🐱 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.”
 
It's rather idiotic to appeal to consensus reality, when artificially-created consensus reality imposed from the top-down is the entire problem.

Your comparison is facile, simply because the Vorster government was a minority government that did not have the reach or power of the current one in America, which is staffed by people who ideologically are in tune with Jack Dorsey, and who occupy prominent positions in the security services.

The Vorster government sent Nelson Mandela to Robben Island. Jack Dorsey... can make your avatar go away?

Come on now.
 
I tend to find myself on the President's side most of the time, but not this time. This is a bad idea, and I hope it fails.

However, I think the point of even trying is to bring the issue of disgustingly, unfairly biased media (essential) monopolies into the minds of voters. If he loses, he still gets them angry about it in an election year. Maybe even more angry that way. And that one issue (the corrupt, activist MSM) might be why he won the White House the first time.
 
The Vorster government sent Nelson Mandela to Robben Island. Jack Dorsey... can make your avatar go away?

Sad. You refuse to address the actual argument because you don't have a counter for someone pointing to the large amount of influence held by social media, that is of a different type and pervasiveness than anything in the past.
 
I tend to find myself on the President's side most of the time, but not this time. This is a bad idea, and I hope it fails.

However, I think the point of even trying is to bring the issue of disgustingly, unfairly biased media (essential) monopolies into the minds of voters. If he loses, he still gets them angry about it in an election year. Maybe even more angry that way. And that one issue (the corrupt, activist MSM) might be why he won the White House the first time.

If nothing else, he'll force them to come out and say "We are NOT biased!" when an ever-larger percentage of the population, every day, has either been banned by social media, knows someone who has, or subscribes to someone who has...... on very dubious grounds.

It's the old " That bill will waste six million dollars" statement leading to the media to knee-jerk in response "Nuh-uh, it's only going to waste $5 million, you stupid-head! Wait... no, that's not what we meant...."
 
If nothing else, he'll force them to come out and say "We are NOT biased!" when an ever-larger percentage of the population, every day, has either been banned by social media, knows someone who has, or subscribes to someone who has...... on very dubious grounds.

It's the old " That bill will waste six million dollars" statement leading to the media to knee-jerk in response "Nuh-uh, it's only going to waste $5 million, you stupid-head! Wait... no, that's not what we meant...."

You would think they would learn after stepping on the rake countless times, but no.
 
what if KF ticks over some arbitrary page view count and is suddenly subject to lawsuits?
Can you imagine if they decided that for a website to be no longer under Section 230 protection it required X views per month? There'd be bot networks that would do the views for you to make a website no longer under protection. I could definitely see some sperg that is assmad at Null pull that off, too.
 
Ok, I actually can agree with your argument on that.

So, going from that common ground, would you be willing to agree that if they are doing that, then those specific posts they make void section 230 privileges, because those are done not as a platform holder, but as a “publisher / personage”, in the same way that if someone here posted something libelous they could be held to that without it involving Null?

Because that is what I’d like to see happen, but it feels like, since they’re doing it as “Twitter” rather than attaching a person to it, they’re trying to get out of that. Forcing Twitter to be more transparent about its rules and decision making would also be nice, but that, specifically, is my issue with the 230 argument as far as it applies to this particular example.
This specific scenario, depending on how they implement it, basically comes off as this literal account doing the debunking.

Section 230 says you can't sue sites (glossing over a lot of stuff here, but you catch my drift), but you can sue accounts on sites.
 
Going after Section 230 is a fucktarded way of going about this. This is akin to saying "Oh the forest has some bandits in it? Lulz! Nuke the entire thing."

If Section 230 gets fucked with then NOBODY will be able to enjoy the internet anymore.

Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit have already been sliding for years and the Government has taken interest in them since now they are almost vital parts of the community like the Telephone or the Newspaper. At some point they were going to try to control what people could read to the point the Government would want to take a look at exactly what Section 230 entails. The question was when.

It seems that people would rather not have the Section 230 war because well... at theres still one website where you can say anything run by one guy whos been forced by money lenders to trade in cryptocurrency just to keep it going! So it can't be that bad..... right?
 
He's mad at social media censoring people.

So he's going to do something about it.

This sounds like what's going to come out of this is LESS censorship, not more.
 
I'm not particularly understanding the handwringing regarding Kiwi Farms being at the mercy of the government's interpretation of Section 230.

I'd frankly be more concerned that it's at the mercy of Cloudflare, at the moment.
 
1590702516255.png
 
Sad. You refuse to address the actual argument because you don't have a counter for someone pointing to the large amount of influence held by social media, that is of a different type and pervasiveness than anything in the past.

Okay. Illustrate using examples what ‘influence’ social media has over you, an American in 2020, that is more pervasive than the right to deprive you of your physical liberty. Develop this argument you are making.
 
I'm not particularly understanding the handwringing regarding Kiwi Farms being at the mercy of the government's interpretation of Section 230.

I'd frankly be more concerned that it's at the mercy of Cloudflare, at the moment.
It's at the mercy of the credit card companies/banks ultimately. This whole 230 thing is just a runaround and shows how Trump really doesn't know how deep the rabbit hole goes. Say they change it so twitter/youtube can allow people to say anything under the (already strict) rules that govern freedom of speech. Is Mastercard forced to continue to offer their services if they don't like that speech?

At the end of the day, the greatest form of speech is still money, because money can be used directly as force in ways that speech cannot. It's quite possible that private money has more force to throw around than any government.
 
Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit have already been sliding for years and the Government has taken interest in them since now they are almost vital parts of the community like the Telephone or the Newspaper.
I think people really overinflate the significance of Facebook. It's significant, but it's not newspaper significant. Like how much stuff on Facebook is just nonsense fluff?
I'm not particularly understanding the handwringing regarding Kiwi Farms being at the mercy of the government's interpretation of Section 230.

I'd frankly be more concerned that it's at the mercy of Cloudflare, at the moment.
There should be another free speech oriented Cloudflare alternative. But Cloudflare itself is still incredibly pro free speech.
One of the other angles I have been thinking about with a lot of this is that the entire issue seems artificial.

If these websites and providers would just let people say what they want, the problem goes away. Who profits off of this issue being a thing?
They need to stop spam, at least. They need to stop things that drive away their customers.
 
One of the other angles I have been thinking about with a lot of this is that the entire issue seems artificial.

If these websites and providers would just let people say what they want, the problem goes away. Who profits off of this issue being a thing?
Controlling the flow of information is one of the most valuable assets on the planet. Twitter didn't start making money until last year.
 
One of the other angles I have been thinking about with a lot of this is that the entire issue seems artificial.

If these websites and providers would just let people say what they want, the problem goes away. Who profits off of this issue being a thing?

Social media want influence, be it influencing elections to influencing coca-cola to come advertise on their nice clean sterile kid-friendly internet.... matters not. Influence, once obtained, can be used, sold, traded or leveraged to bring in money. And the more the influence, the more the money.

They want the Wild West internet of yesteryear gone so they can pave the streets, replace the wood feed store with a brick-and-mortar bank and hotel to attract higher-class people, want to run the horses out of town so they don't have to worry about stepping in a manure pile and finally CIVILIZE these mongrel townfolk.... (kiss your favorite saloon, brothel and gambling hall goodbye, this place is for CITY FOLK now) for there is profit to be made doing it.

And if the townfolk don't like it? Guess they'll just have to find a new frontier to move to... because progress won't stop just to appease them.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo