Trump Signs Executive Order Aimed Towards Removing "Platform" Protections from Social Media. - Page 3 - 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.
#15095667
Unthinking Majority wrote:Twitter can do anything they want to any posts, including fact-checks if they want, it's their platform. But they should be applying the rules consistently and evenly, regardless of whatever political ideology or party the poster belongs to.

If they fact-check Trump's posts then they have to fact check Biden's posts and the Chinese government's posts etc.


No.

This seems like a fallacious appeal to some arbitrary idea of equality.

How about they just fact check every time a politician makes a misleading tweet?

Since this would take a ridiculous amount of time and resources on twitter's part, and becomes subjective on where and how you draw the line on what should be fact-checked which will cause all sorts of controversy and disagreements, it doesn't seem like a very good idea for twitter to be doing this.

The key is for social media companies to have very clear rules and for their moderators to applying them consistently.


I think they could just focus their resources on really big accounts that have a pattern of presenting misleading information.

Like Trump.

Since when has pointing out the lies of government officials required these standards that you describe?
#15095676
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

This seems like a fallacious appeal to some arbitrary idea of equality.

How about they just fact check every time a politician makes a misleading tweet?


That was my same point. But politicians of every stripe lie all the time, sounds like a lot of work.

I think they could just focus their resources on really big accounts that have a pattern of presenting misleading information.

Like Trump.

Since when has pointing out the lies of government officials required these standards that you describe?


Twitter is a speech platform, it's not a newspaper outlet with an editorial agenda. Youtube doesn't flag videos with asterisks and fact-checks when people say stupid things, nor does your internet provider, or your cable company.

Politicians have been lying for centuries. Adults can decide for themselves what's true or not. Zuckerberg, even though he's normally a shmuck, was right, Twitter is becoming the "arbiter of truth". If journalists or bloggers or twitter commenters wants to fact check things, they can do so, and they already do all the time.

The bigger danger on twitter is bots and fake accounts from foreign governments will bad intentions to sway our elections and cause social discord.

On the business side of things it seems like a terrible move, because if people perceive bias by twitter they'll flee the platform.
#15095683
Unthinking Majority wrote:That was my same point. But politicians of every stripe lie all the time, sounds like a lot of work.


Trump lies significantly more than other politicians.

Put the standard at whatever his lowest number of lies per day has been, and then fact check every politician who goes above that number.

That way it is “fair”.

Twitter is a speech platform, it's not a newspaper outlet with an editorial agenda. Youtube doesn't flag videos with asterisks and fact-checks when people say stupid things, nor does your internet provider, or your cable company.

Politicians have been lying for centuries. Adults can decide for themselves what's true or not. Zuckerberg, even though he's normally a shmuck, was right, Twitter is becoming the "arbiter of truth". If journalists or bloggers or twitter commenters wants to fact check things, they can do so, and they already do all the time.

The bigger danger on twitter is bots and fake accounts from foreign governments will bad intentions to sway our elections and cause social discord.

On the business side of things it seems like a terrible move, because if people perceive bias by twitter they'll flee the platform.


Let me ask you again:

Since when does holding government accountable when they lie to us involve some sort of arbitrary standard of fairness?
#15095711
The solution is a delicate one too as we want to still have an economy that is productive, wealthy and enables those who want to climb the economic ladder and have a better life can do so. We also want our economy to be more humane as part of the solution.


Yes. And what the Republican party has been trying to do since Reagan is to sell the concept that making people rich makes creates jobs. This is, of course, not necessarily true. In fact, just the opposite in many circumstances.

Working class people in the US need to rediscover the fact that they own the whole shebang. The own the government if they band together. That there is no need for the Waltons to be worth 150 billion dollars and them to work for $8.00 an hour. That there are many countries in the world that illustrate this perfectly. Germany, France, Ireland.... AND they provide government insurance. AND they provide cheap education. A year at Paris-Sorbonne University costs less than $1000.00 USD.

We could do so much better than we do.


There is another facet of this that I never see being discussed. That is that when we do not require business to pay a reasonable wage, the taxpayer has to subsidize the employees anyway. The idea that a person working 40 hours a week might need food stamps and rent subsidies means that we, the taxpayer are paying for what the employer ought to be paying.

This is the Republican ruse that the Tea Party idiots can't see. They refuse to understand this key fact...

