My overwhelming feeling about the Trump #ExecutiveOrder on social media is that ... 100,000 people have already died in the United States from a virus that would have been better contained by a more competent government. But not only is the EO a distraction, it is dangerous...
President Trump is preparing for more election manipulation--leading to misleading tweets that Twitter will continue to warn users about. Trump is planning to call election results themselves into doubt with his claim of illegal ballots. This is not new.
In 2016, he claimed a "million" illegal ballots were cast in California (he was trying to claim that he won the popular vote, despite the facts). politifact.com/factchecks/201….
In 2012, he suggested that Pres Obama's reelection was somehow fraudulent because of the electoral college, calling for a march on Washington: "Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice!"
Targeting Twitter is a version of working the refs. He's both trying to bully Twitter into a more cautious approach and trying to undermine Twitter's credibility among his fans.
He's also firing a warning shot across the bow of Twitter's peers, who are hopefully considering following Twitter's lead. Twitter has a narrower business than its main social media competitors.
Its competitors are facing antitrust reviews and possible privacy actions--and may not be willing to incur the possible ire of regulators. (Of course, any enforcement premised on the speech of the subject would violate the 1st Amendment.) /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The largest data protection fine in EU history stems from the transfer of data across borders--to the US--with no showing of any ongoing access by impermissible third parties (such as the NSA) beyond that in Snowden disclosures or any deceptive use of information by Meta. 1/
The U.S. has been seeking to revive a EU adequacy ruling following the CJEU's decision in Schrems II, and it seems that this seems likely sometime reasonably soon (but not soon enough for Facebook, clearly). 3/
I joined the protestors who lined the hall outside. I held a sign (that somebody had written, not me--I wish I could take credit) that read "Anti-Semitism doesn't only hurt Jewish people." 2/
Having protested, I also wanted to hear what the speaker, Dr. Muhammad, would say. I took my sign in with me, and sat in the balcony. 3/
No one: Anupam, what do you think of the Trump decision?
Anupam: A 🧵 on the Facebook Oversight Board decision, what I call “Trump I.” It includes a prediction of what Facebook will do—so you can tell me I’m wrong at the end of the year! 1/
This was a sophisticated decision, written for the Trump case, but with future global leaders in mind. And it's, crucially, not the Oversight Board's last word on the issue. The Board didn't punt exactly--like many appeals courts, it sent it back for further consideration. 2/
Given both the facts of the Trump case, and the precedent for world leaders, it is pretty clear that the Oversight Board had to approve Facebook’s immediate decision to suspend Trump, lest the Board abet Facebook being used to foment violence by leaders in the future. 3/
I've now read Judge Nichols' opinion explaining the basis for his preliminary injunction last night against the TikTok Executive Order. Some comments. 1/
First, Judge Nichols has seen the government's secret evidence against TikTok--but he concludes this: "the specific evidence of the threat posed by Plaintiffs, as well as whether the prohibitions are the only effective way to address that threat, remains less substantial" 2/
Second, Judge Nichols' IEEPA interpretation is powerfully argued and persuasive. This case suggests that any IEEPA-based ban of TikTok will be permanently enjoined, if appellate courts agree (assuming appeal actually taken). 3/
The Wednesday order by Judge Carl Nichols should have been read as a warning by the Government--he asked for either a brief defending the ban, or a postponement to November. He literally asked whether they wanted to concede to one of TikTok's requests. 2/
This Judge temporarily enjoined the TikTok ban despite receiving secret national security information offered by the Trump Administration to defend that ban. 3/