🐱 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.”
 
Of course I‘m not American.

If true, it seems to me as if I'd be wasting my time, as Europeans lately seem fundamentally incapable of understanding the value of liberty of thought and speech.

There should be another free speech oriented Cloudflare alternative. But Cloudflare itself is still incredibly pro free speech.

You kind of lost that argument when they banned 8chan on the most arbitrary of reasons. They are susceptible to socio-ideological pressure and thus cannot be said to support free speech.
 
The advertisers are the ones with sufficient force to make the rules.
yeah like how it's actually totally okay with the FCC to say "goddamn" on radio and tv, it's just that a lot of companies disallow it in their Standards And Practices because you don't want to piss off Local Christian Businessguy Who Buys Time by calling on God Almighty to condemn somebody to Hell because they annoy you.
 
The building of a multinational communications company is not going to be done on a forty hour week with three sproglings in the home. To become rich, you need to work. This is the essence of the American Dream, no? You inherit your wealth or you work like a dog for it.



Jack Dorsey does not have more power over you than the Vorster government had over Nelson Mandela. I understand this issue is close to your heart, but we have to adhere to consensus reality here.

This thread is disappointingly descending into the neet cracker version of WE WUZ KANGZ. “We could have the uh, free speech on the internet if it wasn’t for the MAN holding us down! We can’t create our own spaces on the internet because of the MAN! Gibsmedat janny-free twitter! The gubmint OWES us our preferred solution to our problems!” This is not twitter. Do better.

Getting what you want will be hard, but it is will be impossible if you wait for someone to give it to you. Be the disruptive change you want to see in the world.
What even is this argument? You've resorted to making ridiculous requests of random internet people in order to skirt the issue.

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.
This is just obtuse. You are redirecting the argument to the individual again to avoid any broader implications. I guess it's fine as long as they can't kill or imprison you right? You're free! Just stop using social media and then kid's all just go back to meeting at the malt shop and political talk will happen at the barber's. Social media has no influence you don't want it to have don't you know?

Remember, just reframe any argument you don't want to engage until it's too big or small to see!


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?
Platforms who want their backers to get elected, platforms seeking rent
 
Does this mean things are gonna get better or worse?
I’m a brainlet and can’t really form the implications into one shiny picture I can generalise.

It depends entirely on two factors.

1) Whether this EO will have any enforcement teeth.

and

2) Your personal priorities.

I cannot answer this question for you without knowing 2.
 
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

Dude you can't just change legislation by executive order. There's no debate or doubt about this. It's the special kind of crazy a dictator does.
 
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

Dude you can't just change legislation by executive order. There's no debate or doubt about this. It's the special kind of crazy a dictator does.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Executive order allows you to direct the Executive Branch's enforcement arms in how you'd like them to enforce Congressionally-created laws, XO's have to be able to pass Constitutional challenge ( you can't issue an XO banning guns no matter what the militia-types say) but you can direct the ATF to devote more or less time to enforcing certain gun regulations and have an effect on the number of prosecuted gun crimes on the Federal level that way, and it's totally legal because enforcing the law is the duty and privelage of the President. He can legally say "We aren't going to enforce that" to a law he doesn't like, but, the next President can declare their own countermanding XO and now say "It's up to the heads of the various agencies if they want to enforce that law" or even "We are going to prioritize enforcing that law".

Trump isn't invalidating any laws or making any new ones with the XO, he's directed Federal attention at a group he believes is breaking existing law (Communications Decency Act), cited by statute, in the XO. He's saying that he believes the current social media companies are denying citizens equal treatment as that law demands by their alleged ideological-based censorship of posts or posters for no apparent TOS-based or consistent reason and directing that matter for investigation.

There's nothing strange, improper or illegal about this. Not from a law standpoint.

I read the thing here:
Seems alright. Could do more, could do less. Today was a shit news day.

I think this was just a toe-in-the-water-see-what-happens first shot, and the next thing Silicon Valley does will determine if he goes further.
 
