Trump Signs Executive Order Aimed Towards Removing "Platform" Protections from Social Media. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15095035
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ive-order/

Lots of anger and excitement over this order. A lot of conservatives feel that they get unfairly censored or edited over social media and the White House has been publicly gathering evidence of double standards for the past couple years.

Recently Twitter "fact checked" a Trump tweet about mail in voting being an invitation for voter fraud. This is what prompted the executive order but it's been in the works for years.

The argument is simple: if a social media company (and this may apply to forums as well, most notably Reddit) chooses to "editorialize" people's content, then that makes them a "publisher" and not a "platform". In order to be a platform, they have to apply their rules in a neutral manner, not edit other's content and only remove content which is "flagrantly offensive" which presumably would not extend to things like debates over vote-by-mail elections.

The most obvious next move by social media companies is to expand the definition of what is considered flagrantly offensive but that might backfire in the long run since accusing people of anything you can censor might be defamation. For example then, if you can censor someone for saying that something is "racist" you might in theory also be sued for calling something racist.

Another response I've seen is "Trump is attacking Twitter's free speech" but this is also a losing argument because if Twitter's free speech is happening in the context of them editing other people's postings, that is basically an admission that they are editorializing.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, already hated for his stance on net neutrality, has received the executive order and presumably has some things that were mostly written last year ready to go.
#15095051
@Wulfschilde

I thought Twitter was a private company and thus had at least the right to fact check Trump (fact checking is NOT "censoring"). It's Twitter's house, not Trump's or the government's. After all, while we are guests here in Noemon's house on PoFo, he most certainly can edit our posts as he pleases and he does on many occasions. And it's his house. Why should it be any different for Trump? Since when does Trump have the right to stop free enterprise and the right to private ownership rights of Twitter. Trump doesn't own Twitter. It's not his house. It's a private company.

Don't you believe in capitalism and private property rights? If so, then I would assume you would be in opposition to Trump's move. And again Trump's tweet wasn't even removed or altered, just merely fact checked with facts. Don't you think this sets a dangerous precendent in taking away the incentive of the private sector to work and innovate when you have such government regulation from Trump all the sudden? Wouldn't such a move discourage people from going into business and bringing jobs to the economy? Or do you believe in government regulation now of the economy? Which is it?

Also, do you support Trump's move to make an internet like that which exists in communist China here in the US?
#15095056
@Wulfschilde

If all moderation is banned in the US, I don't see how Twitter can run an operation out of the US and continue to operate in the wider world. Facebook will try, if Zuckerberg has his way, and is licking Trump's arse at the moment but I don't think even they can sustain that position for long when the lawsuits start flying.


:lol:
#15095057
@ingliz

If I was Twitter I would consider laying off employees here in the U.S. and moving my location to a more business friendly country where I would not be subject to Trump's regulations. Facebook might have to do the same too given they would be subject to these reguations. Can't make money when you dont have liability protections and can be sued so easily. Might as well move to a different country where you can make money and hire their citizens instead.
#15095058
Trump is going against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's exactly what he's doing.

If Twitter was fair, they'd have banned Trump long ago. Trump's such a crybaby.
#15095114
Politics_Observer wrote:@Godstud

Maybe Twitter should move its operations to Canada and then ban Trump.


You forget that the Empire believes in extraterritorial law. Trump could impose sanctions against Twitter and then punish any state not abiding by the sanctions. Canada could be made to arrest Twitter executives as it arrested a high-ranking Huawei executive.
#15095127
Atlantis wrote:You forget that the Empire believes in extraterritorial law. Trump could impose sanctions against Twitter and then punish any state not abiding by the sanctions. Canada could be made to arrest Twitter executives as it arrested a high-ranking Huawei executive.


China is no good guy either so comparing them to Twitter is an insult to the latter.

EDIT: Twitter is part of our "Empire", Huawei is not. Don't really think Canada would be so foolish not to tell such a difference.
#15095132
@Patrickov, China does not use extraterritorial law to enforce its will globally. In fact, China has always made a big thing about non-interference. There is only one empire, and it is not China.

But I understand that the imperialist lackeys approve of extraterritorial law and unequal treaties.
#15095154
Atlantis wrote:China does not use extraterritorial law to enforce its will globally. In fact, China has always made a big thing about non-interference. There is only one empire, and it is not China.


Untrue.

China often asks other countries to extradite phone scammers. In the sense of the above quote China is exercising extraterritorial law.

Worse, we have cases of kidnapping dissidents outside Chinese territory. Therefore, I will argue that China actually commits worse crime.

In addition, for Meng Wanzhou's case, Canada acts out of its own interest, i.e. acting like it actually benefits it as well as US. Twitter going against Trump does not serve their interest so I do not think Canada will give a damn. Until it actually happens I am not convinced.
#15095158
Wulfschilde wrote:Lots of anger and excitement over this order. A lot of conservatives feel that they get unfairly censored or edited over social media and the White House has been publicly gathering evidence of double standards for the past couple years.


I've watched this theory evolve over the years and it's largely rooted in the fact that conservatives aren't able to disseminate bigotry without violating the TOS of just about every social media platform.
#15095173
Politics_Observer wrote:@Godstud

Maybe Twitter should move its operations to Canada and then ban Trump.


They don’t have to move to canada to do that. They should have banned him a long time ago. Countless platforms ban unruly users, users that are offensive, violent, etc. He checks off all those marks that would have gotten any of us banned or at least temporarily blocked. He got away because he was the president and a big crybaby, if he had been banned when he should have (early when he was running) he would have cried foul and gotten far more attention than he deserved.

This “move” have no weight, it cannot stand.
#15095176
Trump has been stuffing the courts. They will hand him this victory easily. The FCC is pretty much all powerful unless the courts intervene. About the only way to stop them is for the democrats in the house to stop their funding entirely. And any bill to do that will be vetoed.

Trump will get his way. And he will likely be reelected in November. And the literal end of free speech in America, which has been a goal of the right for a long time, will be upon us.

Some say that if Trump is successful that Twitter and Facebook would have no choice but to ban him because without protection his libelous statements about others would be actionable. I don't think Trump cares.

Look. We should know by now that Trump has the press eating out of his hand. He totally controls the press; even MSNBC and CNN. At the end of the day all press entities sell shit. That is how they make money. Whether the market tunes in because they love Trump (for example FOX) or hate him (MSNBC) he is the thing driving traffic to these networks. YouTube and Twitter are in the same boat.

It is possible that in an act of extreme courage, Twitter could move to a country like Mexico or Switzerland where the US has little reach and then simply ban him. I wish they would. And a lot of other folks as well. Twitter has about 4,000 employees so that won't matter but the hit to our prestige would be significant. But then just the Trump presidency has been the biggest hit to our prestige in history.

But here is what won't happen. People will not rise up in anger. They will not march. They will not picket their local representatives. They will not write their republican legislature members. They will tune to their favorite pundits and shake their heads over a bowl of popcorn. And Trump will win again.

The die was cast when, after the first gratuitous insult to a journalist the entire press corps did not rise up and walk out of the Whitehouse and not come back. Why. They sell shit.

We should not decry the death of objective journalism at all. It has been dead for a generation. If you are under about 40 and living in the US you do not even know what that looks like.

So suck it up everyone or write to your Senators and Representatives. If you don't do that you don't matter.

On edit:

One more thing. If every democrat and independent who dislikes this would cancel their Twitter account and suspend their facebook accounts this would change everything. They won't.
#15095191
@XogGyux

They don’t have to move to canada to do that. They should have banned him a long time ago. Countless platforms ban unruly users, users that are offensive, violent, etc. He checks off all those marks that would have gotten any of us banned or at least temporarily blocked. He got away because he was the president and a big crybaby, if he had been banned when he should have (early when he was running) he would have cried foul and gotten far more attention than he deserved.

This “move” have no weight, it cannot stand.


Ohh I agree Donald should have been banned a LOOONGG TIME ago. He certainly needs to be banned. At least Twitter continues to fact check Donald's tweets despite signing his executive order.



@Drlee

Drlee wrote:Trump has been stuffing the courts. They will hand him this victory easily.


I agree. That's been part of the Republican strategy is to pack the courts full of judges who will rule in favor of the rich and the powerful in most cases. So, even if they lose the Presidency, House or the Senate, they can rely on the courts to stop laws that are good public policy that need to be passed from getting passed. What is good public policy doesn't always ensure the protection of gluttonous excessive wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few people in society. Hence, why Republicans want to pack the courts with judges who will rule in favor of the wealthy white people they solely represent.

For the Republicans, passing law that is good public policy is not why they are in Congress. Passing law that benefit the already overly and excessively wealthy and gluttonous powerful white few even more, even if it is at the expense of everybody else in society IS why Republicans seek to be in Congress. They simply don't care about society or anybody else but their over the top gluttonous wealthy powerful fat cats who they solely represent. Republicans don't represent the people. They ONLY represent wealthy rich white people and maybe racist whites they can manipulate and control by appealing to their racist prejudices and white privilege. That's the ONLY people they represent. Nobody else. They don't care about anybody else.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 29 May 2020 18:57, edited 2 times in total.
#15095194
Drlee wrote:It is possible that in an act of extreme courage, Twitter could move to a country like Mexico or Switzerland where the US has little reach and then simply ban him.


I don't know why you think the US has little reach in those countries. It wouldn't matter anyway, because as long as Twitter offers its service in the US it has to adjust it to the laws there, at least for American users.

Drlee wrote:But then just the Trump presidency has been the biggest hit to our prestige in history.


Yeah, definitely. What a pig of a man. :lol:
#15095268
Wulfschilde wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-social-media-executive-order/

Lots of anger and excitement over this order. A lot of conservatives feel that they get unfairly censored or edited over social media and the White House has been publicly gathering evidence of double standards for the past couple years.

Recently Twitter "fact checked" a Trump tweet about mail in voting being an invitation for voter fraud. This is what prompted the executive order but it's been in the works for years.

The argument is simple: if a social media company (and this may apply to forums as well, most notably Reddit) chooses to "editorialize" people's content, then that makes them a "publisher" and not a "platform". In order to be a platform, they have to apply their rules in a neutral manner, not edit other's content and only remove content which is "flagrantly offensive" which presumably would not extend to things like debates over vote-by-mail elections.

The most obvious next move by social media companies is to expand the definition of what is considered flagrantly offensive but that might backfire in the long run since accusing people of anything you can censor might be defamation. For example then, if you can censor someone for saying that something is "racist" you might in theory also be sued for calling something racist.

Another response I've seen is "Trump is attacking Twitter's free speech" but this is also a losing argument because if Twitter's free speech is happening in the context of them editing other people's postings, that is basically an admission that they are editorializing.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, already hated for his stance on net neutrality, has received the executive order and presumably has some things that were mostly written last year ready to go.


This if followed through might result in a lot more active censorship on social media. If they are made responsible and can be sued and treated as a publisher rather than a platform, it makes economic sense to remove anything that can get you sued.
#15095272
Drlee wrote:Trump has been stuffing the courts. They will hand him this victory easily. The FCC is pretty much all powerful unless the courts intervene. About the only way to stop them is for the democrats in the house to stop their funding entirely. And any bill to do that will be vetoed.

Trump will get his way. And he will likely be reelected in November. And the literal end of free speech in America, which has been a goal of the right for a long time, will be upon us.

Some say that if Trump is successful that Twitter and Facebook would have no choice but to ban him because without protection his libelous statements about others would be actionable. I don't think Trump cares.

Look. We should know by now that Trump has the press eating out of his hand. He totally controls the press; even MSNBC and CNN. At the end of the day all press entities sell shit. That is how they make money. Whether the market tunes in because they love Trump (for example FOX) or hate him (MSNBC) he is the thing driving traffic to these networks. YouTube and Twitter are in the same boat.

It is possible that in an act of extreme courage, Twitter could move to a country like Mexico or Switzerland where the US has little reach and then simply ban him. I wish they would. And a lot of other folks as well. Twitter has about 4,000 employees so that won't matter but the hit to our prestige would be significant. But then just the Trump presidency has been the biggest hit to our prestige in history.

But here is what won't happen. People will not rise up in anger. They will not march. They will not picket their local representatives. They will not write their republican legislature members. They will tune to their favorite pundits and shake their heads over a bowl of popcorn. And Trump will win again.

The die was cast when, after the first gratuitous insult to a journalist the entire press corps did not rise up and walk out of the Whitehouse and not come back. Why. They sell shit.

We should not decry the death of objective journalism at all. It has been dead for a generation. If you are under about 40 and living in the US you do not even know what that looks like.

So suck it up everyone or write to your Senators and Representatives. If you don't do that you don't matter.

On edit:

One more thing. If every democrat and independent who dislikes this would cancel their Twitter account and suspend their facebook accounts this would change everything. They won't.


I think Trump wants to be banned from twitter or facebook. It fits the narrative he's selling to his base.

It could well be a win politically for Trump to get banned.
#15095332
Well, it sure sounds like the CEO of Twitter isn't going to back down from bullying from the White House. I commend him and those that support him.

This couldn't have been an easy decision, but the entire planet has been waiting for someone to stand up to this mental case. it might as well be the people who control his favorite toy.

Image

…………………………………………………..^ :lol: ^...……………………………………………………….
#15095334
I believe I dispensed with most of the arguments I'm seeing here in my OP. It's not "censorship" or a violation of free speech if someone can no longer censor or edit other people's speech. It's a pretty backwards argument that most of you are making.

As for being destroyed by lawsuits, I think that is unlikely. There has been a movement for awhile to oust Jack Dorsey as Twitter CEO: https://www.cityam.com/twitter-shares-j ... ck-dorsey/

The movement is popular among investors and news about it caused a rise in Twitter's share price. Jack Dorsey is not a good CEO. Under him the stock's value has dropped and he is putting his very hypocritical values (it's OK to call for violence against white people and cops, but not looters) front and center. The lawsuits will apply if and only if Twitter fails to follow its own terms of service. So Twitter has two options: (1) change their terms of service or (2) get sued, change CEO, lawsuits will stop when policies change.

As for Facebook, Zuckerbot has repeatedly signaled that he doesn't intend to censor the President of the United States and that he wants to apply the site's rules fairly. Although this gets debated a lot, the action is mostly aimed at Twitter and maybe Reddit, Facebook doesn't seem to intend to fall on that sword.
#15095336
No one was censoring or editing Trump. They merely added in a fact check at the bottom, since Trump was constantly lying. He still got to say his dumb shit.

If he wasn't the bonehead President, he'd have been banned long ago.

That is right Atlantis. Just another example of h[…]

@wat0n 1. There can be a group that investigat[…]

Enforcing fallacious "rights" in &quo[…]

@Pants-of-dog it's not about cherry picking tho[…]