Discussion

• @donie Donie O'Sullivan on x

  “If anyone, including a politician, is saying things that can cause, that is calling for violence or could risk imminent physical harm.... we will take that content down.” Zuckerberg told @AOC a few months ago. https://www.cnn.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @teddyschleifer Teddy Schleifer on x

  New Mark Zuckerberg post on Trump: “Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric.” “But I'm responsible for reacting not just in my personal capacity but as the leader of an institution committed to free expression.” https://t…

• @twittercomms @twittercomms on x

  We've taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the Tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance.

• @mikeisaac Rat King on x

  here's his breakdown of how they dissected the President's post, and how they are in or not in line with FB's policies. https://www.facebook.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @scottjshapiro @scottjshapiro on x

  Regardless of where you stand on Facebook's content moderation policy, I hope we can all agree that Mark Zuckerberg is gross https://twitter.com/...

• @binarybits Timothy B. Lee on x

  Zuck is drawing the right distinction here IMO. Inciting private violence is categorically different from advocating violent government policies (including bad ones like shooting looters). It makes sense for social platforms to treat them differently. https://www.facebook.com/...…

• @mikeisaac Rat King on x

  it's only been minutes but the majority of employee responses to Zuckerberg's decision thus far are....not very positive

• @loudmouthjulia Julia Alexander on x

  “I know many people are upset that we've left the President's posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.” Mmm. https://www.facebook.com/...

• @caseynewton Casey Newton on x

  Zuckerberg has decided that Facebook will not take any action against Trump's post about the Minnesota shootings, he just told employees and said in a public post https://www.theverge.com/...

• @ceciliakang Cecilia Kang on x

  Zuckerberg says he left up Trump's post b/c it was...news? “we decided to leave it up because the National Guard references meant we read it as a warning about state action, and we think people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force” https://www.facebook.com/.…

• @etbrooking Emerson T. Brooking on x

  Zuckerberg's statement here is insufficient. Trump was not discussing national security issues; he was contemplating deadly force against American citizens ("THUGS") engaged in civil protest. Lest we forget, Facebook deplatformed Myanmar's military leadership in August 2018. http…

• @jyrkikasvi Jyrki J.J. Kasvi on x

  Okay, is there any discussion, Zuckerberg would not want to discuss “as much as possible”? Like the best ways to brutalise Rohingyas in Myanmar... Well, at least he is consistent. https://www.theverge.com/... käyttäen @Verge

• @charlesarthur Charles Arthur on x

  Interesting point that @gruber raises here: Zuckerberg testified to @aoc that he'd “take that content down” if a politician was calling for violence or could risk physical harm or [voter suppression]". Will she call him back for perjury? https://daringfireball.net/...

• @willoremus Will Oremus on x

  Here's Facebook's equivalent policy, which draws the line between posts about “state use of force” and incitements to nonstate violence. That's slightly more precise than Twitter's, although I suspect some of this is ex post facto justification. https://www.facebook.com/... https…

• @loudmouthjulia Julia Alexander on x

  Disappointed in this seemingly being Facebook's response. https://twitter.com/...

• @tayhatmaker Taylor Hatmaker on x

  the mental contortions in zuck's post about why facebook is keeping trump's “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” post up are really something https://www.facebook.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @willoremus Will Oremus on x

  Interesting that the “most relevant” (as selected by Facebook) comments on Zuckerberg's post defending his decision all seem to lean a certain way https://www.facebook.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @denisewu Denise Wu on x

  Zuckerberg is complicit. Just like complicit Republican enablers. https://twitter.com/...

• @joshconstine @joshconstine on x

  This is such a straw man argument. Facebook doesn't have to take down Trump's post. Start by flagging them as inaccurate! https://twitter.com/...

• @jimwaterson Jim Waterson on x

  Zuckerberg decides not to remove from Facebook the same posts that got Trump censored on Twitter. He (and Facebook's lawyers?) says people should know if President is willing to use force. And unlike Twitter he doesn't read the posts as violent incitement. https://www.facebook.co…

• @daringfireball Daring Fireball on x

  Zuckerberg Cravenly Goes All-In on Trump https://daringfireball.net/...

• @zeynep Zeynep Tufekci on x

  The answer isnt in a close reading of Facebook's policies, but it's interests. https://twitter.com/...

• @mikeisaac Rat King on x

  Twitter and Facebook have the same basic policies around voter suppression and incitement to violence, and trump posted the same stuff to both platforms. Some FB employees are beginning to wonder what line must be crossed for the company to act. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @caseynewton Casey Newton on x

  Here's what employees are saying inside Facebook today about the company's decision not to take action against Trump's threatening posts: “History will not judge us kindly.” https://www.theverge.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @oliverdarcy Oliver Darcy on x

  Zuckerberg: “I know many people are upset that we've left the President's posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.” https://www.facebook.com/..…

• @mikeisaac Rat King on x

  it's this clip. employees are sharing this @AOC on the Zuckerberg all-hands Q&A stream in protest. it is not going well https://twitter.com/...

• @donie Donie O'Sullivan on x

  Here's probably the reason we haven't heard from Facebook today. This is what Zuckerberg told Congress. https://twitter.com/...

• @ananny Mike Ananny on x

  Facebook employees can't explain the company's contortions: “'Would it be possible to explain in more detail the interpretation of our community standards?' one employee asked. ‘Does this post violate them but get an exemption, or is it not violating?’” https://www.theverge.com/.…

• @nicdawes Nicholas Dawes on x

  Policy is necessary for getting this right, but the sufficient condition is leadership https://twitter.com/...

• @laurahuu Laura Halminen on x

  Leaked posts show Facebook employees asking the company to remove Trump's threat of violence: “If we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly” We can see they failed. https://www.theverge.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @danielpunkass Daniel Jalkut on x

  It's hard to quit your job in a time of crisis, but if you work for Facebook and have the flexibility to do so, it would send a message. https://twitter.com/...

• @mattyglesias Matthew Yglesias on x

  In an April 22 scoop, Reuters reported that Facebook had secretly agreed to cooperate with the Vietnamese government in censoring content. https://twitter.com/...

• @slpng_giants @slpng_giants on x

  It's not just users that have an issue with @Facebook's decision not to enforce their own policies on posts with threats of violence, it's their own employees. And it should be their customers, too. If you're advertising on @Facebook, vote with your dollars. You support them. htt…

• @mikeisaac Rat King on x

  Zuckerberg makes the call to keep POTUS' posts up inside Facebook so that people can see them for themselves, despite MZ's own “visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric.” https://www.facebook.com/...

• @jason_kint @jason_kint on x

  A couple things here. 1) Monika Bickert is the Facebook exec who sat with colleague and misled Parliament in Feb 2018 as he stated emphatically Cambridge Analytica wouldn't have Facebook data one month before the world found out that was false. https://twitter.com/...

• @dylanbyers Dylan Byers on x

  NEW Mark Zuckerberg: “I disagree strongly with how the President spoke... but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized...” https://www.facebook.co…

• @alexeheath Alex Heath on x

  Mark Zuckerberg: “I know many people are upset that we've left the President's posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers...” https://www.facebook.com/...

• @clarajeffery Clara Jeffery on x

  If you still work for Facebook...how do you rationalize it? https://twitter.com/...

• @monteiro @monteiro on x

  Another vichy headline from the @nytimes. Mark Zuckerberg didn't “keep Facebook out of it.” Giving the Nazis harbor isn't a neutral stance. It's a complicit stance. Facebook is guilty from top to bottom. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @aoc Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on x

  If you work at Facebook and are inside agitating for change, thank you. Don't let up. Our democracy and the safety of so many lives are in the balance. Workers can tip it for the better. Keep pushing everywhere. We see you. https://twitter.com/...

• @b_fung Brian Fung on x

  Mark Zuckerberg has a blog post defending Facebook's decision not to act against Trump's posts re: Minneapolis. Says he had a “visceral negative reaction” personally, but that he is the “leader of an institution committed to free expression.” https://www.facebook.com/...

• @oneunderscore__ Ben Collins on x

  This wound up being a lie. https://twitter.com/...

• @jasoncfry Jason Fry on x

  History's been saying that for nearly four years now, fellas. https://twitter.com/...

• @jeffbigham Rogue P. Bigham on x

  zuck is sorry that trump incited violence but facebook has done nothing about it, even as twitter did something, ok?!? https://twitter.com/...

• @hshaban Hamza Shaban on x

  Facebook the communications platform with billions of users and incomprehensible amplifying power is very clearly not the same thing as a billboard on the highway. And disinformation explodes the bad speech/good speech thing. But Zuckerberg benefits from this idealized conception…

• @profgalloway Scott Galloway on x

  “Many people in the tech industry believe regulators ... are the one existential risk to Mr. Zuckerberg's business.” Sure won't be his conscience. There isn't one. piece by @MikeIsaac @ceciliakang https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @matthewfederman Matthew Federman on x

  History? The Present isn't judging them kindly. https://twitter.com/...

• @arainert @arainert on x

  “History will not judge us kindly” - FB employees... is a candidate for understatement of the decade. https://twitter.com/...

• @mollyjongfast Molly Jong-Fast on x

  Facebook really really really sucks https://twitter.com/...

