\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n
[responsivevoice_button rate=”1\u2033 pitch=”1.2\u2033 volume=”0.8\u2033 voice=”US English Female” buttontext=”Story in Audio”]<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Twitter has, in the case of Trump\u2019s false tweets about voting by mail, appended a link<\/a> for people to \u201cget the facts about mail-in ballots,\u201d which leads to a point-by-point refutation<\/a>, authored by Twitter, of the president\u2019s falsehoods. The platform has specific policies<\/a> about unsubstantiated claims aimed at undermining faith in the integrity of balloting, and Dorsey has made clear that the application of those policies, as with a typical company, rests with him. \u201cThere is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that\u2019s me,\u201d Dorsey tweeted<\/a> last month.<\/p>\n Consider the case of Trump\u2019s tweet saying, \u201cWhen the looting starts, the shooting starts\u201d\u2014a verbatim throwback to a \u201960s-era phrase used by a white police commissioner who also said, \u201cWe don\u2019t mind being accused of police brutality.\u201d Trump tweeted this in light of mass protests over the police killing of George Floyd. Twitter, as it did this week, hid that tweet but stopped short of deleting it, requiring readers to click through a notice that read: \u201cThis Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump, as is his wont, hit back. He has previously said that he thinks<\/a> the company disrespects him and his supporters: \u201cRepublicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives [sic<\/em>] voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen.\u201d<\/p>\n Conor Friedersdorf: Trump\u2019s looting tweet violates his oath of office<\/p>\n After Twitter\u2019s labeling of Trump\u2019s tweets, the White House announced a new executive order about \u201cPreventing Online Censorship.\u201d In a press conference about the order, Trump said of Twitter: \u201cIf it were able to be legally shut down, I would do it.\u201d Perhaps some heart may be taken from the fact that it\u2019s a conditional threat\u2014he\u2019s precisely not<\/em> trying to shut down Twitter because he acknowledges that would be illegal. The order is a jumble\u2014requiring experts to try to make sense of it<\/a>\u2014because it\u2019s attempting to throw the kitchen sink at Trump\u2019s perceived enemies of the moment, rather than identifying a particular public-policy problem, then attempting to grapple with it in a consistent way. The Department of Justice and several Republican senators have since proposed legislation to find ways to limit immunities that Twitter, Facebook, and other websites that amplify users\u2019 content enjoy.<\/p>\n Those proposals can be analyzed and judged on their own terms as if they simply appeared on Congress\u2019s docket out of nowhere, and I\u2019d normally offer here some thoughts on their details. But I can\u2019t stay in my academic lane. The executive order, and the push for more legislation, is part of a larger pattern in which the president appears to seek vengeance against those who even mildly criticize him, retaliating in any way he can, including by using the powers of his office. When, for instance, he didn\u2019t like The Washington Post<\/em>\u2019s reporting about him, he made it clear\u2014on Twitter, fittingly enough\u2014that, because the paper is owned by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, he would like to disadvantage Amazon however he can, including by demanding that the U.S. Postal Service raise its shipping rates. Here, the executive order is so scattershot, and the legislation so crudely sweeping, that it\u2019s important to recognize that it conveys more than its text says. What it really says is: We can make you hurt unless you do what we want, and what we want is what helps the president personally<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n