🐱 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.”
 
Hulk stop before duke nukem rapes you like kevin narsh was in the summer of 92 by two negroes
 
The problem is that social media giants want to be a publisher to retain ability to shape narrative AND pretend to be a platform to retain legal protection.

I think that's also one of their biggest problems and I think it's a bit funny because I'm sure that a few portion of these morons are convinced they're making a change by censoring our memes, like, when they delete a funny image, they expect we say "oh, I didn't know that was racist! Thank you, Facebook for making me change my ways". Considering they're very underpaid and many live in their cars, it's a bit touching this is the only happiness they have in their lives. Of course they're convinced they're making a change. Others are crazy with power and think they're saving the world like all the superhero characters they stan for.
 
Social Media platforms are like being invited to live in someone's house rent free. All you have to do is agree to their terms and you can stay until you do something they don't like, and you get evicted.
It doesn't matter if it's fair, it's their house, they make the rules. Doesn't mean it's moral or just, but it's still their right to decide how to run their platforms.
 
Social Media platforms are like being invited to live in someone's house rent free. All you have to do is agree to their terms and you can stay until you do something they don't like, and you get evicted.
It doesn't matter if it's fair, it's their house, they make the rules. Doesn't mean it's moral or just, but it's still their right to decide how to run their platforms.

That's how it currently works, but there is no reason it has to stay that way in certain cases.
 
I think that's also one of their biggest problems and I think it's a bit funny because I'm sure that a few portion of these morons are convinced they're making a change by censoring our memes, like, when they delete a funny image, they expect we say "oh, I didn't know that was racist! Thank you, Facebook for making me change my ways". Considering they're very underpaid and many live in their cars, it's a bit touching this is the only happiness they have in their lives. Of course they're convinced they're making a change. Others are crazy with power and think they're saving the world like all the superhero characters they stan for.
I do think its really funny when people act like RWers getting banned from Twitter is like the Soviet Union executing dissidents or something. Just make another account lol.
 
Social Media platforms are like being invited to live in someone's house rent free. All you have to do is agree to their terms and you can stay until you do something they don't like, and you get evicted.
It doesn't matter if it's fair, it's their house, they make the rules. Doesn't mean it's moral or just, but it's still their right to decide how to run their platforms.
And they are being given special privileges by the government based on what those rules and their enforcement are. What most people are saying is that they don't believe the conditions for those privileges are being met or that those conditions should change.
 
I would agree, but I'm concerned about how the government would interpret this going forward. Does this apply to any site-wide moderation? What counts as "stifling views they don't agree with?" Does this apply to all websites or just large ones? Is this just a withholding of federal funding, or will this open the door to larger consequences? These may have simple answers to you and I, but to a sleazy lawyer or politician with an agenda to push, this order can mean anything.

Personally, I think ANY moderation/change to ANY original work posted to social media BY an agent of that media company means they are now a publisher. Internet posting should be like the phone company, you have NO right to regulate ANY of the content, you can't put my phone calls on 5 second delays with a moderator/bot listening in to bleep out "obscenities" or pull the plug if it determines "This call is actually hate speech/disinformation" , we should expect no less from social media.

Obvious exception for illegal and copyrighted works, but, that's why I said "original work", whatever I post, as long as it breaks no laws, and is my own reaction or creation, CANNOT be touched. You do and you are now a publisher because you have just EDITED me. How can you say otherwise?

It's several years too late for the social media companies to whine about government overreach when, given the choice to self-police in a fair manner, they have UTTERLY failed.
 
Última edición:
That's how it currently works, but there is no reason it has to stay that way in certain cases.

If they had a blanket ban on political/religious discussion or at least enforced things consistently it would be less of an issue. But they allow certain favored individuals to get away with more than others do.

I do think its really funny when people act like RWers getting banned from Twitter is like the Soviet Union executing dissidents or something. Just make another account lol.

It's probably something Twitter staff masturbate to, anyway. Because they don't have the balls to fight a real fascist in the streets, so they just censor people's opinions when not threatening to beat up 90 year old WWII veterans and yelling NAZI in their faces.
 
It's probably something Twitter staff masturbate to, anyway. Because they don't have the balls to fight a real fascist in the streets, so they just censor people's opinions when not threatening to beat up 90 year old WWII veterans and yelling NAZI in their faces.

The soy is REAL.
 
Whatever happened to that whole Je Suis Charlie mindset? The whole idea that you abhor what someone says but you will defend to the death their right to say it? I thought that was what free speech was really about. Unless it is illegal (like CP or inciting others to violence), it shouldn't be banned by anyone. Not in the US anyway. Put up a big disclaimer that says Twitter doesn't endorse all the opinions and viewpoints on the site. Allow people to block those they don't want to see. Limit controversial people to age 18+ only. But censoring things you don't like isn't the way to handle it. Adults need to think for themselves and not be so ass raped when someone disagrees with them.

When you don't allow discussion of unpopular ideas, you simply force those people to go underground to a Stormfront or even a KF. They will have those idea entrenched because they'll choose to stay in an echo chamber where no one wants to cancel them because they say something controversial or mean or racist or whatever. You change minds by reasoning with people. Some are a lost cause, but you can stop some from falling into the trap if you can talk about it honestly. You can't counter an opponent's argument if you don't even know what it is.

My dad used to play the devil's advocate on everything. It makes your argument stronger when you consider the other side and can shoot down their arguments. Just calling them a meanie and getting them banned makes you feel morally superior, but it doesn't actually do any good. There's a risk some morons will fall for lies, but if you give media/social media too much censorship power -- eventually it will get in the wrong hands and it will be a disaster because we'll have generations who think that "Twitter approved" means it's the God's honest truth because they haven't been taught how to think critically.
 
This isn't actually changing anything.

It's a lot of words basically saying "Tell the FCC to look at megacorp-operated social media a bit more closely."


Twitter having officially-sanctioned, politically-biased "Fact checkers" stalking the posts of the President is a different ballgame than the "People can't sue Twitter because someone called someone names" intent of the original laws...


In short, the laws basically say "We realize you can't police every individual user on your sites beyond laying down a Terms of Service and doing basic moderation, so we'll give you some legal protections"

But Twitter and Facebook have started internal, company-created enforcement groups that ARE policing individual users and the argument is that doing so places them outside of the scope of this law and it's protections.

Especially when said policing is heavily biased and inconsistent.
 
Última edición:
if public forum is equated to a public square where anyone can walk and talk, short of exposing himself, the forum is a platform and should not regulate what's being said. You are free to sue a person who speaks for libel etc. but town should be held harmless.

If it is a private convention on some topic, they have the choice who the speakers are, but they are liable for things like inciting violence, libel, etc. They are publisher, they become one with the invited and controlled list of speakers.

The problem is that social media giants want to be a publisher to retain ability to shape narrative AND pretend to be a platform to retain legal protection.
I agree. I said it in the other thread and I’ll say it here as well:

I think Twitter should be allowed to post their “fact checks” under Trump’s tweets if they want, (or kick people from their platform, if you prefer). They have the right to speak as much as the rest of us.

That said, if they are going to set themselves up as an authoritative body, then they should be held to all the standards that an authoritative body is held to - up to and including libel suits when they post false information or allow it to go uncontested. (Which is what they’re trying to use Section 230 to shield themselves from being held to.)

Therefore, the problem, as Kot puts it well, is that they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too.
 
Social Media platforms are like being invited to live in someone's house rent free. All you have to do is agree to their terms and you can stay until you do something they don't like, and you get evicted.
It doesn't matter if it's fair, it's their house, they make the rules. Doesn't mean it's moral or just, but it's still their right to decide how to run their platforms.

Until they decide to change the rules without warning just because they suddenly found Jesus: "oh, excuse me, were you an atheist?" and then they kick you out and throw all your stuff to the streets and call the police and an exorcist while screaming you're attacking them just because you don't want to be part of morning prayer.
 
And they are being given special privileges by the government based on what those rules and their enforcement are. What most people are saying is that they don't believe the conditions for those privileges are being met or that those conditions should change.
It doesn't matter. Again, in no way am I saying it's right, but it's still ultimately their house. I don't think trying to mess with that is going to be good in the long term.
 
Several others have already pointed out that the tech companies want both the privileges of a publisher and the rights of a platform, but Trump needs to look at more than just one website when it comes to this problem. I stay the hell off Twitter because it's such a dumpster fire igniting an orphanage, but I still have to deal with the same level of self-righteous censorship from a "platform not a publisher guys" on YouTube and Twitch. If our God-Emperor really wants to cement his legacy in history, then it's time to flush 230 and replace it with something that actually works. And actually gets enforced.
 
This is actually a very sensible reform proposal. The previous efforts to reform 230 were bad because any admin action could render platform protection null. The proposed reform only deem the actions of the website their own speech. How is that not common sense? If you delete someone's account that's your freedom but if you delete that account and say it's deleted for being fucking pedo, then the speech is on you and you should be prosecuted if you saying that guys is a pedo could be prosecuted for defamation on any other platform.
 
It doesn't matter. Again, in no way am I saying it's right, but it's still ultimately their house. I don't think trying to mess with that is going to be good in the long term.
These companies are major enough that people are comparing them to utilities, and utilities are heavily regulated to the point of being required to provide services to basically everyone. If your company is major enough that Trump blocking someone on your site is considered a violation of their First Amendment rights because they can't reply on the same site, you should probably be more regulated than a New Zealand farming forum.
 
Anyone arguing that Twitter is a platform at this point is brain damaged.

Sorry but you are profoundly exceptional.

Even if you love the censoring of anyone right of Mao it does not matter.

Twitter stopped being a platform when they started manipulating the Trending list.

I would argue that the censorship, while disgusting, could be defended by saying well they do run the site(muh private company) but altering the results of what is represented as an organic measure of popularity on their site in an effort to promote Tweets(sub with stories) they want people to see while suppressing Tweets(sub with stories) they do not is the act of a publisher.

Take everything else away and they are publisher. Publishers are not protected. Protection should be stripped immediately from Twitter and then watch the lawyers feast on the bloat until there is nothing left but a fucking skeleton with a beard.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo