• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump to 'sign executive order about social media

Jay Falcon

Jay Falcon

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
5,764
Reaction score
6,671
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
BBC Link

US President Donald Trump will sign an executive order targeting social media firms, the White House has said.

It comes after he threatened to shut down social media platforms he accused of stifling conservative voices.

The latest dispute emerged after Twitter added fact-check links to his tweets for the first time.

The order's details have not been shared and it is unclear what regulatory steps the president can take without new laws passed by Congress.

White House officials gave no further information on what is expected in the executive order which is set to be signed on Thursday.

Before leaving Washington for Florida to watch a space launch that was postponed due to bad weather, Mr Trump again accused Twitter and other social media of bias, without offering evidence.
Click to expand...

What will president dirtbag come up with now?
 
My understanding is Trump's EO is retaliatory in nature going after Section 230 which are "good-faith principles" on how some of these platforms like Facebook and Twitter conduct fairness and dealing with "opinions," the context being making it easier to file suit.

A number of things have to happen even if the EO becomes so for anything to really happy to Twitter in this case, but it is a step in a process as a means to threaten them.

Basically, a mild EO that is the result of Trump's temper tantrum getting fact checked (but not edited or removed) causing another Trump temper tantrum.
 
He wants to protect freedom of speech by restricting freedom of speech. He feels he has the right to say whatever he wants on Twitter but Twitter hasn't the right to say, "Fact check here."
 
OrphanSlug said:
My understanding is Trump's EO is retaliatory in nature going after Section 230 which are "good-faith principles" on how some of these platforms like Facebook and Twitter conduct fairness and dealing with "opinions," the context being making it easier to file suit.

A number of things have to happen even if the EO becomes so for anything to really happy to Twitter in this case, but it is a step in a process as a means to threaten them.

Basically, a mild EO that is the result of Trump's temper tantrum getting fact checked (but not edited or removed) causing another Trump temper tantrum.
Click to expand...

The FCC has no power to determine whether twitter or any other platform has section 230 protections. Courts determine whether a company can use section 230 as a defense, not the executive branch.

It's Trump EO porn for the faithful....
 
Jay Falcon said:
Mr Trump again accused Twitter and other social media of bias, without offering evidence.
Click to expand...

Trump just blew up every irony meter with 200 miles of the WH.
 
BlueTex said:
The FCC has no power to determine whether twitter or any other platform has section 230 protections. Courts determine whether a company can use section 230 as a defense, not the executive branch.

It's Trump EO porn for the faithful....
Click to expand...

If you read what I said nothing was adversarial to your conclusion.

The point of the EO is a "request" that does not have to be fulfilled by the FCC, and odds are it will end up being the Commerce Department making the regulatory request that can be ignored.
 
OrphanSlug said:
If you read what I said nothing was adversarial to your conclusion.

The point of the EO is a "request" that does not have to be fulfilled by the FCC, and odds are it will end up being the Commerce Department making the regulatory request that can be ignored.
Click to expand...

You are correct, apologies... Trump will have his minions off chasing some other butterfly during the comment period and then the FCC lawyers will quietly kill whatever bizzare rule get proposed.
 
Trump is going to collide with the First Amendment.


Twitter can say whatever they want about Trump. It's a free country.
 
Jay Falcon said:
BBC Link



What will president dirtbag come up with now?
Click to expand...

This because he wants to lie with impunity.

Will he collapse the country or not? I am beginning to think Putin will win.

and let me tell you who's fault this is.... the senators who enable this **** and not rising up to throw him out of office.
 
BlueTex said:
You are correct, apologies... Trump will have his minions off chasing some other butterfly during the comment period and then the FCC lawyers will quietly kill whatever bizzare rule get proposed.
Click to expand...

but in the meantime the toothless really believe trump is being wronged
 
noonereal said:
but in the meantime the toothless really believe trump is being wronged
Click to expand...

Trumpeteers are all sure their guy is pure as the driven snow and he is being bullied and maligned by big meanie democrats and leftists all over the world. They probably engineered the Corona virus just to get him in trouble. They all hate him because he beat Hillary. That's the only possible explanation for all this.
 
OrphanSlug said:
My understanding is Trump's EO is retaliatory in nature going after Section 230 which are "good-faith principles" on how some of these platforms like Facebook and Twitter conduct fairness and dealing with "opinions," the context being making it easier to file suit.

A number of things have to happen even if the EO becomes so for anything to really happy to Twitter in this case, but it is a step in a process as a means to threaten them.

Basically, a mild EO that is the result of Trump's temper tantrum getting fact checked (but not edited or removed) causing another Trump temper tantrum.
Click to expand...

