Welcome to FTW Explains: a guide to catching up on and better understanding stuff going on in the world. This isn’t really a sports story but as denizens of the internet we feel this applies to us, and want to break it down for you.
On Wednesday evening the White House announced cryptically that they would be releasing a new executive order targeting social media platforms. On Thursday, the order came out, and … it was a bit confusing.
So let’s get to the bottom of the executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which on its surface appears to be an order for agencies to look into the possibility of these companies being held legally responsible for content posted to their platforms, but is much more likely about a personal feud Trump has with Twitter.
Yeah. It’s a lot. Let’s answer your questions.
So, this is embarrassing, but: What’s an executive order?
Not embarrassing at all! Glad you asked. An executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States. It’s a power given to him by the Constitution as the overseer of the federal government. It’s not quite a law, as it doesn’t have the approval of Congress, but it is enforceable, and can be overturned by a judge.
OK, got it. What’s this particular executive order about?
It’s about social media platforms. Trump claimed the order would be a “big action” and some wondered if he would try to shut down social media platforms for not, in his mind, giving equal treatment to conservative voices (or, more importantly, himself).
It didn’t turn out to be that.
So what is it?
In essence, the order would limit legal protections for social media platforms if they don’t adhere to standards of neutrality.
What are “standards of neutrality?”
Unclear. The order doesn’t really specify. They’re just supposed to be generally fair, to the President, one would sort of have to assume.
Why do these companies need legal protections?
So, this all stems from definitions of “platforms” vs. “publishers.” Social media companies have long maintained that they are platforms, i.e. just a space where free ideas can flow.
This would mean that they are NOT responsible for anything posted on their platform. If they were defined as a “publisher,” it would certainly be different.
Basically: Right now, if someone uses Facebook to, say, libel someone, the person posting could get sued for libel, but not Facebook. Trump’s executive order aimed to weaken those legal protections, by having agencies look at whether platforms could be sued for content posted on their site.
How is that even enforceable?
Basically, it’s not. It’s Trump commanding people to look into something. But it’s pretty clearly a shot across the bow of social media companies, by threatening a legal protection they’ve existed under for their entire existence. If Facebook or Twitter can be sued for anything posted on their platforms, they’d be sued nonstop.
So what’s this actually about?
It sure seems to be about Trump being mad at Twitter. The company made the controversial call this week to start issuing fact checks or labeling warnings on certain tweets from the president. The platform isn’t deleting the tweets, but it is putting notes above them explaining why the President is lying or, in a tweet early Thursday morning, “glorifying violence.”
This ticked off Trump mightily, and shortly thereafter the order came. The executive order mentions Twitter numerous times, despite Facebook and YouTube being larger platforms.
How will this end?
Eh, who knows? Most likely it will be forgotten and moved on from, unless someone in the U.S. government decides to make the case that social media companies can be held legally responsible for the content published to their platforms, in which case, I can’t even wrap my head around the litigation that would happen there.
[jwplayer aabLudiI-q2aasYxh]