It Is DONE - Welcome To Being Treated Just Like Every Other Business in the US Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
22,177
Reaction score
3,520
Points
290
Location
Colorado
“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.


:clap:


.
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 are quite correct about "bad comments", if what you're talking about is foul language, racist remarks, threats of violence, harassment and stalking . . . if what you mean by "bad comments" is "opinions I don't agree with", that's something else. And by picking and choosing who can and can't post and what they can and can't post, they are actually MAKING themselves liable, arguably, for the content.

Who is censoring according to political content on USMB? Cite an example.
See my previous post for the actions that I am talking about.

Picking who can and cannot post is not editorializing. That is just not the same thing. Disallowing Joe Noone from posting does not equate to making an affirmative statement.
I never said it was editorializing. I said it was censoring.
Quit pretending you were ever outraged about social media “censorship” prior to Trump whining about it.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,547
Reaction score
4,913
Points
290
“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.


:clap:


.
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 are quite correct about "bad comments", if what you're talking about is foul language, racist remarks, threats of violence, harassment and stalking . . . if what you mean by "bad comments" is "opinions I don't agree with", that's something else. And by picking and choosing who can and can't post and what they can and can't post, they are actually MAKING themselves liable, arguably, for the content.

Who is censoring according to political content on USMB? Cite an example.
See my previous post for the actions that I am talking about.

Picking who can and cannot post is not editorializing. That is just not the same thing. Disallowing Joe Noone from posting does not equate to making an affirmative statement.
I never said it was editorializing. I said it was censoring.
Quit pretending you were ever outraged about social media “censorship” prior to Trump whining about it.
Quit pretending anyone gives a shit about you.
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
5,538
Reaction score
2,028
Points
180
“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.


:clap:


.
Let me see if I got this right. Trump "calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" , but these regulations have not been written, approved or disseminated yet down through the bureaucracy or the courts, right?

"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.”
He has instructed the FTC to not allow deceptive trade practices when they buy and sell things?

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507
That does "do it", if the "it" in question is setting policy directives for the departments of the executive branch to then carry out . . . which is what his job actually is.

I have no idea what "it" YOU thought he was supposed to do.
His statement was kind of ambiguous. he did not mention anything related to what regulated trade practice he was talking about so it is unclear whether it has any effect or not and as I said the new regulations under the Communications Decency Act have not been rewritten or published yet, so I appreciate the nice commercial he gave of what his intent is, but it doesn't change much at this point, so I can thank him for the pronouncement but it is totally unclear what effect it will have or if the courts would go along with it. Didn't it take like 9 months of writing and rewriting his executive order for his travel ban against Muslim countries to have an effect because it had legal issues requiring re-writing multiple times by order of the courts?
Yeah, that's because it was a statement ABOUT the executive order; it wasn't the executive order itself. You're supposed to actually read the executive order.

How dumb are you when you get snarky about "the nice commercial he gave" as though it was supposed to be anything else? If you're unclear about the executive order and you haven't made any effort to get yourself clear on it, that's YOUR problem, not anyone else's.
How snarky? I thought is was pretty good snark. Thanks for noticing.
I just found it on White House .gov. Pretty much like in the commercial from the president. Don't look for any change soon, dud.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020







  • Share:



menuAll News

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.




White House Logo

The White House
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
2,959
Points
290
Location
Washington State
“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.


:clap:


.
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 fucker?

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?

Fucking 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 bitch 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.
Well this got way out of what and now you are making connections on your own conjecture.
Way out of what?

I am not making connections on my own conjecture - these are the very things that have been talked about in this thread and many others - regulating how such platforms may remove unwanted content or removing current protections media sites have for people posting content on their platform. What I said falls under one of those 2 actions.
Allowing bad behavior encourages bad behavior +1.

Doesn't mean the same behavior. In fact it tends to vary to what is important to either group. All I meant to say on that.

YES Trump is taking on Twitter.

YES I felt it needed to be done before Trump hit office.

No I don't like how Trump is doing it but the way we do things these days is extreme. All of us.

Social media needs rules of fair play. They are, neither a platform or a publisher. So in that light what rules must they adhere to TODAY?