Adding content (a link to a "credible" source) to a user post (tweet?) is editing.
 
JackA said:
He wants to protect freedom of speech by restricting freedom of speech. He feels he has the right to say whatever he wants on Twitter but Twitter hasn't the right to say, "Fact check here."
Click to expand...

He'll rally the useful Republican idiots with terms like "freedom of speech."

But the reality is Trump is after freedom from criticism, and his followers will want that unequally applied benefiting them over others.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Adding content (a link to a "credible" source) to a user post (tweet?) is editing.
Click to expand...

What I meant was nothing he said was erased or edited in some regard, all that happened was a fact check link added at the bottom.

If that is "editing" his post thus an issue with "freedom of speech" then I cannot help you.
 
This is Trump's version of the alien and sedition act. He is such a transparent, shameless fascist and those who support this are complicit in ****ting on the constitution..

The first amendment is in serious trouble when truth doesn't matter and the president uses the media to demagogue and stir up stupid conspiracies with the voices of reality having no duty or power to respond.
 
Incremental Authoritarianism. It's the cornerstone of The New Republican Party.
 
OrphanSlug said:
What I meant was nothing he said was erased or edited in some regard, all that happened was a fact check link added at the bottom.

If that is "editing" his post thus an issue with "freedom of speech" then I cannot help you.
Click to expand...

It's not a freedom of speech issue - the issue is whether they should continue to be offered special legal protection based on being an "open platform". Once some content gets flagged as being "non-factual" then the platform should become responsible for all of its content.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It's not a freedom of speech issue - the issue is whether they should continue to be offered special legal protection based on being an "open platform". Once some content gets flagged as being "non-factual" then the platform should become responsible for all of its content.
Click to expand...

Does this standard just apply to whether the content flagged is "non-factual"? Does a platform have to allow hate speech? What about obscenity?
 
noonereal said:
This because he wants to lie with impunity.

Will he collapse the country or not? I am beginning to think Putin will win.

and let me tell you who's fault this is.... the senators who enable this **** and not rising up to throw him out of office.
Click to expand...

How does Putin "win" I'm curious?
 
BlueTex said:
Does this standard just apply to whether the content flagged is "non-factual"? Does a platform have to allow hate speech? What about obscenity?
Click to expand...

Why you must resort to creating a straw man? The content in question was not deemed to have been hate speech or obscene. The issue is that once user content is edited (labeled as either factual or non-factual) by the platform (editorial?) staff then it is no longer an "open platform" and should become legally responsible for all of its published content just like other mass media sources.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why you must resort to creating a straw man? The content in question was not deemed to have been hate speech or obscene. The issue is that once user content is edited (labeled as either factual or non-factual) by the platform (editorial?) staff then it is no longer an "open platform" and should become legally responsible for all of its published content just like other mass media sources.
Click to expand...

It's their responsibility, at the very least, to do it for politicians who use their platform to spread lies and misinformation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why you must resort to creating a straw man? The content in question was not deemed to have been hate speech or obscene. The issue is that once user content is edited (labeled as either factual or non-factual) by the platform (editorial?) staff then it is no longer an "open platform" and should become legally responsible for all of its published content just like other mass media sources.
Click to expand...

You keep saying should become legally responsible.... Now tell us what the law actually says, not how you "think" it should work..
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It's not a freedom of speech issue - the issue is whether they should continue to be offered special legal protection based on being an "open platform". Once some content gets flagged as being "non-factual" then the platform should become responsible for all of its content.
Click to expand...

I've asked this question before, back when Facebook went with the policy of allowing disinformation (arguably showing favoritism towards political advertisement.)

Who becomes the fact checker authority?

It applies to this discussion presumably because Twitter is going to only flag certain tweets that are both political in nature and questionable in facts. But someone is making that choice, I highly doubt this will end up being pragmatically done but based on who is making the tweet, something related to the responses, and a reporting mechanism.

Regardless we still face the same problem, political polarization means those leaning left will flag right leaning sourced tweets and the exact opposite for right leaning responses.

If we leave this to governance the mess amplifies.

From a legal standpoint we may end up seeing Twitter flag all posts along these lines which could result in less tweets, less advertisements, etc.
 
So if I tweet that "Trump is a Nazi!", will Twitter add a note saying there's no evidence Trump has even been a member of the National Socialist Party of 1930-s Germany and has not to date ever annexed the Sudatenland? Or will they only target conservative leaning politicians and tweets?

Dear Twitter - Either you are a publisher or a content provider. Choose one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom