🐱 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.”
 
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.

Look at that, a "progressive" defending a megacorporate entity. Now I've seen everything.

Besides, why the fuck would the KKK use a platform whose creator and owner is Jewish? Makes no sense. Plenty of unrelated but fucked up shit appears on Facebook anyway, do people blame Facebook for Brenton Tarrant or trap house drug dens uploading live feed to their website? Some might but they're idiots for blaming Facebook for the actions of its users.

Besides, "you make my platform look bad" can be extended to things that aren't KKK shit but rather, legitimate political views the mods don't like.

Giving government thought police powers to stick it to the libs

Nobody complained when Obama renewed the Patriot Act...this kind of shit is reminiscent of post-9/11 America in general not just any political party in particular. Of course Trump did it too but that's besides the point.
 
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.

The U.S. government, local towns and virtually all businesses, large or small, may openly abhor the Ku Klux Klan, but that doesn't mean the Klan is exempt from things like the right to free speech or the right to hold public gatherings. I don't see why corporations should drastically divert from that distinctly American concept. They legally can, presently, but I fail to see the justification for that beyond "well it's legal right so we're going to take advantage of that."

There was also that time Facebook censored Wikileaks links because certain leaked emails revealed Facebook was illegally selling data... and that they genuinely were censoring right-wing advocates on their platform, despite publicly insisting otherwise.
 
Look at that, a "progressive" defending a megacorporate entity. Now I've seen everything.

Besides, why the fuck would the KKK use a platform whose creator and owner is Trump's Chosen? Makes no sense. Plenty of unrelated but fucked up shit appears on Facebook anyway, do people blame Facebook for Brenton Tarrant or trap house drug dens uploading live feed to their website? Some might but they're idiots for blaming Facebook for the actions of its users.

Besides, "you make my platform look bad" can be extended to things that aren't KKK shit but rather, legitimate political views the mods don't like.
I was using KKK on Facebook as an example. I don't see how you can make a private corporation be forced to not delete shit they don't like. Enjoy living in a spammer's hell.

Nobody complained when Obama renewed the Patriot Act...this kind of shit is reminiscent of post-9/11 America in general not just any political party in particular. Of course Trump did it too but that's besides the point.
I wasn't happy about it, but that was a while ago so I've stopped giving a shit about it now

The U.S. government, local towns and virtually all businesses, large or small, may openly abhor the Ku Klux Klan, but that doesn't mean the Klan is exempt from things like the right to free speech or the right to hold public gatherings. I don't see why corporations should drastically divert from that distinctly American concept. They legally can, presently, but I fail to see the justification for that beyond "well it's legal right so we're going to take advantage of that."

There was also that time Facebook censored Wikileaks links because certain leaked emails revealed Facebook was illegally selling data... and that they genuinely were censoring right-wing advocates on their platform, despite publicly insisting otherwise.

Facebook owns their servers that host the data. They are allowed to have whatever the hell they want on there, just like how you are allowed to have whatever the hell you want in your room in your mom's basement
 
If they are openly stifling views they don't agree with, then I don't think they should have the full protection of section 230, because they have become a publisher.
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.
 
It will have absolutely no effect. This is tokenism. What we desperately need is an Internet Bill of Rights. We do not need the President to ask other bureaucrats to "look at" already existing half ass'd legislation.
 
I kinda like that Trump waited until it happened to him to act rather than act upon some spergs who've been banned. It proved how far these people are able to go because their feelings are hurt. Censoring one random shitposter can always be attributed to this person not following the rules (that aren't even clear), but they're now directly censoring the president from addressing the community.

Sites can set rules. The problem is with Facebook, Twitter, etc all having clear double standards about enforcing them.

I personally welcome that. If this helps websites to be more clear about their rules, so be it. I've been part of forums before and my experience with two of them was that the mods. were too permissive to the point any discussion was impossible and another one, a moderator was just to strict. All because such sites were never really clear about what was allowed to discuss and what not.

The problem with Facebook, Twitter, etc. besides the lack of specific rules, is that they simply want to ban people whose opinions they don't like, which I wouldn't have a problem with if they say so: "hello, this is a site for only liberal progressives ideas." Then I'd know I'm not welcome and I would leave. Their problem is that they are convinced their opinions about social issues is not only correct but the norm and that's not only untrue, but against any freedom of speech and expression.

Why do democrats suddenly become pro-corporation if it's conservatives and centrists being silenced?

It's not just about that. The neo-commies are consoomers. That's the reason why many of them are communists, not because you have the right to own a good house and good life quality but because you have the right to own a new iPhone every year.
 
Facebook owns their servers that host the data. They are allowed to have whatever the hell they want on there, just like how you are allowed to have whatever the hell you want in your room in your mom's basement

No they aren't. Mark Zuckerberg can't decide tomorrow he wants Facebook to become the world's #1 hub for child pornography and non-ATF fully-automatic gun sales, then retool the site to facilitate those two things. The government can already muscle into private enterprise (in this case websites) and get them to abide by whatever letter of the law they decide. The rest of us learned this years ago, back when /b/ got Chris Poole in such hot water that he installed glownigger backdoors to 4chan.
 
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.
Enjoy living in a spammer's hell.
spam can be objectively defined and it disrupts speech, nobody is saying it should be illegal to remove spam. moving threads to spergatory isn't really censorship and it definitely wouldn't be if users could reply to spergatory threads.
 
Besides, why the fuck would the KKK use a platform whose creator and owner is Trump's Chosen? Makes no sense. Plenty of unrelated but fucked up shit appears on Facebook anyway, do people blame Facebook for Brenton Tarrant or trap house drug dens uploading live feed to their website? Some might but they're idiots for blaming Facebook for the actions of its users.
It's the largest platform on the planet. They care primarily about getting their message out there not so much about what means they use to do that.
 
I was using KKK on Facebook as an example. I don't see how you can make a private corporation be forced to not delete shit they don't like. Enjoy living in a spammer's hell.


I wasn't happy about it, but that was a while ago so I've stopped giving a shit about it now



Facebook owns their servers that host the data. They are allowed to have whatever the hell they want on there, just like how you are allowed to have whatever the hell you want in your room in your mom's basement

The issue isn't the deletion of things the corporate entity doesn't like, it's the fact that they have so much power over information and speech in the modern era, and there is little in the way of them controlling most of what goes on around the internet. Also it's not like a person who's not a complete mong can figure out how to block out opinons and ideas he doesn't like via technology.

You stopped giving a shit, yeah that's the fucking problem, you probably just saw the little blue D next to his name and said "hey at least it's the 'good guys' doing it."

If Hillary were Cult Leader and calling for censorship of her critics you'd be cheering her on. We need a word filter that turns president into Cult Leader, for real.
 
You cannot kill shitposting. That would be like trying to outlaw background radiation. It will always persist.
 
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.

They’re not liberals, they're progressives and neo-libs.

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.

I agree we must be careful. I'm just frustrated with how neo-libs have done to the Internet.
 
It's the largest platform on the planet. They care primarily about getting their message out there not so much about what means they use to do that.

That's a fair point, they do believe that the Jews were also responsible for the Civil War, and that the Jews also were the main profiteers from the slave trade. So basically their goal was to destroy their own trade? So I suppose consistency isn't their strong suit. But you'd think it'd be more practical to throw posters around or something, it seems to work well enough.

They’re not liberals, they're progressives and neo-libs.

There are no liberals anymore, just communist SJWs and corporate cuckolds who hate civil liberties.
 
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 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.
Free speech is a concept, not a law. Its the idea that a open and free society must allow people to speak their mind about society, without fear of jail time, ex-communication from the church, corporate black lists, low social credit, public attacks, etc.
If you have a society where some entity is preventing a free and open exchange of ideas, it doesn't matter if that entity is the government, the church, silicon valley, or even the public at large, that society does not have free speech
 
Silk Road owned their servers that hosted the data. They were allowed to have whatever the hell they want on there, just like how you are allowed to have whatever the hell you want in your room in your mom's basement
And how did it work out in the modified version I've presented?

All together now:

Common

Carrier
 
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.

That's a good way of putting it, they basically want a monopoly over the information superhighway while having the protections that a public utility has, but none of the drawbacks. Imagine of the local electric company can charge you more money per kilowatt hour just because you're black or something. There would be a massive outrage if such a thing was even suggested.

>Duke Nukem vs. Hollywood Hulk Hogan public debate

This is so fucking stupid, I love it.

Well, considering that COVID-19 is having a serious impact on Wrestlemania attendance this year, this is the best we can do for the fans. Also, it was Hulk who said the N word, not me.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo