They could always affirm that they are merely “content platforms”, have all of the same 203 protections, continue to be available for Federal dollars, censor whatever they like, with apolitically neutral impartiality, etc.....but then they can’t also be “content creators”, and selectively dis/allow, edit, inhibit or alter content. Or they can self-identify as a “content creator” and do whatever in the hell they want...but they’ll then lose 203 protection, be ineligible for Federal dollars, and able to have their decisions on dis/allowing content, selectively editing it, etc. See, the problem is that they’ve been allowed to have this big, beautiful cake, but also eat it, too. And now, they may be one or the other, whichever they decide for themselves, but it’ll be one and not both. It’s really an entirely legal, sensible, stable and ingenious solution to a long overdue problem. They’ve had years to fix it, but haven’t, and now they’ll have extra motivation to do so, and quickly.
Is posting a fact check tagged to a post but not editing or censoring the content considered content creation or just moderation?
That’s a great question for the company claiming to only being a “content platform”. Later, it’ll be a fantastic question for a court of law, and then it’ll be settled. Anything other than its current and unmitigated state will likely prove crippling, but something will eventually wind its way to the courts. I predict that Big Tech will triple down on their current duplicity, because it’s their only play, albeit not the smartest one.
Social media isn't Bell Telephone. There is no real infrastructure. They can fragment and spin up a new platform, go public, do the same thing, go to court, rinse repeat. Even the window lickers on SCOTUS will realize this, and determine that they are free to perform as they like. They don't have miles of telephone line that need to be rerun to re-create themselves anew. It's just code that is easily re-written. This will go no where.
It also makes no practical sense. Will they block Americans from using a service hosted overseas that doesn't give a shit about this EO? Sounds like China.
Well, I guess we got Twitter's response to this new EO. They flagged his post tonight as violating their rules on "glorifying violence", but kept it up as "public interest". Fantastic. I can't imagine the fit President Veruca Salt will throw in the morning. This will certainly take precedence over any silly civil disturbance.
Oh my gosh, I can’t believe that this all just materialized when Twitter fact-checked that one Tweet! Clearly, this is all about Trump’s becoming a scofflaw and a King.
This has been being and will be played as Trump getting miffed over Twitter, but that isn't the case. This power grab had been coming.
