Trump signs executive against FB & Twitter

[Bullseye]

Don't think he can unilaterally do that, but we'll see what's going on if more comes out. Absolutely nothing on YouTube.

LOL, YouTube is doing exactly what he signed the EO for.

 

[Paradoxical]

Is it any wonder, knowing what I know, and can support with facts, that posts like yours, to me, resemble "fart sounds" the kids in the back of
my junior high school classes often disrupted the teacher, with?

I fail to comprehend what you could possibly be laughing at, his physical stature, or the facts he presents you inexplicably react to as somehow a threat to your belief system. The underlying concern Robert Reich reacts to and attempts to mitigate, you ignore, or downplay, or agree with Reagan that "strapping bucks shoplifting t-bone steaks", and "(there is) a woman in Chicago with multiple aliases, a welfare cheat, driving a pink Cadillac...." circa 1976, are the root cause of our failed capitalism, bailed out from imminent implosion, by massive raids on the U.S. debt level, twice now, in just 12 years, and not the actual cause, corporate welfare and cronyism amongst the most powerful.

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

Is there some point here? What do you think rich people do with their money?

 

[uptower]

We are fortunate that anyone who is familiar with this area of the law just smirks and ignores the rantings.

Even the white house lawyers know this will never get ratified by congress or hold up in federal courts. But Trump has his fans believing all he needs to do is wave a sharpie and he gets his way and so in this, he's putting on a show - nothing more.

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, that'd be a big help to them.

Just curious, if it's legal for them to do so, how would it hurt them?

 

[Chomsky]

After speed-reading the entire text of the order, this seems to be another one of Trump's orders calling for 'studies'. I didn't see anything actionable it.

Amiright?

 

[Integrityrespec]

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

Twitter and facebook should not be deciding whose "anonymous tips" are published and whose are deleted. It's censorship for purely political support of one party, one candidate and it's election interference of the same type the left tried to claim Trump colluded with Russia over. Not true, proven not true and yet nobody on the left gives a d*** if it's Joe Biden and his family and the democrat party doing the very same thing or worse.

 

[Casper]

Twitter and facebook should not be deciding whose "anonymous tips" are published and whose are deleted. It's censorship for purely political support of one party, one candidate and it's election interference of the same type the left tried to claim Trump colluded with Russia over. Not true, proven not true and yet nobody on the left gives a d*** if it's Joe Biden and his family and the democrat party doing the very same thing or worse.

They have the right to decide what is posted on their site, just as this one does. Don't like it use another site.

 

[ASHES]

 

[Schweddy]

They have the right to decide what is posted on their site, just as this one does. Don't like it use another site.

Sure, but "for the greater good" are they at liberty to control facts seeing how billions blindly use their service?

I say call them a publisher and let civil courts decide. That will force them to hold true their claims of freedom of speech.
Of course, they could just say that they are biased and as such your content could be demoted or censored if we do not agree with your political opinion. I'd be good with that as well.

 

[Casper]

Sure, but "for the greater good" are they at liberty to control facts seeing how billions blindly use their service?

I say call them a publisher and let civil courts decide. That will force them to hold true their claims of freedom of speech.
Of course, they could just say that they are biased and as such your content could be demoted or censored if we do not agree with your political opinion. I'd be good with that as well.

Good grief, we are not talking about some individuals freedom or speech or political opinions, we are talking about misinformation and outright Lies but out by political Groups and Organizations, oh and that also includes dangerous health information that can and does result in the suffering and deaths of others. If extremists want to post their nonsense then they should do so on sites that caters to that sort of thing.

 

[BlueTex]

Sure, but "for the greater good" are they at liberty to control facts seeing how billions blindly use their service?

I say call them a publisher and let civil courts decide. That will force them to hold true their claims of freedom of speech.
Of course, they could just say that they are biased and as such your content could be demoted or censored if we do not agree with your political opinion. I'd be good with that as well.

What you are not understanding is that the COURTS decide whether they are a publisher or not. Nobody else

 

[d0gbreath]

They'd never do it, but if facebook and twitter shut down their websites in protest, that EO would disappear so fast heads would spin.

 

[BlueTex]

They'd never do it, but if facebook and twitter shut down their websites in protest, that EO would disappear so fast heads would spin.

They wouldn’t bother.. The EO doesn’t actually do anything other that various agencies to “study” different aspects of this market. Study away, it’s not going to change federal law.

 

[Bullseye]

After speed-reading the entire text of the order, this seems to be another one of Trump's orders calling for 'studies'. I didn't see anything actionable it.

Amiright?

Probably depends on what the studies turn up. Probably why the media giants are trying harder and harder to sway the election to Biden; if Trump wins these studied go on and could lead to some drastic (for them) changes. If Biden win Zuckerberg gets a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Am I being too cynical?

 

[Ikari]

I don't think he can EO his way out of this. It's legislation, the Congress would have to pass a change to the law.

 

[tres borrachos]

Can't find this on youtube. If someone can find it on there, please post it. Pardon the very biased header.

Short version: Their liability protections are now gone. Let the lawsuits begin.

This is one of the very few things I agree with DT on.

Edit: Removed original link.

Does this mean people can sue this board?

 

[Ikari]

Sure, but "for the greater good" are they at liberty to control facts seeing how billions blindly use their service?

I say call them a publisher and let civil courts decide. That will force them to hold true their claims of freedom of speech.
Of course, they could just say that they are biased and as such your content could be demoted or censored if we do not agree with your political opinion. I'd be good with that as well.

I don't think they've held claims of "freedom of speech", they've always had a TOS. And there's no statistical evidence that the TOS is being applied unevenly.

 

[Phys251]

Twitter and facebook should not be deciding whose "anonymous tips" are published and whose are deleted. It's censorship for purely political support of one party, one candidate and it's election interference of the same type the left tried to claim Trump colluded with Russia over. Not true, proven not true and yet nobody on the left gives a d*** if it's Joe Biden and his family and the democrat party doing the very same thing or worse.

Womp, womp.

 

[d0gbreath]

Does this mean people can sue this board?

My attorneys are drafting my suit now, patiently waiting for trump's green light.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Unsure I understand. What does his credibility have to do with this? If they claim a policy of free speech ...

Here’s where your thinking is wrong. No social media company promises/guarantees unfettered “free speech”.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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."

Where is your proof?

Here is Section 230; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...2011-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230.pdf

Cite specific occasions (w/links, if possible) when you think users postings were unfairly censored.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Womp, womp.

Succinctness award of the day winner!

 

[trouble13]

Don't think he can unilaterally do that, but we'll see what's going on if more comes out. Absolutely nothing on YouTube.

Why can't he? Didn't DACA determine that presidents can legislate by executive order and didnt the SCOTUS determined that it can not be repealed by the next president?

 

[ASHES]

Why can't he? Didn't DACA determine that presidents can legislate by executive order and didnt the SCOTUS determined that it can not be repealed by the next president?

Is legislating via EO the same as overwriting existing legislation? Either way I'm not a fan of their use.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Why can't he? Didn't DACA determine that presidents can legislate by executive order and didnt the SCOTUS determined that it can not be repealed by the next president?

No, and no.

Presidents cannot legislate by executive order, and the SCOTUS came to no such determination.