Cart ()

Facebook and Twitter CEOs Feud Over Whether to Fact-Check Trump’s False Tweets

Facebook and Twitter CEOs Feud Over Whether to Fact-Check Trump’s False Tweets

Facebook and Twitter executives split over how to handle President Donald Trump’s false tweets as the president threatened to issue an executive order over Twitter’s fact-checks.

Twitter slapped fact-check labels on two Trump tweets pushing false and downright nonsensical conspiracy theories wrongly alleging non-citizens can simply vote by mail.

Trump accused the social network of “interfering” with the election and “completely stifling free speech.”

The Washington Post reports that Trump is planning to issue an executive order seeking to direct federal agencies to reconsider the scope of Section 230, a law that shields companies from liability for posts published by users on their platforms.

But it is unclear what power Trump has to do so, and the move is certain to be challenged in court.

"The First Amendment was specifically designed to protect you against the government," said St. John’s Law Professor Kate Klonick. "The First Amendment protects Twitter from Trump. The First Amendment doesn't protect Trump from Twitter."

Facebook vows not to fact-check:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg vowed not to fact-check Trump even though the platform already fact checks posts by non-politicians for misinformation.

"We have a different policy than, I think, Twitter on this," Zuckerberg said told Fox News. "I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. In general, private companies probably shouldn't be – especially these platform companies – shouldn't be in the position of doing that."

Twitter doubles down:

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey hit back at Zuckerberg’s comments on Wednesday night.

“We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make,” he tweeted. “This does not make us an ‘arbiter of truth.’ Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions.”