well it could be done right or done wrong
if the distinction of being a publisher comes down to selective application of the regulation to social media sites that aggressively curate and censor content like facebook, reddit and twitter, then that's a net positive for free speech because it will discourage their censorship
if the label is used too loosely even on sites that engage in minimal censorship or none at all like 4chan, then that would actually stifle free speech and be a net negative because it forces them to curate content aggressively

this order would basically shift social media platforms into one of two categories: Those with unrestricted free speech where users submit content freely and get reviewed after the fact, and those heavily moderated and with submissions in approved-only mode. Right now many of these sites have been straddling the divide between those two extremes and trying to censor content and stealth edit and curate without the accountability of being a publisher.

that's why its so important that this EO doesn't just try to make a label of publisher vs platform, but also specifies using fraud statutes to hold social media companies accountable for opaque censorship and hidden algorithms that could constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices. Which is logical, because if your business model is built on user submissions and you purport to have organic content, but in reality you're curating and censoring it with shadowbans and astroturfing, then your business model is based on defrauding your customers.

Editors notes are the work of a publisher, not a platform.

All the bearing in the world is applied here. Stop shilling. What twitter tried to do by posting opinion articles as "fact checks" attached to a PRESIDENT'S tweets was in clear violation of their protection as a platform. They're acting as a publisher.

Facebook is doing the same, as is youtube. The EO will be great.

glad you enjoy big government when it fits your narrative.

No, what will end up happening (most likely) with the EO is that twitter, facbook, and youtube (YouTwitFace) will backtrack on their censorship, make some great big "FINE THEN! WE JUST WON'T CENSOR ANYTHING!" that should have been their policy from day one AS A FUCKING PLATFORM, and all will be well.

If they choose to accept publisher status, then other (actual) platforms such as Minds will take over. If they go with the 5 year old "FINE" and stomp their foot and behave as they always should have, then no harm no foul, business as usual with the exception that lefty censorship takes a MASSIVE hit... Today.

The true awesomesauceness of it all? I remember some of the censorship that was attempted under W. Bush. And none of that shit'd work either. So this'd set the precedent that prevents the left from continuing it, but also prevents the right from doing it in the future.

I'm a true fan. That you're not merely paints you as the obvious shill you are.

Why should a president be treated differently from anybody else On social media?

And it isn't even a fact check. It said it's potentially misleading. You guys keep moving the goal post to fact checking so I don't think we are talking about the same things IMO.

And it is potentially misleading and its an attack is on a state for ensuring its citizens rights to vote.

to break up exploitative and corrupt monopolies?
sounds rooseveltian to me

i know, trump personifies literally the worst part of america but as long as black and brown people are getting killed, detained, or deported, they dont care. Also the same party who are arguing lockdown is against constitutional rights are the same who argue that a woman can't control her own body.

The Communications Decency Act is big government, Trump is attempting to restrict it's scope. That would make Trump small government.

There was nothing special about it being the tweet of the POTUS whatsoever. If they're a publisher.

By pulling this shit against the President, they flaunted that they're so well-protected that they have more power than the President of the United States.

He's about to prove them wrong. Shadow Banning, banning, editors notes (aka this fact check bullshit) is all publisher work. If that's what twitter wants to be, that's fine. That'd make them liable for terrorist attacks arranged via their platform.

Do you start to understand? The protections they're granted are granted on the same exact scale as the protections of a Utility. If they opt to behave as a publisher, rather than a utility, then the code that protects them needs revisited.

Twitter is dumb as fuck.

Edit: I say they're dumb as fuck specifically because they've directly challenged the 1 person on the planet singularly capable and willing to alter their status. They could target senators, house members, celebrities, political commentators, and influencers with impunity (and have). To go heads up against the one person who can do something real in a fit of pique, man... The higher they rise, the harder they fall.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on May 28 2020 02:04pm

Trump is big government man. He is controlling what he wants to control - what personally impacts him and he weaponizes every aspect of the gov to do so when he wants to. If the concern was valid - then yes. His concerns are only because he wants misinformation to be spread and that he wants these twitter bots to continue to do so for him.

Trump's own follower count are mostly bots.