Politics

‘Rammed it through’: Trump's Twitter order riles staffers and tech reformers

The hasty move angered many Section 230 reformers who believe the administration's actions undermine their cause.

President Trump in the Oval Office

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday threatening to strip tech giants of their protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images

After Twitter slapped a fact-check label on two of President Trump's tweets about mail-in ballots late Tuesday, the president ordered his staff to respond.

"The direction from on high was: 'Do something,'" a White House official with direct knowledge of the situation told Protocol.

What came next involved an old draft of an executive order that had been kicking around Washington since last year, one that threatened to strip tech giants of critical legal protections enshrined under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That law shields tech platforms from being held liable for what other people post and gives them the ability to moderate those platforms "in good faith."

"They picked this [order] off the shelf and essentially rammed it through," said the official, who requested anonymity because the White House had not authorized the interview. Referring to a draft that leaked late Wednesday, the official said, "It reads like a rough draft, and in a lot of ways, it is."

The president signed the executive order on Thursday, with Attorney General William Barr standing by his side. Trump and Barr said Congress will introduce companion legislation soon. The White House didn't respond to Protocol's request for comment.

The first sign that such an order was coming came Wednesday evening when White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany announced the president's intentions to reporters. The leaked draft, which was obtained by Protocol and largely mirrors the executive order formally announced Thursday, riled some White House officials and regulators, who say Trump and the White House Office of Digital Strategy circumvented the normal policy process in order to retaliate against Twitter.

Ironically, the hasty move also angered many lawyers and academics who have been fighting for Section 230 reform for years — and believe the administration's actions undermine their cause.

"Lots of people are upset with the tech industry for a lot of reasons, many legitimate and many illegitimate," said Mary Anne Franks, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law and president of the Cyber Civil Rights initiative, which fights against online revenge porn. "For someone to deliberately exploit that ambiguity makes it harder for us to have real, principled tech reform."

As described, the executive order requires the Department of Commerce to petition the FCC to conduct a review of Section 230 — a roundabout chain of command required because the White House cannot directly order the FCC, an independent agency, to do anything. It's unclear if the FCC even has the jurisdiction to conduct that review, said a former FCC official, a question that might need to be resolved in court.

The order also asks the FTC, another independent agency, to review allegations of anti-conservative bias collected by the White House and consider bringing legal action against the social media companies based on its findings. And it requires the U.S. attorney general to convene a group dedicated to rooting out bias on social media.

That provision could prove to be the most significant headache for companies like Facebook and Twitter, as it empowers states that have already expressed an interest in wielding consumer protection laws against companies accused of bias.

According to the White House official and a former FCC official, the executive order was originally authored by James Sherk, a special assistant to the president for domestic policy. The draft had been circulated to agencies like the FCC and the FTC for feedback last year, but according to the former FCC official, who was involved in those discussions and also requested anonymity to speak candidly, the draft had been "panned by all the agencies."

Little came of those conversations, at least until this week, when Twitter fact-checked President Trump's tweets. "Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!" Trump tweeted Tuesday.

According to the White House official, the order had support within the Office of Digital Strategy, particularly from its chief digital officer, Ory Rinat, as well as from White House social media director Dan Scavino. But as of Wednesday, it hadn't gone through the traditional policy process, during which the staff secretary typically adjudicates concerns before an executive order heads to the president's desk.

By Thursday, the White House official said, the administration was trying to fast-track those procedures. "The policy process is racing to catch up with this thing," the official said.

Even Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly on Thursday tweeted that he hadn't seen the executive order yet. "Everyone take deep breath on EO, which I haven't seen," he wrote.

O'Rielly offered a soft rebuke of the draft order. "As a conservative, I'm troubled voices are stifled by liberal tech leaders," O'Reilly said. "At same time, I'm extremely dedicated to First Amendment, which governs much here."

Meanwhile, some of Section 230's chief critics raced to distance themselves from President Trump's proposal. "I don't know anyone interested in Communications Decency Act reform who thinks an executive order is the way to improve the status quo," said Carrie Goldberg, a New York-based lawyer who has represented online harassment victims in cases against companies like Grindr. "There are a number of serious reform proposals, all of which contemplate congressional action. We want to see reform done the right way."

Goldberg is part of a growing group of lawyers and scholars interested in reforming Section 230 so that companies can be held liable for some of the harassment and online harms that take place on their platforms.

At a Department of Justice summit on Section 230 in February, Goldberg, Franks and others spoke passionately about how Section 230 has enabled the worst forms of online harassment, leaving victims with no legal recourse to go after the platforms that host that harassment. They talked about women tormented by revenge porn, men targeted with rape threats by abusive exes, and tens of millions of reports of child sexual abuse imagery flooding the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children every year. None focused on political bias.

With the executive order, the president has staked out perhaps the one corner of Section 230 reform that not even the reformers have embraced.

"The harms I'm talking about that so desperately require redress could not be more different than what Trump is fighting for," Goldberg said. "While my clients want the right to hold companies accountable when their lives are overturned by the weaponization of tech, Trump wants to bully these companies away from moderating the speech of the powerful."

Franks agreed: "The tech industry has essentially allowed people like Trump and other powerful people to harass and intimidate and threaten and chill the speech of other people," Franks said. "That's the free speech issue here."

Annie McAdams, a Houston-based personal injury lawyer who has brought liability cases against Facebook and Salesforce, said she welcomes any government review of Section 230, but she condemned the retaliatory nature of the White House's proposal. "If a private business facilitates unlawful activity, the court should be knocking on the door," McAdams said. "If it's simply the president doesn't agree with how a private business does business with regard to him, that's dangerous ground."

The order is likely to face opposition from courts. Moreover, the White House official said, the president's order is no guarantee that the FTC or FCC will undertake the reviews he's asking for.

"This is asking agencies he doesn't control to enact a policy they haven't traditionally been that interested in," the official said.

The former FCC official predicted that the order "isn't going anywhere," though it could "open up an Overton window" in how conservatives approach taking on Big Tech.

But no matter what happens with the executive order, Franks worries it could still have the desired effect. Already, she noted, Mark Zuckerberg has gone on Fox News to ding Twitter for fact-checking Trump. Franks fears the "theatrics" of Trump's proposal will spook tech platforms into submission.

"It's a little bit like a domestic abuse dynamic. As long as you keep me happy, I won't hurt you," Franks said. "What I really hope people understand is … he's going to hurt you anyway."
Power

How the creators of Spligate built gaming’s newest unicorn

1047 Games is now valued at $1.5 billion after three rounds of funding since May.

1047 Games' Splitgate amassed 13 million downloads when its beta launched in July.

Image: 1047 Games

The creators of Splitgate had a problem. Their new free-to-play video game, a take on the legendary arena shooter Halo with a teleportation twist borrowed from Valve's Portal, was gaining steam during its open beta period in July. But it was happening too quickly.

Splitgate was growing so fast and unexpectedly that the entire game was starting to break, as the servers supporting the game began to, figuratively speaking, melt down. The game went from fewer than 1,000 people playing it at any given moment in time to suddenly having tens of thousands of concurrent players. Then it grew to hundreds of thousands of players, all trying to log in and play at once across PlayStation, Xbox and PC.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Latest Stories