�������ýҕ�l

President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday targeting legal protections that keep people from suing social media websites. The move follows his anger at Twitter over its decision this week to append fact-check labels to several of his tweets about mail-in voting, along with links to accurate information on the topic. Much of the president’s order consists of complaints about social media companies and their efforts to flag or remove content deemed inappropriate. Here is an explanation of the legal issues surrounding the components of the order that would — or might — do something. (Savage, 5/28)

In a post late Thursday, Twitter described the executive order as “a reactionary and politicized approach to a landmark law.” It said Section 230 protects innovation and freedom of expression, and that “attempts to unilaterally erode it threaten the future of online speech and Internet freedoms.” Facebook on Thursday said that repealing or limiting section 230 would “restrict more speech online, not less” and “would penalize companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that might offend anyone.” (McKinnon and Ballhaus, 5/29)

Announced with fanfare, the president’s action yet appeared to be more about politics than substance. He aims to rally supporters after he lashed out at Twitter for applying fact checks to two of his tweets. Trump said the fact checks were “editorial decisions” by Twitter amounting to political activism and that such actions should cost social media companies their liability protection for what is posted on their platforms. Trump, who personally relies heavily on Twitter to verbally flog his foes, has long accused the tech giants in liberal-leaning Silicon Valley of targeting conservatives by fact-checking them or removing their posts. (Miller, 5/29)

Trump wants to “remove or change” a provision of a law known as Section 230 that shields social media companies from liability for content posted by their users. Trump said U.S. Attorney General William Barr will begin drafting legislation “immediately” to regulate social media companies. (Bose and Mason, 5/28)

The executive order that Mr. Trump signed on Thursday seeks to strip liability protection in certain cases for companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook for the content on their sites, meaning they could face legal jeopardy if they allowed false and defamatory posts. 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. What he wants is the freedom to post anything he likes without the companies applying any judgment to his messages, as Twitter did this week when it began appending “get the facts” warnings to some of his false posts on voter fraud. Furious at what he called “censorship” — even though his messages were not in fact deleted — Mr. Trump is wielding the proposed executive order like a club to compel the company to back down. (Baker and Wakabayashi, 5/28)

Barr declined to provide details on legislative effort, saying the department is considering options for what it will look like, but indicated litigation was likely on the horizon as well. "One of the things that I found has the broadest bipartisan support these days is the feeling that this provision, Section 230, has been stretched way beyond its original intention, and people feel that on both sides of the aisle," Barr said. Both Democrats and Republicans raised the prospect of changes to Section 230, though for opposite reasons. The Democrats want more fact-checking of misinformation and misleading posts, such as those by Trump that Twitter slapped with warning labels. (Overly, 5/28)

Already, tech companies are discussing whether to fight back with a lawsuit challenging the executive order, according to two people familiar with the deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no decision has been made. Legal experts said the directive will almost certainly be challenged in court, arguing it threatens to undermine the First Amendment. A wide array of critics in Congress, the tech industry and across the political spectrum also accused the White House of deputizing government agencies to carry out Trump’s personal vendettas. (Romm and Dwoskin, 5/28)

Its first part states ,“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. ”In effect, that means websites are not legally responsible for what other people post there. That applies to every site on the internet, whether they’re social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, sites that depend on customer reviews such as Yelp and Amazon, or any website with a comment section, from the Los Angeles Times to your personal blog. Section 230 is a small piece of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that has, in many ways, created the internet we all use today. (Dean, 5/28)

Twitter said early Friday that a tweet from President Trump implying that protesters in Minneapolis could be shot violated the company’s rules against glorifying violence, in a move that threatens to escalate tensions between Mr. Trump and his favorite social media megaphone over its content policies. The company prevented users from viewing Mr. Trump’s message without first reading a brief notice describing the rule violation. Twitter also blocked users from liking or replying to Mr. Trump’s post. (Zhong and Goldman, 5/29)

The White House has taken the unusual step of deciding not to release an updated economic forecast as planned this year, a fresh sign of the administration’s anxiety about how the coronavirus has ravaged the nation just months before the election. The decision, which was confirmed Thursday by a senior administration official who was not authorized to publicly comment on the plan, came amid intensifying signals of the pandemic’s grim economic toll. (Taylor, Boak and Madhani, 5/29)

“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,” Twitter said on its official communications account. (Purnell, 5/29)

Trump's tweet came after protesters took to the streets in Minnesota to voice their anger against the recent killing of a man by local law enforcement. In a tweet, Twitter said it violated the company's policies "based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today." (Scott, 5/29)

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued Wednesday that private companies should not be the “arbiter of truth” online, implicitly rebuking fellow tech titan Jack Dorsey after the Twitter CEO flagged a pair of President Donald Trump’s posts with fact-check warnings that provoked the White House’s ire. “We have a different policy than, I think, Twitter on this,” Zuckerberg told Fox News host Dana Perino in an interview set to air Thursday. (Forgey, 5/28)