if if there's anybody with access to President Trump who can talk to him you need to make something clear. inside the executive order in order is the FCC to draft new rules clarifying what types of moderation are acceptable and what aren't..
an important precursor to that is that Trump must make sure that the people within the FCC responsible for drafting those rules are people who are on his side on the issue. He needs to know he can trust them. It can't be more FBI people like Robert Mueller work homie or Jeff sessions. It needs to be people that agree with him. If it's just some Neil cons they will draft rules extremely favorable to Facebook and the end result wouldd be toothless..
needs to make sure that he puts people in there that agree with him on censorship..
Toby? Toby Wong. Toby Wong? Toby Wong. Toby Chung? Fucking Charlie Chan. I got Big Mike's big dick coming out of my left ear, and Toby the Jap... I don't know what - comin' out of my right.
"Yes, you will come in contact with some fecal matter. You are entering a butthole. It is where poop comes out. Expecting to do anal play and see zero poop isn’t particularly realistic. It’s NOT a big deal. Everyone poops. Everyone has a butt."
Packing fudge....not a big deal. Smell of shit....not a big deal. You will comply!
mandates the Secretary of Commerce to propose a rulemaking to the FCC clarifying a portion of the Communications Decency Act which social media platforms have been leveraging as a loophole to editorialize content. SecCommerce is directed to perform this within 30 days, after which the FCC picks it up to clarify and change the regulations, closing the loophole. (edited)
Essentially: if these platforms were to be in violation of it (e.g. by flagging content despite it not violating ToS), they'd no longer be protected from being classified as "publishers" and could then be held liable for the content on their site
also directs all offices in the federal government to stop spending any tax dollars in advertising on these platforms
My guess is Twit and FB will disregard and press even harder to try to interfere in 2020 so president biden will ease up and let them do whatever they want.
EOs can only have so much teeth, depending on what is being legislated. And they are designed that way. I support Trump doing what he can, congress sure as hell is doing nothing. But ultimately it is the job of congress to make an actual law. It's their responsibility.
They only have as much teeth as a president is willing to put behind them. Obama unilaterally overruled US immigration law and there wasn't any meaningful pushback against it. DACA is still in effect today.
Perhaps, but it shows some degree of action and creates a time window. Also, this very succinct statement is readable by any American (even the press). It lists atrocities committed by Google that are factual that many were likely unaware of and will likely be discussed further, publicly. It may also force MSM/Libs to defend private businesses ability to discriminate which will have some interesting ramifications to aspects of private business they all seem to hate.
The point of the law is to protect the smaller sites and sites who don't have the capacity to properly regulate their forum. The problem with the bigger sites is they're actively controlling the content while claiming they're incapable of doing so
By making itself an editor of content outside the protections of subparagraph (c) (2) (A), such a provider forfeits any protection from being deemed a “publisher or speaker” under subsection 230 (c) (1), which properly applies only to a provider that merely provides a platform for content supplied by others. It is the policy of the United States that all departments and agencies should apply section 230 (c) according to the interpretation set out in this section.
Basically, sites like Twitter that choose to censor people will be considered editors of the content, not open platforms. This opens them up to lawsuits for anything published on their website by anyone. This should not affect platforms that respect the ideals of free speech.
And the untrue statements part becomes very subjective, as they use 3rd party fact checkers to justify their claims of something being "false". It puts the blame on them and absolves Twitter / Facebook of any wrong doing when checking for "facts".
They could argue that they censored content under the contract they had with these 3rd party companies.
You know who is really rubbing their hands together, salivating with their genitals engorged at the thought of being able to treat Twitter/Facebook/Google as publishers? State Attorney General's!! Money makes covetous whores of the best of us, the ability to get some sweet, sweet settlement money because child porn, or revenge Porn, or threats were issued? Far too tempting of a pie. Fuck, even commifornia will want in on the feeding frenzy.
Subsection 230 (c) (1) broadly states that no provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of content provided by another person.
... subsection 230(c) (2) qualifies that principle when the provider edits the content provided by others... a provider is protected from liability when it acts in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” The provision does not extend to deceptive or pretextual actions restricting online content or actions inconsistent with an online platform’s terms of service.
By making itself an editor of content outside the protections of subparagraph (c) (2) (A), such a provider forfeits any protection from being deemed a “publisher or speaker” under subsection 230 (c) (1), which properly applies only to a provider that merely provides a platform for content supplied by others.
within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce ... 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 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 the conditions under which such actions will be considered to be: (1) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or (2) the result of inadequate notice, the product of unreasoned explanation, or having been undertaking without a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
Basically, Wilbur Ross (Secretary of Commerce) will file a petition with the FCC asking them to propose regulations. These regulations will seek to clarify whether Twitter, Facebook, etc. are not engaging in "good faith" when they ban/restrict access to information that falls outside "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable" aka when they ban/restrict non-libtard viewpoints. If they are not engaging in "good faith," they do not fall under protections from Subsection (c)(1), and are considered publishers/speakers that are subject to getting sued for defamation, etc.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong - it's early for me haha.
Not at all. The Wapo and MSNBC just won cases that were clearly slander and libel from them directed at others. These laws are a joke and are only enforced when the government wants the company to comply with their illegal searches and violation of the users' rights.
You're thinking too narrow. Twitter/Facebook/Google don't give two shots about lawsuits from individuals, they don't even really care about class action. What IS of concern to them is being held to account by Sony/Warner Brothers/Disney/etc for copyright infringement. The "legacy" companies spent a LOT of time and money buying favorable laws, they are tumescent at the thought of being able to rape the socials to their bones.
And yet that legal meaning has changed repeatedly throughout history. Playboy would've been considered obscene in the 1800's, now it's seen as conservative. I don't recall the 1st Amendment changing anytime in between then and now, but apparently it has I guess.
Exactly. Its fine if your TOS says "no cucks allowed". But twatter will have to declare that they're only tolerant of leftist views, and then the leftists will have to face the fact that they're in a declared echo chamber instead of pretending its a fair debate.
I could actually live with that. The Left insists that "nobody's censoring content! They don't just shut down conservative speech! Sometimes progressives get banned, too!"
Yeah, but progressives/leftists only get banned if they post pics of outright porn or clubbing baby seals or something like that - never, ever for their political views. Not even when they make direct and open threats against the life of the President of the United States and his family.
I'd be fine if they'd just stop trying to gaslight us into thinking it's all fair and open and it's just our insane conspiracy-theory brains imagining that we're being edited and shadow banned.
I want to see all of them do exactly what this site does: Make it very clear that this place exists for discussion and support of only a certain point of view, and that you WILL be immediately kicked out if you try to argue about it. Discussion, yes; argument, no.
I find this acceptable because leftists are free to have their own sites and run them exactly like this one, if they want. We just wanted a room where we can talk without being screamed at. We have ours and they can have theirs, as long as they clearly label it as such and stop lying about what they really do. We're not trying to stop them.
That is my understanding too. They will change up their TOS as to what is and what is not objectionable to their crack team of blue-haired land whales.
They will say 20 minutes is plenty of time to protest, etc.....
If that tactic does not fly in court (because all of this will all be challenged for years to come), then rEdit will be ultra-fucked because every single comment will be protected and cannot be removed outside of kiddie porn, physical threats, etc.....
I think the key part here is that they should need to be both explicit and consistent with their censorship in order to still be considered a platform (rather than a publisher).
The left can't do that because their positions are logically inconsistent. So it should be easy to show unequal application of rules and their TOS, and thereby disqualify them from platform protections.At least this is the approach I would take. Going to fake "fact check" Trump? You better be doing it for prominent democrats too. And you better make sure your "fact check" is actually true and not just a lie/opinion piece from fake news.
Honestly if it was me making the rules, I might even include a requirement that all "platforms" need to have a way to view all censorship actions transparently, and/or view an uncensored version of the content. And from a competition/anti-trust standpoint I would also look into the possibility of forcing certain info to be made available for anyone who wants to provide their own filter for it as well. E,g, reddit is just one front end filter for the content, but you could hook in and make your own if you want an uncensored version. Etc.
You have some excellent ideas there! This is why DJT doesn't make royal decrees but delegates to specialists in the field. They should be open to input from the public. Is there a format for that?
That is what is wrong with the current law. The president is asking the FCC to provide clarification of exactly what can be moderated.
That means it won't be up to Terms of Service anymore, they will only be able to moderate content that fits the new guidlines from the FCC. That is, if this actually happens, the FCC actually complies, and Nancy Pelosi allows it to even be voted on.
No, the entire purpose of stuff like this is to bypass Congress by creating regulations when there aren't enough votes to create a law, or if passing a law would be unpopular. The ATF's rulings on things like bumpstocks, pistol braces, etc. I think are good examples of how we have a federal agency making up laws on its own. When those decisions are generally popular (obscenity regulations by the FCC, outlawing scary looking guns by the ATF) they go unchallenged and effectively supersede what the law actually says.
Then you have other issues with the executive branch, that should be enforcing all laws, applying enforcement selectively. Things like Obama not going after marijuana users. Widely popular at the time, it effectively legalized marijuana in large parts of the country without going through Congress and made it acceptable that a President could tell Congress to fuck itself (which they deserve 100% tbh).
Finally you have the issues with the judicial system constantly reinterpreting both to suit whatever agenda they might have at the time. We went from the "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it" bullshit ruling about obscenity, to the 3-part Miller test once society became more accepting of what was previously considered obscene. I think in both of these cases it would be obvious to say that the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech, including obscenity, and if the people want that to change they should add an amendment to the Constitution, but that's difficult and requires majority approval, so it's always easier to pressure a judge or a regulatory agency.
They are the only ones that can change a law, create a law, or dismiss a law from the books. The Supreme Court Enforces those laws(suppose to at least). The President is to be the head of state.
"deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service"
He's creating a slippery slope for them.
Objectionable will come from the user or the platform. If from the user it'll be applied equally. If from the platform they have to state their position.
They will simply create every changing TOS to cover their actions that the users are blind to like EULA garbage. This will make no difference.
You'll be able to point to the paragraph in the 790 page TOS where Twitter points out that criticism of vote by mail is against the TOS. So what, it's already obvious.
If their TOS are changed in any way that demonstrates that they are acting as a publisher, well then those protections under section 230 will no longer apply. That's why their TOS cover their asses while they aren't following their own rules.
Because judges legislate from the bench, and regulatory agencies like the FCC make up laws and call them regulations. Historically you also had more limitations with bandwidth so for practical reasons there was a desire to prioritize which media was broadcast (along with the actual reasons like picking which propaganda goes out and which factual information is hidden).
Look up the history of obscenity case law. I think it's a perfect example of judges trying to force the law as written to match what society wants in their era, instead of redirecting aggrieved citizens to their legislature to re-write the laws they dislike.
Here's some examples:
1.) The "I know it when I see it" standard of "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it, and I don't think obscenity should be protected by the 1st Amendment."
2.) The Miller Test, which despite the 1st Amendment saying Congress will make no law restricting speech, allows for restriction of speech if it meets 3 criteria for obscenity. Because apparently obscene speech isn't speech.
3.) The Dost Test, that further elaborates on one part of the Miller Test.
Basically, in my view, the 1st Amendment is pretty explicit that Congress will not restrict freedom of speech. Maybe there could be some debate about if performing art and pornography is speech, but I think for the sake of argument you can ignore that, because these rulings are also used to restrict, quite literally, speech such as with television censorship.
However, many U.S. citizens apparently dislike 100% free speech and want it regulated, and the courts agreed, and knowing there wouldn't be strong opposition to their rulings, maybe personally believing in it themselves, the courts ruled that Congress and/or the FCC can restrict freedom of speech, despite that being clearly against what's written in the 1st Amendment.
If you study law you'll see a lot of patterns like this throughout history, where courts gave ground on something they shouldn't have because Congress wouldn't act, or laws had become "outdated" or something, and thus the courts or a regulatory agency just made up a rule on the fly to try to resolve the conflict. The better solution, the right solution, is to go through the proper process and make the legislative bodies do their job.
Private vs public argument essentially. If it is public then it does protect it, but private it protects the business to a degree.
In this case the platforms will have to make a choice to allow that type of content with the restriction that they cannot alter it in anyway unless be declared to be a publisher which makes it so their protections are no longer available and are subject to every single thing on their platform. Kiddie porn on their site and make even a slight adjustment get sued, have violent beheadings and change something get sued for acting as a publisher.
They will either act as a public platform, or act as a publisher either way this will eventually screw them(That is if Congress can get off their butts and do their jobs for the people instead of their masters).
Platforms are inevitably going to be hotbeds of edgy shit. People are going to say and post things that plenty of people don't like. Those platforms, as simple platforms, are not liable for what their users say or post. If I say "We need to kill the kikes" or post child porn, the platforms are not liable as accessories if somebody goes and shoots up a synagogue or if some child pornographer gets caught after they posted their content.
However, platforms are also allowed to remove or edit certain content. Again, if I say "We need to kill the kikes" or post child porn, they can remove that content if they choose to do so because it is considered dangerous, obscene, etc.
Here's where this gets slippery: the language in the law includes a clause that states they can remove stuff that's “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”
Otherwise Objectionable? What does that even mean?
And that's the problem. These people are editing content that they disagree with and calling it objectionable. when the reality is that it's not objectionable at all, they just don't like it.
This EO is going to have the FCC clarify what that phrase means and, more importantly, doesn't mean. Political disagreements will not be considered objectionable.
This is huge because now a platform like Facebook or Twitter has to make a choice: They can work in good faith and only remove truly objectionable content and continue to be shielded from liability, or they can put up fact checks and open themselves up to litigation from fucking everywhere and end up spending billions each year on lawsuits.
They are going to have to decide whether their political aspirations are worth billions annually.
If I was Twitter or FB, I'd immediately declare myself a platform and let anybody post anything they want.
It would then be up to the users to block/unfollow anyone who posts stuff they object to.
IOW, it would be up to the users to edit the content they see, not the site. And yeah, no doubt you'd see some shit for a while. But once you figure out whose content you do and do not want to see, then things would calm down considerably.
Otherwise, these sites are going to be sued into the bottom of a black hole. And they just offended a certain somebody for the last time - a certain somebody who's got the bucks and the balls and the army of lawyers to do exactly that.
If I ran a social media site right now, I couldn't declare myself a platform fast enough.
That's because you are a rational human being who loves freedom, not a wannabe communist dictator that thinks he's morally superior to everyone and that it's his job to make sure they know how to think.
I like your interpretation. I do think you have expressed DJT's intention. Whether that winds up being what happens or no is ... well many here are speculating, across an extremely wide array of possibilities. So I don't need to add another speculation
That's the entire point of the EO. It's intended to remove any interpretation. It directs the FCC to lay out explicitly what does and does not constitute removable material. They won't be able to twist the zeitgeist and change things because the rule will no longer be open to interpretation, it will be explicitly codified.
My only regret is that to use an impolite term, the order doesn't double penetrate them. They've been getting the best of both worlds getting the benefits being immune from constraints of both publishers and common carriers.
The solution, make them both. You'll like this:
(a)Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
If they're a common carrier. They've been doubly immune, now they should be doubly liable.
The problem is they aren't carriers at all. They don't generate their own signal. It is carried over infrastructure owned and operated by other companies, the actual carriers.
Twitter and Facebook aren't TV stations, they are platforms. The internet companies themselves could still completely shut down either of them if they chose to block them because they are the actual carriers.
That's a mistake as the two really aren't in practice alike at all. We're on a platform right now because we're a specific and clearly defined niche concern or specific category.
Twitter is massive on a generic scale. Though there are similarities they can break down.
You may have a company providing phone lines which are hardware but it also heavily relies on software as well in combination with hardware to provide a communications network.
Because it uses software doesn't make that part immune from anything I've seen. It's layered. At what point in building layered communications systems it stops being a carrier really is not clear.
Sometimes it's not about technology either. If your service is explicitly niche, for example a network created for people to discuss cartoons then that's one thing. Something like that usually wont be able to get too big either to be a problem.
If the service is generic it can get big to the point of having the equivalent of monopoly. If officially twitter identifies itself as the democrat communication network for pro-democrat people to communicate that would be one thing but it's not, it's always just been a generic communications platform until more recently. It's literally in the name. Twitter. Like chatter. To chat. Not dating chat, not communist chat, just chat.
When a service is generic, then grows as a generic service, reaching a size only possible as a generic service but then decides to become specific while expecting to maintain size then that's a huge problem.
You can see then that it's quite complicated. I don't think congress nor their lobby mates are capable of properly doing the homework for them and creating appropriate legislation for the web.
Edit: My bad, NBC is not just a news network but a TV platform so it is closer to twitter than a specific news channel would be. However it's still radically different as it operates according to real scarcity (airtime, etc) making it natural for there to be greater selection over content where as the internet doesn't have those constraints. I think platforms have long been problematic in some respects as they're often somewhere between being a common carrier and a publisher in practice. Anything between the two might be considered a platform but between two platforms the practical reality can differ vastly.
I consider twitter as far more akin to a nested common carrier naturally. Its artificial content regulation policies which are increasingly strict and increasingly more enforced including broadly however take it from behaving as beyond a platform into the domain of publisher.
Yes, I understand the metaphor is weak, but it's the closest you're going to get when comparing different media.
The point is that a TV station is a specific band of the airwaves. Any platform can use that band without the band itself changing. A TV broadcasting station can switch from CBS to ABC for example, but still be channel 11 or w/e.
Plus, I left out a level that really should be there, that of Publishers between Producers and Platforms. Sony is really a publisher, not a producer. Sony hires producers and then approves what they make to be published and distributed.
Like I said, the metaphor isn't great, but it gets the point across. The one thing that Twitter et al are definitely not is carriers. As long as Comcast or AT&T can block their site, they're a content provider of some sort, not a carrier.
I like your comment. I think this debate needs to be reframed. I think the whole publisher vs platform thing misses the point.
The idea is to be a utility. Everyone can use it, freely, or at a charge, or whatever their terms are. That's a utility. Utilities are regulated and as much as I hate US regulatory agencies there are benefits to having utilities regulated. In this sense Twitter still presents itself as though it were a utility, when in reality they're a private club that tolerates and promotes orange man bad and no dissenting views are allowed.
Whatever you want to call it, here we openly promote DJT as being good for the Country and while some of us are open to discussing that with those who are inclined to disagree, many aren't and don't tolerate that at all. We certainly won't allow blatant orange man badisms, and go out of our way to make that obvious right away. Maybe my idea of a "utility" isn't the right approach either, but there's a sharp distinction between what we do here and what Twitter claims to do - even though Twitter actually does what we do here but in reverse.
I can hope this EO moves things in the right direction. I can hope the publisher platform distinction fixes the problem. I just can't entertain much hope of any such solutions going about it this way at the moment. I hold out more hope for DJT at least getting people talking about the problem as a problem, much the way he made it no longer taboo to suggest actually enforcing immigration laws on that famous escalator ride ...
And I do see evidence that people on both sides of the aisle see a problem. Imagine that, if DJT can unite US on the topic that we're too polarized!
To those that struggle understanding the full ExO, though I encourage you read it. 1. You are ineligible for being a platform if you curate or edit content. 2. If you are no longer a platform, you cannot get government funding as such. 3. If you are a platform and curate, you will be prosecuted. No more flip floping.
Thanks for this. I'm embroiled in other work and I don't have time to read the whole thing. I skimmed it real quick and was looking for something with the force of law. I have to be honest that I'm not hopeful this will do anything but I suppose it's a step in the right direction.
Spez would probably finally ban the DOM even though the post wouldn't be breaking any rules. They'd claim as always some made up bullshit new rule that would apply only to us...
TL;DR - The order is mandating the clarification by the FCC of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If done correctly, this closes the loophole that services like Twitter use to have the editorial control of a publisher while claiming the legal immunity of a platform.
