Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Zuck And Cover
from the ctrl-alt-speech dept
Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.
Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
- Here’s why Meta ended fact-checking, according to experts (ABC News)
- Meta Follows Elon Musk’s Lead, Moves Staffers to Billionaire-Friendly Texas (Wired)
- Leaked Meta Rules: Users Are Free to Post “Mexican Immigrants Are Trash!” or “Trans People Are Immoral” (The Intercept)
- Trust & Safety is how platforms put values into action (T&S Insider from Everything in Moderation)
- Nadler Releases Democratic Staff Report on Republicans’ Deluded Theory to Undermine Free Speech (House Committee on the Judiciary)
- EU vows to ‘energetically’ pursue X probe under Digital rulebook (Bloomberg)
- Twitter Briefly Blocked The NY Post, Elon Cried Foul. Now He’s Doing Far Worse (Techdirt)
- The Great Decentralization (Noema Mag)
If you’re in London on Thursday 30th January, join Ben, Mark Scott (Digital Politics) and Georgia Iacovou (Horrific/Terrific) for an evening of tech policy, discussion and drinks. Register your interest.
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund.
Filed Under: content moderation, dsa, elon musk, fact checking, mark zuckerberg
Companies: meta, tiktok, twitter, x
Comments on “Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Zuck And Cover”
I wonder if Meta’s capitulating to rightwing extremes will further the incentive for democrats to get rid of section 230.
It..probably won’t, since that’s not where the issue really lies, but at this point it really feels like we’re treading unpredictable territory.
Re:
I wouldn’t guess that they’d be stupid enough to break the internet to counter a potentially temporary issue.
Re: Re:
Actually, what prevents Trump from just rewriting/abolishing section 230, or worse, as part of an executive action the minute he’s in office? And can (or rather would) anyone be able to feasibly prevent it from taking effect?
Re: Re: Re:
230 is legislation. He’d need an alternate piece of legislation put in front of him to sign that overrides 230 or he’d need a SCOTUS decision from a case that’s already gone through the long and tedious appeals process. He wouldn’t be able to do anything day one.
If you look at some of the executive orders Trump put out during his last term, a lot of what was claimed wasn’t actually true. “Trump outlaws X” was the headline, but the actual wording of the executive order was tempered by the fact he wasn’t able to do what what was being claimed. The text ended up being more like “The president directs Congress to review and reconsider X…” Trump’s always been an idiot who doesn’t understand he’s not king and his aides and cabinet have to tell him, “you can’t actually do that.”
This time around, he’ll have more sycophantic aides and cabinet members, so they’ll be more likely to yes man him and pretend it can be done and they’re probably more likely not to know it can’t be done (legally), so look for even Republican courts shutting down bad orders.
He also greatly benefits from 230, as does Musk, so if anyone in the room has any sense, they’ll talk him out of doing something stupid. Without 230, Truth Social and X suddenly become more easily sued for third party speech, regardless of the actual outcome of the lawsuits. That’s costly and time-consuming and it’ll be a distraction from them pursuing their machinations.
Re: Re: Re:2
Huh, I see. Thank you for explaining this to me!
Re: Re: Re:2 re
Your points highlight the complexities of presidential authority and the legal framework surrounding Section 230. Executive orders cannot override legislation like 230 without Congressional action or a Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing the limits of executive power. This was evident during Trump’s first term, where many orders were symbolic rather than enforceable.
You’re also correct about the importance of Section 230 for platforms like Truth Social and X. Removing its protections would expose these platforms to significant legal risks, creating costly distractions from their core operations. This contradiction makes it unlikely they would pursue such changes if fully understood.
Finally, the concern about “yes men” in advisory roles is valid. Good governance depends on advisors who present legal realities, not just affirm decisions. Courts, even conservative ones, have shown they will check executive overreach, reinforcing the importance of a balanced approach to policymaking.
Re: Re: Re:3
Thank you for the in depth analysis, ChatGPT.
very interested to see what happens with SCOTUS considering the TikTok ban’s constitutionality.
Speaking from across the pond; the DSA, Online Safety Act and similar laws have started going into effect. Those laws contain provisions to enforce ISP-level blocks of entire platforms if they fail to comply with regulatory requirements. I wonder if a (currently hypothetical) TikTok ban would set the precedent to regulators?
Apparently the free-speech loving USA is cool with blocking a platform due to privacy and national security concerns. Well, here are a bunch of US-based companies who we have longstanding privacy issues with. And who actually have colluded in spying operations against our governments and nationals(See the Edward Snowden leaks).
Maybe that regulatory ban-hammer starts to look less like a last resort?
Re:
That’s the pretext. It’s actually about silencing pro-Palestinian speech.
Re: Re:
No, it’s actually about silencing dissent against Israeli government-funded terrorism.