I don't see a whole lot of rules or boundaries for what they can and can't do with their business. I see them for most other, businesses.

So time to stop hiding behind 230 and define the rules they must play by. If they are going to be political it must be stated for example.

Hope that makes more sense.
I am fine with requiring statements or other such disclosures. No problem there. The rhetoric is just removing 203 protections though and/or outright regulating how they may remove content and that is flatly wrong. Most here have been calling for outright regulation of content, the absolute worst of any 'solution.'

IF they come up with a better legal structure for media platforms than the old 203 rules that may be better than what we have but I have serious doubts that such will come anywhere near improving things though. If that is what you are looking for than explain what you think they should be trying to accomplish then. What would be 'better' than the current framework?
My apologies. I tend to think out loud at times in broad terms to help define, then narrow, the focus. That can be hard to follow, I know.
No need for apologies - If I come off as crass or in your face it is not intended. One of my cornerstones in my political philosophy is free speech though so I can come across as an ass sometimes in that arena. It is, IMHO, the most important part of any free society and I see the speech laws in other supposedly free nations like the UK and cringe.
Right now I don't have a good answer on how, to solve this. But the old rules do not apply. Doubting any effort will impact positive change may be true, but hardly a good way to enter into the effort.
Fair enough. I do not think that the politicians are entering this in good faith though and the proof of that abounds. Most of the congressional bobble heads on the right have made public statements about this and not a single one that I can think of has made any indication that this is anything but a mirror of the fairness doctrine. Trump certainly does not come off as actually having a genuine interest in proper regulation here.
Right now social media is setting up to govern what is right or wrong; true or a lie. In no way do I believe this, is, their call to make.

If you are tied to a media or political side it MUST be declared.

If a site uses politifact for example to refute Trump, should they have to disclose they are owned by a left wing news outlet? If not, why not? Isn't it pertinent to knowing all "the facts"?

For example
Twitter’s “Head of Site Integrity” Yoel Roth, who is in charge of the team responsible for developing and enforcing the social media site’s rules, faced heavy criticism Wednesday for previous 2017 tweets in which he referred to team Trump as “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE” and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “personality-free bag of farts.”
Disclosure laws make sense and have been a part of our legal framework for a very long time. The problem I have is that there is no indication that they are not disclosing things as your cite points out. You know exactly who the twitter fact checker is and have the capability to check into him. Do we need a review of the current framework to bring about disclosure laws? No. Would disclosure change current interactions between current law and the platform? No, they have literally nothing to do with each other. From there it is clear that threatening to remove 203 protections have nothing to do with that step forward. While I would support such changes, I have not seen anyone seriously considering them. I think that is mostly because it would not really grant the administration any increase of real power over social media platforms so the pols are not that interested.

I would contend that even with current 203 protections, declaring a truth as a lie would not fall under those protections anyway. That is an affirmative statement from the site itself and, therefore, would fall under other laws and be subject to libel suits. Proving harm in court is another story all together though.
So how come he wasn't fact checked that there are no nazis in the whitehouse? Yet I'm supposed to believe the head of site integrity is neutral?

Not interested in politically motivated people fact checking me.

Find a true neutral, if possible, org and give it a shot.

Who would you suggest be the fact checker for us all?
Because the site is avidly left wing. That has been rather clear for a long time and cuts against your argument (the fact that it is well known). That other avid left wingers deny it is irrelevant as well. I am also not interested in an avid left winger fact checking me hence why I would simply not use those platforms. That is what it will always come back to - YOU are the fact checker and arbiter of who is going to fact check your statements. I have no need of any third party to check what I post and, if the site does so in a manner that is against my wishes, I will simply cease to use it.

Passing more laws creates that fact checker. Right now it is you who gets to make that choice. The only real argument is the market share that current social media platforms have. However, that is not an indication that we need more laws. Myspace used to occupy the entire social media landscape. Now they barely exist. The only way to ensure FB or twitter never go away is to regulate the market so that no one else can come in and they are never going to change their stripes.
 

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
1,041
Points
185
“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.