• @jesselehrich Jesse Lehrich on x

  Leaked posts show Facebook employees asking the company to remove Trump's threat of violence “If we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly” https://www.theverge.com/...

• @jesselehrich Jesse Lehrich on x

  FACEBOOK EMPLOYEE: “It's been said previously that inciting violence would cause a post to be removed. I too would like to know why the goals shifted, and where they are now.” https://www.theverge.com/...

• @ericschultz Eric Schultz on x

  If he's not going to be responsive to the country, wonder if he'll feel compelled to be responsive to his own team. Expect a lot more reporting on internal dissent. https://twitter.com/...

• @zeynep Zeynep Tufekci on x

  Facebook employees seem to not understand the company they are working for. https://twitter.com/...

• @realdonaldtrump Donald J. Trump on x

  ....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

• @realdonaldtrump Donald J. Trump on x

  I can't stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right.....

• @whitehouse @whitehouse on x

  “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!” h…

• @twittercomms @twittercomms on x

  We have placed a public interest notice on this Tweet from @realdonaldtrump. https://twitter.com/...

• @ajitpaifcc Ajit Pai on x

  Serious question for @Twitter: Do these tweets from Supreme Leader of Iran @khamenei_ir violate “Twitter Rules about glorifying violence”? https://twitter.com/...

• @realdonaldtrump Donald J. Trump on x

  Twitter is doing nothing about all of the lies & propaganda being put out by China or the Radical Left Democrat Party. They have targeted Republicans, Conservatives & the President of the United States. Section 230 should be revoked by Congress. Until then, it will be regulated!

• @scavino45 @scavino45 on x

  Twitter is targeting the President of the United States 24/7, while turning their heads to protest organizers who are planning, plotting, and communicating their next moves daily on this very platform. Twitter is full of shit - more and more people are beginning to get it. https:…

• @whitehouse @whitehouse on x

  The President did not glorify violence. He clearly condemned it. @Jack and Twitter's biased, bad-faith “fact-checkers” have made it clear: Twitter is a publisher, not a platform. https://twitter.com/...

• @toddzwillich Todd Zwillich on x

  “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” is a threat coined by Miami Police Chief Walter Headley, who promised violent reprisals on black protesters in 1967. He also said: “We don't mind being accused of police brutality. They haven't seen anything yet.” https://twitter.co…

• @twittercomms @twittercomms on x

  This Tweet violates our policies regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today. https://help.twitter.com/...

• @brendancarrfcc Brendan Carr on x

  Twitter's censorship here doesn't even appear to fall within the policy it cites. Like any business, Twitter has a right to its views. And like any business, Twitter is accountable for meeting its terms of service. No business gets to violate those terms for political reasons.

• @whitehouse @whitehouse on x

  Twitter, in an email to the White House moments ago, admitted that the very tweet they are censoring does not violate any Twitter rules. So why are they still censoring it? https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @brendancarrfcc Brendan Carr on x

  Twitter has abandoned any attempt at a good faith application of its rules. No one should take comfort in that. Here it is punishing speakers based on whether it approves or disapproves of their politics. https://twitter.com/...

• @fransquishco Fran Tirado on x

  ICYMI, the “looting / shooting” remark is a phrase from the 1960s borrowed from segregationists like George Wallace and Eugene Connor, as well as racist police chief Walter Headley who used shotguns and dogs against unrest in black neighborhoods. https://www.npr.org/...

• @npr @npr on x

  The phrase President Trump tweeted goes back to the Civil Rights Era. It was used by a white police chief with “a long history of bigotry against the black community,” a scholar explains. And a segregationist politician. https://www.npr.org/...

• @donaldjtrumpjr Donald Trump Jr on x

  Because they're leftist hacks trying to manipulate an election... and they're also full of crap. https://twitter.com/...

• @tomwarren Tom Warren on x

  just ban him already 🙄 https://twitter.com/...

• @anthony Anthony DeRosa on x

  The historical context of Trump's use of “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” https://www.wsj.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @ericbolling @ericbolling on x

  Fact check this @Twitter: As a @twitter stockholder, I am dumping my shares today. Rationale: New fact check policy opens #Twitter up to countless lawsuits over erroneous fact-checking and for biased fact-checking. What a can of worms @Jack is opening.. #SellingTwitterStock https…

• @reckless Nilay Patel on x

  Every single argument being made by conservatives about Twitter moderation is an argument they rejected about ISP blocking and throttling in the net neutrality debate. My head hurts

• @jimwaterson Jim Waterson on x

  There's literally no way to win against bad faith actions. People like you and me quote tweeting this with an exasperated comment is the aim. Ignoring it isn't possible. And decision by Twitter to hide it isn't hiding it, it's instead amplifying each tweet on a massive scale. htt…

• @orinkerr Orin Kerr on x

  Trump doesn't care at all about the Constitution, of course, especially when he's trying to scare voters. But actually following a policy of “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” would violate the 4th Amendment, for starters. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). h…

• @jason_kint @jason_kint on x

  And here is the White House official account now with the same tweet labeled serving a notice from Twitter. It's hard to believe Twitter isn't on strong legal ground to do this. That said, the other tech platforms should be supporting Twitter in this right. https://twitter.com/..…

• @pranavdixit @pranavdixit on x

  Twitter just confirmed to @BuzzFeedNews that they put a warning label on the tweets by Trump and the White House based on the historical context of the last line. In 1967, Miami Police Chief Walter Headley used the line to describe his approach to protests in black neighborhoods.…

• @jason_kint @jason_kint on x

  interesting. not sure our agency commissioners should be diving in real-time. I believe this FCC tweet, shared by White House no less, muddies situation especially w Griffin comparison. Her tweet was removed, IOW Twitter took action. The remaining tweet is a news report about it.…

• @piersmorgan Piers Morgan on x

  The White House is officially endorsing the President's threat to shoot Americans. This is absolutely disgraceful. 👇 https://twitter.com/...

• @davidaxelrod David Axelrod on x

  You might ask if this really is the time to cheap shot the mayor of a shaken city & threaten more violence? It is if your MO is to inflame and exploit any crisis for your own perceived political advantage. You see tragedy. He sees opportunity. https://twitter.com/...

• @hughhewitt Hugh Hewitt on x

  This is proof that @Jack checks in from his island annually, and did so on Wednesday then left for the year, leaving George Costanza in charge: https://www.wsj.com/...

• @chrismegerian Chris Megerian on x

  Apart from the profanity, why is a White House advisor criticizing a technology platform for allowing protestors to organize? That seems to fall under freedom of assembly. https://twitter.com/...

• @sruhle Stephanie Ruhle on x

  With all due respect @DanScavino, If @Twitter is so terrible, stop using it. @realDonaldTrump has the ability to reach the public using many other platforms. & he can always accept our invitations for interviews. https://twitter.com/...

• @jonlemire Jonathan Lemire on x

  And now the official White House account reposts the president's tweet that was flagged by Twitter for promoting violence https://twitter.com/...

• @ow @ow on x

  Twitter has finally done the bare minimum after years of condoning these types of tweets. Wild to see Twitter do this while Mark Zuckerberg is saying Facebook shouldn't have to do anything at all. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...

• @pbump Philip Bump on x

  Late Wednesday night: Trump elevates a tweet in which a man says that the only good Democrat is a dead one. Late Thursday night: Trump endorses shooting people who commit property damage. Uh, stay tuned, I guess.

• @orinkerr Orin Kerr on x

  (1) President: Let's shoot looters. (2) Twitter: That violates our terms of service, so we'll put up a warning. It's fascinating to see who thinks the big story is (1) and who thinks the big story is (2).

• @psythor James O'Malley on x

  There is always a tweet! https://twitter.com/...

• @alexia Alexia Bonatsos on x

  Wow. Go @jack https://twitter.com/...

• @alexhern @alexhern on x

  this only ends with Twitter banning Trump and I wonder if Twitter can see that

• @gruber John Gruber on x

  If Twitter has a plan here it's to slowly drive Trump over the edge tweet but tweet. https://twitter.com/...

• @jordanuhl Jordan on x

  twitter has a stronger punishment for the guy who pretended to be a Starbucks manager and said he wouldn't let employees say merry christmas than it does for trump tweeting about instructing the military to massacre people. pretty great

• @rsg Bobby Goodlatte on x

  Amazing leadership from @jack. Standing up for what's right. Standing up against Trump's bigotry & hate-mongering—with the entire company on the line. Thank you. ♥️ https://twitter.com/...

• @franklinleonard Franklin Leonard on x

  Is it someone's job to wake him up to inform him that this happened or do they just wait until he wakes up in the morning and sees it? https://twitter.com/...

• @hshaban Hamza Shaban on x

  — Trump threatens to call the National Guard and says “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” — Twitter places a “public interest notice” on Trump's tweet, so users have to click _View_ to see it. — Users can't like reply or retweet it, but can retweet with comment https:/…

• @mgsiegler M.G. Siegler on x

  “If you're someone who would still like to see leaders stand up in public and denounce Bad Ideas on the record because it's important to oppose Bad Ideas before they become Popular Ideas — and I'm one of those — then this stance is disappointing.” https://www.vox.com/...

• @michaelschweitz @michaelschweitz on x

  Ted, I grow the weirdest face hair, Cruz, uses twitter to tweet that he wants a criminal investigation of Twitter. 😂 https://twitter.com/...

• @neednewshorts @neednewshorts on x

  🤣🤣 oh man, this is the funniest thing I've seen all day. Thank you for this laugh, Ted. I needed it https://twitter.com/...

• @ericgarland Eric Garland on x

  BREAKING: Guy who spent the same amount with Russian intelligence front Cambridge Analytica as Trump wants to investigate tech company he also manipulated! https://www.axios.com/...

• @willoremus Will Oremus on x

  To be clear, Twitter declined to comment directly on the Khamenei tweets, aside from providing that context—which implies that the company also did not rule out taking action on them.

• @willoremus Will Oremus on x

  Anyone tempted to take Pai's “what about Khamenei” critique seriously should probably acknowledge that Twitter has also not taken action on Trump tweets implicitly threatening violence as a matter of foreign policy, such as this one from 2018: https://twitter.com/...

• @willoremus Will Oremus on x

  Here's the guideline covering foreign policy tweets by world leaders, from a blog post Twitter published in October 2019: https://blog.twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @willoremus Will Oremus on x

  I asked Twitter for comment on these Khamenei tweets that Trump's FCC chair suddenly seems to care about. A spokesman directed me to guidelines that say “foreign policy saber-rattling on economic or military issues” generally does not violate its rules on “glorifying violence.” h…

• @tedcruz Ted Cruz on x

  Of course not. They're anti-American and anti-Israel. From the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. For Big Tech, that's a three-fer. https://twitter.com/...

• @realdonaldtrump Donald J. Trump on x

  This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!

• @zeynep Zeynep Tufekci on x

  I keep seeing deep legal analyses of Trump's executive order on social media, wondering if it might hurt him and what Twitter might do. But hey, *look* over here. Trump's order has an audience of one: Mark Zuckerberg. And it's already working. New piece. https://www.theatlantic.c…

• @andersen Ross Andersen on x

  Trump's rage tweets and his EO aren't about Twitter. They're a ref-working ploy aimed at Mark Zuckerberg. Trump is trying to make sure Zuck keeps Facebook's red carpet rolled all the way out for him. And his strategy is working. Read @zeynep: https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...

• @laobserved Kevin Roderick on x

  So Trump is pretending he wants Twitter to be made legally at risk for tweets by abusive users...like himself? When what he really wants is to get to say anything he wants. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @ewerickson Erick Erickson on x

  Y'all, I think Republicans are going down a very dangerous road trying to upend §230. They aren't thinking this through and are making emotional decisions with long term consequences that'll hamper their own free speech.

• @benedictevans Benedict Evans on x

  Americans discussing how an American law might or might not affect the entire internet feels just a tiny bit 1990s.

• @mmasnick Mike Masnick on x

  Please share our executive order on how evil social media is... on those social media platforms. https://twitter.com/...

• @kevinbankston Kevin Bankston on x

  Just since I haven't seen people saying this as much as they should in the context of the EO: the FCC Trump just asked to “clarify” that 230 requires political neutrality (it doesn't) is the same FCC that rolled back net neutrality rules for telecoms. In what universe...

• @hawleymo Josh Hawley on x

  While we're on subject of @Google @YouTube censoring criticism of #ChineseCommunistParty and @Twitter's war with @realDonaldTrump, gotta remember that key to #BigTech dominance/monopoly is advertising, and how they have manipulated S230 to create behavioral advertising machine

• @profcarroll @profcarroll on x

  §230 expert admires the literary quality of the EO as “Ulysses-level giberish” and concludes it is the colossal waste of time and resouces we suspected it was designed for. https://twitter.com/...

• @b_fung Brian Fung on x

  NEW: The White House did not consult the FCC on a forthcoming executive order pertaining to social media companies, according to a person briefed on the matter. This suggests the draft order has not gone through the normal interagency review process.

• @techdirt @techdirt on x

  Trump's Final Executive Order On Social Media Deliberately Removed Reference To Importance Of Newspapers To Democracy https://www.techdirt.com/...

• @klonick Kate Klonick on x

  BREAKING Just got a draft copy of Trump's Executive Order on Social Media anonymously sent to my inbox. THREE TWEET SUMMARY: 1/

• @byjacobward Jacob Ward on x

  Here's Trump's Executive Order. The gist of it is that it tries to strip social media platforms of protection under Section 230(c) when they “edit” content with labels like Twitter did to Trump's tweets today. https://kateklonick.com/...

• @alecstapp @alecstapp on x

  If Trump's new executive order likely won't stand up to legal scrutiny, then what's the point? As @Popehat likes to say, “The process is the punishment.” https://twitter.com/...

• @hawleymo Josh Hawley on x

  I will introduce legislation to end these special government giveaways. If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users' posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers. Fair is fair

• @kylegriffin1 Kyle Griffin on x

  The Chamber of Commerce, in an unusually pointed statement against Trump: “Regardless of the circumstances that led up to this, this is not how public policy is made in the United States. An executive order cannot be properly used to change federal law.” https://www.nytimes.com/.…

• @brendancarrfcc Brendan Carr on x

  President Trump's Executive Order on Online Censorhsip is welcome news! I look forward to receiving the Administration's petition for rulemaking and taking action. My statement: https://twitter.com/...

• @adamgoldmannyt Adam Goldman on x

  Without a liability shield, they presumably would have to be more aggressive about policing messages that press the boundaries — like the president's. That, of course, is not the outcome Mr. Trump wants. https://www.nytimes.com/... @peterbakernyt

• @davidgerard David Gerard on x

  “It's very much written in a way to make Trump's fans think he's done something to attack social media companies, but the deeper you dig, the more nothingness you find.” https://www.techdirt.com/...

• @mtracey Michael Tracey on x

  I think Trump would be on solid ground if he were to argue that Twitter's incredibly stupid decision to append “fact-checks” to his tweets does constitute traditional “publisher” activity, and therefore deprives Twitter of Section 230 protections https://www.reuters.com/...

• @mikeofcc @mikeofcc on x

  Everyone take deep breath on EO, which I haven't seen. @realDonaldTrump has right to seek review of statute's application. As a conservative, I'm troubled voices are stifled by liberal tech leaders. At same time, I'm extremely dedicated to First Amendment which governs much here.…

• @maggienyt Maggie Haberman on x

  Unusually sharp Chamber of Commerce statement about the president's EO: “Regardless of the circumstances that led up to this, this is not how public policy is made in the United States. An executive order cannot be properly used to change federal law.” https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @theplumlinegs Greg Sargent on x

  This, from the executive order, completely unmasks what a laughable exercise in bad faith this whole thing really is. It's all about bullying social media companies into treating Trump's lies as truths, and truths about Trump's bottomless corruption as lies: https://twitter.com/.…

• @walshfreedom Joe Walsh on x

  I wonder how Hannity would have reacted to President Obama saying he'd shut down Fox News if his lawyers could find a way to do it? https://twitter.com/...

• @b_fung Brian Fung on x

  The FCC says it will “carefully review” any ask from the Trump administration for new rules. “This debate is an important one,” said @AjitPaiFCC in a statement.

• @whitehouse @whitehouse on x

  The Trump Administration is making sure your taxpayer dollars don't go to social media giants that unfairly repress free speech. https://twitter.com/...

• @charlescwcooke Charles C. W. Cooke on x

  The order is about as pathetic as it is possible to get. It's based on a misunderstanding of the law, its instincts are rankly authoritarian, and, after all that, it doesn't actually do anything. https://twitter.com/...

• @charlescwcooke Charles C. W. Cooke on x

  Just to be clear: The president can't take away statutory legal protections, and we shouldn't indulge the idea that he can. His job is to uphold the law, not negate it. https://twitter.com/...

• @ma_franks Mary Anne Franks on x

  The text of the order is available now. It's exactly as opportunistic, constitutionally illiterate, Orwellian, and deliberately designed to distract from Trump's atrocities as one might expect. https://www.whitehouse.gov/...

• @cillizzacnn Chris Cillizza on x

  This isn't even an apples-and-oranges comparison. It's more like an apples-and-spaceships comparison. https://www.cnn.com/...

• @tiffanycli Tiffany C. Li on x

  If I'm reading this correctly, the EO claims tech platforms are doing something they're not, in violation of an incorrect interpretation of law, and tasks agencies it can't task to look into the things that aren't being done that wouldn't be wrong. Anything I missed, @Klonick? ht…

• @tribelaw Laurence Tribe on x

  If Trump's May 28 executive order were to end up restricting the ability of private social media platforms like Twitter to tag tweets like his as misleading, it would violate not just the Communications Decency Act (CDA) but the First Amendment. See this thread for my analysis:

• @nxthompson @nxthompson on x

  Trump's executive order is: A) Legal nonsense. B) Mainly an attempt to work the refs. C) Going to force everyone into a stupid debate about fixing the platforms, letting them thus avoid a real one https://www.wired.com/...

• @marynmck Maryn McKenna on x

  “ If the executive order was Trump's best shot, Twitter should feel relieved, not cowed. And the president could emerge looking weaker, not stronger.” @GiladEdelman examines the anti-social media executive order and finds out it's legislative cosplay. https://www.wired.com/...

