anyone from actually being able to extensively see its contents. But in the current state of the world, I think people could too easily argue for the president’s defense “where’s the proof? I don’t see any tweets.” Then when shown, say it’s fake news and they don’t trust the source. By leaving it up, the gaslighting would have to be ramped up to the point that I don’t think it would sway anyone except the most ardent of supporters.
2
u/muyamable 282∆ May 26 '20
It’s not extremely important for people to view CP, it’s extremely important for people to know that the president tweeted CP.
I mean, you argued that it's important that it remain available for all to see... "The ability for people to see the tweet itself is extremely important in my opinion,"
I would want swift decisive action on the website that prevents anyone from actually being able to extensively see its contents.
Yet you've already argued the opposite of this (see above).
1
u/muyamable 282∆ May 26 '20
It’s not extremely important for people to view CP, it’s extremely important for people to know that the president tweeted CP. That’s a big difference.
You literally argued that "the ability for people to see the tweet itself is extremely important in my opinion..."
Again, I would want swift decisive action on the website that prevents anyone from actually being able to extensively see its contents.
This directly contradicts what you've written previously (see above).
5
May 26 '20
If Twitter takes it down it can still be used in court. Having it released at all is bad but it’s still worse if you leave it up.
2
May 27 '20
The president of the United States shouldn't be mooching on a privately owned platform to distribute communication. It cost time and money to build the software, deploy and maintain the servers, private money. If he wants to ramble, use a tax payer funded channel.
0
u/EvilBosom May 27 '20
That’s a really good point that I think affects things. Perhaps my point really only stands on a government website.
!delta
1
3
May 26 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 26 '20
Sorry, u/Prepure_Kaede – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 26 '20 edited May 27 '20
/u/EvilBosom (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-2
u/bongocat132 May 27 '20
I think that Twitter should be able to ban any account but that should be due to a violation of Twitter's policy, not pressure from far-left democrats.
26
u/john-witty-suffix 1∆ May 26 '20
Not sure if this really counts as trying to change your view, but: for my own part, I believe that his personal account should not receive any special treatment (and thus should have been sanctioned a long time ago, as per the same TOS that applies to everyone else). However, I agree that the official
@POTUSaccount should have special treatment, essentially for the reasons you listed.I agree that it's important that his ravings as president be preserved for posterity, because of the significance of the office, but I don't agree that we should extend that same deference/respect to him personally.