The first was adding a fact-check notification to a tweet about mail-in voting.

針對寄信投票的推文，推特在上面標註了事實查核的連結。

And the second was to place a warning in front of a tweet that insinuated looters would be shot amidst the protests over the death of George Floyd that the platform said violated its policies about glorifying violence.

在第二則貼文，川普暗示會開槍鎮壓那些洗劫商店的抗議者，推特則是在上頭加上了鼓吹暴力的標籤。

The fact-check of the first tweet sparked ire from the president.

第一則推文的事實查核標籤惹惱了川普。

That was only increased by the warning label placed on the second tweet.

第二則推文上的標籤更是徹底惹火了川普。

While Twitter has intervened into the president's posts, Facebook hasn't.

雖然推特介入了總統的推文，但 Facebook 完全沒有動作。

Both messages appeared unaltered on the president's Facebook page.

兩篇文章都在 Facebook 無修改地完整呈現出來。

We have a different policy I think than Twitter on this.

我們和推特在這方面的政策不同。

You know, I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.

我強烈認為 Facebook 不該擔任網路上人們發言的仲裁者。

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has said the platform will continue to fact-check information about elections.

推特總裁 Jack Dorsey 表示該平台會繼續查核與選舉有關的資訊。

But how did Facebook and Twitter come to take different views on moderating the president on their platforms?

為何 Facebook 與推特在審核總統貼文上做了不同的決定？

It's the latest question in an ongoing debate about the responsibility tech companies have in policing speech online.

最近在網路上又掀起一陣討論，關於科技公司對於公眾在該平台的言論到底需不需負責任。

You can think of online content moderation a bit like book publishing.

你可以把網路內容修正當成是出版書籍。

If a book with objectionable content like hate speech was written, the publisher would be responsible for editing that stuff out before it shipped to book stores.

若一本書含有令人反感的內容，如仇恨言論，那出版社就有責任在該書出版前將內容編輯好。

If that stuff somehow made it into the book, and that book somehow made it onto shelves, the bookstore couldn't be held responsible for what was in the book since it had no say in its creation.

若該內容真的成書，且上到了書店的書架上，書店不會被要求為裡頭的內容負起責任，因為它們對書本的內容沒有決定權。

Unlike say a newspaper or a traditional publisher, the platforms operate completely differently with the idea that they're sort of providing the place to put this stuff for individuals to publish themselves.

不同於報社或傳統出版商，這些網路平台的做法完全不同，他們是提供一個地方讓大眾可以發表自己的意見。

In the 1990s, many early online forums like CompuServe chose to not actively moderate content on their sites, while other sites like Prodigy did.

在 1990 年代時，許多早期的網路論壇，像是 CompuServe 選擇不主動審核內容，而 Prodigy 等網站則會。

A series of court rulings determined that sites that actively moderated their content were more like publishers and therefore, could be held liable for defamatory content.

一連串的法院判決，裁定說主動審核內容的網站比較像是出版商，因此對網站上的誹謗等內容負有法律責任。

And this was viewed as kind of being a thing that was just going to greatly, sort of, slow down the development of the internet in general, and really sort of threaten the ability to build a functional ecosystem.

而這件事被視為對當時網路發展極大的危害，威脅到良好網路生態的建立。

To address this issue, Congress included a provision in the 1996 Communications Decency Act called Section 230.

為了解決這個問題，議會在 1996 年的通訊規範法中加入一則條款，稱作 230 條款。

So, Section 230 allowed them to be focused on being platforms and not on being publishers.

230 條款讓這些網路平台能好好的當平台，而不需兼任「出版商」的身份。

They could intervene when they wanted to for the good of their platform.

在為了平台本身好的時候，它們可以介入一些用戶的行為。

But they didn't have any responsibility beyond sort of making sure that they weren't becoming sort of a cesspool of illegal behavior.

除了小心不要讓自己的平台變成犯罪的溫床，他們沒有其他的責任。

But this prioritization of growth over moderation came with consequences.

但這種只看重成長的措施，是有後果的。

In 2016, social media disinformation campaigns during the election put pressure on Facebook and Twitter to step up their moderation efforts.

2016 年時，選舉期間在社群軟體出現許多帶有假消息的競選廣告，這給 Facebook 與推特帶來了壓力，要改善審核系統。

We were too slow to spot this and too slow to act.

我們太晚發現，也太晚行動了。

Propaganda through bots and human coordination, misinformation campaigns, and divisive filter bubbles.

機器人宣傳、人為操作、假消息活動與分裂的同溫層。

That's not a healthy public square.

這不是個健康的網路環境。

There was a sense that this was getting to be pre-lawless and also that these ecosystems were extremely vulnerable to manipulation.

但這件事沒有一個好的法源依據，且這個網路環境太脆弱，太容易被操控。

Facebook and Twitter both ruled out fact-checking operations to combat misinformation.

Facebook 與推特都排除了使用事實查核的方式來打擊假新聞。

Facebook's had sort of an independent fact-checking program.

Facebook 自己有獨立的事實查核專案。

Twitter's done a bit more stuff internally.

推特的方式則是較為內部化。

But the general idea is that neither of the platforms want to do much regulation of speech, particularly when it comes to things like censoring the president of the United States.

但概略來說，兩個平台都不想對用戶言論做出太多限制，尤其像是審核美國總統這種事。

But both internally and externally, tech companies have faced mounting pressure to confront what the president posts on their platforms.

但不論是從內部或外部，科技公司都面臨著排山倒海的壓力，要它們對川普的言論作出反應。

None more so than Twitter.

尤其是推特。

Trump has been a very aggressive user of Twitter.

川普是推特的重度使用者。

It's kind of his native medium.

推特可說是他傳遞訊息的重要媒介。

And Twitter recently took a step.

而推特最近做出了行動。

Twitter's decision to add its fact-check label to the president's May 26th tweet was the first time the platform had fact-checked information outside of the coronavirus pandemic.

推特在 5 月 26 日川普的推文上加上事實查核的標籤，這是該平台第一次在除了疫情之外的推文，加上如此的標籤。

Two days after the tweet, the president signed an executive order seeking to limit the broad legal protections tech companies have under Section 230.

兩天後，總統簽署了一項行政命令，要限縮科技公司在 230 條款所得到的保護。

Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they're a neutral platform, which they're not.

現在，社群平台巨擘像是推特，在身為中立平台的前提下，得到了法律的保護，但它們並不中立。

Section 230 doesn't have anything to do with political bias.

230 條款與政治傾向一點關係都沒有。

In fact, the whole point of 230 was to allow them to intervene without fear of legal repercussion.

事實上，230 條款的重點就是，讓這些平台能夠在不需擔憂法律後果的情況下管理平台。

So, this isn't kind of something that is a natural outgrowth of the law.

這不是該法律自然發展的樣子。

The morning after the executive order was signed, Twitter placed a warning message on the president's tweet about looters, while Facebook let the post appear unaltered.

在行政命令被簽署後的隔天，推特在川普關於搶匪的推文中，放上了暴力警示的標誌，而 Facebook 則是什麼都沒做。

Mark Zuckerberg said that while he personally had a visceral negative reaction to the post, it didn't violate Facebook's policies.

臉書總裁 Mark Zuckerberg 表示他個人對該貼文有負面觀感，但該貼文並沒有違反它們的政策。

When Twitter sort of stepped in to this thing, Facebook ducked.

當推特決定介入這件事時，Facebook 退縮了。

Facebook has, for years, tried to stay out of regulating political speech, in particular political ads.

Facebook 多年以來避免限制政治議題，尤其是政治廣告。

They have sort of resisted calls from what might have been natural allies to restrict this stuff.

Facebook 無視了那些要求它們做出行動的建言。

Twitter has also applied another warning label in front of a tweet by Congressman Matt Gaetz, saying it also glorified violence.

推特也在國會議員 Matt Gaetz 的推文上放上鼓吹暴力的標籤。

Twitter does seem to be making a decision that there are some limits it wants to put within U.S. politics.

推特現在看來，的確是想要在美國政壇的發言上做出一些限制。

And that's something that has been kind of a third rail for American technology companies.

而這一直以來都是美國科技公司所避免踩到的敏感政治問題。

Zuckerberg said Facebook will review existing policies on how it handles content related to civil unrest or violence.

Zuckerberg 表示 Facebook 將會重新審視目前關於內亂與暴力的政策。

Where exactly the president's order and attempts at legal restrictions on the platforms and on their moderation go, is unclear.

川普簽署的命令，想要以法律限制社群平台的運作與審核制度，結果會如何還是未知數。

This certainly seems like it's gonna draw them deeper into politics, and that's something that, you know, Mark Zuckerberg I think has been desperately trying to avoid.

這絕對會使平台與政治的牽扯變得更深，而這是 Mark Zuckerberg 一直以來想要避免的。