United States president Donald Trump proposed a regulation that removes the immunity enjoyed by social networks when they censor content.
On Thursday 28 May, United States president Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at reducing the ability of social network companies to censor or flag content published by their users — even when that content is false, inaccurate or fosters social hatred. Until now, the administrators of platforms such as Twitter or Facebook have enjoyed substantial "immunity", which has shielded them from potential legal disputes when deciding, for example, to delete a post. Now, with the new regulation sought by the White House, the freedom of action of web giants is set to be significantly curtailed. Regulatory authorities will in fact be able to intervene to assess whether companies have or have not infringed freedom of expression, should they take action on users' posts.
The decree was presented and signed just days after an event that personally concerned Trump himself. Twitter flagged two of the president's tweets as "potentially misleading" — without deleting them, but attaching a link to further information about facts that the American leader had allegedly reported incorrectly. Speaking from the Oval Office before signing the executive order, Trump stated that his decision was aimed at "defending free speech from one of the greatest dangers it has ever faced in American history".
"On social media," Trump added, "a handful of companies control a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States. They have had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens."
There are, however, certain "limits" to what the president can do in this area. The executive order signed by Trump calls on the Department of Commerce and Attorney General William Barr to propose a change to the law to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the United States government agency responsible for telecommunications. This body is independent of the government and will have to decide whether or not to amend the current rules, treating social networks on a par with newspapers. In particular, Trump is asking the FCC to assess whether social networks could lose the protections granted by "Section 230" of the Communications Decency Act if they remove or block content deemed to have been acted upon "in bad faith". The decree as signed will therefore have no immediate consequences, and may have none at all if the FCC does not decide accordingly.
What is clear is that Trump is seeking to reduce the power of major social media platforms by reinterpreting a law that has protected websites and technology companies from legal action since 1996. It is no coincidence that industry experts have raised a series of concerns about the proposal. In their view, it could prove unconstitutional, because it attempts to bypass the other two branches of government — namely Congress and the Supreme Court — and because it risks violating the rights enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
The executive order intensifies Trump's escalation against social media companies, which are themselves wrestling with the growing problem of disinformation on social media. The American president has long accused social networks of censoring his views. On Thursday, however, Trump acknowledged that legal challenges lie ahead, admitting he is "sure they'll sue. I would imagine," the president continued, "that the executive order will be challenged in court".
The text signed by Trump attacks, as noted, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law enacted in 1996 to regulate the liability of internet service providers. The provision has been nicknamed, owing to the brevity of its text, "the 26 words that created the internet". Technology companies, including social networks, are not legally liable for the content that users publish on social networks, given that they are "platforms" and not newspapers, which are instead directly responsible for the content of their articles.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Communications Decency Act, Section 230
Trump, on the contrary, believes that news outlets and social networks should be treated in the same way — legally as well. "This practice of censorship (that allegedly carried out against the tycoon's social media activity by Twitter, ed.) is fundamentally un-American and undemocratic. When large and powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power," the United States president concluded.
In this specific case, the two "incriminated" tweets were scrutinised by the social network's administrators on Tuesday 26 May. The first claimed, without evidence, that mail-in voting would lead to widespread electoral fraud against Americans. Trump immediately rejected the platform's assessment, accusing it of censorship and warning that if it continued to scrutinise his messages, he would use the power of the federal government to suppress that right and perhaps eliminate it altogether. The decree signed by Trump specifically cites Twitter for the "selective" application of labels that brand certain tweets as unreliable. The American billionaire, however, also includes references in the decree to Google, which in his view helps the Chinese government surveil American citizens, while Facebook profits from advertising coming from that same Asian nation.
The latest confrontation with Twitter serves Trump's purpose of fuelling his narrative, according to which powerful social media companies are allied against him, and his would be the only voice his supporters can trust. "This plays directly into President Trump's campaign," said Jason Miller, communications director for Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. "They've given him an enormous gift."
In the same way, Trump's political allies rushed to his defence: "Twitter is engaging in electoral interference in the presidential race. It's putting its thumb on the like scale of the race for the White House," said Florida Republican representative Matt Gaetz, a staunch Trump supporter who appeared on the War Room Pandemic podcast produced by Steve Bannon, the former American president's ex-strategist, a reference point for the American far right and founder of a "sovereigntist school" in Italy at the Certosa di Trisulti, in the province of Frosinone. Trump's campaign manager, Brad Parscale, announced that he no longer wanted to sponsor the president's posts on the social network — that is, pay to ensure them greater visibility — and accused the giant of having intentionally influenced the elections to target the president.
Also taking a stand against the bird-logo social network was Mark Zuckerberg: "I strongly believe that Facebook should not be the arbiter of truth for everything that people say online," said the company's chief executive in an interview with Fox. "Private companies, especially these platforms used by millions of users, should not be in a position to do that." While waiting to see what will happen, however, the entrepreneur added: "In general, I think that a government choosing to censor a platform because it's concerned about that platform's censorship is not the right reaction."
Facebook and Google stated that Trump's proposal risks damaging the entire digital economy. "By exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say, you penalise those that choose to allow their users to pursue disputes that are not backed by evidence. Under the amendment proposed by President Trump, platforms would be encouraged to censor anything that might offend or mislead anyone," Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement. Twitter declared at the end of the turbulent day of 26 May that Trump's executive order is a reactionary and politicised approach to a landmark law: "The #Section230 protects American innovation and freedom of expression, and is underpinned by democratic values," the company tweeted. "Attempts to undermine it threaten the future of online debate and internet freedom."
Trump's tweet of 29 May referring to the anti-racist unrest in Minneapolis that began following the death of George Floyd, who was killed by police on 25 May. Twitter placed a warning in front of the United States president's post stating that the content violates the social network's rules on the glorification of violence
Friday 29 May, the Twitter vs Trump saga gains a new episode. A dramatic one. In a tweet, the United States president says he spoke with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and "told him that the military is with him all the way." A step back: on 25 May in Minneapolis,
