Skip to main content

Trump finally gets the war with Big Tech he’s always wanted

President Donald Trump’s executive order rolling back liability protections for online companies threatens to radically change what content is allowed on social media platforms. And while the executive order may not pass legal muster, the damage has already been done: Trump has long been itching for a fight with Silicon Valley’s tech giants — and now he’s getting one.

The executive order seeks to revise the protections of Section 230, a pivotal part of the Communications Decency Act that classifies social media and internet services as “platforms,” not “publishers,” according to a leaked draft. The distinction protects companies like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter from being sued over content others post on their sites.

Recommended Videos

Trump’s executive order reinterprets that protection to exclude any company that removes or restricts content “outside the scope of being lewd, violent, or otherwise objectionable.” That vague “objectionable” language gives the administration a lot of leeway to choose which social media companies are no longer protected.

Rolling back those protections could open up internet services to costly lawsuits, potentially forcing them to defend themselves in court from users who object to any manner of content on their site. It would also make moderation a nightmare, as services would need to police every one of their millions of users for anything that could be potentially damaging in court.

And that may be Trump’s goal.

Is Trump’s social media executive order legal?

It’s unclear that this executive order’s interpretation will stand up in court, legal experts say. The American Civil Liberties Union called the order “blatant and unconstitutional.”

“The president also has no authority to rewrite a congressional statute with an executive order imposing a flawed interpretation of Section 230,” the ACLU said in a statement.

Others, like Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, said Trump “cannot, by executive order, change legislation.” The administration’s interpretation of Section 230 also flies in the face of earlier court rulings, she said.

“That is the exact opposite of how many many federal courts have interpreted it for decades,” Fallow told Digital Trends.

Curt Levey — president of the Committee for Justice, a nonprofit group promoting limited government and judicial nominations — said that the executive order itself has “limited teeth” regarding Section 230, since it requests the independent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adjust their interpretations of Section 230.

Still, if the FTC were to take some action at Trump’s request, that would “surely be challenged” in the courts, he said.

Donald Trump
President Donald Trump Saul Loeb / Getty Images

That threat of court cases, Fallow argues, will have a chilling effect on internet companies, adding a “burden” onto those who have drawn Trump’s ire.

“If you’re liable for everything that’s posted on your site, you would be so worried about liability that you’d never host anything,” she said. “One of the impacts of this executive order will be to potentially make them think twice about moderating comments that could be interpreted as biased against conservative voices.”

Levey said Twitter and other companies have faced questions about their fact-checking efforts, and that this order may push them to back off fact-checking more to protect themselves from legal liability.

“The problem here is not going to be the substance of the fact-checking — it’s the decision of who to fact-check,” he said. “We don’t know what the Section 230 landscape is going to look like years from now. The safest thing to do would be to stop fact-checking. No one is going to sue you for not fact-checking.”

That would be a win for Trump, especially since Twitter’s fact-check of his mail-in voting tweet was the catalyst for the executive order.

Trump’s directive to Attorney General William Barr in the executive order to look into “unfair and deceptive” practices at the tech giants is also a shot across the bow, a warning that the companies could soon be in the crosshairs of federal regulatory action.

Trump and other Republicans have long raged against the likes of Facebook and Twitter, claiming that they were targeting him and other conservative voices for moderation while letting liberal viewpoints remain. In the past, he’s vowed action against companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google.

For most of his term, those threats were hollow. But with this executive order, even if its interpretation is ultimately thrown out in the courts, Trump is sending a strong message: He’s ready to fight.

Paul Squire
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Paul is the News Editor at Digital Trends. Before joining DT, Paul spent 3 years as an editor on the New York Post's digital…
This modular Pebble and Apple Watch underdog just smashed funding goals
UNA Watch

Both the Pebble Watch and Apple Watch are due some fierce competition as a new modular brand, UNA, is gaining some serous backing and excitement.

The UNA Watch is the creation of a Scottish company that wants to give everyone modular control of smartwatch upgrades and repairs.

Read more
Tesla, Warner Bros. dodge some claims in ‘Blade Runner 2049’ lawsuit, copyright battle continues
Tesla Cybercab at night

Tesla and Warner Bros. scored a partial legal victory as a federal judge dismissed several claims in a lawsuit filed by Alcon Entertainment, a production company behind the 2017 sci-fi movie Blade Runner 2049, Reuters reports.
The lawsuit accused the two companies of using imagery from the film to promote Tesla’s autonomous Cybercab vehicle at an event hosted by Tesla CEO Elon Musk at Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) Studios in Hollywood in October of last year.
U.S. District Judge George Wu indicated he was inclined to dismiss Alcon’s allegations that Tesla and Warner Bros. violated trademark law, according to Reuters. Specifically, the judge said Musk only referenced the original Blade Runner movie at the event, and noted that Tesla and Alcon are not competitors.
"Tesla and Musk are looking to sell cars," Reuters quoted Wu as saying. "Plaintiff is plainly not in that line of business."
Wu also dismissed most of Alcon's claims against Warner Bros., the distributor of the Blade Runner franchise.
However, the judge allowed Alcon to continue its copyright infringement claims against Tesla for its alleged use of AI-generated images mimicking scenes from Blade Runner 2049 without permission.
Alcan says that just hours before the Cybercab event, it had turned down a request from Tesla and WBD to use “an icononic still image” from the movie.
In the lawsuit, Alcon explained its decision by saying that “any prudent brand considering any Tesla partnership has to take Musk’s massively amplified, highly politicized, capricious and arbitrary behavior, which sometimes veers into hate speech, into account.”
Alcon further said it did not want Blade Runner 2049 “to be affiliated with Musk, Tesla, or any Musk company, for all of these reasons.”
But according to Alcon, Tesla went ahead with feeding images from Blade Runner 2049 into an AI image generator to yield a still image that appeared on screen for 10 seconds during the Cybercab event. With the image featured in the background, Musk directly referenced Blade Runner.
Alcon also said that Musk’s reference to Blade Runner 2049 was not a coincidence as the movie features a “strikingly designed, artificially intelligent, fully autonomous car.”

Read more
Apple TV+ just got a price slash that’s tough to resist, and it won’t last long
The Apple TV main screen.

Apple has just quietly announced that it will be slashing the price on its Apple TV+ offering for a limited time deal.

While Apple prices the service at a standard $9.99 per month usually, it has just cut that way down to $2.99 per month.

Read more