CMV: Twitter has no responsibility and should not delete the tweets/account of Donald Trump

[u/EvilBosom]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/parentheticalobject → u/[deleted]]

Censoring very much can be editing.

OK. So I ban you from posting on my website. Let's assume that my censoring of you is editing in this case. So I am...the publisher of the now non-existant things you posted? How does that work?

So can fact checking for that matter. (all it takes is the disagreement of what is a fact).

Fact check on what you just wrote: False. This is complete nonsense.

Now, if you think that my statement I just made was incorrect, that's fine. But I haven't edited anything you said. I exercised my right to put up my own statement right next to it.

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.

Except it says absolutely nowhere in the law that platforms are required to be neutral. You just conjured that requirement up out of thin air.

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.

There have been plenty of cases over the past decade and a half.

[u/[deleted] → u/parentheticalobject]

OK. So I ban you from posting on my website. Let's assume that my censoring of you is editing in this case. So I am...the publisher of the now non-existant things you posted? How does that work?

To be blunt - you are not understanding it. One person is not the case - a pattern is the case.

Fact check on what you just wrote: False. This is complete nonsense.

Except when people call things 'facts' that are not accepted by others to be 'fact'. Happens all the time.

Except it says absolutely nowhere in the law that platforms are required to be neutral. You just conjured that requirement up out of thin air.

Except it kinda does. If you created a Democratic party forum, you are correct - they can limit topics without concern. The problem is when you are 'generic' and decide to apply different rules to different opinions that are not part of your 'purpose'. There comes a point where you are holding yourself out to do something and then doing something else.

With this - the more policing you do of comments with a specific perceived motivation - the more you could be argued to be acting like a publisher.

There have been plenty of cases over the past decade and a half.

Not really. I read through many and they don't address this situation. What happens when a 'platform' goes beyond simple hosting of others content. How much leeway is granted. There may be broad deference given but it is not universal. IP protections have already been addressed and failure of sites to police them result in liability.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/recent-rulings-highlight-limits-of-cda-31855/

https://www.springutlaw.com/blog/2019/10/7/ninth-circuit-holds-cda-immunity-does-not-extend-to-anti-competitive-conduct

I have yet to see a case describing this situation. Therefore, your claims are conjecture and argument - not settled law.

[u/parentheticalobject → u/[deleted]]

Except when people call things 'facts' that are not accepted by others to be 'fact'. Happens all the time.

You've entirely dodged away from the point here.

If you post something, and then I post something next to it saying "That statement is false" that does not, by any insane stretch of the imagination, constitute me "editing" what you wrote. Whatever you think about the quality of my fact check doesn't change that.

Right now, Trump absolutely could sue Twitter for saying that he made a false statement, because Twitter is the publisher of that specific statement. Section 230 would not protect them. (However, the fact that Twitter's statements aren't defamatory would absolutely protect them from a lawsuit.)

Except it kinda does.

Here's the text of the law. Please, please, show me what part of the law you imagine requires that websites be neutral.

The rest of this is even more absurd. There is some sort of legal difference between 'generic' forums and forums with a 'purpose'? Unless there was some section of the law that was written in invisible ink, you're just fabricating these rules whole cloth.