Wrongdoing anything? Noone could call for his accountability.
You're investigating him? You'll be fired. And every successor of yours who does the same.
You're his friend or donor getting in trouble with law? No problem, it will be taken away.
So, yes, I'd think twice before saying any of his actions would do "nothing".
You may want to read the article.
He's not saying Twitter "can't exist" (and why would he? It's his platform of choice.) -- it seems like they're going to say that if social media companies start editing content, they're no longer platforms and instead publishers, who can be sued for their content.
This could be very problematic for Facebook, Twitter, and Google, who would suddenly be open to a lot of lawsuits based on their users' content.
They could and have been sued all along. Plenty of people file inane lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter and Google all the time for content that gets posted on their services. I wouldn't be quick to imply that these lawsuits would result in successful outcomes for the plaintiffs would it not have been for the existence of Section 230.
You don't think it's a problem that a platform which controls the information that reaches millions of eyes, acting as a mouthpiece for the president, applies a totally subjective "fact check" disclaimer based on an uncharitable interpretation of the president's tweet, while pretending to be politically neutral?
And while ignoring similar misstatements from other politicians on both sides of the aisle?
The issue here, and I cannot stress how dangerous this is for society, is that an entity which gatekeeps information for millions of eyes, is pretending to be a neutral party while overtly manipulating the messages of politicians from one political party.
This creates a manufactured consensus which is influences policy and elections according to the whims of a handful of high level managers/executives at Twitter. It's an abhorrent concentration of unnofficial, unchecked soft power and it was hugely irresponsible and unethical for Twitter to publicly pick a side without a massive disclaimer.
This isn't even getting into the holes in the "fact check". What a joke. How much hubris do you need to believe that your tech company can act as an arbiter of truth?
We (those arguing against you) are not empowering Twitter as the new POTUS, merely trying to minimize the current one’s ability to cause damage via lies and hateful rhetoric. (Things you or I would have been banned for years ago)
There will come a time to deal with Twitter’s societal overreach too.
There is simply no objective definition for either of these concepts and if you may be fine with Twitter having this kind of power now, but you may regret it if the shoe is ever on the other foot.
Having a corporate arbiter of truth is antithetical to a free society, especially when creating one's own platform is impractical because of network effects.
Who is going to fact check the fact checker? Effectively Twitter has the final word because this is their platform - not because they are correct, and if these political squabbles had an objectively correct answer then we wouldn't have multiple parties.
People are find with it right now because it's en Vogue to hate on the president, but that doesn't mean the fact checking is justified or even honest - and I reiterate, the dangerous part here is that people implicitly take Twitter to be an authority when they absolutely are not. Their fact check isn't even accurate, but people don't tend to question what they want to hear.
Twitter's role is a neutral party - the same way that journalists are ultimately doing a disservice to society by editorializing everything while claiming to be neutral. It is dishonest and divides society from the top down.
If Twitter really cared about the "lies and hateful rhetoric" they would have put their money where their mouth is and banned him years ago. It's just a meaningless gesture to drum up more drama, more clicks, more views.
created: 19 minutes ago
-1
Obviously any President has lots of legal options when deciding how any law is applied and interpreted.
It appears that this is a shot across the bow from a political standpoint or to use another military metaphor, Trump is attempting to shape the battlefield on this issue and there are indeed lots of legitimate issues regarding Section 230.
By that you mean games, actual checks and account balances from bribes right? Just another mafia state style leverage play here.
Not that things cannot be significantly improved or that I'm not extremely disappointed with our level of political executive leadership, but if this is what you think a mafia state is, I wonder what you would call the situation in other countries where things are significantly worse.
The zero-sum game disciples are in power and calling the shots. I don't personally subscribe or believe in that ideology but it cannot be denied that the current state of the world is steeped in it.
In game theory, if the other side cheats and your side keeps cooperating, you will lose every time. There is a great little game theory game that highlights it here called The Evolution of Trust [1].
At most there will be courts involved, and the order will be considered null and void. Similar to many of his executive provisions that got declared invalid by the courts.
This is just a narcissistic/rage hissy fits, or just another attempt to create noise and detract from the real issues of this country is facing now.
Basically another political show/childs play from our president