- Bipartisan criticism was triggered by Twitter’s decision not to allow stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop on its platform.
- Although the laptop was authenticated and its contents confirmed, other reports have not been confirmed.
- Some lawmakers have since called to repeal Section 230, a law “That’s what created the internet.”
The latest PubliziertInternal communications about Twitter’s decision not to throttle New York Post articleLate 2020 revelations about Hunter Biden’s laptop revealed that the social network faced widespread bipartisan criticism for its decision. The criticism has since intensified a movement to repeal Section 230, which could change the Internet forever.
Matt Taibbi is the Substack newsletter writer “TK News” on Friday A thread of tweets was postedHe titled it “The Twitter Files”, and included screenshots of internal correspondence regarding the social network’s content moderation system. Taibbi stated that he needed to “…”You agree to certain conditions“in order to publish the documents, although he did not disclose what those conditions were.
Taibbi refused to comment when Insider reached him by phone.
Taibbi focused a lot of his thread on Twitter’s handling the issue. New York Post October 2020Story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. According to the Post, it was left at a Delaware repair shop. Early reports on the laptop were not favorable. Skepticism was met with admiration by social media platforms — which Heavy criticism was receivedAbout content moderation after the 2016 controversy surrounding then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails — and Alerts from the law enforcementSocial media platforms are used to spread disinformation.
Insider asked for comment from Elon Musk and Twitter representatives, but they didn’t respond immediately.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg himself In an August interview with Joe Rogan, it was confirmedHis platforms Suppressed reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptopBefore the 2020 election, the FBI advised that it “fit the pattern of misinformation Facebook was looking out for.” Though The laptop Some of the contents have since been authenticated as belonging to Biden, some reports about its content have not been confirmed.
Taibbi’s documents focused on internal discussions within Twitter staff concerning the laptop story. The final decision to slow the reach of the platform and label the material using the platform’s “hacked materials” policy. Although it was not clear at the time if the reports were true, and whether the material found on the laptop had been legally obtained by Twitter, critics were quick in questioning why Twitter had chosen the throttle method.
“I said this because I am a complete Biden partisan, and I’m convinced he did nothing wrong.” Taibbi ReportRep. Ro Khanna sent an email to Vijaya Gadde at the time, informing her that she was concerned about censorship. “But now the story has become more aboutcensorship than relatively innocuous email and it’s become bigger than it would have been. It is also now leading to serious efforts to curtail section 230 — many of which would have been a mistake.”
Section 230This clause is found in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Its advocates call it “The most important law to protect internet speech.”The 26-word phrase “That’s what created the internet” limits legal liability for tech platforms hosting user-generated content — that is, in other words, a social media platform like Twitter cannot be held legally responsible for any illegal content posted by its users.
This sectionIt states: “No user or provider of interactive computer services shall be considered the speaker or publisher of any information provided to them by any other information content provider.” Tech companies Consider a possible reversalIt is a threat of free speech and would force web hosts to close their sites, or risk legal liability for their users’ postings.
Khanna representatives did not respond to questions regarding Khanna’s current position regarding repealing Section 230.
Rep. Khanna of California stated in a statement emailed directly to Insider that “I believe the Constitution and First Amendments are sacred.” “As the Silicon Valley congressman, I felt that Twitter’s actions were a violation to First Amendment principles so I raised these concerns. Our democracy will thrive only if there is a free marketplace for ideas and if we engage with those with whom we disagree.
Khanna was not alone in his criticism of Twitter’s move – which the site’s former trust and safety chief has since said This was a mistake. Taibbi Report 9 Republicans and 3 Democrats surveyed by a research firm in 2020 also disapproved of the decision — and bipartisan calls for the reform or reversal of Section 230 have increased since the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Sen. Lindsay Graham stated, “I’m more determined then ever to strip Section 230 Protections from Big Tech (Twitter), which let them be immune against lawsuits.” TweetIn January 2021, only months after the Hunter Biden story was published and shortly thereafter, he Legislation was introducedTo repeal section 230. “Big Tech is the only company in America that has virtually absolute immunity from being sued because of their actions. This protection was granted by Congress.”
Donald Trump made Section 230 a staple part of his presidency. He praised Twitter for the “simple” way he described it.Selected censorship“After the platform added warning labels for several of Trump’s tweets concerning voting by mail, Trump was elected president in the last weeks of his presidency. A $740 billion defense law was blocked by the vetoThis is partly because Section 230 wasn’t repealed.
Section 230 is frequently criticized by the Republicans for its claims about tech platforms. Censoring conservative viewsDemocratic critics claim that the law allows social businesses to do less. Stop hate speechInformation and disinformation
“I am urging Congress to remove special immunity from social media companies and impose stronger transparency requirements for all of them.” Al Jazeera reportedBiden called earlier in the year to repeal Section 230.
Should Section 230 be repealed, free speech advocates worry the digital landscape would radically change — by forcing website hosts to be held liable for the content posted to their sites, moderators would likely eliminate potential legal risk by drastically limiting what they allow users to post or by shutting down entirely.
“Repealing Section 230 would be a serious step that would end the internet, punishing successful companies and internet users for their behavior of an antisocial minority,” reads the article an essayWill Duffield is a Cato Institute policy analyst. Platforms will not be more thoughtful or judicious if they are subject to legal liability. It will lead to some people closing down, while others excluding all offensive sentiments.
