🐱 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.”
 
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.
And then, what? Everyone builds their forums and gets bankrupted? This does nothing but push where the onus lies to the banks rather than address the underlying issue of people breaking up people they don’t want getting power.

I unironically have a ton of respect for Josh, but let’s not act like everyone has the ability, the principles, or the circumstances to do what he’s doing.

and to bring it away from banning people and back to the other point - the other thing that I respect about Josh, and why I think he should still fall under 230 and Twitter shouldn’t - is that Josh isn’t acting like some arbiter of truth and going around “debunking” people’s claims as an authority (outside of that one post about Chris being blackmailed, maybe.). At most, he engages them in conversation as an equal. If Twitter wants to say who is and isn’t lying, they either need to do it consistently and accurately or be willing to face repercussions.

ETA: also, serious props to @Marvin. I disagree with some of your arguments, but you’ve also given me some actual things to think about and made good, clear arguments.
 
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.

I really don't buy this. The Religious Right was never dominant in academia and elite colleges, where all of this culture-changing nonsense incubates now.
 
And then, what? Everyone builds their forums and gets bankrupted? This does nothing but push where the onus lies to the banks rather than address the underlying issue of people breaking up people they don’t want getting power.

I unironically have a ton of respect for Josh, but let’s not act like everyone has the ability, the principles, or the circumstances to do what he’s doing.

and to bring it away from banning people and back to the other point - the other thing that I respect about Josh, and why I think he should still fall under 230 and Twitter shouldn’t - is that Josh isn’t acting like some arbiter of truth and going around “debunking” people’s claims as an authority (outside of that one post about Chris being blackmailed, maybe.). At most, he engages them in conversation as an equal. If Twitter wants to say who is and isn’t lying, they either need to do it consistently and accurately or be willing to face repercussions.

Not everyone has the principles. The rest is a matter of will.
 
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.
That means abandoning Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, et cetera, since most of these social media shitholes are owned by one megacorp or another. And how could grandma contact little Billy, or mommy keep tabs on Sally, that dumb little whore already fucking around, or Sally, that dumb little whore post semi-nudes for her boyfriends to help them rub one out?

There's another huge issue at play, one that many people disregard when screeching about "Buh muh KF waht aboot dat": I can't send my dentist or my equivalent of house rep. a PM here. I mean they could be on this site, but Dear Leader is very clear on the "no powerword: IRL name here" policy.
I could, however, contact a huge number of gov't officials and agencies, medical professionals, brand representatives, or customer service representatives on social media. Fucking 'bongistani Bobbies routinely take people into custody for committing wrongthink on twatter, for fuck's sake.
 
Not everyone has the principles. The rest is a matter of will.

Pithy, but irrelevant. You compare people dying for their freedom. Fair enough, but that only worked because their opponents simply did not have the social and financial reach that companies and people who use the services have today.
 
That means abandoning Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, et cetera, since most of these social media shitholes are owned by one megacorp or another. And how could grandma contact little Billy, or mommy keep tabs on Sally, that dumb little whore already fucking around, or Sally, that dumb little whore post semi-nudes for her boyfriends to help them rub one out?

There's another huge issue at play, one that many people disregard when screeching about "Buh muh KF waht aboot dat": I can't send my dentist or my equivalent of house rep. a PM here. I mean they could be on this site, but Dear Leader is very clear on the "no powerword: IRL name here" policy.
I could, however, contact a huge number of gov't officials and agencies, medical professionals, brand representatives, or customer service representatives on social media. Fucking 'bongistani Bobbies routinely take people into custody for committing wrongthink on twatter, for fuck's sake.

It does, yeah. Delete all that shit. I never had most of them and nuked Facebook two years ago. It really was not that fucking important. People who want to “keep in touch” have either my phone number or address. It is not in any way difficult to walk away from using a few websites.

Social media is the cutting edge of behaviour modification technology, delivered through a device you have been led to believe you need to keep about your person nearly all the time, which delivers the brand new opium of the masses in the form of total shite. It is designed to train you to not think. Bin it.
 
I'll die laughing if 230 gets wrecked all because some cali dipshit couldn't keep his hands off POTUS' tweets.

Like the fuck did twitter think was gonna happen fucking with one of the most powerful people in the world?
Corporations have a horrible track record when they decide to fuck the government in the ass. Its one thing to collude but another to fuck over. Then again they don't teach antitrust legislation in school so no wonder the evil kufr Jack Dorsey (May Allah Curse His Soul) decided to fuck with Trump.
 
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.

"But nobody I know voted for Nixon" has become "But nobody I know doesn't block Trump Supporters."
 
You can’t feed a family willpower.

The building of a multinational communications company is not going to be done on a forty hour week with three sproglings in the home. To become rich, you need to work. This is the essence of the American Dream, no? You inherit your wealth or you work like a dog for it.

Pithy, but irrelevant. You compare people dying for their freedom. Fair enough, but that only worked because their opponents simply did not have the social and financial reach that companies and people who use the services have today.

Jack Dorsey does not have more power over you than the Vorster government had over Nelson Mandela. I understand this issue is close to your heart, but we have to adhere to consensus reality here.

This thread is disappointingly descending into the neet cracker version of WE WUZ KANGZ. “We could have the uh, free speech on the internet if it wasn’t for the MAN holding us down! We can’t create our own spaces on the internet because of the MAN! Gibsmedat janny-free twitter! The gubmint OWES us our preferred solution to our problems!” This is not twitter. Do better.

Getting what you want will be hard, but it is will be impossible if you wait for someone to give it to you. Be the disruptive change you want to see in the world.
 
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.
It doesn't. Look into section 230 and what it provides. It doesn't say anything about rules. Someone running a private website can permit people to use it in pretty much any capacity they choose (or don't). They always have been.
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.
I don't trust judges 100%, but I trust them better with simpler, more unambiguous rules.

A rule that says "this company is too big, therefore section 230 doesn't protect them" relies a lot on interpretations of "too big". Letting 230 apply to everyone and dealing with the private fallout of that is more manageable.
and to bring it away from banning people and back to the other point - the other thing that I respect about Josh, and why I think he should still fall under 230 and Twitter shouldn’t - is that Josh isn’t acting like some arbiter of truth and going around “debunking” people’s claims as an authority (outside of that one post about Chris being blackmailed, maybe.). At most, he engages them in conversation as an equal. If Twitter wants to say who is and isn’t lying, they either need to do it consistently and accurately or be willing to face repercussions.
Actually, I would say that debunking people's claims, making a factual statement, is on par with twitter posting under their own byline.

The whole idea of section 230 is that if you can look at a forum and obviously see a profile picture and a username, it's obvious that they're the person who said it (and are thus responsible for it). Null isn't resonsible. And he isn't responsible even if he deletes some posts and keeps others (even if it's entirely because of his own political motivations). He's allowed to curate an environment for people to speak, for his own reasons, without being confused as the author of that speech.

But if null posts something with his account? He's responsible for that. That's not even a section 230 issue because he's the one posting it.

Likewise it could be argued that twitter making a statement that something is "debunked" is akin to doing something under "their account".

If Trump says he isn't a pedo and twitter's automated misinformation debunking system snags that and says he really is a pedo, I'd argue they're responsible for that.
 
Jack Dorsey does not have more power over you than the Vorster government had over Nelson Mandela. I understand this issue is close to your heart, but we have to adhere to consensus reality here.

It's rather idiotic to appeal to consensus reality, when artificially-created consensus reality imposed from the top-down is the entire problem.

Your comparison is facile, simply because the Vorster government was a minority government that did not have the reach or power of the current one in America, which is staffed by people who ideologically are in tune with Jack Dorsey, and who occupy prominent positions in the security services.
 
So. I completely agree with the sentiment that social media platforms have become far too influential and need to be reigned in or even brought to justice for the active role they play in undermining our Democracy and dividing us through the spread of propaganda...

-However-

Going after Section 230 is a fucktarded way of going about this. This is akin to saying "Oh the forest has some bandits in it? Lulz! Nuke the entire thing."

If Section 230 gets fucked with then NOBODY will be able to enjoy the internet anymore.
 
We don't have to change 230, just tell social media that they can't use it as a shield if they keep doing what they're doing, moderating away stuff they don't like and trying to pass it off as "oopsie made a poopsie!" glitches in the system, not their own attempts to do it and get away with it unseen because they KNOW they are in the wrong if they want to KEEP 230 protection, so they can't come right out and SAY they did it. They just hope one of these days, they'll catch the internet napping for a week straight and nobody will say "hey, why did I get banned for saying "Free Taiwan" when this other guy didn't for saying "Death to America!" ?

I mean, does anyone REALLY believe it's just a massive coincidence that a computer glitch removes everyone who had a MAGA hat avatar? Or that it's just happenstance that everyone critical of China got banned one night?

They're doing this hoping against all odds that nobody will notice, they can't claim "but muh free internet will be ruined without our special status' when they don't even SUPPORT the core idea of it as evidenced by constant midnight deletions of people who just so happen to be conservative.
 
Actually, I would say that debunking people's claims, making a factual statement, is on par with twitter posting under their own byline.

The whole idea of section 230 is that if you can look at a forum and obviously see a profile picture and a username, it's obvious that they're the person who said it (and are thus responsible for it). Null isn't resonsible. And he isn't responsible even if he deletes some posts and keeps others (even if it's entirely because of his own political motivations). He's allowed to curate an environment for people to speak, for his own reasons, without being confused as the author of that speech.

But if null posts something with his account? He's responsible for that. That's not even a section 230 issue because he's the one posting it.

Likewise it could be argued that twitter making a statement that something is "debunked" is akin to doing something under "their account".

If Trump says he isn't a pedo and twitter's automated misinformation debunking system snags that and says he really is a pedo, I'd argue they're responsible for that.
Ok, I actually can agree with your argument on that.

So, going from that common ground, would you be willing to agree that if they are doing that, then those specific posts they make void section 230 privileges, because those are done not as a platform holder, but as a “publisher / personage”, in the same way that if someone here posted something libelous they could be held to that without it involving Null?

Because that is what I’d like to see happen, but it feels like, since they’re doing it as “Twitter” rather than attaching a person to it, they’re trying to get out of that. Forcing Twitter to be more transparent about its rules and decision making would also be nice, but that, specifically, is my issue with the 230 argument as far as it applies to this particular example.
 
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
It gets crazier when you look at the other spectrum and see that in the midst of the same pandemic, they're taking the time outlaw "hate speech" like "chinese virus" and "hong kong flu"
 
Atrás
Top Abajo