Many threads on this. Some with comments: <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=trump%20executive%20order%20comments%3E0&sort=byDate&type=story" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...</a><p>At this point we should probably wait until something actually happens, and then hopefully the discussion will have details to be grounded in.
truly wild that the fight over whether social media platforms should be held liable for speech happens the one time they actually <i>do</i> make a feeble attempt at moderation.
Big "tech's" positions about what they will and won't enable people to do have become so inconsistent with public focused principal that I struggle to be sympathetic.<p>If Section 230 is so important, then who the fuck got us in position that it's the current chesspiece between government and industry?<p>Consolidation of power invites attention from other power. Once that happens to you, don't expect to win on principal. You've already decided that you're not fighting on principal.
The interesting thing in this case is that Trump's tweet is a violation of the "Election Integrity" policy: <a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules" rel="nofollow">https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules</a>
(see the "Authenticity" section) whereas his other tweets, while inflammatory, are not.