Trump Asks Court To Reinstate His Twitter Account ASAP

from the not-how-it's-gonna-work dept

There were a bunch of headlines this weekend claiming that Donald Trump had just "sued" Twitter to get his account reinstated. This is untrue. There were also some articles suggesting that he was using Florida's new social media law as the basis of this lawsuit. This is also false (what the hell is wrong with reporters these days?).

Trump actually sued back in July and it was widely covered then. And the basis of that lawsuit was not Florida's law, but rather a bizarrely twisted interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

What happened on Friday was that in that ongoing case, Trump filed for a preliminary injunction that would (if granted) force Twitter to reinstate Trump's account. This is not at all likely to be granted. The motion for the injunction is laughably bad. It's even worse than the initial complaint (which was hilariously bad). It does make reference to Florida's law -- which has already been held to be unconstitutional -- but it's certainly not using that as a key part of its argument.

As for this motion, it's just a lawyerly Hail Mary attempt by lawyers who are in way too deep, hoping that maybe they'll get lucky with a judge who doesn't care about how the 1st Amendment actually works. It's a mishmash of confused and debunked legal theories about the 1st Amendment and Section 230, but the crux of it is that it violated then President Donald Trump's rights when Twitter shut down his account, because Twitter was acting as the government. Yes. The argument is so stupid as to need repeating. The underlying argument is that government actor, Twitter illegally censored private citizen President Donald Trump, taking away his 1st Amendment rights through prior restraint.

As a government actor, Defendant’s prior restraint of Plaintiff is a violation of the First Amendment, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to injunctive relief under the federal courts’ longstanding power to “grant equitable relief for constitutional violations.”

The parts about Section 230 are just as stupid:

Section 230 is not a valid defense to this action and is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case. Section 230 only protects Defendant for (1) causes of action in which third-party speech is an element and (2) its content moderation for specific reasons outlined in Section 230(c)(2). Here, Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against Defendant involve neither third-party speech nor the sorts of content specified in Section 230. Further, binding precedent has determined Section 230 offers platforms no protection from suits brought under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”).

That's... not how any of this works. Of course this is about 3rd party speech: Trump's. And Section 230 absolutely covers the kind of content specified by Section 230 (i.e., "information provided by another information content provider.")

The 230 argument just gets worse and worse the more Trump's very, very confused lawyers try to explain it. They really don't want the judge to recognize that basically every court has made it clear that (c)(1) (which has no "good faith" requirement) covers nearly all moderation decisions. And then they (falsely) claim that even (c)(2) doesn't protect Twitter. The truth is both sections protect Twitter. The tap dancing to exclude (c)(2) is truly impressive.

As Florida federal courts have ruled, consistent with most courts, Section 230(c)(2) is not a carte blanche to remove content for any reason. Rather, these terms refer to specific types of content regulable in 1996, and “otherwise objectionable” is a catch-all term that, under the ejusdem generis canon of statutory construction, refers to types of content Congress thought regulable in 1996. See Nat’l Numismatic Certification, LLC. v. eBay, Inc., No. 6:08-CV-42-ORL-19GJK, 2008 WL 2704404, at *25 (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2008) (“One may find an array of items objectionable; for instance, a sports fan may find the auction of a rival team’s jersey objectionable. However, Congress provided guidance on the term ‘objectionable’ by providing a list of seven examples and a statement of the policy behind Section 230”). Accordingly, the Court concludes that “objectionable” content must, at a minimum, involve or be similar to pornography, graphic violence, obscenity, or harassment. Song fi Inc. v. Google, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 876, 883 (N.D. Cal. 2015). The six (6) adjectives preceding the phrase “otherwise objectionable” clearly demonstrate the policy behind the enactment of Section 230 (c)(2) and provide guidance as to what Congress intended to be ‘objectionable’ content. Section 230(c)(2) is not a bar to Plaintiff’s lawsuit, which alleges that Defendant removed content in violation of the First Amendment and other laws.

Uh, no. The reference to Song Fi is particularly stupid. The case is not a good one (see Eric Goldman's writeup when it came out), but it does not stand for the argument that Twitter can't kill the President's account when he appeared to be encouraging insurrectionists to prevent the peaceful transfer of power away from his presidency. That's pretty obviously "otherwise objectionable." In Song Fi, the court said that 230(c)(2) didn't apply (wrongly, in my opinion) because YouTube removed a video because it thought the video uploader was inflating viewer counts, and the court said that because that reason wasn't about the content of the video, 230 didn't apply. But, and here's the important bit, YouTube still won the case because its terms said that it could remove content for any reason. So even if the court bought this ridiculous argument regarding Section 230, it still doesn't help Trump.

As for the arguments regarding Florida's social media law, it's almost too ridiculous to mention, but it's there, so mention it we must. Trump's lawyers claim that the fact that the law was deemed pre-empted by Section 230 doesn't matter any more because one case cited by the judge was vacated and replaced later. This is the Domen case that we wrote about earlier this year. Except, Judge Hinkle didn't "rely" on that to find 230 pre-empted the law, so the vacating of the original ruling in that case doesn't change a damn thing, and... the revised Domen opinion STILL NOTES THAT 230 PRE-EMPTS STATE LAW (see footnote 4). I mean, what the fuck do Trump's lawyers think they're doing here?

Anyway, this motion has almost no chance, absent the judge making a really wacky decision which wouldn't stand up on appeal. Meanwhile, Twitter is still trying to get the case transferred to Northern California, though Trump is literally claiming that jurisdiction clauses can't apply to him because he was President. In a case where he's accusing Twitter of being the government. Really.

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was the sitting President of the United States, and used his account and Defendant’s services in that capacity as a public forum. Knight First Amdt. Inst. at Columbia Univ., 928 F.3d at 226. Plaintiff was clearly a “federal … government entity in the United States using the Services” in his “official capacity.” Further, he was “legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction, or venue clauses” contained in Twitter’s TOS without input from other agencies, including the National Archives and Records Administration, in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation

Trump (incredibly) cites the Knight v. Trump case to prove that he used his personal Twitter account for official White House business (something he denied in the Knight case...).

Trump is also fighting jurisdictional changes in his cases against the other social media companies and this week the court in the Google/YouTube case rejected Trump's arguments against moving the case and sent it to California, laughing off the "but he was President!" argument:

To begin, the Court need not reach the issue of whether the United States or its officials can be bound by a forum-selection clause because, in this case, there is no federal agency or entity that is a party to this case. Plaintiffs assert that “[a]t all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff [Trump] was the sitting President of the United States, and used his social media accounts and YouTube’s services in that capacity as a public forum.” Resp. at 4. Yet, that is plainly not the case because Plaintiff Trump agreed to the TOS in his individual capacity, has brought this suit in his individual capacity, and is seeking the restoration of his YouTube account in his individual capacity. See generally Am. Compl. Indeed, as recognized in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Trump is bringing this case not as the President of the United States, but as “a private citizen and is domiciled in Palm Beach, Florida.” ... Plaintiff Trump’s status in this case as a private citizen is further confirmed by the fact that he is pursuing claims under FDUTPA—which provides no cause of action for the federal government or its officials. ... Thus, because Plaintiff Trump is not a party to this case in an official government capacity, the Court finds these arguments to be without merit.

Relatedly, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments premised on the Second Circuit’s opinion in Knight to be unrelated to the enforceability of the forum-selection clause in this case. In Knight, the Second Circuit held that Plaintiff Trump’s Twitter account was a “public forum” such that Plaintiff Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking users from interacting with his account. 928 F.3d at 237–38. But this holding has no impact on the enforceability of the forum-selection clause in this case, where Plaintiff Trump is a party in his individual capacity.

That doesn't bode well for the similar arguments in the other cases. But, again, none of the arguments Trump is making in these lawsuits makes much sense.

Anyway, this whole thing is ridiculous and hopefully the judge recognizes it as such and tosses it quickly.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, donald trump, injunction
Companies: twitter, youtube

Angry Anti-Masker Sues Joe Biden, Facebook, And Twitter Because His Social Media Was Taken Down For Disinfo

from the you-can't-be-serious dept

Another day, another truly silly lawsuit. The "Liberty Justice Center" and the Tyler & Bursch law firm -- both of which seem to specialize in filing ridiculous lawsuits -- have now filed a lawsuit on behalf of a disinformation-spewing anti-masker against Joe Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Facebook, and Twitter... because Facebook and Twitter locked his account after he posted an image claiming (incorrectly) that "masking children is impractical and not backed by research or real world data."

The image, which you can find in the lawsuit, but which I will not post here, posts some stuff that is true but uninteresting (such as the fact that sometimes people wear masks improperly) with stuff that is out of context and misleading (such as that studies don't have conclusive answers yet about the effectiveness of masks for kids) to try to make a claim that masking kids is a bad idea. But, like so much misinformation, it's telling a story by cherry-picking a few points out of context. Actual credible sources have broken down why these claims -- repeated frequently by anti-maskers -- are basically bullshit. Yes, there remain some unknown things and inconclusive science (though the blanks will be filled in soon). But the really "scary" stuff about harming development are mostly bogus. Of course, this is the way most misinformation works: take things out of context that you can point to as true, pool them together with a few other things, slip in a few exaggerations, and claim a big picture, the implications of which are ridiculous and not supported.

That's what the graphic Justin Hart posted basically did. And, Facebook and Twitter both reasonably felt that it was spreading potentially dangerous misinformation about masks and children. So both services gave him a time-out. Facebook suspended him for three days for violating its community standards. Twitter locked his account for violating its rules.

Hart is suing Biden, Murthy and other government officials on the laughably bogus argument that the account suspensions were ordered by the US government. The argument is that because the White House did use its bully pulpit to get angry at Facebook for leaving up misinformation, that somehow makes the government responsible for the actions against Hart (even though those occurred before the White House statements). As we noted at the time, the White House's statements were pretty stupid and short sighted. But they did not, in any way, amount to evidence that the White House and social media were colluding to censor people. Indeed, the whole point of the White House's statements were that Facebook wasn't taking down accounts.

The claims in the case are, as expected, silly. First you get a state action claim.

Facebook and Twitter engaged in state action when they removed posts like Hart’s at the request of Murthy and Biden based on the viewpoint of those posts.

Facebook and Twitter worked in concert and/or conspiracy with Murthy and Biden to deprive Hart of his First Amendment right to Free Speech.

Murthy and Biden affirmed, authorized, encouraged, and/or facilitated Facebook and Twitter’s unconstitutional conduct of censorship.

Except, that's not what happened, at all. That's not how state action doctrine works. This is just silly.

Then, there's the claim that these companies violated Hart's free speech rights under the California Constitution. And, because every stupid content moderation lawsuit has to cite Pruneyard, so does this one. As a reminder, Pruneyard is a case about a shopping mall being required to allow speakers on the property, but the ruling and subsequent rulings have narrowed it down to the very, very, very specific circumstances of the Pruneyard Shopping Mall and basically nowhere else.

In Pruneyard Shopping Center, the California Supreme Court recognized that the suburban shopping center—even ones that are privately owned—are an “essential and invaluable forum for exercising” speech rights. 592 P.2d 341, 347 (Cal. 1979). The court reasoned that shopping centers are where most people “spend the most significant amount of [their] time in suburban areas where [their] needs and wants are satisfied” because “shopping centers provide the location, goods, and services to satisfy [their] needs and wants.”

And then the case misleadingly cites the other favorite, Packingham, which is limited to how the government cannot pass a law blocking people from the entire internet and has no impact at all on whether or not an individual service can kick someone off for violating terms.

The U.S. Supreme Court made a similar observation about the internet in Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1735. There, the Court compared social media to a “quintessential forum” for engaging in speech such as “a street or park.” It further found that the most important forum today for speech is “cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general . . . and social media in particular.”

And with just those two barebones paragraphs, that ignore the realities of both cases, the lawsuit claims:

Because Facebook and Twitter provide an essential and invaluable forum for exercising Hart’s right to Free Speech under the California Constitution, they violated such right when they removed Hart’s posts and suspended his ability to speak on their platforms

Except, we've already done this and it's not how any of this works. As the 9th Circuit pointed out in the PragerU case:

PragerU’s claim that YouTube censored PragerU’s speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government—not a private party—from abridging speech. See Halleck, 139 S.Ct. at 1928 (the Free Speech Clause “prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,” and “does not prohibit private abridgment of speech”); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976) (“the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state”). PragerU does not dispute that YouTube is a private entity that operates its platform without any state involvement.

These are not antiquated principles that have lost their vitality in the digital age. In Halleck the Supreme Court considered whether a private entity that operates a public access channel on a cable system is a state actor. 139 S. Ct. at 1926. The plaintiffs tested a theory that resembled PragerU’s approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its “operation” of the private property as “a public forum for speech.” Id. at 1930. The Court rejected this argument. Such a rule would eviscerate the state action doctrine’s distinction between government and private entities because “all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints.” Id. at 1930–31. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” Id. at 1930.

Importantly, private property does not “lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.” Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972). YouTube may be a paradigmatic public square on the Internet, but it is “not transformed” into a state actor solely by “provid[ing] a forum for speech.” Halleck, 129 S. Ct. at 1930, 1934.

Notably, the Hart filing does not mention the PragerU ruling. Perhaps because it debunks every argument here.

There is another claim that is even dumber than those first ones. Count IV claims that Facebook and Twitter "committed promissory estoppel by not fulfilling their promise for Hart to use their platform for his business."

Facebook and Twitter made “a clear and unambiguous promise” to Hart that he could use their services to communicate and network with other Facebook and Twitter users

Except, no, they didn't.

Facebook and Twitter did not caveat this promise by announcing that they would censor speech opposing masks.

They absolutely did. Both services include terms of service that Hart agreed to, which make it clear that he can be suspended for violating community standards and terms of service, and may have content removed for basically any reason at all.

I can only imagine that Hart's very silly lawyers pulled out this laughable argument after looking at the infamous Barnes v. Yahoo ruling, in which someone got around Section 230 because an employee at Yahoo promised to takedown some content. The court basically said that once the company promised to do that, its failure to violated that promise and that took precedence over Section 230. But that was a direct promise from an employee. Hart totally misreading (if he read at all) the terms that he agreed to is not a promise to let him spew misinformation.

There are also the usual padding claims about "negligent interference with a prospective economic advantage" and "intentional interference with a contract" which have no chance. The only claim in the lawsuit that is actually reasonable (though not very interesting) is the claim against two government agencies -- Health & Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget -- for failing to respond to his FOIA request in the 20 business days required by law. Of course, as we well know, FOIA requests often take years, but you can sue after the 20 days to try to force the issue -- so that claim seems to be the sole legit claim here, but the only remedy would be expedited processing of his FOIA request and nothing else.

This lawsuit may be useful for fundraising campaigns and silly pandering about how much of a "victim" Hart is, but it's not a serious legal complaint and the courts are likely to treat it with exactly the level of respect it deserves.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, common carrier, content moderation, free speech, joe biden, justin hart, promissory estoppel, vivek murthy
Companies: facebook, twitter

Brazilian President Bans Social Media Companies From Removing Disinformation & Abuse

from the well-that-will-work-out-just-great dept

Ah, great. Just after Australia made it clear that media organizations are liable for comments on social media (demonstrating one aspect of a world without intermediary liability protections), Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro has announced new social media rules that effectively force social media sites to keep all content online (demonstrating the flipside to a world without intermediary liability protections). The two most important things that Section 230 does -- limiting liability for 3rd party intermediaries and freeing websites of liability for moderation choices -- each going away completely in two separate countries in the same week.

To be clear, the rule in Brazil can only stay on the books for 120 days -- since it's a "provisional measure" from the President -- and if they're not enacted into law by the Brazilian Congress by then, they'll expire (and there's at least some suggestion that the Brazilian Congress has no interest). But, still, these rules are dangerous.

Under the new policy, tech companies can remove posts only if they involve certain topics outlined in the measure, such as nudity, drugs and violence, or if they encourage crime or violate copyrights; to take down others, they must get a court order. That suggests that, in Brazil, tech companies could easily remove a nude photo, but not lies about the coronavirus. The pandemic has been a major topic of disinformation under Mr. Bolsonaro, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all having removed videos from him that pushed unproven drugs as coronavirus cures.

Imagine needing to get a court order to remove content? That's ridiculous. Bolsonaro's government put out a twitter thread (in English) claiming that this is the country "taking the global lead in defending free speech" when the reality is exactly the opposite. Compelled speech, which includes the compelled hosting of speech, is the exact opposite of "defending free speech." Here's what the government is saying about this dangerous proposal:

Brazilian government is taking the global lead in defending free speech on social networks and protecting the right of citizens to freedom of thought and expression.

As noted, compelled speech is not defending free speech. And freedom of expression does not mean you get to force someone else to let you speak on their property.

The Provisional Measure issued today by the Brazilian government forbids the removal of content that may result in any kind of "censorship of political, ideological, scientific, artistic or religious order".

Hilariously, though, it does allow for the removal of copyright infringing material, which already undermines the idea that it does not allow for censorship of "artistic" works.

It is also guaranteed that the social network will have to justify the removal of content under the terms of Brazilian laws. Without a just cause, the social network will have to restore the removed content.

This may be the most pernicious part here, because (as we've discussed before), the most bad faith, abusive trolls are the ones who are most likely to demand justification -- and then to act shocked and pretend to be offended at claims that they were acting as bad faith, abusive trolls. This provision just allows trolls to make an even bigger nuisance of themselves. Which seems to be exactly what Bolsonaro wants, knowing he has more bad faith, abusive trolls on his side.

This measure forbids selective deplatforming by requiring that social media provide a just cause for the suspension of services and restore access should the suspension be considered unlawful. This measure is based on precedent in Brazilian law and freedom of expression.

Compelled speech is never freedom of expression. As for "precedent," Brazil once led the way in passing smart internet rules. This makes a mockery of them.

Attention: the law does not prevent the social network from removing content that violates Brazilian law, such as child pornography. The Brazilian government stands for both freedom and democracy!

That's a pretty damn Orwellian statement right there.

This measure has been emitted as a result of ongoing concern with actions taken by social media groups that have been perceived as harmful to healthy debate and freedom of expression in Brazil, and hope it will serve to help restore online political dialogue in the country.

Basically, we're doing this because our President is not doing well in the polls leading up to a national election, and has been taking a page from Trump's playbook and talking about how he can only lose by election fraud -- and we need to make sure that social media companies don't actually stop our bullshit propaganda from spreading widely.

The real question now is how will the social media companies respond. According to the NY Times:

Facebook said that the “measure significantly hinders our ability to limit abuse on our platforms” and that the company agrees “with legal experts and specialists who view the measure as a violation of constitutional rights.”

Twitter said the policy transforms existing internet law in Brazil, “as well as undermines the values and consensus it was built upon.”

YouTube said it was still analyzing the law before making any changes. “We’ll continue to make clear the importance of our policies, and the risks for our users and creators if we can’t enforce them,” the company said.

There's also this:

In July, YouTube removed 15 of Mr. Bolsonaro’s videos for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. And late last month, YouTube said that, under orders from a Brazilian court, it had stopped payments to 14 pro-Bolsonaro channels that had spread false information about next year’s presidential elections.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has also been investigating disinformation operations in the country. Mr. Bolsonaro became a target of those investigations last month, and several of his allies have been questioned or detained.

Of course, it seems notable that it was just a few years ago that Brazil arrested a Facebook exec because the company refused to hand over information on WhatsApp users, and has, at times, blocked the entirety of WhatsApp in the country. So, it would be interesting to see what will happen if the companies refuse to follow these ridiculous rules.

But, between this and what happened in Australia, we'll now get to see two examples of the dangerous situation that happens when you don't have strong intermediary liability protections, including for the ability to moderate websites how best you see fit.

Filed Under: brazil, compelled speech, content moderation, election misinformation, free speech, jair bolsonaro, marco civil
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Announces On Twitter The Livestreaming On Facebook Of His Signing Of A Bill That Removes 1st Amendment Rights For Both

from the you-did-what-now? dept

We've talked a bunch about just how incredibly unconstitutional Texas's social media content moderation bill, HB20 is, so I don't really need to cover any of that again. You can look it up -- or just read how a court found Florida's similar bill unconstitutional.

Still, the entire point of this bill is to play up a culture war for grandstanding politicians, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott wants to grandstand with the best of them (even if he's a pathetic copy of some of the other grandstanders in his party). Even so, it still was quite something to see Abbott announce on Twitter that people should watch him on Facebook as he signed the bill into law -- a bill that would attempt to remove the 1st Amendment rights against compelled speech from both companies.

He's doing this on the same day that the Justice Department is suing Texas for its equally unconstitutional anti-abortion "let everyone sue everyone and let the courts sort it out" bill.

I know that some people are concerned about this bill, and what awful things it will do for social media, but all it's really going to do is waste a ton of taxpayer money in Texas, which Abbott and the other faux culture warriors want to use as basically taxpayer-funded campaign dollars to get their names in the headlines, talking about they're "fighting for free speech" when all they're doing is removing 1st Amendment rights, abusing the power the voters entrusted with them, and throwing their money away on lawyers who have nothing legitimate to defend.

It's political theater, with your speech and your tax dollars being held hostage. No one should accept this as reasonable, but these are the times we live in, where corruption and violations of the oath of office for the sake of some dumb culture war are more important than governing and doing what's right.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, compelled speech, content moderation, greg abbott, hb20, social media, texas
Companies: facebook, twitter

Taliban Creates A New Content Moderation Challenge For Social Media

from the but-what's-their-opinion-on-section-230 dept

The news out of Afghanistan is distressing on many levels, and it's bizarre to think that there's a Techdirt relevant story there, but (unfortunately) it seems like every story these days has some element of content moderation questions baked in. As the Taliban took over the country, it seems that they had a bone to pick... with Facebook. Facebook has banned the Taliban for a while, and has said that it will continue to do so, even as it takes over running the country of Afghanistan. And, the Taliban seem... pretty upset about it.

THE TALIBAN SPOKESMAN, Zabihullah Mujahid, emerged from the shadows on Tuesday and devoted part of his first press conference to a rant about Facebook, in which he accused the tech giant of violating the Islamist group’s right to free speech by banning them from all its platforms....

[....]

Journalists, Mujahid suggested, should ask people at Facebook “who are claiming to be promoters of freedom of speech,” why the Islamist movement that seized power from Afghanistan’s elected government is banned from posting on any Facebook-owned platform, including Instagram and WhatsApp.

Yeah, so, I didn't think I'd be lecturing the Taliban on how freedom of speech works, but this is not that. Of course, the Taliban is not exactly associated with supporting a "right to free speech," so this is already bizarre. But, more to the point, as we've addressed at length, no private company owes anyone the right to use their website. That's just not how it works.

That said, it is interesting to see just how the various social media platforms are now struggling with the question of how to deal with the Taliban wanting to use their platform. Even if they were banned before for being a terrorist group, does that change when they're the running the country?

So far, Facebook and YouTube have said that the Taliban are banned from their platforms, per US sanctions policies. Twitter does not have a ban but told Recode that it takes down individual pieces of violent content. Eventually, though, more social media companies could start relaxing their rules on the Taliban, if the group gains legitimacy in the international community, experts say.

However, as the Washington Post noted in an article, Taliban supporters have become increasingly sophisticated in using social media in ways that abide by the platforms' rules to avoid getting banned for policy violations:

In accounts swelling across Facebook, Twitter and Instagram — and in group chats on apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram — the messaging from Taliban supporters typically challenges the West’s dominant image of the group as intolerant, vicious and bent on revenge, while staying within the evolving boundaries of taste and content that tech companies use to police user behavior.

The tactics overall show such a high degree of skill that analysts believe at least one public relations firm is advising the Taliban on how to push key themes, amplify messages across platforms and create potentially viral images and video snippets — much like corporate and political campaigns do across the world.

And, of course, all this really does is (once again) highlight the impossibility of doing content moderation well at scale. Groups that some deem as terrorists, others (including themselves) will often declare to be freedom fighters. And, of course, it gets tricky if you just rely on the US government's designations as well -- after all the US had Nelson Mandela listed as a terrorist until 2008. That's not to compare Mandela to the Taliban, but to note that official designations are fraught with tricky questions as well.

But this is also why various websites should have a pretty free hand in determining their own moderation policies, rather than having any government tell them who is and who is not allowed to be on any platform.

Filed Under: afghanistan, content moderation, free speech, taliban
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube