This week, Twitter finally found the courage to deal with its toxic user: the US President. The president exploded in a tangle after having given one of Trum's unreliable tweets a modest reality check. He threatened to "shut down" social media companies, and then targeted a Twitter employee to intimidate and harass him personally. Trump then rapidly threatened to take revenge on Twitter by signing an order with an earthquake to spark the whole Internet. Trump's lackeys, including Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Josh Hawley (R-MO), have sneered at the president's ego by misleading interpretation of law and threatening to sue Twitter.

Is Twitter, therefore, a public body not deserving of First Amendment protection? Yeah, that's stupid — but this notion at least comes back to haunt internet companies with a certain degree of irony. Long ago, social media giants such as Twitter , Facebook and Reddit sold their vision as high public squares. They bring people from around the world together and even lift them from the poverty of being disconnected, guaranteeing them freedom of expression.

The Board of Directors will advocate for our community, supporting the right of people to freedom of expression, and ensuring that we meet our tasks to protect people.

 

Facebook 's role as a government has led Facebook to a free speech stance that often detracts from the ability of its community to manage it. Just in this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that its algorithm is responsible for promoting splitting Facebook ignored internal research. As Casey Newton had written in 2018, a genocide was taken for Facebook in Myanmar to realize that there's so hateful speech that you can't stop because it's worthy of the news. (The executives reportedly ignored it.)

 

Facebook still tries to look neutral when it comes to police speech outside of extreme cases. Zuckerberg stated in a public speech on freedom of speech last year that Face book does not review political publications because it is "not right for a private company to censor politicians or democratic news." "We have different policies on this than Twitter," said Zuckerberg, even if the policies of the company are not so different. "I strongly believe that Facebook shouldn't be the real arbiter of all that people say online."

 

 

The most popular example of Facebook is, but it is not the only one again. During the 2012 Reddit election, founder Alexis Ohanian took the "Internet Freedom Declaration" from city to town while I was traveling on the internet campaign bus. You did write it, like pioneering cosplayers, on a gigantic paper scroll:

 

The age of enlightenment of Reddit sadly rapidly crashed and burned, while the organization tried to have it both ways: appear to its users as a government that respects a virtually limitless right to freedom of expression but also encourages advertising companies to make their brands live through celebrities' snuff, bigotry and nude images. As Reddit wiped out the Nazis on its website, it began to seem like a failed state. Ultimately , the company learned that it was unable to survive while claiming to be the government, so it adopted stronger rules against harassment and moderation and started to isolate and ban whole groups of trouble makers.

 

Then there are Tv. And there are Tv. Twitter once described herself as the "freedom of speech of the freedom of speech party," a noble concept that clung to the company like a foul smell as it became overshadowed by the evil players. Twitter and its business peers have worked on the premise that more talk is better, for a long time, even though they are deeply aware that in many situations this is a risky presumption with fatal implications. I 'm sure tech viewers think that they do the right job by optimizing freedom of expression, but it seems fitting that this concept is good for growth.

 

On the other hand, in recent years the law enforcement against bad content has certainly increased with Twitter , Facebook and other major social networks. The integrity of the networks have been threatened by organized harassment and the rise of state-sponsored malinformation. Strong moderation is also a rational business choice, not only a right of expression enshrined in the First Amendment. So why are these companies so afraid that their right to moderate is publicly flexible? One response is bullying.

 

The rightwing camp against "bias," led by President Trump and prominent Republicans, has besieged technology companies over recent years. Despite the routinely failure of conservative court lawsuits, technology companies have been constantly afraid of the President's erratic rage and his supporters' wrath. As soon as Twitter this week tweeted Trump, White House representatives prompted harassment of a Twitter employee who began receiving threats of death. Trump has made it clear that it is expensive and immediate to challenge him.

 

The Republican Party has been taken over by Trump's reactionary fury, once spoken of by his peers. Fellow Republicans who once denounced him as a joke and an asshole are gray wheels in his spite and vengeance engine. He avoided all accountability within his office, which, by the way, seems to convince fellow Republicans that even in an election year they can do away with forcing extremely unpopular policies.

 

In the meantime, we have many emergencies at the same time. The novel coronaviruses have killed more than 100 000 people and a competent federal response could probably have prevented many of those deaths. More than 40 million people in the world filed a new Great Depression for unemployment this year. Police officers continue to impunity kill Black people, causing national grumbling and civil disturbance. Once again the country faces geopolitical threats from nations aimed at disrupting our democracy 's fragile machinery. We are burdened by a president who, by any fair definition, is not capable of representing the country, complementing all this trauma.

 

On a normal day, Facebook or Twitter moderating decisions can look like trivial distractions, but they have to be viewed within the wider sense of American life in order to allow Trump's law. When the safeguards that we thought we had to avoid someone like Donald Trump 's damage have failed, what else? Who else has sufficient power to turn the tide against an authoritarian government and corruption? What if Twitter's CEO is one of these people?

 

It was the cruelty and chaos that defined Trump's presidency, but one thing was consistent – man loves tweeting. He used Twitter as a zero-day attack on traditional institutions during his first presidential campaign. In 2016 you will not be able to spend a day without the President filtering increasingly scandalous messages via TV news. Twitter may have been secretly accountable for its role in helping Trump to be elected in the following years, but it has publicly maintained that tweets by the President are worthy of news and important to democracy — even though it contradicts the policies of Twitter.

 

Up to now, the chairman was above Twitter rule. Finally, Jack Dorsey took action against a president who wants to strip out all restraints on his public and private influence. As reporter Kevin Roose put it, Trump has started a strong battle with mods like a forum warrior of the past. The mods wake up.

 

Republicans spent years in a false tale of conservationist tyranny and are now attempting to destroy their imagined demon. Trump and his supporters want Twitter to dispose of its right to freedom of speech only because it opposes the president's abuse.

 

The rights of Twitter are similar to those of you and I because of the First Amendment that forbids the government to limit what we say and to compel us to say what it wants. Jack Dorsey got what he wanted in a certain way. He led the Freedom of Speech arm of the Freedom of Expression Party.

 

The answer to misinterpretation is more speaking for once. It's ludicrous to Twitter.