:clap:


.
Only the Congress can do that. The FTC and FCC have no say over the internet.
Uh what??? does net neutrality ring a bell for anyone? With the left finally caring about the constitution, although misguided, reminds me of another topic. I love how y’all are freaking out about trump not giving special treatment to companies who stopped acting like platforms long ago, and can continue to act the way they please...but not that long ago a governmental entity called the IRS decided to stop the flow of donations to thousands of individual groups loosely part of a political movement called the tea party, by throwing unnecessary and newly created red tape designed just for this political group. They admittedly targeted these groups for political reasons, and effectively shut them down. Didn’t hear the left complaining about that, or any free speech arguments there. That whole thing affected millions of Americans....but trump giving social media companies the same treatment as newspapers should they continue to behave like newspapers is a constitutional crisis?
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
45,616
Reaction score
7,943
Points
1,830
“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.


:clap:


.
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.
Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.
Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.
This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.
I've gotten deleted a few times. But just a few. Likely deserved it a lot more often.
I doubt it was for being conservative, though. ;)
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
45,616
Reaction score
7,943
Points
1,830
“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.


:clap:


.
Let me see if I got this right. Trump "calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" , but these regulations have not been written, approved or disseminated yet down through the bureaucracy or the courts, right?

"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.”
He has instructed the FTC to not allow deceptive trade practices when they buy and sell things?

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507
That does "do it", if the "it" in question is setting policy directives for the departments of the executive branch to then carry out . . . which is what his job actually is.

I have no idea what "it" YOU thought he was supposed to do.
His statement was kind of ambiguous. he did not mention anything related to what regulated trade practice he was talking about so it is unclear whether it has any effect or not and as I said the new regulations under the Communications Decency Act have not been rewritten or published yet, so I appreciate the nice commercial he gave of what his intent is, but it doesn't change much at this point, so I can thank him for the pronouncement but it is totally unclear what effect it will have or if the courts would go along with it. Didn't it take like 9 months of writing and rewriting his executive order for his travel ban against Muslim countries to have an effect because it had legal issues requiring re-writing multiple times by order of the courts?
Yeah, that's because it was a statement ABOUT the executive order; it wasn't the executive order itself. You're supposed to actually read the executive order.

How dumb are you when you get snarky about "the nice commercial he gave" as though it was supposed to be anything else? If you're unclear about the executive order and you haven't made any effort to get yourself clear on it, that's YOUR problem, not anyone else's.
How snarky? I thought is was pretty good snark. Thanks for noticing.
I just found it on White House .gov. Pretty much like in the commercial from the president. Don't look for any change soon, dud.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020







  • Share:



menuAll News

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.




White House Logo

The White House
I'm sure you did think it was "pretty good snark". You were wrong. You were also apparently wrong about what you thought executive orders were supposed to do.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
45,616
Reaction score
7,943
Points
1,830
“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.


:clap:


.
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.
Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.
Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.
This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.
Bullshit.
Try posting something negative about Muslims and see what happens.
I have posted negative things about Muslims, and about Islam. You know me; I'm not at all shy and backward about saying what I think, and saying it bluntly and rudely if I think it's necessary. I have never had any problems with the moderators about it.
 
Last edited:

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
2,959
Points
290
Location
Washington State
“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.


:clap:


.
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.
Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.
Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.
This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.
So says most of the right here.

Many of the nut jobs that get regulated tot he rubber room would disagree. Certainly, many of the hard left wing nutjobs in the legal system might disagree as well when Russian conspiracy threads are sent there.

Do you trust those judges to make the right call in those circumstances? Even worse, all it takes is a single frivolous lawsuit from Joe Noone to make a site like this one financially untenable. And worst of all, virtually every single one of those tiny conservative platforms that currently exist as both a publisher and a comment site for conservatives to share opinions would disappear as well with a single frivolous lawsuit. This is essentially what Media Matters does though they go after advertisers atm and they are VERY good at it. Open that Pandora's Box and you would be arming them with a bazooka to take down everyone they disagree with.

Therein lies the other problem, the left is FAR better at using the outrage machine to make platforms and alternative media sources disappear than the right is.
They can disagree all they want. Moving the thread to a different topic heading is not the same as deleting it and banning you from posting.

If we refuse to fight for what's right because we're afraid our opponents will fight back, then we deserve to become voiceless, helpless serfs.
They ban as well. Right above you there is mud claiming that they do, indeed, politically sensor. What do you think happens if he decides to sue even though it is utterly frivolous?

The site would cease to exist.

You cant become voiceless helpless surfs because a social media company removes you from their platform. Only the government has the power to truly take your voice away. Twitter removing you means you go elsewhere.

Give the government the power to tell twitter how it will regulate speech on its platform and then you truly will lose your voice as soon as the next Obama/Hillary/Pelosi clone takes office and gets to 'interpret' such regulation.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
80,626
Reaction score
18,208
Points
2,220
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....


:)
This executive order, like so many Trump pronouncements, has absolutely no teeth and will probably be struck down by the courts.
Not when Trump gets done appointing real judges and gets rid of the progressive scum.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
28,252
Reaction score
6,135
Points
290
Location
Boston, MA
“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.


:clap:


.
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 are quite correct about "bad comments", if what you're talking about is foul language, racist remarks, threats of violence, harassment and stalking . . . if what you mean by "bad comments" is "opinions I don't agree with", that's something else. And by picking and choosing who can and can't post and what they can and can't post, they are actually MAKING themselves liable, arguably, for the content.

Who is censoring according to political content on USMB? Cite an example.
See my previous post for the actions that I am talking about.

Picking who can and cannot post is not editorializing. That is just not the same thing. Disallowing Joe Noone from posting does not equate to making an affirmative statement.
I never said it was editorializing. I said it was censoring.
Quit pretending you were ever outraged about social media “censorship” prior to Trump whining about it.
Only social media I use is LinkedIn.
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
5,538
Reaction score
2,028
Points
180
“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.


:clap:


.
Let me see if I got this right. Trump "calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" , but these regulations have not been written, approved or disseminated yet down through the bureaucracy or the courts, right?

"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.”
He has instructed the FTC to not allow deceptive trade practices when they buy and sell things?

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507
That does "do it", if the "it" in question is setting policy directives for the departments of the executive branch to then carry out . . . which is what his job actually is.

I have no idea what "it" YOU thought he was supposed to do.
His statement was kind of ambiguous. he did not mention anything related to what regulated trade practice he was talking about so it is unclear whether it has any effect or not and as I said the new regulations under the Communications Decency Act have not been rewritten or published yet, so I appreciate the nice commercial he gave of what his intent is, but it doesn't change much at this point, so I can thank him for the pronouncement but it is totally unclear what effect it will have or if the courts would go along with it. Didn't it take like 9 months of writing and rewriting his executive order for his travel ban against Muslim countries to have an effect because it had legal issues requiring re-writing multiple times by order of the courts?
Yeah, that's because it was a statement ABOUT the executive order; it wasn't the executive order itself. You're supposed to actually read the executive order.

How dumb are you when you get snarky about "the nice commercial he gave" as though it was supposed to be anything else? If you're unclear about the executive order and you haven't made any effort to get yourself clear on it, that's YOUR problem, not anyone else's.
How snarky? I thought is was pretty good snark. Thanks for noticing.
I just found it on White House .gov. Pretty much like in the commercial from the president. Don't look for any change soon, dud.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020







  • Share:



menuAll News

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.




White House Logo

The White House
I'm sure you did think it was "pretty good snark". You were wrong. You were also apparently wrong about what you thought executive orders were supposed to do.
Doesn't look like I am wrong about this one, after reading it. Doubt it will keep twitter from posting a fact checking link below his tweet if it contains lies.
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
22,177
Reaction score
3,520
Points
290
Location
Colorado
“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.


:clap:


.
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 are quite correct about "bad comments", if what you're talking about is foul language, racist remarks, threats of violence, harassment and stalking . . . if what you mean by "bad comments" is "opinions I don't agree with", that's something else. And by picking and choosing who can and can't post and what they can and can't post, they are actually MAKING themselves liable, arguably, for the content.

Who is censoring according to political content on USMB? Cite an example.
See my previous post for the actions that I am talking about.

Picking who can and cannot post is not editorializing. That is just not the same thing. Disallowing Joe Noone from posting does not equate to making an affirmative statement.
I never said it was editorializing. I said it was censoring.
Quit pretending you were ever outraged about social media “censorship” prior to Trump whining about it.
Quit pretending anyone gives a shit about you.
They shouldn’t. Just the truth I speak!
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
93,706
Reaction score
20,002
Points
2,220
Location
Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
“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.


:clap:


.
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.
Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.
Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.
This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.
Bullshit.
Try posting something negative about Muslims and see what happens.
I have posted negative things about Muslims, and about Islam. You know me; I'm not at all shy and backward about saying what I think, and saying it bluntly and rudely if I think it's necessary. I have never had any problems with the moderators about it.
I'm talking about Fake books and Twitter.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
2,959
Points
290
Location
Washington State
“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.


:clap:


.
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 are quite correct about "bad comments", if what you're talking about is foul language, racist remarks, threats of violence, harassment and stalking . . . if what you mean by "bad comments" is "opinions I don't agree with", that's something else. And by picking and choosing who can and can't post and what they can and can't post, they are actually MAKING themselves liable, arguably, for the content.

Who is censoring according to political content on USMB? Cite an example.
See my previous post for the actions that I am talking about.

Picking who can and cannot post is not editorializing. That is just not the same thing. Disallowing Joe Noone from posting does not equate to making an affirmative statement.
I never said it was editorializing. I said it was censoring.
Quit pretending you were ever outraged about social media “censorship” prior to Trump whining about it.
Quit pretending anyone gives a shit about you.
They shouldn’t. Just the truth I speak!
And to quote all that truth for future generations:

 

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
1,041
Points
185
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....


:)
God the cringe level I feel on this board is just way too much some times lol.

How convenient you suddenly have this timely point of view about business freedom! I’m sure it had nothing to do with Trump telling you how to think.
What freedom of these business is restricted?
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
45,616
Reaction score
7,943
Points
1,830
“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.


:clap:


.
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.
Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.
Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.
This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.
So says most of the right here.

Many of the nut jobs that get regulated tot he rubber room would disagree. Certainly, many of the hard left wing nutjobs in the legal system might disagree as well when Russian conspiracy threads are sent there.

Do you trust those judges to make the right call in those circumstances? Even worse, all it takes is a single frivolous lawsuit from Joe Noone to make a site like this one financially untenable. And worst of all, virtually every single one of those tiny conservative platforms that currently exist as both a publisher and a comment site for conservatives to share opinions would disappear as well with a single frivolous lawsuit. This is essentially what Media Matters does though they go after advertisers atm and they are VERY good at it. Open that Pandora's Box and you would be arming them with a bazooka to take down everyone they disagree with.

Therein lies the other problem, the left is FAR better at using the outrage machine to make platforms and alternative media sources disappear than the right is.
They can disagree all they want. Moving the thread to a different topic heading is not the same as deleting it and banning you from posting.

If we refuse to fight for what's right because we're afraid our opponents will fight back, then we deserve to become voiceless, helpless serfs.
They ban as well. Right above you there is mud claiming that they do, indeed, politically sensor. What do you think happens if he decides to sue even though it is utterly frivolous?

The site would cease to exist.

You cant become voiceless helpless surfs because a social media company removes you from their platform. Only the government has the power to truly take your voice away. Twitter removing you means you go elsewhere.

Give the government the power to tell twitter how it will regulate speech on its platform and then you truly will lose your voice as soon as the next Obama/Hillary/Pelosi clone takes office and gets to 'interpret' such regulation.
They do ban, but I am not aware of them doing it JUST because someone is politically conservative, or over half the board would be gone.

I can't say for certain what the circumstances were that Mud is referencing, but I'd be willing to bet that WHAT was said about Muslims was the actual problem, not simply the fact that it was about Muslims. As I told Mud, I've said negative things about Muslims and Islam several times, and have never had a problem with the moderators about it.

You can absolutely become voiceless, helpless serfs if every single outlet for news and communication decides that only one side gets to speak publicly, right up to and including elected officials. I can remember when there were only the big 3 network TV channels and major city newspapers, and I've studied history about how that monopoly on information was used to present events exactly the opposite of how they happened. The advent of the Internet was a huge boon to people on the right, who could suddenly see the REAL information and say what they thought and hear other people saying the same things and realize that maybe left-think WASN'T what "everyone else" thought. And the left has been trying to take us back in time to the bad old days ever since.
 

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
1,065
Points
170
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....


:)

will this only deny liberals "free speech" or is there a possibility that conservatives might lose some, too?
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
45,616
Reaction score
7,943
Points
1,830
“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.


:clap:


.
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 are quite correct about "bad comments", if what you're talking about is foul language, racist remarks, threats of violence, harassment and stalking . . . if what you mean by "bad comments" is "opinions I don't agree with", that's something else. And by picking and choosing who can and can't post and what they can and can't post, they are actually MAKING themselves liable, arguably, for the content.

Who is censoring according to political content on USMB? Cite an example.
See my previous post for the actions that I am talking about.

Picking who can and cannot post is not editorializing. That is just not the same thing. Disallowing Joe Noone from posting does not equate to making an affirmative statement.
I never said it was editorializing. I said it was censoring.
Quit pretending you were ever outraged about social media “censorship” prior to Trump whining about it.
Only social media I use is LinkedIn.
This is as "social media" as I get in regards to news and politics, right here.

I use Facebook to keep up with personal stuff like my family and friends that live elsewhere, my hobby groups, stuff like that. I have zero interest in what passes for political "discourse" on there; in fact, I'd be obliged if my flaming leftist sister, with her crippling case of TDS, would stop feeling the need to start every morning with 8 back-to-back posts about how much Trump sucks. I love her to death, and outside of politics, she's a wonderful person; but when it comes to politics, she's the most stereotypical leftist bully you ever saw, and nobody needs that shit before coffee.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
45,616
Reaction score
7,943
Points
1,830
“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.


:clap:


.
Let me see if I got this right. Trump "calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" , but these regulations have not been written, approved or disseminated yet down through the bureaucracy or the courts, right?

"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.”
He has instructed the FTC to not allow deceptive trade practices when they buy and sell things?

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507
That does "do it", if the "it" in question is setting policy directives for the departments of the executive branch to then carry out . . . which is what his job actually is.

I have no idea what "it" YOU thought he was supposed to do.
His statement was kind of ambiguous. he did not mention anything related to what regulated trade practice he was talking about so it is unclear whether it has any effect or not and as I said the new regulations under the Communications Decency Act have not been rewritten or published yet, so I appreciate the nice commercial he gave of what his intent is, but it doesn't change much at this point, so I can thank him for the pronouncement but it is totally unclear what effect it will have or if the courts would go along with it. Didn't it take like 9 months of writing and rewriting his executive order for his travel ban against Muslim countries to have an effect because it had legal issues requiring re-writing multiple times by order of the courts?
Yeah, that's because it was a statement ABOUT the executive order; it wasn't the executive order itself. You're supposed to actually read the executive order.

How dumb are you when you get snarky about "the nice commercial he gave" as though it was supposed to be anything else? If you're unclear about the executive order and you haven't made any effort to get yourself clear on it, that's YOUR problem, not anyone else's.
How snarky? I thought is was pretty good snark. Thanks for noticing.
I just found it on White House .gov. Pretty much like in the commercial from the president. Don't look for any change soon, dud.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020







  • Share:



menuAll News

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.




White House Logo

The White House
I'm sure you did think it was "pretty good snark". You were wrong. You were also apparently wrong about what you thought executive orders were supposed to do.
Doesn't look like I am wrong about this one, after reading it. Doubt it will keep twitter from posting a fact checking link below his tweet if it contains lies.
If you think the executive order itself was supposed to keep Twitter from doing anything, then you are indeed wrong, and have no understanding whatsoever of what executive orders are or are for.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List