Última edición:
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'll do it for him. Imagine you were a book critic 10 years ago. You loved it, it was the greatest job in the world and you got into it because you loved reading and loved talking about books. And you were left wing, it should be noted, you were a socialist. But you spoke out against the, at the time, worrying trend you saw towards identity politics. And you sometimes made off colour jokes, although you never said anything your company's hr department had a problem with. That was enough however, to end your career. You were accused of plagiarism, sexual assault, and, (worst of all of course), right wing tendencies. Suddenly publishers refuse to return your calls, and newspapers are 'going in a different direction'. You persevere, set up your own critic site, start working for local papers. Then they start harassing your family, calling them at home and at work, asking them and their employers why they associate with a white supremacist pedophile troll. You have a large family - thirty plus cousins of adult age and countless younger. And you can explain your principles to them, but not their employers. Their employers don't give a fuck, they just care they are getting tarred for some nobody's shitty book reviews. Do you stick to your principles and scoff at anyone who doesn't for being pussy faggots?


Keep in mind that in this scenario no fucking crazy trannies have even showed up at your mum's house with a knife yet.
 
Keep in mind that in this scenario no fucking crazy trannies have even showed up at your mum's house with a knife yet.

You're wasting your time. He'll just deflect by saying it's either a hypothetical or not as bad as being thrown in jail.

Never mind that the Ahmaud Arberry case was pretty much set off by PR and social media.
 
You kind of lost that argument when they banned 8chan on the most arbitrary of reasons. They are susceptible to socio-ideological pressure and thus cannot be said to support free speech.
No one's 100% successful. 8chan is one who fell through the cracks. Cloudflare is still incredibly pro free speech.
 
No one's 100% successful. 8chan is one who fell through the cracks. Cloudflare is still incredibly pro free speech.

Cloudflare is free speech like Frederick Brennan is free speech, which is to say as long as it is convenient to them and their business model.

Nothing proved that more than the CEO's mealy-mouthed "I shouldn't have been able to do that" explanation.
 
Cloudflare is free speech like Frederick Brennan is free speech, which is to say as long as it is convenient to them and their business model.

Nothing proved that more than the CEO's mealy-mouthed "I shouldn't have been able to do that" explanation.
There's a pretty big gulf between a single exception in years of business and Frederick Brennan turning 100% against free speech entirely.

To put it another way, even if the UK is incredibly shitty with free speech, they're still not China. (And that's really kind of an insulting comparison to Cloudflare, but I think it gets my point across: there's some nuance to be had between the two extremes. The only place you have 100% free speech would be the darkweb.)

Cloudflare is still an incredibly valuable tool for free speech on the public internet. Just purely from a realistic perspective. If you can't accept that then you're not looking at the numbers.
 
I'll do it for him. Imagine you were a book critic 10 years ago. You loved it, it was the greatest job in the world and you got into it because you loved reading and loved talking about books. And you were left wing, it should be noted, you were a socialist. But you spoke out against the, at the time, worrying trend you saw towards identity politics. And you sometimes made off colour jokes, although you never said anything your company's hr department had a problem with. That was enough however, to end your career. You were accused of plagiarism, sexual assault, and, (worst of all of course), right wing tendencies. Suddenly publishers refuse to return your calls, and newspapers are 'going in a different direction'. You persevere, set up your own critic site, start working for local papers. Then they start harassing your family, calling them at home and at work, asking them and their employers why they associate with a white supremacist pedophile troll. You have a large family - thirty plus cousins of adult age and countless younger. And you can explain your principles to them, but not their employers. Their employers don't give a fuck, they just care they are getting tarred for some nobody's shitty book reviews. Do you stick to your principles and scoff at anyone who doesn't for being pussy faggots?


Keep in mind that in this scenario no fucking crazy trannies have even showed up at your mum's house with a knife yet.

You are describing McCarthyism. Nothing new under the sun. It only seems new to you because you haven’t seen it before.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo