The Twitter Fairness Doctrine

from The Gray Area:

The WSJ article below is correct in its many points on this issue of Twitter hypocrisy and social media bias. Normally, the final point that Mr. Trump can just get off their platform is one that should always be supported. However, in this instance it misses the point. Presented as honest, grassroots and truthful by Twitter itself and the rest of the mainstream and social media universe requires a counter by someone. Mr Trump may still indeed get off their platform, but in addition, he must expose the hypocrisy, bias and lies that are clearly part of their business.

from The Wall Street Journal,

Trying to enforce online ‘neutrality’ is a fool’s errand. Users can make up their own minds.

Section 230 says internet platforms, acting in good faith, can nix anything they find “obscene,” “harassing,” or “otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” Mr. Trump’s order calls on regulators to clarify when content moderation might be considered in bad faith, such as if it’s “pretextual,” inconsistent with the terms of service, or performed without giving users “adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

Do Islamism and white separatism count as “political viewpoints,” in which case muting extremists could be counted as “bias”? Could a site be dinged for booting Louis Farrakhan or Alex Jones, the conspiracist who has called the Sandy Hook shooting a hoax? Maybe the courts would be asked to sort it out. The Constitution protects fringe views, but it doesn’t require Twitter or Facebook to disseminate them.

djacent to this flagrant conduct is an expansive area covered by “community standards.”

djacent to this flagrant conduct is an expansive area covered by “community standards.”

More From The Wall Street Journal (subscription required):

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )