In an earlier interview, Mark Zuckerberg said he didnt believe it was the right reflex to combat censorship with more censorship. In general, I think a government choosing to censor a platform because theyre worried about censorship doesnt exactly strike me as the right reflex there, he said.

He and Facebook are referring to a section of the executive order that says Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from being legally liable for what their users say, should be clarified and its protections rolled back if a company isnt acting in good faith.

The good news for Facebook and Twitter is that experts agree the order is largely unenforceable and at odds with the First Amendment.

But Facebook still has valid reasons to be worried about the future of Section 230. Joe Biden has also stated that 230 should be repealed and, even if Trumps executive order ends up being mostly toothless, it could still result in lengthy legal battles for social media companies.

Twitter, who one executive once described as the free speech wing of the free speech party, and has been dealing with targeted harassment of one of its employees, called the executive order reactionary and politicized. Section 230 protects American innovation and freedom of expression, and its underpinned by democratic values, the company wrote in a statement. Attempts to unilaterally erode it threaten the future of online speech and Internet freedoms.

CEO Jack Dorsey previously defended the companys choice to fact-check Trumps tweets.Well continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally, Dorsey tweeted, pointing to the companys civic integrity policy. Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves.

Update 5/28 9:08PM ET: Added Twitters statement in response to the executive order.

See the original post:

Facebook slams executive order: It will restrict more speech online - Engadget