Their insistence on lower taxes and lower minimum wage virtually guarantees the thing they most abhor..."Socialist programs". This is why I repeatedly assert that they are just not very smart.
#15095717
There's a lot riding on this election. If Trump is re-elected, the main social media sites and forums (including YouTube and potentially even this forum) could change drastically. There'd be a tidal wave of anti-far left argumentation.

Combine this with how many of these liberal arts schools will be going under (unpaid loans, loss of interest, etc.) and the Trump administration will not be extending them any lifelines.

The far left mostly exists online and in those colleges. There's also bubbles of post-college people who occasionally bus to the nearest protest to start shit. Trump's AG is talking about prosecuting them for crossing state lines with intent to do violence, which is a clear cut federal crime. I think he's serious. A lot more of them might start going to jail.

Basically, the far left really might not survive four more years of Trump.
#15095745
:lol: The 'far left' you speak of is a myth created by idiots. There is no "far left" in the USA. :knife:

Republicans think the Democrats are far left, and the Dems are still on the right-wing, only slightly closer to center..
#15095746
Godstud wrote::lol: The 'far left' you speak of is a myth created by idiots. There is no "far left" in the USA. :knife:

Republicans think the Democrats are far left, and the Dems are still on the right-wing, only slightly closer to center..


On the contrary, it's the non-American far left that was decimated long ago - there are hardly any Orthodox Marxists anymore, class is not nearly as important for the Left as it used to be and much of the debate is about race, gender and other identity categories. American lefty identity politics has spread to, at least, Europe and Latin America.

America's victory was such that the far left abroad had to start importing American identity politics into its own ideology to become relevant again. And thus the rest of the world has to endure its identity politics as a worse nontraditional export than CO2 emissions.
#15095957
My Dream

I dream that Twitter will have the courage to cancel Trump's account. I dream that Facebook and YouTube and all social media will follow suit.

I dream that states will stand tall against Trump. I dream that they will not succumb to pressure to hamper mail-in ballots. I dream that the US Postal Service will prevail.

I dream that America will come to its senses and no longer tolerate this president. I dream that Trump will lose in November.

I dream that any unrest fomented by Trump after the election will quickly be put to rest. I dream that the Supreme Court will act in the best interests of democracy and uphold the results of the election.

I dream that once out of office, Trump will be prosecuted for his misdeeds to the fullest extent of the law.

I dream of hope for the future of a renewed America.

This is my dream.
#15096039
There's a lot riding on this election. If Trump is re-elected, the main social media sites and forums (including YouTube and potentially even this forum) could change drastically. There'd be a tidal wave of anti-far left argumentation.


There is no far left as Godstud says. You have been worshiping Limbaugh for too long.

Combine this with how many of these liberal arts schools will be going under (unpaid loans, loss of interest, etc.) and the Trump administration will not be extending them any lifelines.


And you have obviously never been to college. Colleges and Universities do not loan money. The Federal Government does not meaningfully finance higher education outside of underwriting loans.
The far left mostly exists online and in those colleges.


The "far-left" does not exist at all in any meaningful numbers.

There's also bubbles of post-college people who occasionally bus to the nearest protest to start shit.


Nonsense.

Trump's AG is talking about prosecuting them for crossing state lines with intent to do violence, which is a clear cut federal crime. I think he's serious. A lot more of them might start going to jail.


First there is no such law. Secondly there are no such people. And thirdly the courts are not going to allow it. Now Trump can try to clamp down on protesters from a federal level. I, for one, hope he does. I can't wait for the optics of federal officers dragging some women off to jail for protesting Trump. It will be perfect.

Basically, the far left really might not survive four more years of Trump.


There is no far left. If you are mistakenly referring to democrats, they are way ahead in the polls. But now you have had your wet dream. Grab your dream-catcher t shirt and go play in the yard.
#15096044
Drlee wrote: thirdly


Fourthly …… riots/demonstrations have now spread to 75 cities and London. trump's personal lawyer, billy barr, certainly will have his hands full rounding up all those dirty dirty leftists in near 100 cities plus ….. the pre election optics would be …. a powerful demonstration of trump's Great America.
#15096327
Here is the actual text of the law in question:

47 U.S. Code § 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

    (a) Findings
    The Congress finds the following:
    (1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
    (2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
    (3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
    (4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
    (5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

    (b) Policy
    It is the policy of the United States—
    (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
    (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
    (3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
    (4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
    (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

    (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
    (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
    (2) Civil liability
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
    (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
    (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

    (d) Obligations of interactive computer service
    A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

    (e) Effect on other laws
    (1) No effect on criminal law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
    (2) No effect on intellectual property law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
    (3) State law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
    (4) No effect on communications privacy law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
    (5) No effect on sex trafficking law
    Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
    (A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
    (B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
    (C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.

    (f) Definitions
    As used in this section:
    (1) Internet
    The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
    (2) Interactive computer service
    The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
    (3) Information content provider
    The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
    (4) Access software provider
    The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
    (A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
    (B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
    (C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

Looking it over, Trump is going to have a tough time winning this in the courts. The problem is this:

    (2) Civil liability
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
    (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;

Where Trump is going to run into problems in the courts is the question of who gets to define “otherwise objectionable.” The only reasonable choice I can see is the provider of the service. Unless all the civil libertarians would rather have the government make the call? Not me.

And for those that argue that the clear bias demonstrated by YouTube, Twitter, etc., means they have ceased to be a platform and have become a publisher? There’s a problem there as well, in the definitions at the end of the law:

    (2) Interactive computer service
    The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

There’s nothing in the definition (or anywhere else in the law) that prohibits the so-called “platform” provider from discriminating based on viewpoint.

Where Trump might have better luck is arguing that the clear viewpoint discrimination is not in “good faith,” that defined as “in keeping with their own public descriptions of their service.” IOW, if they claim that they are a public free speech platform where all non-obscene, -violent, or -harassing opinions and images are welcome, then they have to act like it or they aren’t treating their customers in “good faith.” Which would require evenhanded treatment of all customers, which they clearly don’t provide. (Though Zuckerberg might have recognized the trap they’re walking into and be trying to back out.)

Another possibility is for the Executive Branch lawyers to argue that the so-called “platforms” are acting in ways that undermine the policies laid out in the beginning as the purpose of the law, and while that is clearly correct, I suspect that the policy section is like the Preamble of the Constitution—a statement of purpose, but not itself legally binding.

So basically, with the law written as it is, the only way to hold the so-called “platforms” accountable for their clear bias is to amend the law to prohibit viewpoint discrimination on the part of the “platforms,” and that requires that the Republicans keep the presidency, regain control of the House, and either win a 60+-seat margin in the Senate (to bypass the Democrats in Republican clothing) or at least revert the filibuster rules to the old “2/3 of those present” requirement if not abolish them entirely.
#15096328
I don't know, @Doug64. I mean, social networks have been getting public pressure, including government pressure, to start dealing with the spread of false information (namely, "fake news"). But if they should be acting as fact checkers whenever someone posts falsehoods of a political character, then why wouldn't they have to do the same when they represent a form of libel directed at private inviduals as well?

Maybe the real question is what would happen if the social networks decided to ignore the calls for policing the spread of misinformation. Does it generate a civil or criminal liability for them or whoever decides that?
#15096332
wat0n wrote:I don't know, @Doug64. I mean, social networks have been getting public pressure, including government pressure, to start dealing with the spread of false information (namely, "fake news"). But if they should be acting as fact checkers whenever someone posts falsehoods of a political character, then why wouldn't they have to do the same when they represent a form of libel directed at private inviduals as well?

Maybe the real question is what would happen if the social networks decided to ignore the calls for policing the spread of misinformation. Does it generate a civil or criminal liability for them or whoever decides that?

It seems to me that the pressure from the Right, as with the impossible standards the Left holds everyone but themselves to about sexual harassment/assault claims, about being evenhanded. If the social media platforms want to fact-check or censor opinions of Conservatives, they should also do so for Liberals. If they want to do so for Trump, they need to do the same for other world leaders. If they want to ban people for statements that offend the Left, they should do so for statements that offend the Right. If they ban users for violations of their TOS, they should publicly explain how the posts in question do that.

The thing is that except for the last, there is no possible way to do that, and no way to even try to do so without getting the SJWs on their case. (Not that they seem to want to try, since they appear to agree with the SJWs.) So they are better off giving up the “otherwise objectionable” part of the law, and stick to the “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing” part. Because if they don’t the enemies they have been making for years will regain complete control of Congress and the White House, and they will remember. At that point the best they can hope for is an addition prohibiting viewpoint discrimination, and even that isn’t exactly good news due to the way it opens them u to countless frivolous lawsuits.
#15096335
Doug64 wrote:It seems to me that the pressure from the Right, as with the impossible standards the Left holds everyone but themselves to about sexual harassment/assault claims, about being evenhanded. If the social media platforms want to fact-check or censor opinions of Conservatives, they should also do so for Liberals. If they want to do so for Trump, they need to do the same for other world leaders. If they want to ban people for statements that offend the Left, they should do so for statements that offend the Right. If they ban users for violations of their TOS, they should publicly explain how the posts in question do that.

The thing is that except for the last, there is no possible way to do that, and no way to even try to do so without getting the SJWs on their case. (Not that they seem to want to try, since they appear to agree with the SJWs.) So they are better off giving up the “otherwise objectionable” part of the law, and stick to the “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing” part. Because if they don’t the enemies they have been making for years will regain complete control of Congress and the White House, and they will remember. At that point the best they can hope for is an addition prohibiting viewpoint discrimination, and even that isn’t exactly good news due to the way it opens them u to countless frivolous lawsuits.


Have you considered the possibility that all these fake ideas about SJW's, the media, the left & "them" exist solely in your brain and not in the real world?

Aside from the fact that what you call "left", is right of our centre-right parties in Europe, which means that your use of the term is objectively wrong when you refer to Democrats, your entire modus-operandi of dismissing everything you dislike as "left" just reeks of intellectual laziness.

Twitter fact checked the Chinese minister before it fact checked Trump, in both cases for a good enough reason. They were both posting dangerous non-sense.

I brought all the banned right-wingers back into PoFo, them returned ones from the grave still cry that they are censored victims even without any censorship taking place but only when the racists get called out for being racists. Your idea of "fairness" is a right-wing echo chamber, safe space for racism where noone dares argue otherwise or call it as it really is. As soon as racists hear the word racist, they shut down and cry for being victims, even when the racism is screaming from the roof-tops. But the rest of us have to tolerate your intellectual laziness and your wide brushes of calling people "commies" just to silence them and belittle them, calling them SJW's & Libs just to dismiss them and ostracise them despite the fact that these people even the worst kind of them are not physically dangerous to anybody, racists though are. You sound like the worst of the entitled SJW's. You have convinced yourself you are a "persecuted victim", when your chosen President is in charge, when right-wing governments are in charge across the world, when right-wingers are in charge of the places your frequent. You should consider real victims, and real injustice in this world and what have you done about it? What does your attitude do about it? And what kind of status quo are you trying to perpetuate?

You believe that you are the "victim of this world" while belonging to the most privileged group currently on earth(white conservatives), in charge of the richest country on earth with several minion countries and regimes and what do you have to show of your group being in power? What is the contribution of this group? Systemic incompetence coupled with miserable finger-pointing? What is the contribution of this right wing chamber? Your crocodile tears that the transgenders and the "left" are holding you back, that they are preventing you from spreading your butterfly wings in the land of milk & honey?

Do some introspection mate.
#15096363
Doug64 wrote:It seems to me that the pressure from the Right, as with the impossible standards the Left holds everyone but themselves to about sexual harassment/assault claims, about being evenhanded. If the social media platforms want to fact-check or censor opinions of Conservatives, they should also do so for Liberals. If they want to do so for Trump, they need to do the same for other world leaders. If they want to ban people for statements that offend the Left, they should do so for statements that offend the Right.


Why? This seems like a fallacy.
#15096402
The thing is that except for the last, there is no possible way to do that, and no way to even try to do so without getting the SJWs on their case. (Not that they seem to want to try, since they appear to agree with the SJWs.) So they are better off giving up the “otherwise objectionable” part of the law, and stick to the “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing” part.


Echoing what Neoman said about "SJW". (Which is just a right wing meme anyway...)

If we did as you propose and stick to lewd...harassing" it would be clear that many of Trump's tweets would fall int the harassing category; particularly when you consider the impact of name calling by someone with the following of Trump. Calling people "nasty" "lying" and the like easily go from simple insult to harassment given his power and the prestige of the office.

It does not matter what you think about who is complaining there is absolutely no doubt that if a private citizen was reported to the mods for calling people names or impugning their integrity without evidence the account would have been deleted long ago.

You also know that because Trump uses Twitter for official purposes, his tweets are owned by the government/people and he is prohibited from deleting them.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court struck a[…]

And one week further along: https://lh3.[…]

I failed to realize that. He is a Trump supporter[…]

Election 2020

I live 50 miles north of Portsmouth N.H. where Don[…]