It also blaps taxpayer funding to services that remove user's constitutionally protected speech.
It shouldn't be hard to prove in court that Twitter and the rest of Silicon Valley focuses their moderating power on removing legal content (conservative opinions) and allowing illegal content to remain on their services (pirated porn, threats of violence, libel/defamation against minors wearing a MAGA hats, Chinese state propaganda, etc).
Meanwhile they remove false copyright offenses that are clearly fair use of the POTUS, censor legal protest organization and remove a congressman's pro-Christian ads criticizing Planned Parenthood. Hell, Facebook even helps Pakistan enforce its apostasy laws to help the government kill Christian converts.
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 online. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.
All public forums without censorship tend naturally to right wing. Even without moderation, this site would remain right wing. Moreover it wouldn’t even be necessary, since even r/politics would quickly start to resemble /pol
That's the distinction. The left is so used to "special treatment" that "equal treatment" is seen as discrimination. We don't want anything special. We want the same rights as everyone else.
That's fine. The only reason shitty leftists ideas have space at all is because shitty leftist activists sought positions of power and crowded out non shitty ideas.
In an open and free space where all participants are armed for the fight, liberty and "yearning to be free" wins.
Hahaha, if r/politics goes full /pol the second they stop the censorship I'd be so happy! One of the funniest things about this is that if there is a large and immediate swing in the apparent consensus opinion on these sites, it will prove to many people that they've been in an echo chamber for years without knowing it, and that the opinions they held can only thrive when other ideas are censored. The cognitive dissonance will be unreal. We're gonna need more salt mining equipment.
All public forums without censorship tend naturally to right wing.
I disagree vehemently and would argue that it violates Robert Conquest's Second Law of Politics:
Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics:
Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
Of the Second Law, Conquest gave the Church of England and Amnesty International as examples. Of the Third, he noted that a bureaucracy sometimes actually is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies — e.g. the postwar British secret service.
Hmmm. Your comment needs some further qualification. A forum can be an organization. More frequently the organization will have a forum, but other functions too.
I think this EO allows for all that to remain unchanged.
Except we're fine here. We openly state our bias, and our purpose. Twatter pretends to be "inclusive and accepting," while giving standing ovations to orange man bad and prohibiting any dissenting opinion.
I hear ya. I'm 40 and remember buying Doom on shareware and setting up DWANGO for 4 players over 9600baud modems.
I return at least half my steam games bc they're trash. Games have become like movies where they thought "amazing graphics" trumped everything else. I've got a badass gamer system and I honestly don't give a fuck about graphics anymore.
There's a lot of games that look and feel awesome, but after just 1 hour you realize it's not even a game. It's the same thing over and over but with different graphics (The division, mad max, etc)
My favorite games now are Doom Eternal, Squad, Asseto Corsa, and Kerbal Space Program. What are you playin?
I always tell business owners that if the price Yelp quotes them is affordable, bite the bullet and pay them. If you don't, they hide all your positive reviews and bump the crazy negative ones to the top.
The accusation is that yelp extorts business owners
NOWHERE in this comment chain did the person you're responding to make that claim you illiterate faggot.
His accusation:
bullshit fake reviews they allow to stay up on their site while removing ones they don’t like?
Your response:
Fake news man. That accusation went to court and no evidence
Seriously, get some reading comprehension so you can understand what the fuck you're even arguing about.
It continues:
He responds -
But yes, there are many many fake reviews on their site, they know it, and they leave them up.
To which you directly reply:
If yelp was doing what you claimed it would be simple to demonstrate even one instance.
See that bolded word there, retard? We're talking about HIS claim, not the goalposts you decided to move midway through the fucking argument.
His response to that? Actual proof:
Here is a fake user account
To which you literally say happens all the time here, so it looks like HIS accusation is correct, YOU are wrong, and a giant, disingenuous intellectually bankrupt faggot:
There are always going to be people generating fake accounts and fake reviews. That's not the accusation being made,
Yes, yes it was the accusation he made, it just wasn't the fake accusation you decided to make up all on your own, schizoid.
You went from "you cant even provide one example" straight to "well it happens all the time" after getting BTFO'd. Just wow.
Goddamn you are so dumb. So, so dumb. I award you no points and may the mods have mercy on your butthole.
Business owner here. I don't know about Yelp, but I know for damn sure that is Angie's List's business model. Wouldn't surprise me if Yelp were doing it too.
I am a business owner that was totally fucked over by Yelp. Not in the way being discussed here but still. They're fucking crooks. Not a shred of integrity.
By making itself an editor of content outside the protections of subparagraph (c) (2) (A), such a provider forfeits any protection from being deemed a “publisher or speaker” under subsection 230 (c) (1), which properly applies only to a provider that merely provides a platform for content supplied by others. It is the policy of the United States that all departments and agencies should apply section 230 (c) according to the interpretation set out in this section.
(b) The White House Office of Digital Strategy shall submit all complaints described in Section 4 (b) of this order to the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) monitoring or creating watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or users (e.g., likes, follows, time spent); ...
Google tracks the shit out of you, so does Facebook.
This EO is intended to neutralize the Democrat/Left plan to isolate and blacklist conservatives and you better believe those lists include your real name and address. Google knows how long your shit was this morning.
10-minute comment suppression timers? Automated "did he post in TD" scripts and lists? Blacklisted keywords? That "don't upvote controversial content" bullshit? Reddit is very guilty of politically targeted user-fucking.
We have time, November is a long way to go, having this win before then will embolden us so hard and the other side of this is do you see how fucking huge this is? twitter and others will be scared shitless in that time and they might roll back some rules until the full hammer falls upon them, they might roll it all back we dont know! look at the all mighty zucc kissing Trump's shoes right now.
No, not within 30 days. The actual review by FCC wouldn't start until after 30 days. This guarantees nothing, and it might even produce a bad result. Kind of like the directive given to Richard Bright is why we can't get HCQ.
Basically he is clarifying the subparagraph in the 230 legislation that has been a loophole for the social media platforms. The president has given the Commerce Dept. the power to refine the regulations so that the loophole is removed. THis will significantly impact the social media sites and remove their power to shadowban and censor people on the platform. He also gave the justice department and other enforcement agencies the power to engage in criminal investigations against the social media platforms now that the loophole is being removed. Twitter, Facebook, etc. should be shitting themselves right now as they are being opened up to billions in lawsuits.
I don't see that it does, no. We're fine. Twitter could be fine if they just freely admitted that they give standing ovations to orange man bad and any dissenting opinion is prohibited.
The point of this is to allow free speech with the bounds of the Section 230 rules. What is happened today, is the social media sites are deciding themselves what constitutes free speech and what doesn't. Then saying, "see you can't sue us for this, the law says so." Now the law will be changes to say 'Oh yes we can"
Sec. 2. Protections Against Arbitrary Restrictions. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear, nondiscriminatory ground rules promoting free and open debate on the Internet. Prominent among those rules is the immunity from liability created by section 230 (c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230). 47 U.S.C. 230. It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified.
Section 230 (c) was designed to address court decisions from the early days of the Internet holding that an online platform that engaged in any editing or restriction of content posted by others thereby became itself a “publisher” of the content and could be liable for torts like defamation. As the title of section 230 (c) makes clear, the provision is intended to provide liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform like Twitter) that engages in “Good Samaritan’ blocking” of content when the provider deems the content (in the terms of subsection 230 (c) (2) (A)) obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. Subsection 230 (c) (1) broadly states that no provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of content provided by another person. But subsection 230(c) (2) qualifies that principle when the provider edits the content provided by others. Subparagraph (c) (2) specifically addresses protections from “civil liability” and clarifies that a provider is protected from liability when it acts in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” The provision does not extend to deceptive or pretextual actions restricting online content or actions inconsistent with an online platform’s terms of service. 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. By making itself an editor of content outside the protections of subparagraph (c) (2) (A), such a provider forfeits any protection from being deemed a “publisher or speaker” under subsection 230 (c) (1), which properly applies only to a provider that merely provides a platform for content supplied by others. It is the policy of the United States that all departments and agencies should apply section 230 (c) according to the interpretation set out in this section.
One Thing to keep in mind. When The Commie unleashed the Chinese Virus...Trump had to declare a National Emergency...and also enacted The war powers act. During this time The President can do what he feels necessary to protect Americans. And No court actions can be done....
The only way that would work is if they directly state in their rules "Orange man bad, so if you say orange man good, we ban you", which I'm pretty sure violates some other law about political bias.
The only way that would work is if they directly state in their rules "Orange man bad, so if you say orange man good, we ban you", which I'm pretty sure violates some other law about political bias.
Your statement appears to be without foundation. The rule says "otherwise objectionable". As far as I know, it doesn't go on to require any specific documentation of what is deemed objectionable as to what and why and how it is objectionable. If it did, then your statement would be accurate.
All they have to do is assert that they find it objectionable. If asked why, they can easily just spout robotically that Trump and his policies are documented by 487 news outlets as being homo-, trans-, islamo-, xeno- and Negrophobic, and therefore "THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO OUR DEMOCRACY" BLEEP BLOOP BLARP ZZZZTTT "OBJECTIONABLE" BRRRRRPPP
I thought this executive order seeks to clarify that and require that the platforms moderate posts in "good faith" by clearly communicating which rules were broken. If the platform deletes a post without it being a clear violation of their terms of service, they are not acting in "good faith" and lose the protection that would normally keep them from being treated as a publisher who editorializes their content.
EO is not final verbiage. FCC will come up with that (or not, we'll see) I agree that any site should have to spell out what is objectionable. Usually when legislation is pending, there's a format for public input. Does this have that? It should!
"...objectionable content must...be similar to...harassment"
LOL
"We find non-derogatory words or images about Trump, his policies, or his supporters, when displayed to the majority of our audience, extremely similar to harassment. They are in fact sufficiently similar to harassment as to be indistinguishable from, and therefore to constitute, harassment.
"Such harassing words or images, once seen, cannot be unseen. They continue to harass the reader mentally even when he/she/xe/etc. is away from a computer. When they are seen again, the triggering and harassment occur all over again and are amplified in the mind of the harassed user. We cannot and will not tolerate this ongoing harassment."
CASE CLOSED.
Next!
(This shit is too easy, and I'm not even a lawyer)
IANAL but couldn't the supreme court ruling on free speech be applied here? In other words, hate speech is not a real or legally recognized thing so as long as the person didn't violate free speech as outlined by SCOTUS (aka directly threatening someone) then their speech falls under free speech, right? These companies can't continue to invent different tiers of free or partially free speech. It's either free speech or it isn't. I think (and hope) that this EO will begin the process for us to eventually get to an "Internet Bill of Rights" that gets enshrined in law (or better yet a constitutional amendment) so that these fuckin companies stop pulling this shit.
Which is fine. Then it's out there, in the open, and it shreds these cucked platforms' plays at neutrality.
Nobody's saying you can't build liberal hugboxes and ban anyone who suggests Trump might not be Hitler. That's free speech, and cucks are entitled to it just like you and me.
This is why they spent decades creating legal precedent about "hate speech" and "hate crimes". Terms of service can declare these to be "objectionable", then expand the beachhead to include things like China is communist, Trump is president, or ugly trannies are ugly.
As it should be, he's not really making any new rules, he's just enforcing what is already there and calling out the bad players in this mess. And he's doing it when people are the most pissed off.
I've had a twitter account from literally its inception. I think I posted one item and read some other tweets for a day or two.
When it first began, it was thought to be a sort of micro blogger. Well, it quickly became apparent it held no value - in least that regard. Rather, it was almost immediately a forum for competing screaming & trolling.
As the years passed, I was always sort of surprised how it became a prominent "voice" in the media pool. Like Google, et al, I figured it must have had some kind of TLA backing.
Anyway, I long ago forgot my ID or even mail account to open my a/c. I finally got around to figuring out my info last week and was able to re-login.
Now, I'm thinking of joining the crazy shit posting brigade (not really my style) once Twitter is opened back up to competing scream teams.
At the same time social media platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise punish Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. Google, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party, which blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. Google has also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. For their part, Facebook and Twitter have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese Government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities. Twitter has also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use its platform to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
The White House Office of Digital Strategy shall submit all complaints described in Section 4(b) of this order to the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
Monitoring users based on their activity off the platform.>
If this is included in the final draft, then it's a huge win.
This is the proverbial ‘hill to die on’ when it comes to what battles are important. Do we have free expression or not? Can speech be suppressed because some soy cuck is offended? Do you have the right not to be offended in 2020?
Due to the utter arrogance and disdain for free speech, expression and discourse, Twitter blows their load on fact checking (as a platform nonetheless) the POTUS’s opinion on vote by mail. A procedure rife with fraud and abuse and one of the few ways the democrats can steal an election. This is so poignant, because the battle over free speech and social media is using the vote by mail controversy as the lynchpin. Couldn’t have been planned better and it’s like they say, poetry in motion! Lol
The last one was stupid enough, if they try another impeachment it will be even dumber than the first, and centrists who are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to both sides will flee from the D's in mass (those who are still left)
This stuff only works when their credibility rating is high, because each time they do stupid stuff it gets lower and lower and lower.
I'm not saying "Dude relax we'll win it's fine," not talking about complacency. I'm breaking down logically why the D's can only do this so much longer before no one believes them anymore.
MODS -
Can we get a Meltdown Sticky where we post the best REEEEEEeees from twitter and reddit? Right now they're stumbling to realize this is real and I'd like to enjoy as much salt as possible. I think we all will have a great time reading through so many tears.
Re: the other links, I have a Sister who survived 2 massive race riots: the one over Rodney King in LA and another in NJ in 1967. All 105# 5'2" of her. She was fine.
MN is supposed to be flyover country, not a hotspot for Somalis and race riots. Wtf
I guess we will see what sort of punishments there can be from the FTC on these deceptive practices. Maybe it will be enough to actually get them to stop censoring, but I bet they keep carrying on until at least the election is over. They're just going to have lawyers fight this while they continue pushing their agenda.
Reddit, Twitter, Facebook etc are for general use and discussion. TD.win is a forum based around one topic. Things like that would most likely be exempt.
Interesting point. I'm not a fan of the "concern troll" trend, and there's at least one poster here that I do keep an eye on, suspicious that he's here to deliberately disrupt. Not sure why he hasn't been deported yet, except sometimes he does post something good. It's fucking weird
It is the policy of the United States that large social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum, should not infringe on protected speech. The Supreme Court has described 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.”
Clearly, they’ve been waiting for the right time to drop this. Looks good, they’ve certainly done their work. Great job at keeping this under wraps while they worked on it. Must have drained at least one swamp!
"several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. "
"Facebook and Twitter have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese Government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities."
"Twitter has also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use its platform to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong."
Fake news and advertising disguised as random user posts.
We're on two possible paths, and I fear people are choosing the bad one.
One path is total and complete freedom. 4chan everywhere. Those sites that do monitor their content are quite explicit about how they monitor it, and people going there know it is monitored. At some point, we'll probably see things that are absolutely repugnant find a home on the internet. (This is the way it used to be.)
The other path is where everything is heavily censored, and because of the fact that people can't opt-out of it (there being no open or free alternatives) they will ask government to control the censorship. In this model, what you are allowed to say and do online is limited by whoever is in the White House or which party runs the congress. This will basically stifle all free speech on the internet.
I worry we go towards the second route. I hope President Trump is able to keep us pointed and at/near the first.
False dichotomy. This EO doesn't do that at all. It does hang everything on the publisher vs platform debate though, which I think is a mistake. Hopefully it pushes us in the right direction. At least people are talking about it as a real problem!
Looks really good and on point. l just wish he would have thrown in "eat a bag of dicks, you filthy commies" somewhere in there.
Can you elaborate on what it actually does ?
It forces commies to guzzle dicks by the bag full
Lol Obama, I did a quick glance your post history does not disappoint
His username definitely checks out LOL
Lucky for me, my middle name keeps him far far away, despite my impressive qualities.
lol i like howw the fake news claims that a law protecting free speech is a "threat to free speech"" backwards world
You’d rock a Birx scarf bigly
Someone should send trumps whitehouse that google exec video of them brainstorming how to prevent a candidate they don’t like from winning.
If that offends lefties, then we're over the target!
I lol'ed hard
if if there's anybody with access to President Trump who can talk to him you need to make something clear. inside the executive order in order is the FCC to draft new rules clarifying what types of moderation are acceptable and what aren't..
an important precursor to that is that Trump must make sure that the people within the FCC responsible for drafting those rules are people who are on his side on the issue. He needs to know he can trust them. It can't be more FBI people like Robert Mueller work homie or Jeff sessions. It needs to be people that agree with him. If it's just some Neil cons they will draft rules extremely favorable to Facebook and the end result wouldd be toothless..
needs to make sure that he puts people in there that agree with him on censorship..
You didn’t have to go back to Sessions. The current AG is deep state as hell.
LMFAO, his name checks the fuck out.
Now I gotta go look hah
Obama be like. Dick dick dick dick .. ..diyoooock!!
Toby? Toby Wong. Toby Wong? Toby Wong. Toby Chung? Fucking Charlie Chan. I got Big Mike's big dick coming out of my left ear, and Toby the Jap... I don't know what - comin' out of my right.
Is that from an old Cadbury Eggs ad?
Please don’t ever break character.
Spez spends a lot of time in his cuckshed. Maybe you could visit him sometime
"Her"
Name definitely checks out!
KEK!
Name KEKs out
Hilarious profile idea 👌
God bless you you raging homo
hahaha
I’d venture to guess that twitter Jack would not view eating a bag of dicks as a bad thing.
‘This just in- men averse to sucking another penis are gay-hating, nazi-sympathizing white- supremacists’
Teen Vogue has some pointers for those men who aren't haters https://www.teenvogue.com/story/anal-sex-what-you-need-to-know
"Yes, you will come in contact with some fecal matter. You are entering a butthole. It is where poop comes out. Expecting to do anal play and see zero poop isn’t particularly realistic. It’s NOT a big deal. Everyone poops. Everyone has a butt."
Packing fudge....not a big deal. Smell of shit....not a big deal. You will comply!
What do TeenVogue and Bill Gates have in common?
Population control
Not just any bag, either. You know those dumpster bags that hold about 3 cubic yards?
Yeah, that many dicks.
Stop. Spez Huffman is salivating.
mandates the Secretary of Commerce to propose a rulemaking to the FCC clarifying a portion of the Communications Decency Act which social media platforms have been leveraging as a loophole to editorialize content. SecCommerce is directed to perform this within 30 days, after which the FCC picks it up to clarify and change the regulations, closing the loophole. (edited)
Essentially: if these platforms were to be in violation of it (e.g. by flagging content despite it not violating ToS), they'd no longer be protected from being classified as "publishers" and could then be held liable for the content on their site
also directs all offices in the federal government to stop spending any tax dollars in advertising on these platforms
Wrong. The secretary of commerce is mandated to, within 30 days, ask the FCC to begin looking into this.
The FCC won’t even start looking at this until after 30 days.
"we looked into it, seems fine, what did you say was wrong with it again?"
Is the twitter plugged in and getting power?
How far are you standing from the tweets?
It's a shot across their bow, nothing more.
My guess is Twit and FB will disregard and press even harder to try to interfere in 2020 so president biden will ease up and let them do whatever they want.
EOs can only have so much teeth, depending on what is being legislated. And they are designed that way. I support Trump doing what he can, congress sure as hell is doing nothing. But ultimately it is the job of congress to make an actual law. It's their responsibility.
They only have as much teeth as a president is willing to put behind them. Obama unilaterally overruled US immigration law and there wasn't any meaningful pushback against it. DACA is still in effect today.
It does also mandate that government agencies stop advertising with social media platforms that censor speech.
Perhaps, but it shows some degree of action and creates a time window. Also, this very succinct statement is readable by any American (even the press). It lists atrocities committed by Google that are factual that many were likely unaware of and will likely be discussed further, publicly. It may also force MSM/Libs to defend private businesses ability to discriminate which will have some interesting ramifications to aspects of private business they all seem to hate.
Guess the champagne bottle will have to stay in the cellar a while longer...and there's a chance it may never come out either.
Still good to see some forward movement.
ah ok - you are right, Sec. 2(b)
Couldn't these companies just modify their ToS then?
I wish DJT would just make up decent rules. Or delegate that to somebody with some sense.
My fear is how this is going to affect smaller sites
The point of the law is to protect the smaller sites and sites who don't have the capacity to properly regulate their forum. The problem with the bigger sites is they're actively controlling the content while claiming they're incapable of doing so
I can easily see how this can be corrupted by the leftist. Like they do or at the least attempt to do with EVERYTHING
What smaller sites?
Like this one, 4chan, Bitchute, etc etc etc
smaller sites? Like this one?
or do you mean individual webpages, where comments are sometimes allowed on a blog post?
Like this one, various chans, Bitchute, etc etc etc
Basically, sites like Twitter that choose to censor people will be considered editors of the content, not open platforms. This opens them up to lawsuits for anything published on their website by anyone. This should not affect platforms that respect the ideals of free speech.
Gab isn't even safe from Torba.
Yeah Torba just wanted to make a quick buck. Didn't really work.
Torba is an sjw.
And there we have it! Sweet!
And the untrue statements part becomes very subjective, as they use 3rd party fact checkers to justify their claims of something being "false". It puts the blame on them and absolves Twitter / Facebook of any wrong doing when checking for "facts".
They could argue that they censored content under the contract they had with these 3rd party companies.
It's a gigantic loophole if you ask me.
They’ll use Snopes
You know who is really rubbing their hands together, salivating with their genitals engorged at the thought of being able to treat Twitter/Facebook/Google as publishers? State Attorney General's!! Money makes covetous whores of the best of us, the ability to get some sweet, sweet settlement money because child porn, or revenge Porn, or threats were issued? Far too tempting of a pie. Fuck, even commifornia will want in on the feeding frenzy.
Basically, Wilbur Ross (Secretary of Commerce) will file a petition with the FCC asking them to propose regulations. These regulations will seek to clarify whether Twitter, Facebook, etc. are not engaging in "good faith" when they ban/restrict access to information that falls outside "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable" aka when they ban/restrict non-libtard viewpoints. If they are not engaging in "good faith," they do not fall under protections from Subsection (c)(1), and are considered publishers/speakers that are subject to getting sued for defamation, etc.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong - it's early for me haha.
“Obscene” actually already has a legal meaning, and it’s not “an opinion that I disagree with”
Not at all. The Wapo and MSNBC just won cases that were clearly slander and libel from them directed at others. These laws are a joke and are only enforced when the government wants the company to comply with their illegal searches and violation of the users' rights.
You're thinking too narrow. Twitter/Facebook/Google don't give two shots about lawsuits from individuals, they don't even really care about class action. What IS of concern to them is being held to account by Sony/Warner Brothers/Disney/etc for copyright infringement. The "legacy" companies spent a LOT of time and money buying favorable laws, they are tumescent at the thought of being able to rape the socials to their bones.
And yet that legal meaning has changed repeatedly throughout history. Playboy would've been considered obscene in the 1800's, now it's seen as conservative. I don't recall the 1st Amendment changing anytime in between then and now, but apparently it has I guess.
Perhaps each site would have to clarify what it defines as Objectionable, thus declaring their bias.
This is how TheDonald.win would counter accusations of bad faith: you knew coming in we don't tolerate commie libtards.
Exactly. Its fine if your TOS says "no cucks allowed". But twatter will have to declare that they're only tolerant of leftist views, and then the leftists will have to face the fact that they're in a declared echo chamber instead of pretending its a fair debate.
I could actually live with that. The Left insists that "nobody's censoring content! They don't just shut down conservative speech! Sometimes progressives get banned, too!"
Yeah, but progressives/leftists only get banned if they post pics of outright porn or clubbing baby seals or something like that - never, ever for their political views. Not even when they make direct and open threats against the life of the President of the United States and his family.
I'd be fine if they'd just stop trying to gaslight us into thinking it's all fair and open and it's just our insane conspiracy-theory brains imagining that we're being edited and shadow banned.
I want to see all of them do exactly what this site does: Make it very clear that this place exists for discussion and support of only a certain point of view, and that you WILL be immediately kicked out if you try to argue about it. Discussion, yes; argument, no.
I find this acceptable because leftists are free to have their own sites and run them exactly like this one, if they want. We just wanted a room where we can talk without being screamed at. We have ours and they can have theirs, as long as they clearly label it as such and stop lying about what they really do. We're not trying to stop them.
Agreed! That way if our neighbor tried to use their input as a source we can call them out on their bs.
Like, what's wrong with clubbing baby seals? Lol
So fucking polarized, this still plays into globalist's hands; yet it would be an improvement.
but you CAN'T take off your mask, not without a vaccine?!?
Soon coronachan will be relegated to a leftist conspiracy theory
That is my understanding too. They will change up their TOS as to what is and what is not objectionable to their crack team of blue-haired land whales.
They will say 20 minutes is plenty of time to protest, etc.....
If that tactic does not fly in court (because all of this will all be challenged for years to come), then rEdit will be ultra-fucked because every single comment will be protected and cannot be removed outside of kiddie porn, physical threats, etc.....
They had MKUltra, I'm ready for reddit being UltraFucked
I think the key part here is that they should need to be both explicit and consistent with their censorship in order to still be considered a platform (rather than a publisher).
The left can't do that because their positions are logically inconsistent. So it should be easy to show unequal application of rules and their TOS, and thereby disqualify them from platform protections.At least this is the approach I would take. Going to fake "fact check" Trump? You better be doing it for prominent democrats too. And you better make sure your "fact check" is actually true and not just a lie/opinion piece from fake news.
Honestly if it was me making the rules, I might even include a requirement that all "platforms" need to have a way to view all censorship actions transparently, and/or view an uncensored version of the content. And from a competition/anti-trust standpoint I would also look into the possibility of forcing certain info to be made available for anyone who wants to provide their own filter for it as well. E,g, reddit is just one front end filter for the content, but you could hook in and make your own if you want an uncensored version. Etc.
You have some excellent ideas there! This is why DJT doesn't make royal decrees but delegates to specialists in the field. They should be open to input from the public. Is there a format for that?
That's all great and all but I still prefer usage of the term "commie pinko faggot"
That is what is wrong with the current law. The president is asking the FCC to provide clarification of exactly what can be moderated.
That means it won't be up to Terms of Service anymore, they will only be able to moderate content that fits the new guidlines from the FCC. That is, if this actually happens, the FCC actually complies, and Nancy Pelosi allows it to even be voted on.
So six months from now, a big fat nothingburger.
No, the entire purpose of stuff like this is to bypass Congress by creating regulations when there aren't enough votes to create a law, or if passing a law would be unpopular. The ATF's rulings on things like bumpstocks, pistol braces, etc. I think are good examples of how we have a federal agency making up laws on its own. When those decisions are generally popular (obscenity regulations by the FCC, outlawing scary looking guns by the ATF) they go unchallenged and effectively supersede what the law actually says.
Then you have other issues with the executive branch, that should be enforcing all laws, applying enforcement selectively. Things like Obama not going after marijuana users. Widely popular at the time, it effectively legalized marijuana in large parts of the country without going through Congress and made it acceptable that a President could tell Congress to fuck itself (which they deserve 100% tbh).
Finally you have the issues with the judicial system constantly reinterpreting both to suit whatever agenda they might have at the time. We went from the "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it" bullshit ruling about obscenity, to the 3-part Miller test once society became more accepting of what was previously considered obscene. I think in both of these cases it would be obvious to say that the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech, including obscenity, and if the people want that to change they should add an amendment to the Constitution, but that's difficult and requires majority approval, so it's always easier to pressure a judge or a regulatory agency.
They do, but they'd need to actually get the wording of the law changed.
They are the only ones that can change a law, create a law, or dismiss a law from the books. The Supreme Court Enforces those laws(suppose to at least). The President is to be the head of state.
At least in a nutshell.
I don't think that's what SCOTUS does. They do not magically become the Executive branch.
POTUS is chief executive.
The real snake in that wording is "or otherwise objectionable". That should never have been part of the regulation.
"deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service"
He's creating a slippery slope for them.
Objectionable will come from the user or the platform. If from the user it'll be applied equally. If from the platform they have to state their position.
If it's users reporting whole platforms will burn down if they apply it equally.
They will simply create every changing TOS to cover their actions that the users are blind to like EULA garbage. This will make no difference.
You'll be able to point to the paragraph in the 790 page TOS where Twitter points out that criticism of vote by mail is against the TOS. So what, it's already obvious.
If their TOS are changed in any way that demonstrates that they are acting as a publisher, well then those protections under section 230 will no longer apply. That's why their TOS cover their asses while they aren't following their own rules.
This is why there must always be alternate web spaces like this very website.
Why is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable" content restricted anyway? 1st Amendment should protect everything.
Because judges legislate from the bench, and regulatory agencies like the FCC make up laws and call them regulations. Historically you also had more limitations with bandwidth so for practical reasons there was a desire to prioritize which media was broadcast (along with the actual reasons like picking which propaganda goes out and which factual information is hidden).
Look up the history of obscenity case law. I think it's a perfect example of judges trying to force the law as written to match what society wants in their era, instead of redirecting aggrieved citizens to their legislature to re-write the laws they dislike.
Here's some examples: 1.) The "I know it when I see it" standard of "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it, and I don't think obscenity should be protected by the 1st Amendment." 2.) The Miller Test, which despite the 1st Amendment saying Congress will make no law restricting speech, allows for restriction of speech if it meets 3 criteria for obscenity. Because apparently obscene speech isn't speech. 3.) The Dost Test, that further elaborates on one part of the Miller Test.
Basically, in my view, the 1st Amendment is pretty explicit that Congress will not restrict freedom of speech. Maybe there could be some debate about if performing art and pornography is speech, but I think for the sake of argument you can ignore that, because these rulings are also used to restrict, quite literally, speech such as with television censorship.
However, many U.S. citizens apparently dislike 100% free speech and want it regulated, and the courts agreed, and knowing there wouldn't be strong opposition to their rulings, maybe personally believing in it themselves, the courts ruled that Congress and/or the FCC can restrict freedom of speech, despite that being clearly against what's written in the 1st Amendment.
If you study law you'll see a lot of patterns like this throughout history, where courts gave ground on something they shouldn't have because Congress wouldn't act, or laws had become "outdated" or something, and thus the courts or a regulatory agency just made up a rule on the fly to try to resolve the conflict. The better solution, the right solution, is to go through the proper process and make the legislative bodies do their job.
Private vs public argument essentially. If it is public then it does protect it, but private it protects the business to a degree.
In this case the platforms will have to make a choice to allow that type of content with the restriction that they cannot alter it in anyway unless be declared to be a publisher which makes it so their protections are no longer available and are subject to every single thing on their platform. Kiddie porn on their site and make even a slight adjustment get sued, have violent beheadings and change something get sued for acting as a publisher.
They will either act as a public platform, or act as a publisher either way this will eventually screw them(That is if Congress can get off their butts and do their jobs for the people instead of their masters).
Platforms are inevitably going to be hotbeds of edgy shit. People are going to say and post things that plenty of people don't like. Those platforms, as simple platforms, are not liable for what their users say or post. If I say "We need to kill the kikes" or post child porn, the platforms are not liable as accessories if somebody goes and shoots up a synagogue or if some child pornographer gets caught after they posted their content.
However, platforms are also allowed to remove or edit certain content. Again, if I say "We need to kill the kikes" or post child porn, they can remove that content if they choose to do so because it is considered dangerous, obscene, etc.
Here's where this gets slippery: the language in the law includes a clause that states they can remove stuff that's “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”
Otherwise Objectionable? What does that even mean?
And that's the problem. These people are editing content that they disagree with and calling it objectionable. when the reality is that it's not objectionable at all, they just don't like it.
This EO is going to have the FCC clarify what that phrase means and, more importantly, doesn't mean. Political disagreements will not be considered objectionable.
This is huge because now a platform like Facebook or Twitter has to make a choice: They can work in good faith and only remove truly objectionable content and continue to be shielded from liability, or they can put up fact checks and open themselves up to litigation from fucking everywhere and end up spending billions each year on lawsuits.
They are going to have to decide whether their political aspirations are worth billions annually.
even harassment is abused. say you reply twice to the same user while disagreeing. boom its harassment.
same for violence. a lot of people will tell you supporting not wearing mask is violence.
anything can be interpreted in bad faith basically.
If I was Twitter or FB, I'd immediately declare myself a platform and let anybody post anything they want.
It would then be up to the users to block/unfollow anyone who posts stuff they object to.
IOW, it would be up to the users to edit the content they see, not the site. And yeah, no doubt you'd see some shit for a while. But once you figure out whose content you do and do not want to see, then things would calm down considerably.
Otherwise, these sites are going to be sued into the bottom of a black hole. And they just offended a certain somebody for the last time - a certain somebody who's got the bucks and the balls and the army of lawyers to do exactly that.
If I ran a social media site right now, I couldn't declare myself a platform fast enough.
That's because you are a rational human being who loves freedom, not a wannabe communist dictator that thinks he's morally superior to everyone and that it's his job to make sure they know how to think.
I like your interpretation. I do think you have expressed DJT's intention. Whether that winds up being what happens or no is ... well many here are speculating, across an extremely wide array of possibilities. So I don't need to add another speculation
That's the entire point of the EO. It's intended to remove any interpretation. It directs the FCC to lay out explicitly what does and does not constitute removable material. They won't be able to twist the zeitgeist and change things because the rule will no longer be open to interpretation, it will be explicitly codified.
My only regret is that to use an impolite term, the order doesn't double penetrate them. They've been getting the best of both worlds getting the benefits being immune from constraints of both publishers and common carriers.
The solution, make them both. You'll like this:
If they're a common carrier. They've been doubly immune, now they should be doubly liable.
The problem is they aren't carriers at all. They don't generate their own signal. It is carried over infrastructure owned and operated by other companies, the actual carriers.
Twitter and Facebook aren't TV stations, they are platforms. The internet companies themselves could still completely shut down either of them if they chose to block them because they are the actual carriers.
In short:
Carrier = TV station = Comcast
Platform = NBC = Twitter
Producer = Sony Pictures = Twitter Users
That's a mistake as the two really aren't in practice alike at all. We're on a platform right now because we're a specific and clearly defined niche concern or specific category.
Twitter is massive on a generic scale. Though there are similarities they can break down.
You may have a company providing phone lines which are hardware but it also heavily relies on software as well in combination with hardware to provide a communications network.
Because it uses software doesn't make that part immune from anything I've seen. It's layered. At what point in building layered communications systems it stops being a carrier really is not clear.
Sometimes it's not about technology either. If your service is explicitly niche, for example a network created for people to discuss cartoons then that's one thing. Something like that usually wont be able to get too big either to be a problem.
If the service is generic it can get big to the point of having the equivalent of monopoly. If officially twitter identifies itself as the democrat communication network for pro-democrat people to communicate that would be one thing but it's not, it's always just been a generic communications platform until more recently. It's literally in the name. Twitter. Like chatter. To chat. Not dating chat, not communist chat, just chat.
When a service is generic, then grows as a generic service, reaching a size only possible as a generic service but then decides to become specific while expecting to maintain size then that's a huge problem.
You can see then that it's quite complicated. I don't think congress nor their lobby mates are capable of properly doing the homework for them and creating appropriate legislation for the web.
Edit: My bad, NBC is not just a news network but a TV platform so it is closer to twitter than a specific news channel would be. However it's still radically different as it operates according to real scarcity (airtime, etc) making it natural for there to be greater selection over content where as the internet doesn't have those constraints. I think platforms have long been problematic in some respects as they're often somewhere between being a common carrier and a publisher in practice. Anything between the two might be considered a platform but between two platforms the practical reality can differ vastly.
I consider twitter as far more akin to a nested common carrier naturally. Its artificial content regulation policies which are increasingly strict and increasingly more enforced including broadly however take it from behaving as beyond a platform into the domain of publisher.
Yes, I understand the metaphor is weak, but it's the closest you're going to get when comparing different media.
The point is that a TV station is a specific band of the airwaves. Any platform can use that band without the band itself changing. A TV broadcasting station can switch from CBS to ABC for example, but still be channel 11 or w/e.
Plus, I left out a level that really should be there, that of Publishers between Producers and Platforms. Sony is really a publisher, not a producer. Sony hires producers and then approves what they make to be published and distributed.
Like I said, the metaphor isn't great, but it gets the point across. The one thing that Twitter et al are definitely not is carriers. As long as Comcast or AT&T can block their site, they're a content provider of some sort, not a carrier.
I like your comment. I think this debate needs to be reframed. I think the whole publisher vs platform thing misses the point.
The idea is to be a utility. Everyone can use it, freely, or at a charge, or whatever their terms are. That's a utility. Utilities are regulated and as much as I hate US regulatory agencies there are benefits to having utilities regulated. In this sense Twitter still presents itself as though it were a utility, when in reality they're a private club that tolerates and promotes orange man bad and no dissenting views are allowed.
Whatever you want to call it, here we openly promote DJT as being good for the Country and while some of us are open to discussing that with those who are inclined to disagree, many aren't and don't tolerate that at all. We certainly won't allow blatant orange man badisms, and go out of our way to make that obvious right away. Maybe my idea of a "utility" isn't the right approach either, but there's a sharp distinction between what we do here and what Twitter claims to do - even though Twitter actually does what we do here but in reverse.
I can hope this EO moves things in the right direction. I can hope the publisher platform distinction fixes the problem. I just can't entertain much hope of any such solutions going about it this way at the moment. I hold out more hope for DJT at least getting people talking about the problem as a problem, much the way he made it no longer taboo to suggest actually enforcing immigration laws on that famous escalator ride ...
And I do see evidence that people on both sides of the aisle see a problem. Imagine that, if DJT can unite US on the topic that we're too polarized!
Section 203 talks about the editing of content. Doesn't this affect Reddit since Spez edited TD user comments?
Yes and much more. "Editing" can be applied pretty broadly in a legal sense.
To those that struggle understanding the full ExO, though I encourage you read it. 1. You are ineligible for being a platform if you curate or edit content. 2. If you are no longer a platform, you cannot get government funding as such. 3. If you are a platform and curate, you will be prosecuted. No more flip floping.
Thanks for this. I'm embroiled in other work and I don't have time to read the whole thing. I skimmed it real quick and was looking for something with the force of law. I have to be honest that I'm not hopeful this will do anything but I suppose it's a step in the right direction.
I think that's the only thing that would make commies in Silicon Valley hate this EO more, if that's even possible
Kick 'em in the REEEEE!
@Shadowman3001 - Can we please have this story posted to the_donald as a middle finger to reddit?
EDIT: and pinned.
I remember a certain edit by spez...
eat a bag of dicks spez you absolute cuck.
It’s true. Spez is a cuck.
Yeah fuck that cannibal
"We know you guys have done a good job but we're gonna keep you quarantined anyway"
Hope Spez loses everything he's ever owned.
Spezitor-in-Chief!
Shit, they may have had that incident in mind when they wrote that!
Fuck you, Spez indeed!
kek <-- this one right here
kek
kek
kek
kek
kek
kek
Actually vote me in too, chief. This would be hilarious.
Please. If only to watch the reddit commies froth in rage.
Spez would probably finally ban the DOM even though the post wouldn't be breaking any rules. They'd claim as always some made up bullshit new rule that would apply only to us...
As if we give a fuck anymore LOL
u/Shadowman3001/
TL;DR - The order is mandating the clarification by the FCC of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If done correctly, this closes the loophole that services like Twitter use to have the editorial control of a publisher while claiming the legal immunity of a platform.
It also blaps taxpayer funding to services that remove user's constitutionally protected speech.
Keep going I'm almost there...
He signed it "The only good communist is a dead communist"
randymarsh.png
I'm gonna, I'm gonna...
Kek
wait a second wait a second.. they get taxpayer money???
Through ads and various contracts yeah.
updoot for blaps.
almost as comical as snickerdoodle tits
It shouldn't be hard to prove in court that Twitter and the rest of Silicon Valley focuses their moderating power on removing legal content (conservative opinions) and allowing illegal content to remain on their services (pirated porn, threats of violence, libel/defamation against minors wearing a MAGA hats, Chinese state propaganda, etc).
Meanwhile they remove false copyright offenses that are clearly fair use of the POTUS, censor legal protest organization and remove a congressman's pro-Christian ads criticizing Planned Parenthood. Hell, Facebook even helps Pakistan enforce its apostasy laws to help the government kill Christian converts.
I hope there's a format for public input on the actions this EO calls for, the way many things have. Your content here is GREAT.
Amen.
un-American is their whole platform
All public forums without censorship tend naturally to right wing. Even without moderation, this site would remain right wing. Moreover it wouldn’t even be necessary, since even r/politics would quickly start to resemble /pol
Yep agree. I’m ok with that though
Why do I feel like r/politics isn't going to change whatsoever?
Because they will go from left wing shithole to sued into oblivion left wing shithole and they won't change before the site goes dark.
Because it won’t. Because nothing will change.
They'll just stick a notification that the place is for left-wing, anti-trump discussion and be safe.
It'll also be honest.
That would be a YUUUGE win!
That's the distinction. The left is so used to "special treatment" that "equal treatment" is seen as discrimination. We don't want anything special. We want the same rights as everyone else.
That's fine. The only reason shitty leftists ideas have space at all is because shitty leftist activists sought positions of power and crowded out non shitty ideas.
In an open and free space where all participants are armed for the fight, liberty and "yearning to be free" wins.
Username most certainly does NOT check out.
FREEDOM!
That's only if you plan to allow illegal content to remain while removing legal speech.
Hahaha, if r/politics goes full /pol the second they stop the censorship I'd be so happy! One of the funniest things about this is that if there is a large and immediate swing in the apparent consensus opinion on these sites, it will prove to many people that they've been in an echo chamber for years without knowing it, and that the opinions they held can only thrive when other ideas are censored. The cognitive dissonance will be unreal. We're gonna need more salt mining equipment.
Do you really think they're gonna stop deleting right wing content over there?
According to the EO they will, or they will be legally treated as a publisher, which would destroy them
That’s why they’ll never let this happen
If the worst case scenario like that happens, i have faith shills will be downvoted to oblivion
I disagree vehemently and would argue that it violates Robert Conquest's Second Law of Politics:
As someone who was Baptized as an infant in the Episcopal Church (Church of England / Anglican all essentially the same thing) let me just say that
this is one helluva post
Organizations are moderated/censored.
A forum is not an organization
Hmmm. Your comment needs some further qualification. A forum can be an organization. More frequently the organization will have a forum, but other functions too.
I think this EO allows for all that to remain unchanged.
Just amend the user creation process with Captcha.
"Who won the 2016 Presidential Election of the United States of America?"
"Who is your president?"
"Who killed Seth Rich?"
"Was Epstein's death the result of suicide?"
"Please read the following article on the Tiananmen Square Massacre"
Eric Ciaramella. We're not in Kansas anymore.
"Who was the impeachment hoaxblower?" Eric Ciaramella
FTFY
No hints, they should just know.
Fing KEK. I will add some:
Which country is greater: USA or Chynah?
How many genders are there?
Did Obama spy on Trump?
Will the US ever be a socialist Country?
That would subvert the NPC processing and assure things to be pretty much how it is.
Either way, we have never had an issue talking on the facts. It's leftists that must annihilate any and all dissent.
And, from what I read, this EO does not apply to shitposting and, even when pre-labeled as such, leftist's minds spilt. We laugh.
All good in our 'hood.
,
Except we're fine here. We openly state our bias, and our purpose. Twatter pretends to be "inclusive and accepting," while giving standing ovations to orange man bad and prohibiting any dissenting opinion.
These posts are important. We need to see the fallout of any action, especially if our enemy has been seeing this coming and preparing.
Seems easy, just have a fair and binding TOS. State what you do and live up to the terms.
Integrity!
PUBLIC SQUARE BITCH! BOOYA!
Lol that game was so fucking awful. Took a refund on that one after less than an hour.
I couldn’t believe the number of “people” fawning over an endlessly boring and shit tier game.
Oh. I misspoke. I thought it was that Japanese “fighting game” which is really just a really boring anime movie disguised as a video game
I hear ya. I'm 40 and remember buying Doom on shareware and setting up DWANGO for 4 players over 9600baud modems.
I return at least half my steam games bc they're trash. Games have become like movies where they thought "amazing graphics" trumped everything else. I've got a badass gamer system and I honestly don't give a fuck about graphics anymore.
There's a lot of games that look and feel awesome, but after just 1 hour you realize it's not even a game. It's the same thing over and over but with different graphics (The division, mad max, etc)
My favorite games now are Doom Eternal, Squad, Asseto Corsa, and Kerbal Space Program. What are you playin?
I always tell business owners that if the price Yelp quotes them is affordable, bite the bullet and pay them. If you don't, they hide all your positive reviews and bump the crazy negative ones to the top.
Yelp are crooks that should be run out of town on a rail
Kek, I also responded to this intellectually dishonest, goalpost moving retard. This dumbass doesn't even understand the conversation he's having.
It's a miracle if he can wipe his own ass.
https://thedonald.win/p/Fg39FgeZ/x/c/11S0plAvrz
NOWHERE in this comment chain did the person you're responding to make that claim you illiterate faggot.
His accusation:
Your response:
Seriously, get some reading comprehension so you can understand what the fuck you're even arguing about.
It continues:
He responds -
To which you directly reply:
See that bolded word there, retard? We're talking about HIS claim, not the goalposts you decided to move midway through the fucking argument.
His response to that? Actual proof:
To which you literally say happens all the time here, so it looks like HIS accusation is correct, YOU are wrong, and a giant, disingenuous intellectually bankrupt faggot:
Yes, yes it was the accusation he made, it just wasn't the fake accusation you decided to make up all on your own, schizoid.
You went from "you cant even provide one example" straight to "well it happens all the time" after getting BTFO'd. Just wow.
Goddamn you are so dumb. So, so dumb. I award you no points and may the mods have mercy on your butthole.
Business owner here. I don't know about Yelp, but I know for damn sure that is Angie's List's business model. Wouldn't surprise me if Yelp were doing it too.
I am a business owner that was totally fucked over by Yelp. Not in the way being discussed here but still. They're fucking crooks. Not a shred of integrity.
Happened to Louis Rossmann. Also: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yelp-can-give-paying-clients-better-ratings-5731200.php
Basically the E/O is stating that the United States is going to enforce laws already on the books.
I'm sure our lazy and corrupt three letter agencies will get right on that. :-/
Welcome to the jungle, Jack.
rip Reddit
Google tracks the shit out of you, so does Facebook.
This EO is intended to neutralize the Democrat/Left plan to isolate and blacklist conservatives and you better believe those lists include your real name and address. Google knows how long your shit was this morning.
spoiler alert: looooooong
at least 6 and a half
10-minute comment suppression timers? Automated "did he post in TD" scripts and lists? Blacklisted keywords? That "don't upvote controversial content" bullshit? Reddit is very guilty of politically targeted user-fucking.
It's not saying to monitor users,
It's saying that it should collect information on how/why social media groups were/are monitoring users, if they are.
Yeah.. isn't this handing over social media data to the government?
So anyone versed in legalese care to break this down?
Is he reclassifying social media platforms are publishers?
Within 30 days correct?
We have time, November is a long way to go, having this win before then will embolden us so hard and the other side of this is do you see how fucking huge this is? twitter and others will be scared shitless in that time and they might roll back some rules until the full hammer falls upon them, they might roll it all back we dont know! look at the all mighty zucc kissing Trump's shoes right now.
I hope you're right, friend
No, not within 30 days. The actual review by FCC wouldn't start until after 30 days. This guarantees nothing, and it might even produce a bad result. Kind of like the directive given to Richard Bright is why we can't get HCQ.
I think it said 30 days
30 days for some agency to formally ask fcc to review this concern
Yeah, I'm guessing until mid November...
And prevents gov agencies from spending advertising $$ with them.
So how soon will this have effect?
The year 3057
/cynic
Basically he is clarifying the subparagraph in the 230 legislation that has been a loophole for the social media platforms. The president has given the Commerce Dept. the power to refine the regulations so that the loophole is removed. THis will significantly impact the social media sites and remove their power to shadowban and censor people on the platform. He also gave the justice department and other enforcement agencies the power to engage in criminal investigations against the social media platforms now that the loophole is being removed. Twitter, Facebook, etc. should be shitting themselves right now as they are being opened up to billions in lawsuits.
Does this have an negative implications regarding free speech? Alot of earlier changes did serious damage to message boards.
I don't see that it does, no. We're fine. Twitter could be fine if they just freely admitted that they give standing ovations to orange man bad and any dissenting opinion is prohibited.
The point of this is to allow free speech with the bounds of the Section 230 rules. What is happened today, is the social media sites are deciding themselves what constitutes free speech and what doesn't. Then saying, "see you can't sue us for this, the law says so." Now the law will be changes to say 'Oh yes we can"
Here it is ladies and gents
Impressive length.
One Thing to keep in mind. When The Commie unleashed the Chinese Virus...Trump had to declare a National Emergency...and also enacted The war powers act. During this time The President can do what he feels necessary to protect Americans. And No court actions can be done....
The left did not think this out all the way.
Her was never supposed to lose.
Niiiccce
Anyone Catch the Ultra Weak Waffle-Phrase?
LOL
"We find Orangemanbad, and any non-derogatory words about him or his presidency, and the people who support him, objectionable."
CASE CLOSED.
Next!
The only way that would work is if they directly state in their rules "Orange man bad, so if you say orange man good, we ban you", which I'm pretty sure violates some other law about political bias.
But that's the rule Speddit set for TD!
Your statement appears to be without foundation. The rule says "otherwise objectionable". As far as I know, it doesn't go on to require any specific documentation of what is deemed objectionable as to what and why and how it is objectionable. If it did, then your statement would be accurate.
All they have to do is assert that they find it objectionable. If asked why, they can easily just spout robotically that Trump and his policies are documented by 487 news outlets as being homo-, trans-, islamo-, xeno- and Negrophobic, and therefore "THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO OUR DEMOCRACY" BLEEP BLOOP BLARP ZZZZTTT "OBJECTIONABLE" BRRRRRPPP
I thought this executive order seeks to clarify that and require that the platforms moderate posts in "good faith" by clearly communicating which rules were broken. If the platform deletes a post without it being a clear violation of their terms of service, they are not acting in "good faith" and lose the protection that would normally keep them from being treated as a publisher who editorializes their content.
Hope you're right
Yes, it includes that! IOW, reddit is soooo fucked.
Lols for "negrophobic"
EO is not final verbiage. FCC will come up with that (or not, we'll see) I agree that any site should have to spell out what is objectionable. Usually when legislation is pending, there's a format for public input. Does this have that? It should!
LOL
"We find non-derogatory words or images about Trump, his policies, or his supporters, when displayed to the majority of our audience, extremely similar to harassment. They are in fact sufficiently similar to harassment as to be indistinguishable from, and therefore to constitute, harassment.
"Such harassing words or images, once seen, cannot be unseen. They continue to harass the reader mentally even when he/she/xe/etc. is away from a computer. When they are seen again, the triggering and harassment occur all over again and are amplified in the mind of the harassed user. We cannot and will not tolerate this ongoing harassment."
CASE CLOSED.
Next!
(This shit is too easy, and I'm not even a lawyer)
IANAL but couldn't the supreme court ruling on free speech be applied here? In other words, hate speech is not a real or legally recognized thing so as long as the person didn't violate free speech as outlined by SCOTUS (aka directly threatening someone) then their speech falls under free speech, right? These companies can't continue to invent different tiers of free or partially free speech. It's either free speech or it isn't. I think (and hope) that this EO will begin the process for us to eventually get to an "Internet Bill of Rights" that gets enshrined in law (or better yet a constitutional amendment) so that these fuckin companies stop pulling this shit.
Hope so
Which is fine. Then it's out there, in the open, and it shreds these cucked platforms' plays at neutrality.
Nobody's saying you can't build liberal hugboxes and ban anyone who suggests Trump might not be Hitler. That's free speech, and cucks are entitled to it just like you and me.
They just have to call them liberal hugboxes.
"Trump might not be Hitler" LOL
Your example is better than mine.
No problem..they will be classified as Publishers. And than sue into oblivion.
THIS right here!
You can't enjoy special platform privileges then turn around and censor one side.
Seems like something asking for a vagueness claim against it.
Based on recent past events it seems highly unlikely any positive result (for our side) would ever arise from a "vagueness claim"
This is why they spent decades creating legal precedent about "hate speech" and "hate crimes". Terms of service can declare these to be "objectionable", then expand the beachhead to include things like China is communist, Trump is president, or ugly trannies are ugly.
That would be fine. Everyone would know. We'd have a level playing field.
lol, Reddit is bumping today about this. Comical.
Twitter Stasi: WORDS MATTER!
GodEmperor: Okay then. Today's word is "PUBLISHER"
As it should be, he's not really making any new rules, he's just enforcing what is already there and calling out the bad players in this mess. And he's doing it when people are the most pissed off.
Reading this made my freedom boner 10X LARGER
I'm going to go on such an anti-twitter tirade when they can't ban me for it.
I've had a twitter account from literally its inception. I think I posted one item and read some other tweets for a day or two.
When it first began, it was thought to be a sort of micro blogger. Well, it quickly became apparent it held no value - in least that regard. Rather, it was almost immediately a forum for competing screaming & trolling.
As the years passed, I was always sort of surprised how it became a prominent "voice" in the media pool. Like Google, et al, I figured it must have had some kind of TLA backing.
Anyway, I long ago forgot my ID or even mail account to open my a/c. I finally got around to figuring out my info last week and was able to re-login.
Now, I'm thinking of joining the crazy shit posting brigade (not really my style) once Twitter is opened back up to competing scream teams.
This bit here!
This will be one of his greatest achievement IMO and something he will be remembered for throughout history.
Reddit will be in full meltdown once their safe space restrictions are lifted. Echo chamber about to be BTFO!
I’m going to spam so many memes and jogger comments
Monitoring users based on their activity off the platform.>
If this is included in the final draft, then it's a huge win.
More reviews, huh? Welp.
This is the proverbial ‘hill to die on’ when it comes to what battles are important. Do we have free expression or not? Can speech be suppressed because some soy cuck is offended? Do you have the right not to be offended in 2020?
Due to the utter arrogance and disdain for free speech, expression and discourse, Twitter blows their load on fact checking (as a platform nonetheless) the POTUS’s opinion on vote by mail. A procedure rife with fraud and abuse and one of the few ways the democrats can steal an election. This is so poignant, because the battle over free speech and social media is using the vote by mail controversy as the lynchpin. Couldn’t have been planned better and it’s like they say, poetry in motion! Lol
Looks great! Let's goooooo!
No more immunity for those who censor...uh-oh, hotdog! WOMP WOMP
Love this!
They don’t give a shit
Will get the lackeys in Congress to conduct another impeachment for targeting US companies
Just wait
The last one was stupid enough, if they try another impeachment it will be even dumber than the first, and centrists who are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to both sides will flee from the D's in mass (those who are still left)
This stuff only works when their credibility rating is high, because each time they do stupid stuff it gets lower and lower and lower.
I'm not saying "Dude relax we'll win it's fine," not talking about complacency. I'm breaking down logically why the D's can only do this so much longer before no one believes them anymore.
MODS - Can we get a Meltdown Sticky where we post the best REEEEEEeees from twitter and reddit? Right now they're stumbling to realize this is real and I'd like to enjoy as much salt as possible. I think we all will have a great time reading through so many tears.
ITS FINALLY HAPPENING!!!
IM SORRY I EVER DOUBTED YOU GOD EMPEROR
They censor for China.
Next, they will make it so we cannot eat anything natural. They will contaminate our livestock so we can only eat lab grown food.
They will TRY. The question is, how do we prevent them?
Their plan is on a website. We go after the whole group.
I'm sorry, I've lost track of context and this post has so many comments I can't find my way. Do you have a link to that website?
https://citizentruth.org/as-chief-prosecutor-klobuchar-declined-to-bring-charges-against-cop-that-killed-george-floyd/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/chief-prosecutor-amy-klobuchar-dismissed-charges-cop-killed-george-floyd/267933/#.Xs8__cbNp6U.twitter
Haha sorry I had 8 messages asking for links to another comment.
https://www.weforum.org/platforms
This website is very comprehensive and you gotta sign up to access the goods.
The previous links are about Amy K being the person who dismissed the same cop in another murder/incident.
Thanks!
Re: the other links, I have a Sister who survived 2 massive race riots: the one over Rodney King in LA and another in NJ in 1967. All 105# 5'2" of her. She was fine.
MN is supposed to be flyover country, not a hotspot for Somalis and race riots. Wtf
I guess we will see what sort of punishments there can be from the FTC on these deceptive practices. Maybe it will be enough to actually get them to stop censoring, but I bet they keep carrying on until at least the election is over. They're just going to have lawyers fight this while they continue pushing their agenda.
Reddit, Twitter, Facebook etc are for general use and discussion. TD.win is a forum based around one topic. Things like that would most likely be exempt.
What makes you think .win would get taken over?
Interesting point. I'm not a fan of the "concern troll" trend, and there's at least one poster here that I do keep an eye on, suspicious that he's here to deliberately disrupt. Not sure why he hasn't been deported yet, except sometimes he does post something good. It's fucking weird
It is the policy of the United States that large social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum, should not infringe on protected speech. The Supreme Court has described 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.”
I
Next, assign Grenell as head of FCC. Checkmate.
Clearly, they’ve been waiting for the right time to drop this. Looks good, they’ve certainly done their work. Great job at keeping this under wraps while they worked on it. Must have drained at least one swamp!
He’s had this in his back pocket for a while, it looks like.
"several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. "
"Facebook and Twitter have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese Government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities."
"Twitter has also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use its platform to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong."
Fake news and advertising disguised as random user posts.
Awesome!
Now do the 2nd Amendment.
Fuck Twitter! Fuck Facebook! Fuck Reddit! Fuck Google! Fuck all of ya's!!!
Looks great to me.
The Commies at CDT already bitching
Norwegian media i saying that Trump wants to shutdown social media. Our news are so fu king fake rofl
Wow, did those cucks at Twitter remove their fact-checks? Holy fuck, they got played by GEOTUS. Go in deep DJT, no lube.
Username checks out .
We're on two possible paths, and I fear people are choosing the bad one.
One path is total and complete freedom. 4chan everywhere. Those sites that do monitor their content are quite explicit about how they monitor it, and people going there know it is monitored. At some point, we'll probably see things that are absolutely repugnant find a home on the internet. (This is the way it used to be.)
The other path is where everything is heavily censored, and because of the fact that people can't opt-out of it (there being no open or free alternatives) they will ask government to control the censorship. In this model, what you are allowed to say and do online is limited by whoever is in the White House or which party runs the congress. This will basically stifle all free speech on the internet.
I worry we go towards the second route. I hope President Trump is able to keep us pointed and at/near the first.
False dichotomy. This EO doesn't do that at all. It does hang everything on the publisher vs platform debate though, which I think is a mistake. Hopefully it pushes us in the right direction. At least people are talking about it as a real problem!