Trump escalates war on social media at White House ‘summit’

563

WASHINGTON, July 12, 2019 (BSS/AFP) – President Donald Trump ramped up his
attacks on Silicon Valley giants on Thursday with a call for “regulatory and
legislative solutions” to what he described as unfair treatment of
conservatives by major online platforms.

At a White House social media “summit,” Trump excluded internet firms from
the gathering of conservative activists who have been curbed on social media.

But he said he would invite those companies in the coming weeks for “a big
meeting and a real conversation” on the topic.

Speaking to his supporters, Trump repeated his argument of political bias,
claiming some activists were blocked or limited on social platforms.

Trump, a frequent Twitter user who has more than 60 million followers on
that service, nonetheless renewed his complaint over “terrible bias” on
social media, and vowed a response.

He offered no specific proposal but said he was directing his
administration “to explore all regulatory and legislative solutions to
protect free speech and the free speech of all Americans.”

The latest gathering has stoked fears that the White House may seek to
eliminate the legal framework that protects online services from liability
over harmful content posted by others but hosted on their platforms.

Digital rights activists and others warned that removing the protection —
codified as Section 230 of a 1996 law — could undermine free speech
protections and the internet ecosystem.

“The government shouldn’t require — or coerce — intermediaries to remove
constitutionally protected speech that the government cannot prohibit
directly,” said a letter signed by 27 civic and digital rights organizations
and 50 academics.

The letter said such demands would violate the US Constitution’s First
Amendment on free expression.

“Also, imposing broad liability for user speech incentivizes services to
err on the side of taking down speech, resulting in overbroad censorship —
or even avoid offering speech forums altogether,” it added.

Eric Goldman, head of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara
University, said Section 230 had made the modern internet, and user generated
content, possible.

“Today’s most popular social websites would never have taken off and the
internet would look basically like cable,” he added.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that firms such as Facebook, Google and
Twitter — who were not invited to the summit — discriminate against him and
his supporters, even though his own Twitter account has nearly 62 million
followers.

– Conspiracy theories –

Big internet firms have roundly denied accusations of political bias.

But they also have faced pressure from governments around the world to
remove abusive and hateful content as well as conspiracy theories, such as
those promoted by Trump and his allies attending Thursday’s White House
gathering.

“Internet companies are not biased against any political ideology, and
conservative voices in particular have used social media to great effect,”
said Michael Beckerman, president of the Internet Association, which includes
Twitter, Facebook and Google.

“Internet companies depend upon their users’ trust from across the
political spectrum to grow and succeed.”

Twitter said last month it would add warnings to tweets from officials and
politicians that violate its rules — a move potentially affecting Trump’s
prodigious output.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade group whose
members include Facebook and Google, said the White House event “seems
designed to intimidate companies to bias content in favor of whoever is
calling the meeting.”

“No private company should be browbeaten by the government into giving a
pass to objectionable content that violates company policies,” CCIA president
Ed Black said in a statement.

“Social media sites may wish to allow many types of speech, but should not
be required to stay neutral on hate or religious intolerance.

“If those airing grievances at this week’s meeting are unsatisfied with one
company’s policy against objectionable content, there are plenty of
competitors from which to choose.”