zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?

>>ssorc3+xE1
It depends. And the problem that people have is that social media companies want to be both publishers and platforms.

For example, T-Mobile is a platform. They aren't responsible for anything you say when on the phone, using their network.

CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on their website, and can get sued accordingly.

Social media companies want to choose what is posted on their website, but also not be held responsible for anything that is posted on their website. They want the perks of being a publisher, and the perks of being a platform.

Obviously there are arguments made on both sides. But that is the general disagreement, if I understand correctly.

>>buzzer+xH1
This is precisely what Trump's executive order targets. Section 230 of the CDA gave websites and social media networks a little wiggle room in the platform vs publisher stance. They could moderate as they see fit without being liable for the content on their sites. Now that's being weakening, or more precisely becoming more well defined by the FCC. There will be strict requirements to be considered a platform, one example of which is needing to have a well defined terms of service and strictly follow that all across the board.