Read on Twitter
The world clearly needed another take on Twitter vs. Trump...
Here's mine: Twitter is wrong but #Section230 is right.
A quick thread on this week's developments. I'm sure many people from a variety of perspectives will disagree but I think this is right so here goes.
1/
Here's mine: Twitter is wrong but #Section230 is right.
A quick thread on this week's developments. I'm sure many people from a variety of perspectives will disagree but I think this is right so here goes.
1/
First, Twitter is wrong.
Twitter was wrong to "fact check" the President. Not because they can't do that (they can--they have speech rights too) but because they shouldn't.
Twitter/social media cos shouldn't be in the business of policing political speech
2/
Twitter was wrong to "fact check" the President. Not because they can't do that (they can--they have speech rights too) but because they shouldn't.
Twitter/social media cos shouldn't be in the business of policing political speech
2/
Back in January @stand_together laid out what we see as the key values that made the US the dominant tech leader. It's not an accident that we put speech first.
https://twitter.com/jessekblum/status/1221813722940788738
3/
https://twitter.com/jessekblum/status/1221813722940788738
3/
I start from a belief that speech is good and more speech is better.
That's why companies should be clear about their rules, resist efforts by outside interests (including governments) to limit speech, and enforce rules in a transparent and equitable manner.
4/
That's why companies should be clear about their rules, resist efforts by outside interests (including governments) to limit speech, and enforce rules in a transparent and equitable manner.
4/
Why shouldn't Twitter be contributing to the speech here? Because "fact-checking" political speech is a fools errand.
There is no way to ever do so equitably. It sets up Twitter in the middle picking winners & losers.
Can Twitter do this if they want? Yes. Should they? No.
5/
There is no way to ever do so equitably. It sets up Twitter in the middle picking winners & losers.
Can Twitter do this if they want? Yes. Should they? No.
5/
Fact checking political speech is inherently subjective. Political speech is almost ways informed by/based on opinion.
And guess what. Politicians and others engaged in political speech have LOTS of opinions. Many of them are flawed. Politicians lie, often.
6/
And guess what. Politicians and others engaged in political speech have LOTS of opinions. Many of them are flawed. Politicians lie, often.
6/
But even when we're not talking about pure opinions it's still incredibly subjective.
@BrendanNyhan offered a great example on the lawfare podcast from the Obama years. https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-brendan-nyhan-empirical-effects-disinformation
7/
@BrendanNyhan offered a great example on the lawfare podcast from the Obama years. https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-brendan-nyhan-empirical-effects-disinformation
7/
Fact check: Pres. Obama doesn't have a plan to address to national debt
WH: Yes we do, look at this pdf
Fact check: That plan won't pass Congress so you don't have a plan
8/
WH: Yes we do, look at this pdf
Fact check: That plan won't pass Congress so you don't have a plan
8/
Even if there could be agreement on the veracity of fact checks (we can't) and not have them be constantly weaponized for political gain (they will be), they still don't scale.
That means picking and choosing which claims to fact check...who do we want to shame today?
9/
That means picking and choosing which claims to fact check...who do we want to shame today?
9/
That's why FB was right to say they aren't going to fact check political speech (including ads) and Twitter is wrong to do so and to limit paid political speech.
I wrote about why Twitter was wrong to ban political ads last November https://morningconsult.com/opinions/banning-online-political-ads-is-not-a-solution/
10/
I wrote about why Twitter was wrong to ban political ads last November https://morningconsult.com/opinions/banning-online-political-ads-is-not-a-solution/
10/
To be clear, FB's enforcement is at best imperfect but the direction they're headed is right.
Ok, now over to why Trump/others are wrong to attack #Section230
11/
Ok, now over to why Trump/others are wrong to attack #Section230
11/
#Section230 has enabled the greatest EXPANSION in the human speech and connectivity in history.
Conservatives, in particular, who are often excluded from or characterized by legacy media have benefited here.
That's not an accident, that's true for many marginalized groups
12/
Conservatives, in particular, who are often excluded from or characterized by legacy media have benefited here.
That's not an accident, that's true for many marginalized groups
12/
Last summer a group of 53 academics & 28 civil society orgs authored an open letter to policymakers looking to change #Section230
That letter lays out the 7 factors you would need to consider. Effectively 7 tests.
The Trump EO clearly fails https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2992&context=historical
13/
That letter lays out the 7 factors you would need to consider. Effectively 7 tests.
The Trump EO clearly fails https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2992&context=historical
13/
Just because I think that Twitter shouldn't be engaging in the way they are doesn't mean that Pres Trump's response isn't deeply dangerous.
A president is upset about criticism and so is trying to use the powers of his office to silence his critics.
That's wrong. Always.
14/
A president is upset about criticism and so is trying to use the powers of his office to silence his critics.
That's wrong. Always.
14/
To all of the conservatives who are cheering on this week: how would you feel if a Pres. Biden decides he wants to demand that Twitter enforce the rules that he wants?
There is a long history of presidents abusing their powers to try to silence critics.
15/
There is a long history of presidents abusing their powers to try to silence critics.
15/
In fact, my colleagues @neil_chilson and @CaseyMattox_ wrote a whole paper for @knightcolumbia on how antitrust has been/could be abused to silence speech https://knightcolumbia.org/content/the-breakup-speech-can-antitrust-fix-the-relationship-between-platforms-and-free-speech-values
16/
16/
. @PMatzko also has a great new book out on the history of how JFK used the FCC in the 60s to kill conservative talk radio. Read his book and listen to his discussion with @JonahDispatch on @JonahRemnant https://remnant.thedispatch.com/p/the-spirit-of-radio-18f
17/
17/
And that's why @billyez2 from @AFPhq sharply criticized the EO yesterday.
https://americansforprosperity.org/afp-white-house-executive-order-a-counterproductive-step-to-addressing-social-media-bias/
/END
https://americansforprosperity.org/afp-white-house-executive-order-a-counterproductive-step-to-addressing-social-media-bias/
/END
