OPINION | This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

Twitch, a popular streaming platform owned by Amazon tycoon Jeff Bezos, has temporarily banned President Trump’s account for “hateful conduct,” according to Fox News.

“Hateful conduct is not allowed on Twitch. In line with our policies, President Trump’s channel has been issued a temporary suspension from Twitch for comments made on stream, and the offending content has been removed,” a Twitch spokesperson told Fox News.

The “hateful content” is said to be stemmed from footage of President Trump’s speeches.

The platform’s community guidelines and hateful conduct rules are the following: “Hateful conduct is any content or activity that promotes, encourages, or facilitates discrimination, denigration, objectification, harassment, or violence based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or serious medical condition or veteran status, and is prohibited. Any hateful conduct is considered a zero-tolerance violation.”

Twitch confirmed with Fox News that when the Trump campaign joined back in 2019, that it would make him adhere to the platform’s terms of service and guidelines.

Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post, which Trump openly criticizes often.

More from Fox News:

A rebroadcast of Trump’s 2015 campaign launch — when he famously criticized people crossing the Mexican border to illegally enter the United States — and comments Trump made at his recent Tulsa rally were flagged by Twitch.

Do You Like This Artice? Give Us Feedback 👇

The free Amazon-owned service, where users mostly livestream themselves playing video games and other users watch, logged more than 9 billion hours watched in 2019. Trump’s campaign created an account last year and used the platform to stream rallies and other events.

Trump recently signed an executive order intended to curtail the legal protection that shields social media platforms from liability for what gets posted, according to the New York Times.

The order makes it easier for federal regulators to argue that companies like Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter are suppressing free speech.

For example, some users often find their posts deleted, accounts suspended, among other examples.

Twitter flagged two posts from President Trump as false news.

— Advertisement —

The move is almost certain to face challenges in court, but in the meantime, Trump and his supporters have long accused social media companies of suppressing or silencing conservative voices.

The executive order refers to what it calls “selective censoring,” which would allow the Commerce Department to try to focalize the use of Section 230.

It would also allow the Federal Trade Commission to bulk up a tool for reporting online bias.

The order would also provide limitations on how federal dollars can be spent on social media advertisements.

Along with the First Amendment, Section 230 helped social media thrive. Social media platforms can set their own rules in terms of how lackadaisical or strict they want their ‘guidelines’ to be. Technology companies have argued that any move to repeal or alter it would cripple online discussion.

They can also moderate content as they see fit.

The law will not provide blanket protection to social media platforms.

The companies are still required to comply with copyright law and remove pirated materials posted by users.

A spokesperson for Youtube also declined to comment on the matter.

“We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen,” President Trump tweeted.

Mark Zuckerberg broke silence on the topic, saying, “I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “Private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”

“It’s unclear what to make of this because to a certain extent, you can’t just issue an executive order and overturn on a whim 25 years of judicial precedent about how a law is interpreted,” said Kate Klonick, an assistant law professor at St. John’s University who studies online speech and content moderation.

Ms. Klonick, who said she had seen a draft version of the order, said that it was “likely not going to be upheld by a court.”

More from The New York Times:

Some of the ideas in the executive order date to a “social media summit” held last July at the White House, officials said.

But as conservatives have claimed that social media companies are biased against them and overmoderate their political views, Republican lawmakers have increasingly pushed to modify the statute.

Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Josh Hawley of Missouri also chimed in this week after Twitter applied its new fact-checking standard to the president. Both lawmakers have been critics of the protections that technology companies enjoy under Section 230, and they renewed their calls to alter it.