🐱 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.”
 
What if the reason that enforcement is impossible is because none of the people ever elected want to enforce them?

1 - Vote for someone who will
2 - If you can't find anyone who will run for office on this basis, stand yourself
3 - If you are unwilling to do 1 and/or 2, delete democracy.exe and reinstall

The issue here isn't whether there are no problems with the current state of affairs. The issue here is whether fucking with s230 is the correct remedy for those issues, and for every issue being raised, the answer is no. It is not the correct remedy for the perceived "lack of free speech" on the internet.
 
this is some of the funniest shit I've ever seen.
during the middle of a pandemic that's killed 100,000, he's starting a war with a website that fact checked him
Why are americans so sensitive? The smallest push back or banter causes a meltdown
 
Except that banning people from Twitter would then exclude them from interacting with the government official in a significant way.

Banning someone from a single Wendy’s is nowhere near comparable to banning them from something like Twitter. It would be more akin to being cut off from phones or email.
I mean, if you sued about that, the judge would probably just order the government official to also accept paper mail.
You cannot enable true competition to Twitter or Facebook simply because they're all ideological compatriots, and they will not bear any actual competition.

You can piss and moan and cry all you want that competition should be enabled, and it should be, but the naked reality of the situation is that Big Tech is highly collusive.
What could they possibly do to you? That's what I don't get. I almost feel like there's technical ignorance about what it takes to run a website when this conversation comes up.

You can run a website. You can run one that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible for big tech to censor technologically or business wise.

Scaling is different because that costs money (which I'm proposing reforming), but you can always stay online in some capacity.
 
It's difficult for financial reasons, but even now people are managing to stay afloat. Financial regulations would be preferable to enabling regulatory capture for Facebook and Twitter and killing competition permanentely.
And how do you enforce those? Suppose those bank reforms you proposed do actually pass, what's stopping Zuckerbook and Twatter setting up foreign bank accounts? Or restructuring the company á la Alphabet? "No sir, you see, Facebook is a subsidiary of our megacorp Zucker, and we aren't violating any rules. They are, but they aren't the account holder. Please wait a sec while our team of incredibly well-paid lawyers fetch a 1000 page document with the exact details."
 
1 - Vote for someone who will
Can't, they all get bought out.
2 - If you can't find anyone who will run for office on this basis, stand yourself
You have seen what they did to Trump right? Don't forget that 2016 was a bipartisan effort against the guy.
3 - If you are unwilling to do 1 and/or 2, delete democracy.exe and reinstall
You and what army?
The issue here isn't whether there are no problems with the current state of affairs. The issue here is whether fucking with s230 is the correct remedy for those issues, and for every issue being raised, the answer is no. It is not the correct remedy for the perceived "lack of free speech" on the internet.
You act as if though both parties don't equally want s230 wiped clean. It wouldn't be a surprise if this was a rare act of backdoor bi-partisanship, and Trump's caterwauling about social media is just kayfabe in return for funding for the wall or some other such thing. In the end, it'll end up better for the companies that can bribe their way past it, as they always will, as the rest of the internet gets deeply penetrated anally. I liken it to the taming of the wild west, it was bound to happen sooner or later and the vehicle for it doesn't matter.

Trump, Biden, doesn't matter. The internet is fucked.
 
You cannot enable true competition to Twitter or Facebook simply because they're all ideological compatriots, and they will not bear any actual competition.

You can piss and moan and cry all you want that competition should be enabled, and it should be, but the naked reality of the situation is that Big Tech is highly collusive.
What’s the term that people use for cable companies, where they’re not technically a monopoly but due to agreements about not overlapping territories they are essentially a monopoly?

cause I’d argue that twitter et al is one of those.
 
this is some of the funniest shit I've ever seen.
during the middle of a pandemic that's killed 100,000, he's starting a war with a website that fact checked him
Why are americans so sensitive? The smallest push back or banter causes a meltdown

TBF twitter is pretty faggy and feds jumping on it can only be entertaining and awesome.

Cant do much about the covid, but butt fucking jack? Shit, that's gold.
 
You cannot enable true competition to Twitter or Facebook simply because they're all ideological compatriots, and they will not bear any actual competition.

You can piss and moan and cry all you want that competition should be enabled, and it should be, but the naked reality of the situation is that Big Tech is highly collusive.
What do you mean? Twitter incorporated (tm) has no bias mr g-man
Ver archivo adjunto 1324885 Ver archivo adjunto 1324886 Ver archivo adjunto 1324888 Ver archivo adjunto 1324887Ver archivo adjunto 1324890 Ver archivo adjunto 1324889

The guy in charge of Twitter's "site integrity" seems like a perfectly fair and unbiased person who evenly enforces with rules with no consideration made for someone's political leanings.
 
What could they possibly do to you?

Imagine asking this question on a website whose owner is all-but-barred from most of the financial system.

They can do plenty, because of the collusive national of big tech, big money, the media, etc. If they can't ruin you financially they'll ruin you socially via their media connections, which tends to ruin you financially anyway.

You can wail about "then change the banks" all you want, but that is even more impossible.
 
And how do you enforce those? Suppose those bank reforms you proposed do actually pass, what's stopping Zuckerbook and Twatter setting up foreign bank accounts? Or restructuring the company á la Alphabet? "No sir, you see, Facebook is a subsidiary of our megacorp Zucker, and we aren't violating any rules. They are, but they aren't the account holder. Please wait a sec while our team of incredibly well-paid lawyers fetch a 1000 page document with the exact details."
Has nothing to do with Zuckerberg. He's allowed to keep his money.

The regulations would make it so that if you want to send null $5, the banks aren't allowed to arbitrarily delete his accounts. The goal is to enable competition.

If you've got a product/service that people want to pay for (kiwifarms) and someone who wants to accept the money, that's the main thing keeping people from building bigger alternatives to facebook et al.
 

As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular.

...

But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”

They are violating 230 already, and it wouldn't fly under any other circumstances. If you are siding with Silicon Valley, you either do not understand what is going on, or you understand but don't care because it silences those you disagree with.
 
What’s the term that people use for cable companies, where they’re not technically a monopoly but due to agreements about not overlapping territories they are essentially a monopoly?

cause I’d argue that twitter et al is one of those.

A cartel. Antitrust and competition laws exist for exactly this reason.
 
What section 230 does is it gives you a right to establish a place where you and your friends can discuss restricted topics without you being personally responsible for what your friends say.

Curation is a right here. It's a first amendment right, in fact. It's the right of the people to peaceably assemble. If you rent out a clubhouse for your political group to hang out, you are not personally liable for someone in the group saying something illegal. They are.

But you also have the right to restrict that clubhouse to only the members of that political group.

It is fully legal (and in fact a constitutionally protected right) to establish an explicitly conservative/communist/libertarian/fat-pride oriented social network, and then police it to restrict it to exclusively those topics, while not being personally liable for what those people say. They are individuals, but you have a right to organize as a group.

That's what section 230 does.

And it's also essential to kiwifarms. People who argue that "well, if they just restrict evenly it's OK, like null does". No, null isn't restricting evenly. He's explicitly curating a site for a particular topic: lolcows. That's restricted speech. He deletes threads that aren't about lolcows. Legally (and I'd argue correctly) that's just as much a biased judgement call as banning conservatives or liberals or whatever. It's a judgement call.

Facebook has that right just as much as null does or anyone else.

The solution is to build your own facebook. Which is much more feasible than people realize (see: medium.com's employee count vs alexa rank). The limiting factor is financial; proposed reform: instead of imposing first amendment restrictions on "big social media sites" (how do you define it? what if KF ticks over some arbitrary page view count and is suddenly subject to lawsuits?), which is exceptional, just make it so any bank that offers FDIC (a federal corporation) insured accounts must enforce their rules and any business perks they offer on a first amendment neutral basis.
There should be a difference between a community that out right states "This is a community for X discussion" (Aka New Zealand Agriculture) and the claims of "We are a public forum so you can talk about any subject[that falls inline with the laws of any jurisdiction we are in]" (Facebook/twitter/Reddit/etc)

Bit of a powerlevel here Back in the mid and late 00s I was an internet janitor for a major free forum host of its time. The staff was stressed that we couldn't take preemptive measures to stop topics/posts of stuff (e.g. warez,porn,etc) as that would strip away any Safe Harbor protections the company had as we were now "editing" content and "showing that we have the man power to preemptive stop copyright infringement/porn/other legal issues" this came from the legal console of the owner.
 
Imagine asking this question on a website whose owner is all-but-barred from most of the financial system.

They can do plenty, because of the collusive national of big tech, big money, the media, etc. If they can't ruin you financially they'll ruin you socially via their media connections, which tends to ruin you financially anyway.

You can wail about "then change the banks" all you want, but that is even more impossible.
KF is struggling but staying afloat because we have section 230, even though he's being fucked with by the banks.

If he wasn't being fucked with by the banks, but we didn't have section 230, we wouldn't exist.

Now I do want to fix the banks (we can, just say banks don't get FDIC insurance without 1st amendment protections) so KF can grow. But it wouldn't exist at all without section 230.

Even if all of KF sent in our tendiebux, it wouldn't cover all the lawsuits that would be enabled by fucking with section 230.
 
Are you talking about 8chan and Cloudflare?

I'm talking about how groups and individuals constantly try to hold 8chan responsible for an individual user's post. This includes Cloudflare, but also concerns various individual lawsuits and hearings, all of which do what I describe: bleed the target financially.

What section 230 does is it gives you a right to establish a place where you and your friends can discuss restricted topics without you being personally responsible for what your friends say.

Curation is a right here. It's a first amendment right, in fact. It's the right of the people to peaceably assemble. If you rent out a clubhouse for your political group to hang out, you are not personally liable for someone in the group saying something illegal. They are.

This is what I'm referring to, specifically, when I mention 8chan. Because the site "encouraged shooters" in the mind of ill-educated officials, it didn't receive any of the Section 230 protections you so staunchly insist upon.
 
The issue here isn't whether there are no problems with the current state of affairs. The issue here is whether fucking with s230 is the correct remedy for those issues, and for every issue being raised, the answer is no. It is not the correct remedy for the perceived "lack of free speech" on the internet.
it's not the best remedy but trump is an incompetent tech-illiterate boomer that doesn't actually care about freedom just like everyone else in the government so what were you expecting? this is better than nothing.
delete democracy.exe and reinstall
this is the best remedy.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo