• 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

eman623 said:
You're moving them and then accusing me of doing so. Where did I say that adding content was defamatory?

I'm saying it causes them to lose 230 protections because they are no longer a neutral content provider.
Click to expand...

The law does not say that, never requires any place to be "neutral" to anything. DP ban hammers obvious racists. That is their prerogative and doesn't put at risk their 230 protection.

I thought you were making the point they lost protection only with regard to that one Tweet, which is possible. But moderating a comment section like DP does not cause DP to lose protections under 230. If they change my comment in a way to make it defamatory, DP or the moderator or both can be sued for that one change to that one comment, but their general protection remains in place

Your last comments about how "conservatives are blah blah blah", have no place in a discussion about the topic. Stick to the issues and avoid the snark or Eman out.
Click to expand...

Trump is crapping on the 1A with his EO. Do you support that or not? He's unhappy Twitter dared to put a fact check on his Tweet and this is the result. Free speech means, if anything, we can criticize government without fear of government retribution. Trump is trying to change that with this EO. If you condemned Trump's actions and I missed it, I apologize...
 
eman623 said:
Yes it is.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. What Twitter is doing is no different than someone replying to one of Trump's tweets, correcting any of his 18,000+ lies.
 
Now to Pres. Trump's EO on limiting social media activity.

Attached is a draft of the EO.https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf

Section 1, paragraph 4 makes it clear this is personal with Trump. Moreover, it misconstrues what's taken place, specifically by Twitter "fact-checking" a couple of the President's recent Tweets. From the draft EO:

...We cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online.

...

When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, the exercise a dangerous power.
Click to expand...

Two things wrong with the above:

1) Social Media does not pick what content is posted to their platform. Some online news papers do by scrutinizing your post before it is released online. But Twitter and Facebook does not do that. Therefore, each user is free to post whatever they like as long as it does not violate their T&C (also known as "Terms of Use"). It's only after they've either been notified of a user violation or they notice it themselves do that "check the user".
2) Social Media does not censor their users. You won't see any Tweets or FB post being blacked out. If any social media platform believes a users has violated its T&C, the post is usually deleted and the user notified as to the reason(s) why.

In paragraph 6, the EO pivots to attack Google for how it handles content in China. Sorry to say, but Google is primarily a search engine, whereas, Twitter and FaceBook are social media "community" content providers. Moreover, what happens in China under their laws isn't the same as what happens in America under our laws. Furthermore, conflating how a search engine acts (assuming Google's old social media platform. GooglePlus or some revision of such isn't what's in question here) compared to social media platforms are two completely different things. I remind the readers: Twitter did not black out any of Pres. Trump's content nor did they remove the Tweets that were "flagged". They simply added a indica on the Tweet(s) linking broader information content to the discussion. Fact is, Pres. Trump just got pissed because Twitter called him on his BS.

Section 2 attempts to stripe down free speech protections of social media companies by taking away their immunity for removing content it believes violates their T&C. In short, if Tweeter finds your post objectionable, it has every right to remove it and cite you for said violation. Pres. Trump wants to remove this protection so that he can do what he's always done with people or newspaper companies who he believes writes defamatory comments about him or in this case seeks to correct his content or worse...hurt his feelings. The SC will knock this one down hard! Notice what this paragraph says about content in general:

The provision (referring to 47 USC 230(c)(2)) does not extend to "deceptive or pretextual actions restricting online contect or actions inconsistent with an online platform's terms of service.
Click to expand...

Here, the President admits that what he Tweeted was false...deceptive. What else would he include such a passage in his EO?

There's a lot more to this EO to discuss, such as, who controls federal funding meant for social media titans, but I'm out of time for now. I may pick this up later.
 
Good. **** with the bull, you get the horns.

Twitter violated its own mission statement by using a statutory shield to infringe on a constitutional right.

I've never used Twitter, I'm not into that whole, brevity thing...I'm not into leftist assholes either, so...
 
BlueTex said:
It's Trump EO porn for the faithful....
Click to expand...

I like that, can I use it in future? Royalty free of course ;)

It is indeed EO porn. Like a lot of the president's moves, he'll talk tough to make it look like he's 'hitting back' but either it will have no teeth or his advisors will wait till he forgets tomorrow and the matter will be quietly dropped.

Some of his supporters may thereafter collectively 'remember' the day when Trump signed an EO about twitter whether it actually happened or not, or whether it was struck down by the courts or congress.
 
ChezC3 said:
Good. **** with the bull, you get the horns.

Twitter violated its own mission statement by using a statutory shield to infringe on a constitutional right.

I've never used Twitter, I'm not into that whole, brevity thing...I'm not into leftist assholes either, so...
Click to expand...

Trump does not have a constitutional right to lie without consequence, and neither does his thuggish, authoritarian-minded supporters.
 
BlueTex said:
It's Trump EO porn for the faithful....
Click to expand...

Exhibit A below:

ChezC3 said:
Good. **** with the bull, you get the horns.

Twitter violated its own mission statement by using a statutory shield to infringe on a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Nope they just fact checked him. We do that to each other here all the time. There's no law against telling people the president is talking a load of bull****.

They didn't censor or shut him down did they? They can do that on their own website too, just like the Mods here can.
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
Good. **** with the bull, you get the horns.

Twitter violated its own mission statement by using a statutory shield to infringe on a constitutional right.

I've never used Twitter, I'm not into that whole, brevity thing...I'm not into leftist assholes either, so...
Click to expand...
Twitter isn't the government.

People not letting you post whatever you want on their media is not a violation of your constitutional rights.

If it were, Trump would have done more than sign a meaningless EO that'll be rescinded the moment a Democrat takes office.



Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Trump does not have a constitutional right to lie without consequence, and neither does his thuggish, authoritarian-minded supporters.
Click to expand...

He didn't lie. And actually, yeah he would have a right, if he did.
 
uptower said:
Nope they just fact checked him. They didn't censor or shut him down. We do that to each other here all the time. There's no law against telling people the president is talking a load of bull****.
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
Twitter isn't the government.

People not letting you post whatever you want on their media is not a violation of your constitutional rights.

If it were, Trump would have done more than sign a meaningless EO that'll be rescinded the moment a Democrat takes office.



Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
Click to expand...

the argument isn't constitutional rights, that's side commentary ,the argument is in being in violation of their own policy.

Which is a no-no.


:lamo
 
uptower said:
And they have the right to say 'he's lying'. They are also under no obligation to publish something they think is a lie.
Click to expand...

and therein lies the rub, they're not publishers, that's why they were shielded. But, now they act like them, so they are, and will be dealt with as such
 
ChezC3 said:
and therein lies the rub, they're not publishers, that's why they were shielded. But, now they act like them, so they are, and will be dealt with as such
Click to expand...
Ahem.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Ahem.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so when the service delves in the realm of publishing, as Twitter has done, they are no longer exempt.

Thank you.
 
ChezC3 said:
and therein lies the rub, they're not publishers, that's why they were shielded. But, now they act like them, so they are, and will be dealt with as such
Click to expand...

Not with this worthless executive order from the idiot-in-chief.
 
ChezC3 said:
the argument isn't constitutional rights, that's side commentary ,the argument is in being in violation of their own policy.

Which is a no-no.
Click to expand...

Oh, is it? Why do you think it is a no-no?
 
Lursa said:
They arent flagging it as non-factual. They are offering the reader a choice to check.
Click to expand...

The reader did not lack the choice to check that content any differently than any other content.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
There are things that are true and things that are false and there is an objective reality independent of Trump's deranged mind. Trump wants the ability to lie without consequence. He ain't getting it, no matter how much you hate liberals and Democrats, sorry.
Click to expand...
So you are saying liberals never lie. That the Washington Post and CNN the two sources that Twitter Nazis declared were the bastions of truth over mail in voting in itself is insane.



All internet companies have the same legal protections as Twitter.
Click to expand...

AG Barr addressed that today and made a solid point that those protections from 20 years ago have gone far beyond their original intent. And if social media is going to engage in editorializing then they are no longer just a social media platform but are now publishers.
Then go post on 4chan or Breitbart or Conservative Treehouse or Infowars.
Click to expand...
Social Media has become in many ways the new public square. What you are saying unless someone agrees with you they should be silenced in the public square. That's what the China government does.




Schiff never said that Trump or any member of his campaign certainly committed the crime of conspiracy provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Bull****! Schiffty with every microphone he could find claimed he had PROOF that Trump colluded with Russia! He lied to the American people on numerous occasions stirring the pot to push a false narrative to take down this administration. Well judgement day is nearing on all the **** the Obama administration did spying on the Trump campaign and abusing their powers and breaking the law in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom