Trump signs executive against FB & Twitter

[CaughtInThe]

this is our first President made completely of marshmallows.

 

[Redress]

this is our first President made completely of marshmallows.

We had better be careful not to cross the streams then!

 

[BlueTex]

I like the fact that liability protections are removed for folks that do not hold up to their own policies.

The shit will hit the fan on this one... looking forward to it.

Unless the law is changed, its all just bluster and a PR problem got the tech companies.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I like the fact that liability protections are removed for folks that do not hold up to their own policies.

The shit will hit the fan on this one... looking forward to it.

Sounds mobster state, but okay. You don't like freedom of speech.

 

[Perotista]

Twitter should cancel trumps account and that of anyone in his family or cabinet, conflict of interests. Facebook should do the same.

I would go along with that if it was done fairly. cancel all elected officials accounts regardless of political party. This seems to me to be an all or none.

 

[Airyaman]

Per usual, Trump puts out an EO that is worthless and will do absolutely nothing.

 

[Schweddy]

Which is highly debatable to be the case here. Maybe if Trump had not cried wolf so many times, he might have just a touch of credibility.

Unsure I understand. What does his credibility have to do with this? If they claim a policy of free speech but censor (regardless of political ideology) then they can be held liable as they will be labeled as a producer of said material. Kinda like a newspaper or news sites - they get sued all the time. But, if they held up to their claim then they are not a producer and cannot be sued like it is now.

Kinda genius actually. Pro-Tump discussion forums will not like this at all if they claim free speech but censor never-Trump posts and someone sues.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Just to extend this excellent writing.. The only reason the FCC is given the power to regulate OTA (that’s over the air) is because frequencies are limited. This is one of the reasons cable became so popular, the FCC couldn’t do squat if a show used bad language.

Agreed, but also because as is stated first in the Communications Act of 1934 and again confirmed in the 1996 redux, the airwaves technically belong to the American people, who through FCC authority, GRANT licenses to operate on the spectrum "in the public interest".

Not only are there a finite number of available frequencies but prior to the creation of the very first regulatory agency at the turn of the 20th century, and even during the first few years of the current FCC's existence, many broadcasters were actively engaging in acts of air piracy by interfering with adjacent broadcasts by competitors, even jamming their signals outright.
A good many other broadcast operators engaged in fraudulent schemes to bilk the listening public, or engaged in promotion of conduct considered either offensive or even dangerous to society.

But the Department of Commerce, which originally served as home base to the old Federal Radio Commission viewed radio spectrum as private property, and there was a great deal of reluctance to hem in the excesses and dangerous conduct.

I recently saw a fascinating Ken Burns doc about the early days of radio called "Empire of the Air - The Men Who Made Radio" and I highly recommend it.

 

[Redress]

Unsure I understand. What does his credibility have to do with this? If they claim a policy of free speech but censor (regardless of political ideology) then they can be held liable as they will be labeled as a producer of said material. Kinda like a newspaper or news sites - they get sued all the time. But, if they held up to their claim then they are not a producer and cannot be sued like it is now.

Kinda genius actually. Pro-Tump discussion forums will not like this at all if they claim free speech but censor never-Trump posts and someone sues.

As you know, free speech is limited on pretty much every platform. Hell, 8chan formed because 4chan had too many rules, and even 8chan has rules. We have rules here(again, as you know), and restrictions on what people can post. How restrictive those rules are is subject to debate. It is in fact, as I understand it, because we have those rules, and we do make an attempt to enforce them that helps protect us in case we miss someone violating fair use or whatever.

There is nothing wrong with platforms have rules. In fact, most people prefer to have those rules. Saying we can have rules but twitter cannot seems odd.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Found it:

The WaPo "evaluation" is misleading as usual.

I'm sure they'd like to make it about the "President tweets, etc.", but the fact is that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. have been playing fast and loose with what they allow to be published, how they "edit" or "editorialize" on it, how they allow it to be found, and how they "fact check" or allow third party so-called "neutral experts" decide the value of the publications for purposes of strikes, banning, shadow-banning, etc.

These media entities are supposed to be "neutral platforms," which are also supposed to uphold laws against illegal content, and adult content, but otherwise allow "free expression." They are NOT doing this.

Thus they should not be protected as "neutral free expression platforms."

 

[The Mark]

Another Trump EO that does nothing he thinks it does. Shocker.

Doesn't have to do anything, as long as his supports think it does, or may.

 

[BlueTex]

The WaPo "evaluation" is misleading as usual.

I'm sure they'd like to make it about the "President tweets, etc.", but the fact is that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. have been playing fast and loose with what they allow to be published, how they "edit" or "editorialize" on it, how they allow it to be found, and how they "fact check" or allow third party so-called "neutral experts" decide the value of the publications for purposes of strikes, banning, shadow-banning, etc.

These media entities are supposed to be "neutral platforms," which are also supposed to uphold laws against illegal content, and adult content, but otherwise allow "free expression." They are NOT doing this.

Thus they should not be protected as "neutral free expression platforms."

Talk to your congressman about introducing a bill. Good luck

 

[Schweddy]

Saying we can have rules but twitter cannot seems odd.

We do have a set of rules. We do not give a warning for an opinion (unless it's illegal, privacy invading, or citing harm to another). We do our best to be unbiased and treat everyone equally. We give warnings for attacking another poster not the opinion. Twitter is giving warnings or censoring based on opinion and reputation.

To me there is a distinction. Maybe I am in the wrong.

 

[Redress]

We do have a set of rules. We do not give a warning for an opinion (unless it's illegal, privacy invading, or citing harm to another). We do our best to be unbiased and treat everyone equally. We give warnings for attacking another poster not the opinion. Twitter is giving warnings or censoring based on opinion and reputation.

To me there is a distinction. Maybe I am in the wrong.

Again, that as at best debatable.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Just read it... thanks! Apparently I am way behind the boat on this one...

Anyway, would this not strip "publishers" of 230 liability protections if they claim equality but do not hold up to their own standards?
Therefore an average person could sue them.

The President does not have the power to change the law, or "strip" anyone of any sort of liability protection.

This isnt about "average people".

 

[RaleBulgarian]

If this isn't the grand mal seizure of unintended consequences, it'll do till the grand mal gets here.
Don't anyone think that a privately operated political discussion forum is safe from something like this, because they won't be.
I understand that a forum does not play any kind of a role that is played by FB or YT or what not.
Thing I'm getting at is, there are consequences which will ricochet and draw forums in.

And nothing draws in the s**tstorm quite as well as a vaguely worded and poorly crafted and overly excessive EO penned by a vindictive despot whose favorite chapter in their own book is titled "Revenge".

Loose the Kraken on this at your own risk.

View attachment 67300209

Another petulant septuagenarian Trumpertantrum.

America, and the world, will be a much better place post-Trump.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

These media entities are supposed to be "neutral platforms," which are also supposed to uphold laws against illegal content, and adult content, but otherwise allow "free expression." They are NOT doing this.

Thus they should not be protected as "neutral free expression platforms."

Why is "neutral free expression platforms" in quotes?

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

We do have a set of rules. We do not give a warning for an opinion (unless it's illegal, privacy invading, or citing harm to another). We do our best to be unbiased and treat everyone equally. We give warnings for attacking another poster not the opinion. Twitter is giving warnings or censoring based on opinion and reputation.

To me there is a distinction. Maybe I am in the wrong.

This is also important to point out - this website is protected under the same law that protects Facebook and Twitter.

If Section 230 goes away, this site loses those protections as well.

 

[Schweddy]

This is also important to point out - this website is protected under the same law that protects Facebook and Twitter.

Not if FB & Twitter are changed to "producer" status, then they could be held liable.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

To me there is a distinction. Maybe I am in the wrong.

There is no distinction according to the law, as it is written.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Not if FB & Twitter are changed to "producer" status, then they could be held liable.

That's not how it works. There's no such thing as "producer status".

This is what the law says:

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.

 

[JasperL]

As you know, free speech is limited on pretty much every platform. Hell, 8chan formed because 4chan had too many rules, and even 8chan has rules. We have rules here(again, as you know), and restrictions on what people can post. How restrictive those rules are is subject to debate. It is in fact, as I understand it, because we have those rules, and we do make an attempt to enforce them that helps protect us in case we miss someone violating fair use or whatever.

There is nothing wrong with platforms have rules. In fact, most people prefer to have those rules. Saying we can have rules but twitter cannot seems odd.

I think the argument is more that if Twitter has rules, and breaks them, they can be sued. But what that means is if you as a moderator kick someone off or delete a post, and you arguably break the DP rules, or maybe you allow a post to stay up but delete another, and therefore don't enforce the rules 'fairly' or consistently, that your actions should be grounds to sue you and/or DP.

It's a dangerous road, IMO. I actually think you and the rest of the moderating team should be accountable to the owners, and no one else, no matter who good or badly you do your job. If you violate the rules and wrongly delete a post or ban hammer someone, that's not a good thing, but I don't think the victim should have any right at all to seek damages. He's a guest and can be banned for any reason or no reason, IMO.

 

[rahl]

Just read it... thanks! Apparently I am way behind the boat on this one...

Anyway, would this not strip "publishers" of 230 liability protections if they claim equality but do not hold up to their own standards?
Therefore an average person could sue them.

No. The president does not have the authority to strip them of the protections. And a private company is free to moderate their social platforms any way they wish. There is exactly nothing the government can do about it.

 

[rahl]

I like the fact that liability protections are removed for folks that do not hold up to their own policies.

The shit will hit the fan on this one... looking forward to it.

You really need to read the executive order. It not only doesn’t and can’t do anything to Twitter and Facebook, but it direct the fcc to look into it, when they have exactly zero justification to do so.

 

[george48]

Really? Ain't that have to go through congress?