Trump, Twitter, and the First Amendment, with platform moderation expert Daphne Keller

First Amendment

The First Amendment plays a crucial role in shaping platform moderation policies, influencing what content can be legally controlled. Daphne Keller explains that platforms often win legal battles based on their First Amendment rights, which allow them to set editorial policies independent of congressional mandates 1. This autonomy is contrasted with the broadcast framework, where regulation is justified by spectrum scarcity, a concept not applicable to the internet 1.

You have to carry my videos or my lectures or whatever. And the platforms always win those. And they win them sometimes based on CDA 230, which gives them a relatively quick and easy win. But they also win them based on their own First Amendment rights to set editorial policy.

--- Daphne Keller

The discussion also highlights the well-developed intermediary liability framework in copyright law, which contrasts with the less structured approach in speech regulation under Section 230 2.

   

Platform Power

Platforms wield significant power in moderating content, often extending beyond legal obligations. Daphne Keller notes that while there is a public demand for platforms to remove harmful yet legal content, the law cannot dictate these actions due to First Amendment protections 3. This creates a dilemma where private entities hold substantial influence over online speech, raising concerns about accountability and transparency.

That's where we are. That's the trap that we're in. And some people, a lot of people in academia and civil society try to sort of get out of that trap by saying, well, let's make the private power more accountable.

--- Daphne Keller

The conversation touches on the influence of advertisers and foreign governments over platform policies, questioning whether these entities should drive online speech rules 3.