• @karaswisher Kara Swisher on x

  @antoniogm @WillOremus I am still for reform but not this gibberish by Matt Gaetz and all the grifters. This will ensure that tech never gets any smart, fair and substantive regulation for a long time

• @davidafrench David French on x

  Trump can't lawfully repeal Section 230 by EO. Trump can't change Twitter speech policies by EO. The combination of Section 230 and the First Amendment dramatically limit his ability to regulate online speech. And we should all be thankful for those constraints.

• @parscale Brad Parscale on x

  Social media has been allowed to operate unchecked for years while protected by federal law. Silicon Valley giants now act as the arbiters of truth, censoring or labeling posts they disagree with, but they cannot be trusted to be honest and fair. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ .…

• @digiphile Alex Howard on x

  @mmasnick Social media “bias” lawsuits keep failing in court: https://www.theverge.com/... Why? Judges are applying a widely accepted legal standard that this trumped up executive order doesn't change.

• @fmanjoo Farhad Manjoo on x

  you do not have a right to tweet. Nobody does. This is like saying you have a right to beat the final boss in Mario. You do not. https://twitter.com/...

• @jdrucker JD Rucker on x

  If Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi had proposed this, there would be no griping from the left. It's all about @realDonaldTrump's signature on the bottom of the executive order that makes it so heinous in their eyes. #TDS is real, folks. https://noqreport.com/...

• @reuters @reuters on x

  ‘All they want is to not pay taxes’: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said social media platforms ‘pander to the White House’ https://twitter.com/...

• @awstar11 Fusilli Spock on x

  When I see a tweet from Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi get a fact check linking to the Heritage Foundation, then I'll believe that Twitter's checks are not political and only for the purpose of advocating for truth https://twitter.com/...

• @superwuster Tim Wu on x

  We've come a long way when a Republican administration demands the FCC implement a fairness doctrine — how do Rush Limbaugh & Fox News do under a standard that demands representing all points of view?

• @theplumlinegs Greg Sargent on x

  @GlennKesslerWP Something very fundamental is getting lost here. Trump has made it *explicit* that the new exec order is direct retribution for Twitter daring to fact check him. His *own words* tell us this. Even if nothing happens, that's a flagrant abuse of power: https://www.w…

• @jczamora Jose Zamora on x

  ...platforms can learn from their predecessors that some users do not want to compromise/be reasoned with. Their goal is power, not fairness. If mods are afraid to hold them accountable when they break rules, they will keep pushing the limits — until the board is theirs to run...…

• @chillmage @chillmage on x

  2020 is a wild one. I praised @jack https://www.theverge.com/...

• @reckless Nilay Patel on x

  As ever, ⁦@chillmage⁩ is able to clearly and precise articulate a path forward through a deeply frustrating and incredibly upsetting moment https://www.theverge.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @benjysarlin Benjy Sarlin on x

  I covered pro-Trump forums in 2016 and the issues described here played out exactly the same there too. Mods would eventually crack down on extreme content, leading to splinter groups, leading to the same problem, leading to new mod fights, leading to... https://www.nytimes.com/.…

• @tripgabriel Trip Gabriel on x

  “Every bad thing at MetaFilter happened with someone who had been testing the rules for a year or two. Those are the ones who tend to blossom into super-trolls.” Remind you of anyone? https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @brandyzadrozny Brandy Zadrozny on x

  “Mod drama is never really about who's allowed to say what, or which specific posts broke which specific rules. Often, it's part of a power struggle between chaos and order, fought by people who thrive in a lawless environment.” https://twitter.com/...

• @nytimes @nytimes on x

  President Trump's social media war is familiar. “A power user with a passionate following is lashing out against the moderators of his favorite internet services,” writes tech columnist @kevinroose. “He wants the mods to know who is really in charge.” https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @mccanner Erin Mccann on x

  A power user with a passionate following is lashing out against the moderators of his favorite internet services. He likes the way these services were run in the past, when he could stir up trouble and speak his mind without consequences. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @willoremus Will Oremus on x

  Trump as an influential power user of an early-aughts Internet forum declaring war on the moderators is a pretty good lens for understanding his battle with Twitter. https://www.nytimes.com/... (by @kevinroose) https://twitter.com/...

• @kevinroose Kevin Roose on x

  I wrote about how we all live in a giant “mods!!!!!1111!!” thread now https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @kreissdaniel Daniel Kreiss on x

  Don't let Zuckerberg peddle a ‘free speech’ line unchallenged. @Facebook DOES NOT have substantively different policies from @Twitter. It just doesn't enforce them. If Facebook was such a defender of free speech, why not let people speak anonymously or use pseudonyms? THREAD http…

• @realdonaldtrump Donald J. Trump on x

  .@Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is today criticizing Twitter. “We have a different policy than Twitter on this. I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” Did Twitter criticize Obama for his “you can keep your Dr.”?

• @jason_kint @jason_kint on x

  These two May tweets will be studied for many years. https://twitter.com/...

• @sivavaid Siva Vaidhyanathan on x

  All this! PLUS remember that Facebook actively censors all sorts of political and religious expression around the world as various governments and political parties demand. https://twitter.com/...

• @marechalphd Nathalie Marchal, PhD on x

  Policies are worthless if they're not fairly, evenly, and transparently enforced. Kudos to Twitter for (belatedly) doing the right thing, and shame on Facebook for repeatedly choosing to enable misinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence when politically convenient htt…

• @dseetharaman Deepa Seetharaman on x

  Facebook and Twitter have similar rules, but diverge in their willingness to enforce them. This thread underscores some key points. https://twitter.com/...

• @tedcruz Ted Cruz on x

  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), in a letter Friday to the Justice and Treasury departments, is calling for a criminal investigation of Twitter over allegations the company is violating U.S. sanctions against Iran: https://www.axios.com/...

• @jason_kint @jason_kint on x

  Speaking of which, let's get back to Facebook CEO. Rather than spend airtime arguing why he doesn't want to label the same post (this is his right), it would show actual leadership and spine if he made a statement focused on Twitter's same and equal right to do what it is doing.

• @jason_kint @jason_kint on x

  Here is how it looks on Twitter's mobile app. This is significant. https://twitter.com/...

• @jason_kint @jason_kint on x

  Twitter is showing leadership here. Make no mistake, this is not censorship. They're a private platform and it's a label. Quite a contrast to the failed leadership at the top of Facebook (and its Instagram). https://twitter.com/...

• @somebadideas Aaron Stewart-Ahn on x

  I'll say this for twitter at least they're not Facebook, doubling down on its policy of allowing its platform to incite genocide like it did in Myanmar https://twitter.com/...

• @jason_kint @jason_kint on x

  In sharp contrast, here is how same statement currently looks on Facebook and Instagram. Facebook's CEO went out strong yesterday across tv news claiming to differentiate his company in support of free speech. That's misleading as to what happens when adding a label. https://twit…

• @mmasnick Mike Masnick on x

  Here we have a great opportunity for @JoeBiden to take a stand for the 1st Amendment and an open and free internet. Instead... https://www.theverge.com/...

• @skupor Scott Kupor on x

  Independent of your political views on 230, one thing is clear: Repealing 230 is likely to benefit the incumbents at the expense of new businesses. Redux of Dodd-Frank for large money center banks + GDPR for large incumbents - no one else can afford the costs of compliance.

• @antonejohnson Antone Johnson on x

  ALL of them. Twitter, FB, YouTube, Insta, Reddit, LinkedIn, Craigslist, Snapchat, TikTok, you name it. Dead. Broke. Bankrupt. Because no matter how huge and profitable, no company can afford to defend or settle tens or hundreds of thousands of new lawsuits *per day*. /2

• @tomfitton Tom Fitton on x

  .@RealDonaldTrump's analysis of Section 230 is on target — I talk about @Twitter and Big Tech censorship with @LouDobbs: https://www.youtube.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @antonejohnson Antone Johnson on x

  And while some might argue that would be a good deterrent — outrage here seems to have FINALLY prodded the powers-that-be to do something — abolishing 230 would be like using a nuclear blast to kill a rat, immolating the whole community in the process. https://www.eff.org/...

• @antonejohnson Antone Johnson on x

  To state the obvious, just put the shoe on the other foot. Consider Trump's 18,000+ lies. Repealing Section 230 would enable e.g. every @JoeNBC character (falsely accused of murder in 45's tweets) to sue *Twitter* as “publisher” of that despicable trash. /8

• @seldo Laurie Voss on x

  The EFF issues a thorough takedown of Trump's executive order on section 230, citing half a dozen recent precedents that make it unconstitutional. https://www.eff.org/... https://twitter.com/...

• @charlie_savage Charlie Savage on x

  Explainer on the few parts of the order that are not just rhetoric https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @tedlieu Ted Lieu on x

  Dear @realDonaldTrump: Your Executive Order is a farce. The courts interpret Section 230, not @FCC. Your “US policy” doesn't matter if it conflicts with the statute or case law. That's why your EO calls for legislation, which is dead on arrival in @HouseJudiciary. Go pound sand. …

• @charlie_savage Charlie Savage on x

  New legal explainer: cutting through the rhetoric and spin about what the Trump executive order targeting Twitter and other social media actually does, and why its central feature is probably a legal dud https://www.nytimes.com/...