🐱 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.”
 
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.
Phone lines are utilities. Do you need phones for comfy living? I feel like your definition of "comfy" is very vague and--in this particular case--very self-serving in argumentation.

You wanna be able to connect with politicians? How about major figures in the industry you're trying to eke out a living in? A lot of that happens on Twitter. Not being allowed to use Twitter because you disagree with a fringe political ideology restricts one's access to the modern public square. You can still call people on the telephone, but what if people aren't using the telephone for politics and business as much now? Having less options for public discourse than others is absolutely a suppression of free speech. When social media crosses the line into being more like a utility, it should start getting regulated like one. How much is a matter of debate, but it's becoming more and more clear over time that lawmakers are decades behind as usual.
 
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.
I'm a 100% with you there RE:let the market sort it out, and this proposal would work in theoretical world.

However, there's noticable and well-documented collusion between a damn lot of companies-turned-institutions. Try to launch your principled free speech platform, and suddenly, your existing accounts will be terminated. Payment processors and banks will reject you. No DNS, no Cloudflare, no professional hosting on a server farm either. You will be harassed and eventually doxed by the people "on the right side of history". Hosting anything on the Dark Web is a shining beacon for the glow-in-the-dark types, so that wouldn't work out so well either.

At this point, you could try moving to another country with similar existing services, maybe Russia, Hong Kong, or the fully industrialized portion of China. There you're going to witness and experience another form of cronyism and corruption. You can hardly get anything done in these societies without being very important or very generous with bribes.
 
Null did, the one you are using right now, and now he's barred from making normal financial transactions. What? Make your own bank you say?
When push comes to shove, yeah, maybe we would have to do that. The only problem is the IRS always finds a way to fuck these things up. As of 2014 they started taxing Crypto. That is legit where we are now.

This whole thing has me pretty shook honestly because it isn't so much Trump that's the issue here, it's his braindead voters who support every little fucking thing he does. I see people in those comments sections deluded into thinking: "oh, we're his supporters, surely this will not affect us and will end censorship towards us lol pwnt libtards" like no, this affects everyone buddy. This will fuck it up for everyone in the end and while Heaven and Hell, high water, etc it annoys me like really anyone else what Twitter and Facebook does catering to violent radlibs and the such while your Grandpa is probably just talking about how back in his day men didn't wear dresses and call themselves women gets banned, intervention on a federal level and such will only mean things will be turned and corrupted for the worse.

It's funny, because a good share of conservatives afaik are against more government and its involvement in things, but when God Emperor decides he wants more government involvement in things, they're okay with it? Astounding.
 
Man I wish this order was as dramatic as all the faggots ITT wanting to go to war over it. The leaked draft has him demanding the FCC put out new clarifying rules for what "good faith" blocking looks like for 230(c) protections, and making the FTC determine if mass blocklists and banning people for offsite activity counts as "deceptive/unfair practices" in their book, and, if so, to go investigate Twitter by name for doing that.
Given how much internal opposition his administration faces a every turn, even odds both of those 3 letter agencies put out some meal-mouthed nonsense in two weeks and move on, hoping Trump's been distracted by the latest scandal.
 
I do think its really funny when people act like RWers getting banned from Twitter is like the Soviet Union executing dissidents or something. Just make another account lol.
when an account is banned all posts made by that account are also deleted. it is no different than book burning. it's not just about the person getting b&, it's about the millions of people that can no longer read/watch that person's content anymore.
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?
their goal is to stop facts, logic, and truth from spreading and changing more people's minds.
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.
fuck the government and fuck corporations, they're the same thing. in ancapistan without the government's protection, corporations would need to make the choice between either spending billions hiring armies of security guards to protect them from backlash, or just not being as evil so they don't get as much backlash. the problem is that we don't live in ancapistan so the police and military protect corporations for "free" (after already receiving mandatory payment from taxes) so there is no incentive for corporations to not be evil. for the free market to work, the government needs to either stop protecting corporations or stop existing.
 
They're allowed to have double-standards. It's their site. They can ban you for whatever reason they want (from a legal perspective). Just like how Null could, theoretically, ban someone on here for whatever reason he wants
That's all fine and dandy until your site has a major impact on public opinion and discourse and starts subcutaneously deciding what is and is not acceptable. It is parasitic, not in good faith, and contradicts the spirit of the law of the land.

What any proposed order would need to include is some method of allowing smaller sites to continue on as they do now but forcing larger, more powerful sites to keep their fingers out of the pudding.
 
@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.

Except Section 230 says they do not have a legal liability. It's their platform, they can do whatever they want with it. If that means having a fact checker, they can do so. Null could implement a fact checker here if he wants, and even have it be inaccurate, and it'd still be legal. Same thing applies to Twitter.

All this is going to do is end free speech on the internet. I hope you enjoyed dropping the n bomb on this shitposting website hosted by Null, because Section 230 is what allows you to do that
 
Big tech social media has become part of the culture and public square. The courts setting the ruling a politician cannot block people has given Trump the alley oop to dunk on twitter. Since some retarded soy faggot who suffers from tds thought it was a good idea to piss of the most powerful man in the world. Twitter did this to them selves by hiring an echo chamber of idiots who didnt moderate fairly or evenly. If they had setup basic rules and stayed hands off their 230 protection would be safe. The FCC will not be going after everyone on the internet. They will be only going after big tech that the courts would define as part of the public square. Us making fun of troons, nah we are good.
 
That's all fine and dandy until your site has a major impact on public opinion and discourse and starts subcutaneously deciding what is and is not acceptable. It is parasitic, not in good faith, and contradicts the spirit of the law of the land.

What any proposed order would need to include is some method of allowing smaller sites to continue on as they do now but forcing larger, more powerful sites to keep their fingers out of the pudding.

Except they are still legally allowed to do that. It doesn't matter if the site is big or small, they all have the same rules. You really don't want to force corporations to not be allowed to censor stuff. It's already full of shitposting and spam, itll be only worse

For a political group that supposedly loves freedom, this sure is ironic. If the government was saying you have to wear a mask in restaurants, those same people would be assmad and REEEEEEEEEEEeing about it.
 
I'm a 100% with you there RE:let the market sort it out, and this proposal would work in theoretical world.

However, there's noticable and well-documented collusion between a damn lot of companies-turned-institutions. Try to launch your principled free speech platform, and suddenly, your existing accounts will be terminated. Payment processors and banks will reject you. No DNS, no Cloudflare, no professional hosting on a server farm either. You will be harassed and eventually doxed by the people "on the right side of history". Hosting anything on the Dark Web is a shining beacon for the glow-in-the-dark types, so that wouldn't work out so well either.

At this point, you could try moving to another country with similar existing services, maybe Russia, Hong Kong, or the fully industrialized portion of China. There you're going to witness and experience another form of cronyism and corruption. You can hardly get anything done in these societies without being very important or very generous with bribes.

Then regulate to lower the barriers to entry. This will make the market function more effectively. Most first world nations have anti-cartelisation laws on the books already. Enforce them, and if enforcement of them is somehow impossible, improve them.
 
What libertarians who parrot lines like "let the market sort it out" don't understand is humanity tends towards oligarcy and monopoly. How do you think early empires and monarchies rose in the first place? The "free market" selected for a small minority wielding maximum economic and political control.

If you want the free market to stay free, regulation and antitrust are an absolute necessity, or else everything becomes a GoogleFacebookAmazon company store.
 
This is very strange. I don’t like Twitter and Reddit and such banning people for what would otherwise be legal, but it’s really hard to find a fix that wouldn’t fuck things up even more.
Maybe doing something that would make the monopolies on Internet speech easier to challenge, but even then that just leads to everybody silencing everyone else anyways.
 
It's funny, because a good share of conservatives afaik are against more government and its involvement in things, but when God Emperor decides he wants more government involvement in things, they're okay with it? Astounding.

OMG Progressives on the side of the Corporations! Conservatives on the side of the Government! It's the apocalypse people!
 
Why censor opposition? Even if it's untrue, it's far better to have KKK ideology out in the front and open, because it exposes how tiny and stupid it is. I think the journos have a vested interest in deleting and submerging the autistic, super spergian racists because it makes it harder to evaluate the effect and size of their movement. The KKK had only a few thousand members for a long time, now they're this mysterious phantom organization with tendrils in ever home, and all levels of government. It's dumb, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Hiding shit like NWO and tiny hat collusion theories only lends credence to the idea there's something to it. compare that to the dumb flat earth types who are largely allowed as laughing stocks.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo