🐱 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.”
 
Did anyone at Twitter realize, with aid from the past four years of people telling Trump to quote-unquote "Do it faggot!", that he will in fact not just do it, but grin twice as wide as he pulls the trigger and tells you that you chose this future? Jack Dorsey will be skinned alive and his wet, dripping hide painted in the colors of the American flag so it can be properly flown over the White House.
What I don't get is why twitter just doesn't outright ban Trump from their platform. You know they want to, yet haven't.

Wonder why that could be?
 
What I don't get is why twitter just doesn't outright ban Trump from their platform. You know they want to, yet haven't.

Wonder why that could be?

Because the retards worked so hard for it to be considered unconstitutional for the president to block someone on Twitter, why would they throw that V down the toilet.

That, along with government funding, are two things that seem to continuously be forgotten when the conversation arises of whether or not these massive social media companies should abide by the constitution.
 
That and as soon as he moves to a competing platform, the news media and all of their clout go following after him, along with half their userbase.

Banning the president would bankrupt the company in a month.
 
True, Trump is an embarssingly thin-skinned moron, and this executive order primarily exists because he got his ego bruised. But regardless of why it was written, this order has a really good chance of benefiting free speech and open discussion in the long run, so I'm happy that it exists.
It's not thin skinned to attack evil degenerates who lie. Trump is a tragic hero. Epstein never had a problem until Trump won 2016. You shouldn't just say that he is an embarrassing moron, you need to show some respect. But you won't.


Trump also shut down the Muslim training camps that were training school shooters in the US:
If you don't believe in God all I can is that Trump is here and Trump is proving you wrong every second every day.
 
Última edición:
It's not thin skinned to attack evil degenerates who lie. Trump is a tragic hero. Epstein never had a problem until Trump won 2016. You shouldn't just say that he is an embarrassing moron, you need to show some respect. But you won't.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RN7UF4AO9HM:1
Trump also shut down the Muslim training camps that were training school shooters in the US:
If you don't believe in God all I can is that Trump is here and Trump is proving you wrong every second every day.

I like to think I'm not a Trump Derangement Syndrome victim. I think he handled the entire Iran fiasco pretty well earlier this year, it was a unilateral win for the US. Tthe military gains we made against ISIS, the death of Baghdadi, victory after victory over Russia geopolitically, continued containmentent of FDSP-aligned South American countries, and a relatively tough stance towards China only happened because he let US intelligence, cyber security, and military take off their kids gloves.

Honestly Hillary is even more conservative ('conservative' in this scenario meaning American exceptionalist, not isolationist) on foreign policy so I think most of this would have been done under her as well but the fact remains that Trump has handled military/foreign policy a lot better than his critics give him credit for.

A couple of other things: I appreciate the bill his administration signed last year that will mandate that all hospitals have to be as upfront with their prices as possible which will increase competition in the industry and drive down prices for the consumer. and I think much of the deregulation and taxation reforms that have been passed under his administration have been good for the economy, especially the corporate tax cut which he was able to pass with pretty much 0 effort (Obama tried to lower the tax rate to 25% like 3 or 4 times but always failed to build a coalition, lol). And btw I 100% approve of his stance against the WHO (John Bolton was right about the UN).

If I'm being honest though I think that most of these positive decisions made under this admin were orchestrated by his wranglers. Trump is an NPD patient straight from a case study done by a Manhattan shrink with the verbal IQ of an inner city youth that has down syndrome and lead poisoning. He embarrasses the country with his retarded spray tans, ridiculous looking comb-overs, and all-caps tweets sent at 3AM. I lean conservative myself and I would much, much, MUCH rather have Mike Pence at the helm of the country. He's a stable, dependable guy and an actual Christian and social conservative (I seriously hope you don't think Trump is a Christian lmao)
 
Última edición:
He's a stable, dependable guy and an actual Christian and social conservative (I seriously hope you don't think Trump is a Christian lmao)
So what you're saying is Pence is a Principled Conservative who would handle defeat with grace?
 
From what I've gathered about his character, I could see Pence 100% accepting defeat if he lost fairly in an election. Did he say something recently that contradicts this?
Lol so you're saying muh principles is more important than actually accomplishing anything. That's worked out so well for us the past 30-35 years.
 
I think Pence, who is actually competent, wouldn't need to fraud elections to win, especially against candidates as hated as Hillary or as senile as Biden.

Which side, again, is the one that has the unfortunate habit of finding ballots in boxes overnight to flip seats?

And you're complaining about Trump possibly not losing gracefully?
 
Oh. Muh Russia. Got it
What about Russia? Russiagate was manufactured bullshit, pretty much all partisan outrage is. In fact Trump admin has been tougher on Russia than the Obama admin in many ways.

That’s besides the point though. Our energy should be focused on combatting China. I don’t really pay a lot of attention to how Russia is treated geopolitically in 2020 because the momentum they had built up after the annexation of South Ossetia has come to a screeching halt. The modern day country of Russia is literally just an enormous Potemkin village, we’ve got to remember that fucking New York City by itself has a higher GDP than all of Russia. They have great intelligence corps and they know how to make convincing propaganda. Outside of that they are just snow Zimbabwe

Which side, again, is the one that has the unfortunate habit of finding ballots in boxes overnight to flip seats?

And you're complaining about Trump possibly not losing gracefully?
Both parties abuse voting laws and both fraud as much as they can feasibly get away with without having to face repercussions. The will of the people is still generally reflected in elections despite this, especially when you go to the statewide/national level.

Preemptively claiming that the election is a sham as a pretense to holding on to power for another term is something that I think could be dangerous to national and international stability. It’s a step above the usual tricks employed by dems/reps to get the edge in votes.
 
Última edición:
He embarrasses the country with his retarded spray tans, ridiculous looking comb-overs, and all-caps tweets sent at 3AM.
Ahh yes. Spray tans and comb overs.
What a fucking embarassment.

Iran wouldn't be chanting "Death to America" if he only used his natural skin tone.
China wouldn't try to rip us off over trade & steal research secrets if he didn't comb-over.
Europe would respect us for once in our history if only he didn't use all-caps tweets.

(I seriously hope you don't think Trump is a Christian lmao)
Are we supposed to care?
I'd vote for a Muslim if he believed he were gonna pull us out of needless foreign wars and prevent the Dem's from stacking the courts.
 
Ahh yes. Spray tans and comb overs.
What a fucking embarassment.

Iran wouldn't be chanting "Death to America" if he only used his natural skin tone.
China wouldn't try to rip us off over trade & steal research secrets if he didn't comb-over.
Europe would respect us for once in our history if only he didn't use all-caps tweets.


Are we supposed to care?
I'd vote for a Muslim if he believed he were gonna pull us out of needless foreign wars and prevent the Dem's from stacking the courts.
I think the way the president presents himself is important. He’s the most powerful man in the world and should look like a leader that commands the respect of others. Instead he looks like a used car salesman from Staten island and he talks like one too. We need a leader that Xi, Kim, Maduro, Putin, BoJo, Mutti, Macron, Bolsanaro, etc. actually respect. Instead we all know they laugh their asses off at him whenever he’s out of earshot at international summits.

as for the Christian stuff: I find it somewhat important but it isn’t a critical issue to me, I was just responding to him asking if I was a Christian and some other Q boomer shit. I don’t know if I’d vote for a Muslim but I’d vote for an atheist or Buddhist if they matched up with me in terms of policy position.
 
I think the way the president presents himself is important. He’s the most powerful man in the world and should look like a leader that commands the respect of others. Instead he looks like a used car salesman from Staten island and he talks like one too. We need a leader that Xi, Kim, Maduro, Putin, BoJo, Mutti, Macron, Bolsanaro, etc. actually respect. Instead we all know they laugh their asses off at him whenever he’s out of earshot at international summits.

as for the Christian stuff: I find it somewhat important but it isn’t a critical issue to me, I was just responding to him asking if I was a Christian and some other Q boomer shit. I don’t know if I’d vote for a Muslim but I’d vote for an atheist or Buddhist if they matched up with me in terms of policy position.

Go take your losing obsessed, "un-presidential" bullshit elsewhere.
 
I think the way the president presents himself is important. He’s the most powerful man in the world and should look like a leader that commands the respect of others. Instead he looks like a used car salesman from Staten island and he talks like one too. We need a leader that Xi, Kim, Maduro, Putin, BoJo, Mutti, Macron, Bolsanaro, etc. actually respect. Instead we all know they laugh their asses off at him whenever he’s out of earshot at international summits.

as for the Christian stuff: I find it somewhat important but it isn’t a critical issue to me, I was just responding to him asking if I was a Christian and some other Q boomer shit. I don’t know if I’d vote for a Muslim but I’d vote for an atheist or Buddhist if they matched up with me in terms of policy position.
Well, I guess I misunderstood where you were coming from. I just don't agree with the optics bit. If they really had no respect for Trump, they'd pull stunts like they did with Obama where they made him exit from the back of the plane on the runway in China.
 
I think the way the president presents himself is important. He’s the most powerful man in the world and should look like a leader that commands the respect of others. Instead he looks like a used car salesman from Staten island and he talks like one too. We need a leader that Xi, Kim, Maduro, Putin, BoJo, Mutti, Macron, Bolsanaro, etc. actually respect. Instead we all know they laugh their asses off at him whenever he’s out of earshot at international summits.

Dear God, imagine caring about what the guy who married his teacher almost twice his age thinks about you.

This attitude is why no one respects right-wingers in the US, not anything about Trump. It is craven approval-seeking.
 
Where are all the 2005-2016 "regulate the internet as a utility" liberals? That was a longstanding pillar of the internet leftwing. You would think this is a good thing, more government intervention on the internet, this is what you wanted! It's too funny for anyone old enough to remember that corporations were the great satan and nothing was worse than a capitalist pig just two terms ago. Now the web is filled with people rushing to suck corporate cock just because their "side" didn't think of it first.

People really couldn't help themselves. Call a man a deranged lunatic, racist, rapist, every epithet in the book and keep provoking him and then get surprised when he lashes out. Oh and he's the most powerful person in the world at the moment. That makes sense. How incredibly shortsighted can you be?

It doesn't matter if you're right or not, we're well past that. Like the pedestrian who walks into a crosswalk in front of a speeding car, it doesn't matter if you had the right of way or not when your face is going through a windshield. We're watching how the internet will be regulated with a heavy hand by people who don't understand it because a bunch of faggot janitors were too immature to accept that four years isn't a long time.



Maybe if they didn't want to be regulated they should have started their own internet :smug:
 
Atrás
Top Abajo