🐱 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 mean, Trump is going to do something. They're constantly antagonizing them and he doesn't ever take shit. I'm always wary about touching 230 because if ti disappears, speech is basically over on the internet.
 
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.
It's their house which also happens to be explicitly protected from being sued by the US government. If you really believed this you'd support revoking article 230 because it's "government intervention" in the operation of the free market.
 
Just calling them a meanie and getting them banned makes you feel morally superior, but it doesn't actually do any good.

I wish the left understood this: banning a person who posted right-wing memes doesn't make them reflect on or change their ways. They won't walk up to a ballot box next time and not vote for the right-wing candidate because "wait, last time I went right I got punished" or think "Wait, is this really the right thing to do? Maybe I was wrong to be a right-winger just like Momma Google said"

No, the'll be thinking "ban ME will you? BAN THIS!" They may vote for an even FURTHER right candidate just to spite you.

Do they not get this, or do they not CARE?
 
The libertarian answer and the correct one is to let the market sort it out.

If you don’t like that you can’t call someone a cuntrag in the local pub, go patronise another pub. If no pub will let you call the landlady a cuntrag, set up one for yourself. If there is a critical mass of people wanting to call the landlady a cuntrag, you will be very successful. If it’s a vanity project it will die. This is the state of nature for capitalist enterprises, and all social media companies are capitalist enterprises.

You cannot claim the flag of “liberty“ and “freedom” and use to to impose a draconian intervention in the free market. If the majority of Twitter’s users want right wing opinions not to be censored, they will migrate to a microblogging platform that offers that freedom from censorship. If the majority of tumblr’s users want free access to pornographic content, they will migrate to a service that offers that.

Social media sites are born, flare briefly, and die. Even behemoths of OG social media died when people liked other platforms more. Who the fuck uses livejournal any more? Bebo? FriendsReunited?

The market can solve this problem, and the libertarian approach is to allow the market to solve this issue. This is not a new problem because it involves the internet: that is boomer thinking. Newspapers have operated in a free market of ideas for centuries; those whose political bent and editorial stance is popular survive, and the weak and unpopular are culled.

If a “right wing twitter” or a “lefty 8chan” are important to people, the market will provide that solution. It is not for the government to regulate how and where people choose to exercise their rights of speech.
 
@Hollywood Hulk Hogan, while I agree a private entity is generally free to act as they see fit in regards to what they want to host, when they serve the public interest in some way, they basically have a legal protection against being on the hook for what someone does in that public space so long as they do not endorse it nor do the reverse. If they have rules, it's to remove content that is criminal or is a violation they apply without bias.

For instance, if they say one person can't post dox, all people who post dox should be punished equally, regardless who they are.

In this case, Twitter marked tweets of certain people with a link to what they considered "facts". In this case, it's them taking a clear position as an entity against one of their users to favor another. That's the act of a publisher and is not protected because that's showing clear bias towards one party's beliefs on their public serving entity.
 
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.
One does not need Twitter to live comfortably.
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.
Fair but doesn't change how I feel.
 
Right now platforms like twitter, google, faceburg, and whatnot enjoy a huge double standard: You can't sue them for content they publish because they claim to be a public platform while at the same time restricting content in ways that would violate 1st amendment rules if they were actually public platforms. Which is it, choose one.
 
Humanity didn't need electricity to live comfortably for most if its time as a species.
No, but nowadays most people need running electricity. The past does not matter, what matters is what would be considered a basic need as a utility in the present day. Twitter is not one of these things.
 
This is Trump throwing his weight around, nothing is going to come of this order.

I don't have a problem with the 'fact check' feature Twitter is bringing in, but we all know its not going to be applied on a consistent basis.
 
Do they not get this, or do they not CARE?
Both, they don't get the consequences of their actions, and even if they did they only care about getting a hugbox for their faggotry.
These are the groups that did stupid shit like kick out the only group in their community to say "stop being fucking degenerates and people will stop treating you like degenerates," long-term planning isn't their strong suit.
 
No, but nowadays most people need running electricity. The past does not matter, what matters is what would be considered a basic need as a utility in the present day. Twitter is not one of these things.

Nobody is arguing the necessity of Twitter, they're arguing that if it DOES exist, and DOES cater to millions, then it's gonna have to exist in a FAIR fashion, and the current straddling-the-line between platform and publisher is an unfair grey-area that needs a final and definitive answer of where it lies.
 
I feel like people are majorly missing the point here. If section 230 somehow got fundamentally changed to allow websites to be more legally liable in terms of the content they let get posted then it's all over for your "edgy" content. Major websites would adopt hardline rules/systems where just typing the gamer word and pressing submit gets your account banned instead of letting their moderation team handle it.

CEO of Youtube in December said that section 230 allows Youtube to even exist because if it didn't they would have to moderate every single comment and preview every single video upload manually. This is all dependent on how major the changes are and what the legal jargon is, but this is good for nobody. The law isn't perfect, but the people wanting to change it right now have pretty terrible motives.
 
Nobody is arguing the necessity of Twitter, they're arguing that if it DOES exist, and DOES cater to millions, then it's gonna have to exist in a FAIR fashion, and the current straddling-the-line between platform and publisher is an unfair grey-area that needs a final and definitive answer of where it lies.
Certainly not the impression I was getting when people started saying it was like a utility. As far as I'm concerned a utility is only something that is an essential need for comfy living.
Everything else though yes Twitter is stupid and needs to be punished, I just don't like that the government is trying to do it because I feel it's going to be abused down the line.
 
What are we supposed to do with tech giants that own a monopoly on information, communications, and have revenues larger than most developing countries? Were it up to me, they should be held accountable for implicitly supporting every post they don't censor, or sign on to a government deal wherein they agree to impartially host all legal speech and content, including no more algorithm fuckery, in exchange for the state guaranteeing their solvency.

Fact is, if all these companies flagged in unison their support for culturally conservative, right wing views, the arguments for busting their monopolies or even nationalising them would be loud and clear.
 
I feel like people are majorly missing the point here. If section 230 somehow got fundamentally changed to allow websites to be more legally liable in terms of the content they let get posted then it's all over for your "edgy" content. Major websites would adopt hardline rules/systems where just typing the gamer word and pressing submit gets your account banned instead of letting their moderation team handle it.

Only if they keep trying to moderate to keep advertizers happy and hugbox addicts happy, if they go hands off, like how the internet USED to work, they'll still enjoy 230 protections. They can't hide behind 230 when they are so blatantly censoring that which they personally don't like and doing it with shadowbans and unsubscribing algorithms.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo