🐱 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.”
 
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)
Legally there isn't a difference right now. And I don't trust people with the power to write good enough rules to attempt to establish that difference. I think giving the control to the government would be a bad idea. You'd get people harass KF's section 230 protections on the grounds that we have a "general discussion" board.
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.
I mean, the DMCA covers that nowadays.
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.



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.
I agree that 8chan stretches section 230 to its limits. I would never argue any legal system is perfect, only the darkweb is perfect*. But I think section 230 does much more good than bad and I think giving away keys to the castle to fuck with it is a very bad idea.

* varies depending on implementation

Edit: wait, couldn't 8chan just file something to quickly dismiss the lawsuit based on section 230? Like, I think when you get to the level of notoriety that 8chan is, admittedly you can't run the site on a 100% shoestring budget. You will need legal help from time to time. But I think with a little preparation, they can make use of it.
 
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.

You're technically right, the issue is that you're not seeing the immense social and political capital (God I hate those terms) you have to have to force through the reforms you're mentioning.

What will be the first thing that will happen when anyone tries to make the financial system neutral? They'll try to claim First Amendment protection. They'll sic media pals on you to call you an enabler of terrorism, an enabler of the Dark Web, an enabler of racism, or so on.

It's a pipe dream. It will not happen, because most of the elite are ideologically in-tune due to elite colleges all thinking the same.
 
I wish the left understood this: banning a person who posted right-wing memes doesn't make them reflect on or change their ways.
[...]
Do they not get this, or do they not CARE?
Why censor opposition? Even if it's untrue, it's far better to have KKK ideology out in the front and open, [...]
The left doesn't believe in the traditional principles underlying free speech: the concept that everyone's ideas should be presented and discussed openly, and that people should make up their own minds about which is right. Too many people end up having the wrong opinion, often on subjects that aren't supposed to be a matter of opinion in the first place... and the category of "settled discussions" keeps getting bigger. Can you believe it's 202X and people are still arguing about Y? They're not trying to change anybody's minds. They're trying to 1) protect the simple and uneducated from falling victim to Russian/Koch brothers propaganda and 2) exact retribution on the wicked.

And deplatforming absolutely works, as does creating the appearance of consensus.
 
You're technically right, the issue is that you're not seeing the immense social and political capital (God I hate those terms) you have to have to force through the reforms you're mentioning.

What will be the first thing that will happen when anyone tries to make the financial system neutral? They'll try to claim First Amendment protection. They'll sic media pals on you to call you an enabler of terrorism, an enabler of the Dark Web, an enabler of racism, or so on.

It's a pipe dream. It will not happen, because most of the elite are ideologically in-tune due to elite colleges all thinking the same.
I think if we're going to attack first amendment rights in one place, either tech or banking, I prefer banking. Fuck bankers.

And no, I don't think it's a pipe dream with banking. There's actually a subtle movement to push first amendment rights in banking that most people haven't heard of: it's the gun lobby.

Soccer moms have been pushing for a long time to try and starve the NRA and gun companies of funds by boycotting and generally fucking with banks who do business with businesses who are a little too free. There's a lot of resentment there, and actually payment processors who handle first amendment (and second amendment) business have specifically cropped up.

I think there's a fighting chance.
 
Honestly, social media in current form is a fuckin' mistake
also:

The public squeal and ree that they are being censored and their First Amendment rights are taking a harder dicking than Piper Perri.
she's look like fuckin' rat tho
 
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.

Twitter, Facebook, etc are already violating section 230. If you actually look at how it is supposed to work, they are not upholding the rules. People are acting like this will kill it, but the text reads more like looking over the law carefully and fuck everyone who isn't following it.

Null may ban speds who mock him, but you can find racists, commies, etc here and it is pretty obvious he isn't yeeting people over politics. The tech giants are. This violates 230.
 
Edit: wait, couldn't 8chan just file something to quickly dismiss the lawsuit based on section 230? Like, I think when you get to the level of notoriety that 8chan is, admittedly you can't run the site on a 100% shoestring budget. You will need legal help from time to time. But I think with a little preparation, they can make use of it.

All it takes is one judge deciding you don't deserve that protection. And judges are nothing if not driven by ideology, much like Big Tech.
 
You are never going to achieve any goal in life by sitting butthurt typey typey on the internet and refusing to engage with any of the potential levers for change because “it’s too haaarrrddd muh corrrruption”

This is some unemployable blue check mark level thinking happening here and I expect better of you all.

The very fact you are posting here proves it is possible to host a non mainstream Internet forum. Now, I agree entirely with Marvin about the issues with funding Null to do this. But despite those issues, and a very significant level of personal harm to which he is subjected, Null is still here and the Farms are still here. It is possible. It might cost more than you want to pay, but it is possible.

You need to be tough to enter this market and not to compromise your vision. You have to be as tough as he is. You need that level of commitment. The government and the free market are not going to hand you a replacement Twitter platfor; they are not going to hand you shit. Josh has been shafted by everyone who had the power to shaft him.

He is still here. Nothing in life that is important comes easy. It was true when the elderly said it to the bombers, and it’s still true now.
 
It is an absolute illusion that the financial system was ever free from speech it disliked. Financial institutions and the wealthy have fought for CENTURIES to keep the 'riff raff' and peasants out. Its been this way since feudalism. The modern wealth resemble monarchs more than they do anything else. We're still operating under a neo-feudal class. The wealthy will always act as gate-keepers and if they don't want you, they will squash you. Financial systems come and go, but the way the rich operate is essentially the same.

The problem is you can't fight the wealthy on the battlefield. You can't hold their throat to a sword and force them to sign a Magna Carta. Alternative payment processors are difficult, because you need money to be in this system and the rich will try and unilaterally crush you if you go against them.

I absolutely agree 230 is a necessary evil. However, the problem is 230 never envisioned massive companies like Facebook, Twitter and the centralization of monetization of the internet. When 230 came about, the Net was very much a wild west. Now, with companies able to basically ruin your life thanks to their moderation and allowing their userbase (if their politics match) fully fuck with you, something does need to be done.

I'm not saying its impossible. But really the only way to switch is to make the current culture unprofitable. That's all they care about in the end.
 
Twitter, Facebook, etc are already violating section 230. If you actually look at how it is supposed to work, they are not upholding the rules. People are acting like this will kill it, but the text reads more like looking over the law carefully and fuck everyone who isn't following it.

Null may ban speds who mock him, but you can find racists, commies, etc here and it is pretty obvious he isn't yeeting people over politics. The tech giants are. This violates 230.
230 isn’t about banning people. It’s about holing the site accountable for the content people post on it
 
Compare Facebook's employee count and alexa rank to medium.com's employee count and alexa rank. Competition is definitely possible.

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.

I don't want the government to anoint boomerbook as a "standard public square". I want to enable competition.
I still think we need a protocol rather than more platforms. If the costs and risks associated with creating something like twitter could be distributed it'd be a lot easier to practically compete. We could have endless voats and gabs, but at the end of the day they are just islands on the ocean with communities small and inbred. We need a way to bridge those islands and thus enable a decentralized island internet that can support the same scale as twitter or facebook without being bound by the central control of those monoliths.


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.
The looming issue is the intended interference in the coming election. It shouldn't have come to this of course; these companies should not have gotten so big, but here we stand. Now we face an issue, these companies are working for elements of the government to twist democracy, and if they succeed they might just be rewarded with further influence. It is all very well to distract the mind with high ideals, but you will be no better for it if in your time spent gazing at the horizon you are taken from behind.
This is not a good solution for free speech, but it is perhaps an acceptable patch for more immediate problems.
 
I'm not saying its impossible. But really the only way to switch is to make the current culture unprofitable. That's all they care about in the end.

This is the ultimate problem, and your prescription is correct.

That said, I really do not think this will happen anytime soon. The current cultural structure is unprecedented in terms of reach and permeation in nearly every facet of modern life.
 
230 isn’t about banning people. It’s about holing the site accountable for the content people post on it

Again, read the article I posted earlier. The law limits what is protected. Google itself has claimed to be platform and a publisher in the same legal filing, but you can't have both protection from what is said as an open platform and the right to editorialize as a publisher because you are then above the law. Section 230 doesn't need to be changed, just enforced.
 
I think there's a fighting chance.

It looks good on the surface.

However, what's eventually going to happen is that anyone who's using these alternative systems will be auto-flagged on some surveillance system. Wasn't there a guy who was basically killed by being red-flagged due to making a chat system for gun owners?
 
It is an absolute illusion that the financial system was ever free from speech it disliked. Financial institutions and the wealthy have fought for CENTURIES to keep the 'riff raff' and peasants out. Its been this way since feudalism. The modern wealth resemble monarchs more than they do anything else. We're still operating under a neo-feudal class. The wealthy will always act as gate-keepers and if they don't want you, they will squash you. Financial systems come and go, but the way the rich operate is essentially the same.

The problem is you can't fight the wealthy on the battlefield. You can't hold their throat to a sword and force them to sign a Magna Carta. Alternative payment processors are difficult, because you need money to be in this system and the rich will try and unilaterally crush you if you go against them.

I absolutely agree 230 is a necessary evil. However, the problem is 230 never envisioned massive companies like Facebook, Twitter and the centralization of monetization of the internet. When 230 came about, the Net was very much a wild west. Now, with companies able to basically ruin your life thanks to their moderation and allowing their userbase (if their politics match) fully fuck with you, something does need to be done.

I'm not saying its impossible. But really the only way to switch is to make the current culture unprofitable. That's all they care about in the end.

This is an attention economy. Every minute you, I or anyone else spends on a major monetised social media platform increases their profits and their clout.

People have to stop patronising businesses they detest. As long as soshul meedja is a money printer, there is absolutely no incentive to change.
 
I still think we need a protocol rather than more platforms. If the costs and risks associated with creating something like twitter could be distributed it'd be a lot easier to practically compete. We could have endless voats and gabs, but at the end of the day they are just islands on the ocean with communities small and inbred. We need a way to bridge those islands and thus enable a decentralized island internet that can support the same scale as twitter or facebook without being bound by the central control of those monoliths.

"Islands on the ocean" sounds like the old internet, something I feel most of us can agree was superior to our current internet.

I miss small online communities. Large, undulating masses such as Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, etc. only seem to convince their respective bases to shout and be obnoxious as possible, as it often seems like the only viable way to be heard by anyone.
 
People have to stop patronising businesses they detest. As long as soshul meedja is a money printer, there is absolutely no incentive to change.

Not that simple, when you need presence on them for most people to know you exist to begin with.

Hell, don't some job screening processes disqualify you if you don't have social media accounts, on the basis that you must be hiding something?
 
You are never going to achieve any goal in life by sitting butthurt typey typey on the internet and refusing to engage with any of the potential levers for change because “it’s too haaarrrddd muh corrrruption”

This is some unemployable blue check mark level thinking happening here and I expect better of you all.

The very fact you are posting here proves it is possible to host a non mainstream Internet forum. Now, I agree entirely with Marvin about the issues with funding Null to do this. But despite those issues, and a very significant level of personal harm to which he is subjected, Null is still here and the Farms are still here. It is possible. It might cost more than you want to pay, but it is possible.

You need to be tough to enter this market and not to compromise your vision. You have to be as tough as he is. You need that level of commitment. The government and the free market are not going to hand you a replacement Twitter platfor; they are not going to hand you shit. Josh has been shafted by everyone who had the power to shaft him.

He is still here. Nothing in life that is important comes easy. It was true when the elderly said it to the bombers, and it’s still true now.

Its only possible because @Null enjoys spitefucking his opponents. He enjoys being a thorn in their side for simply existing. The problem is there aren't that many people with the tolerance for the amount of shit he's had to go through. Say whatever you want about him, but this place only exists because he loves to spit in people's faces and telling them to go fuck themselves. Many, MANY people would have thrown in the towel a long time ago.

The sheer amount of crap he's had to deal with just for this small forum to exist is beyond comprehension and in a normal world would be regarded as insane. Why should a small, insignificant place, go through so much just to simply exist? That doesn't espouse extremist or dangerous ideology and its basic purpose is humor, mockery and just saying what you want? Its absolutely nuts. It shouldn't have had to go through half of what it has, but here we are.

This is the ultimate problem, and your prescription is correct.

That said, I really do not think this will happen anytime soon. The current cultural structure is unprecedented in terms of reach and permeation in nearly every facet of modern life.

Eh, not so. I mean, its hard to see it falling down because its so dense, but the religious right dominated culture, media and a lot of things since the 1950s. It permeated the country intellectually, spiritually as well as regulating our entertainment. It wasn't until massive push-back started it. It SEEMS unprecedented, but its really not. One zeitgeist has always dominated American culture. Last time it was the right. Now it is the left.

America has never been particularly stable one way or another because of our sheer size. We're a huge country and we incorporate many cultures. Each state in fact has its own, and could be even considered a mini-country. They have their own slang, jargon, food, way of living, etc. And there's 50 of them. We'll band under one banner and then we get tired and switch out.

Another thing to say it SEEMS like its dominant, because people opposed to it can't really talk about it. They've been purged from every platform and a lot of people have basically stopped talking about it. What you do see is people voting with their wallets. Its anonymous and you can't easily criticize someone for it or have them fired. They aren't backing entertainment, charities or causes for these people. You've got liberals walking away in droves from progressive causes, only leaving the most fringe and insane left.

You have media companies collapsing left and right because no one is paying for them anymore. You have to look between the lines. Of course the powers that be are going to say 'everything is fine, everything is beautiful'. Its not. Progressive outlets are laying off more and more jobs. Progressive media isn't selling. The media itself is at its lowest trust levels in history. Even the venerable NY Times is having money trouble. People aren't buying what they're selling anymore.

Why do you think the progressives are so loud now? Because the number listening to them has decreased. The louder, more authoritarian you get, chances are that there are less and less devotees following you or listening to you. Remember, 80-90% of Tweets are done by 10% of its users. Its a massive vocal minority.

This minority abhors data and research, so they themselves don't even know what is happening. Because if they found out, it would scare them into oblivion. I don't think its as hopeless as you make it out to be. Its just that things are quietly being resisted right now, and its difficult to see, because they feel like they've purged all opposition.

Progressives don't understand object permanence. They believe if they can't see it, it doesn't exist. So they don't understand why things are crumbling right now, because no one is telling them anything.
 
Again, read the article I posted earlier. The law limits what is protected. Google itself has claimed to be platform and a publisher in the same legal filing, but you can't have both protection from what is said as an open platform and the right to editorialize as a publisher because you are then above the law. Section 230 doesn't need to be changed, just enforced.
The problem is dumb boomer politicians just not understanding the difference thus hurting the smaller sites
 
Not that simple, when you need presence on them for most people to know you exist to begin with.

Hell, don't some job screening processes disqualify you if you don't have social media accounts, on the basis that you must be hiding something?

People fucking died for the right to vote. The millennials can delete their twitter accounts.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo