🐱 Trumps executive order to end shitposting on the internet

CatParty


President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order today that would target social media companies, just a day after he complained about Twitter fact-checking two of his tweets.


The executive order would direct the Commerce Department to petition the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to look at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, according to the Washington Post.

Section 230 essentially acts as a liability shield for websites, as it does not hold them responsible for what is posted on them by third parties.
The section—which has been hailed as “one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the internet”—has become a target for lawmakers in recent months.

The executive order would also send complaints about alleged bias against conservatives by social media companies to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and would reign in how much federal agencies spend on advertising on social media, the Post reports.
The president promised “big action” on Wednesday as he railed against Twitter’s decision to fact-check his tweets about mail-in ballots and a perceived bias by the companies against conservatives.


On Thursday he signaled that he would be signing the order today.

“This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!,” the president tweeted.


While Trump’s executive order will add to the unrest between Washington, D.C. and tech companies, it’s unclear how much of an immediate impact it will have.


Karen North, a professor of social media at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communication, told USA Today the order would likely be challenged.



“Presidents can do anything,” North told the news outlet. “But there are checks and balances, and whatever he signs is likely to be challenged by Congress and the courts.”

Meanwhile, Kate Klonick, an assistant law professor at St. John’s University, told the New York Times she did not expect the order to be upheld in court.

“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,” told the newspaper.

According to Protocol, which obtained a draft of Trump’s executive order, it will essentially argue that social media giants are public squares—an argument Trump pushed against in a lawsuit regarding his ability to block users on social media.


The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 2019 that Trump blocking users was unconstitutional, as he used social media as a forum where makes announcements about his administration.

A more recent court decision may also pour cold water on the overarching goal of the order.

As Politico reported, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected a lawsuit brought by Laura Loomer, the right-wing provocateur, and Freedom Watch, against tech giants for allegedly suppressing conservative viewpoints and violating the First Amendment.


The court ruled unanimously to dismiss the complaint because “in general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech.'”

However, the order setting its sights on Section 230 could have implications—and the section has been a target of politicians on both sides of the aisle recently.

Signal, the popular encrypted messaging app, explained the importance of the section while arguing against the EARN IT Act, a hotly contested bill in Congress that critics fear could pave the way for a back-door into encryption.


The bill would dangle the Section 230 immunity over websites unless they adhere to best practices put together by a commission that theoretically (or likely) could include back doors into encryption.

Without Section 230, Signal and other smaller companies would not be able to “shoulder the enormous financial burden of handling hundreds of new lawsuits if they suddenly became responsible for the random things their users say.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s order reportedly taking aim at the section is already getting criticized by digital rights groups.

“Trump could not be more wrong on the law, the facts, and the scope of his power. Neither independent agencies like the FCC nor other executive-branch agencies like the Department of Commerce have any role to play in implementing, adjudicating, or deciding any matter regarding Section 230,” Free Press Senior Policy Counsel Gaurav Laroia said in a statement. “Section 230 was written to protect free speech on the open internet. Changing Section 230 is Congress’ prerogative, not the president’s by fiat. His poorly written executive order is an embarrassment and would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.”
 
Null yeets people who make fun of him.

So in a way, he's kind of a pansy.

He has an odd history with message boards and obscure internet communities, and has had his share of issues with the locals here, but he does get a lot of shit thrown at him. I still believe he bought up the server in part because nobody can ban him, hell I understand the motivation there.

Gonna be funny when right-wing sites are not allowed to censor liberal viewpoints

Funny how the right is the one advocating for freedom of speech these days, what the fuck happened to liberals? You people used to be anti-corporate/anti-war hippie types, for Christ's sake. Now you'll hop into bed with any corporate entity that puts a God damn rainbow flag in their office while cheering on the mass murder of moon god worshipping towelhead shitskins or whatever as long as it's a guy with a blue D next to his name giving the orders.

I am sure that Daily Storm or whatever does that shit

Weev is a Jewish white supremacist with a meth addiction and an all around deranged person. I think he's not allowed to return to the US due to fear of arrest?
 
Twitter has been going around like a raped ape putting 'disclaimers' on Chinese propaganda mouthpieces today I guess trying to get out in front of the unfairness angle.

I've been thinking about this whole situation a lot. To say that a private company shouldn't have to amplify undesirable speech is sensible but it ignores the problem. Tech companies have near total control over the flow of information in today's world and in a lot of ways play a governmental role in society. While true that the 1st Amendment only applies to the government that doesn't mean that free speech doesn't matter or isn't relevant. It's more relevant than ever.

I think what probably makes sense is that platforms that have over a certain number of MAU (Monthly Active Users) need to be regulated for fairness and transparency in some way while smaller ones should be permitted to do whatever they want. This way individual groups can have their own communities while the huge platforms have accountability for their place in society. Just like public companies have to play by certain rules and abide by certain standards, so should the biggest tech companies. It's a recognition of the out-sized role they have in our society.

Unfortunately, the current state of the American left is that authoritarian, totalitarian tactics are acceptable if they get what they want in the short term. This attitude is certain to backfire in a spectacular way.
 
Funny how the right is the one advocating for freedom of speech these days, what the fuck happened to liberals? You people used to be anti-corporate/anti-war hippie types, for Christ's sake. Now you'll hop into bed with any corporate entity that puts a God damn rainbow flag in their office.

I am very much pro-first amendment (hence my mocking of antifa). However, the first amendment says the government should not suppress the speech. It says nothing about corporations doing so.

If you are saying that sites shouldn't be allowed to censor, then that'll open the flood of spambots, etc.. It also means Null can't move sperg posts into spergatory.
 
Why not? Make your own site if you don't want censorship
then it just gets deplatformed by every domain registrar, anti-ddos service, bank, etc. for allowing nazis to say they don't like jews. "just colonize your own planet if you don't like censorship bro"
Hope you like porn spambots.
banning spammers is the only acceptable form of janitorial duty.
 
What would this order even do? Trump says whatever he wants regardless if he has evidence to back up his claim. If twitter deleted tweets like him accusing Scarborough of murder that would be controversial, but not totally morally wrong. Though it brings up questions of how much social media like twitter censors even correct information that goes against their political agenda.
 
What would this order even do? Trump says whatever he wants regardless if he has evidence to back up his claim. If twitter deleted tweets like him accusing Scarborough of murder that would be controversial, but not totally morally wrong. Though it brings up questions of how much social media like twitter censors even correct information that goes against their political agenda.
Section 230 protects sites from being considered the publisher of users’s comments. It’s keeps sites from being liable for anything that happens on them. Without it, it opens up for litigation targeting said site. It basically keeps speech free on the internet.
 
I am very much pro-first amendment (hence my mocking of antifa). However, the first amendment says the government should not suppress the speech. It says nothing about corporations doing so.

If you are saying that sites shouldn't be allowed to censor, then that'll open the flood of spambots, etc.. It also means Null can't move sperg posts into spergatory.

Something big like Twitter or YouTube should be subject to different rules from some tard running a Nazi SJW blog in his parents' basement or whatever. The problem is that the government is not suppressing the speech in itself, but they can ask corporate entities to step in where they can't. There is a lot of inconsistency in how this is played out though, especially considering that big tech is heavily filled with SJWs and other associated trash.

Free speech on the internet needs to be protected from both governments and corporate entities. If you don't like it you can fuck off to New Zealand, I'm sure they'd be happy to have you there.
 
Why is any forum, BBS, newsgroup, or website obligated to put up with bullshit that the admins and owners don't like?

I don't think those small forums qualify as "tech giants." People won't waste time suing those, they will go after the big fish like Google and Faceberg.
 
Something big like Twitter or YouTube should be subject to different rules from some tard running a Nazi SJW blog in his parents' basement or whatever. The problem is that the government is not suppressing the speech in itself, but they can ask corporate entities to step in where they can't. There is a lot of inconsistency in how this is played out though, especially considering that big tech is heavily filled with SJWs and other associated trash.

Free speech on the internet needs to be protected from both governments and corporate entities. If you don't like it you can fuck off to New Zealand, I'm sure they'd be happy to have you there.

I disagree. The corporation shouldn't have to put up with things that would make their platform look bad. Facebook would look bad if they allowed things like KKK propaganda, etc... to appear.
 
I am very much pro-first amendment (hence my mocking of antifa). However, the first amendment says the government should not suppress the speech. It says nothing about corporations doing so.

If you are saying that sites shouldn't be allowed to censor, then that'll open the flood of spambots, etc.. It also means Null can't move sperg posts into spergatory.

Section 230 protects sites from being considered the publisher of users’s comments. It’s keeps sites from being liable for anything that happens on them. Without it, it opens up for litigation targeting said site. It basically keeps speech free on the internet.

I don't think the idea is to abolish 230. I think it's to put guidlines on it. Specifically, moderation...

I think Trump is equivalate social media to using a telephone...

But, I only did a cursory run down of the draft...
 
Última edición:
Today was a historic day for the Gab community.

After Twitter "fact-checked" President Trump's tweets, the President sent out a series of messages highlighting the ongoing issues of Big Tech censorship throughout the day. He now plans to take action via executive order. Tens of thousands of Gab users returned to the site today and over 1,000 new users are now signing up every hour to join the millions of Gabbers in our community from around the world. Gab also recently overhauled our user interface to be faster, more modern, and much more user-friendly.

We reached out to the Trump campaign to let them know that we have an account for the President on Gab. We need your help to make this happen. When you see the President posting about Big Tech censorship and bias leave a comment and please let him know that you want to see him get on Gab.

Silicon Valley tyrants are pulling out all the stops for the 2020 election.

It's time to stop making money for and giving our time to Big Tech companies who refuse to uphold free speech values.

Together we can and will change the horrific tragectory that the internet is currently on.

I think that it is beyond optimistic to think that the US President would use a platform which is best known for its mass shooters. The 8Chan Problem, as Jersh coined it, is when a new platform is unable to attach new main stream users, because the first demographic to populate the new service are those who were banned from the original service. In the case of Gab, Twitter users will never migrate to Gab because the first demographic to use Gab are neo-nazis, the far-right, ect. Thus, Twitter will always have a monopoly.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo