“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.
My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.
My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”
The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.
The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.
The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.
.
This is the appropriate remedy.
He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.
But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.
.
No, its not.
They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.
They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.
you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.
but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.
social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.
No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.
Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.
Tough shit.
it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.
you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.
we need to separate these out. period.
and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.
you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.
I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.
you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.
Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.
what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.
The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.
Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.
they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.
they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.
all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.
No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.
Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.
Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.
You lying ******?
Trump has never done that.
Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?
******* dumbass.
Hell Obama sure limited the press and spied on them.
Trump is going through the system to enforce laws. Obama went around them.
Obama's failure to follow the law does not have any bearing on Trumps actions being correct or incorrect.
But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police.
Excusing one and attacking the other gets you said other.
I don't but, again, Obama's actions are not relevant in changing this law or writing that EO. They are simply not pertinent and I will not justify current actions of this presidency because Obama acted like an authoritarian.
Obama CLEARLY and REGULARLY used the long arm of government to attack the free press. Because Obama 'got away' with those actions, would you excuse the Trump presidency if he were to tap the phones of reporters to arrest sources?
Can you actually claim that your statement 'But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police' is consistent with the answer you give to the question above?
Imtalking big picture, not every move.
So that is a no, it is not consistent with the answer to that question.
How does that not give you pause on the stance you are taking here.
However, while Trump is at war with the media, as far as I know, he's, not spying on them. Outside that actions are very similar.
Now, if we are saying Trump's attacks on Twitter and Facebook are attacks on "the media" then are you saying these entities are in fact "media" and not "platforms"?
We are not saying that. You brought up the media earlier and used Obama's spying on them as a justification for the statement in question. I was pointing out that it is hypocritical to justify Trump's actions as good by using bad actions of the previous president.
Essentially, you cannot justify Trump going after social media platforms because Obama tried to go after those that criticized him as empty head was trying to do at the start of this off shoot and has distracted me from actually addressing the real conversation:
Trump is taking the action yes.
The actions have been asked for before he took office.
People seem to refuse the big picture so they can ***** about the pieces.
To say the gov needs to get out of regulating speech is, only part of the problem. Social media needs to stop that shit also.
Sure, people have called for it in the past but that also has nothing to do with the fact that this is Trump's action and it is still wrong.
You are correct, social media should also not be in the business of controlling the exchange of ideas on their platforms. The stark difference here, though, is that social media is NOT an arm of the government. What they should and should not do is entirely separate from what big government enforcement must be brought to bear to control them. Just because social media should allow open communication does not warrant the government trying to force them to act the way they want and this is particularly the case when you are trying to regulate political speech.
I am not a subject of twitter. FB cannot put me in jail if I do or do not use their platform as they intend. They are not government.
Do you actually trust the government to decide what is and is not 'correct' or what is or is not political speech? I sure as hell do not. Do you have any idea what the democrats will use this type of craziness for when they are the ones writing the law as will INEVITABLY happen? I sure as hell would not be comfortable with Obama deciding how social media platforms must treat information shared on their sites on AGW. I sure as hell would be even less comfortable with them defining the protections they do and do not get for posts covering Russian interference in our elections.
What you are essentially advocating for is allowing the government to withdraw protections that ALL platforms receive, publishers and non publishers alike as, again, such sites have comment sections as well based on how they control their content. I do not trust the government with that power in any shape or form. Hell, Obama already showed us the way - post something that the current administration does not like and they will put you in some limbo for years until you give up just like the IRS did. What I do trust is my own 2 eyes because those eyes will go elsewhere. Hence why I have no interest or plans to ever open twitter under any circumstances. WE get complete control over these platforms by agreeing to use or avoid them.
That most people seem not to care is not a problem that government needs to solve. It is an intrinsic cost of actual freedom.
