HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech

[Correll]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Uhh... An executive order against censorship is censorship? What?

libs just say shit. it does not mean anything. everything they say, is bullshit that should be dismissed, without consideration.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

/—-/ Trump is censoring companies that censor people? That’s you twisted fu***d up position?

 

[MisterBeale]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

Oh God...Birtherism is still alive and kicking.

The Russians did hack us - the fact that voting machines were not hacked is irrelevant. They hacked and attempted to hack both political parties and who knows what else.

How did they hack us, by putting ads on Facebook?

I have no idea how. I'm not a hacker But they hacked Podesta, the DNC, individual Republican targets, and the Illinois RNC as some examples.

See, technically, that is only the official account. There is disagreement among experts, but the political and financial establishment has decreed this, "hacking" as the paradigm, so that is what folks accept.

If it were a leak, not a hack, the entire Muellar Report, the investigation, the media coverage. . . a lot of the conservative account take downs. . . etc. have been unjustified.

What if the DNC Russian "hack" was really a leak after all? A new report raises questions media and Democrats would rather ignore

A group of intelligence pros and forensic investigators tell The Nation there was no hack— the media ignores it

www.salon.com

". . . VIPS states two things with what they describe as a high degree of certainty: There was no Russian hack on July 5, and the metadata from Guccifer’s June 15 document release was “synthetically tainted” with “Russian fingerprints.”

How did the group come to the conclusion that it was a leak, not a hack?

Investigators found that 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded locally on July 5, 2016. The information was downloaded with a memory key or some other portable storage device. The download operation took 87 seconds — meaning the speed of transfer was 22.7 megabytes per second — “a speed that far exceeds an internet capability for a remote hack,” as Lawrence puts it. What’s more, they say, a transoceanic transfer would have been even slower (Guccifer claimed to be working from Romania).

“Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible,” Folden told The Nation.. . . "

Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence

In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 “assessment” that Russia “hacked” Democratic emails last year. MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Profe

consortiumnews.com

 

[Correll]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.

No.

But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.

You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.

No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

the right has never been anti-regulation. we have been anti-excessive regulation and anti-overreach.


this is neither.

 

[Shelzin]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Right now they can... What Trump is doing is pretty much going to remove that. THEY ARE private entities. Private entities can be sued. The ToS will pretty much be if it's not illegal, you can post whatever you want, OR they are a publisher that can be sued. Then they just bring back the "ignore" function just like this site has. If someone doesn't want to see a post, they just ignore that person.

Edit: I don't understand how you can argue that they are private entities, yet immune from being sued.

 

[dblack]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.

No.

But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.

You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.

No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

the right has never been anti-regulation. we have been anti-excessive regulation and anti-overreach.


this is neither.

"It's different when we do it".

 

[Correll]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.

No.

But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.

You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.

No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

the right has never been anti-regulation. we have been anti-excessive regulation and anti-overreach.


this is neither.

"It's different when we do it".

i made my point. your failure to address it, is plain to all.


thus, my point stands.


the right has never been anti-regulation. we have been anti-excessive regulation and anti-overreach.


this is neither.

 

[dblack]

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

Negative... The government isn't regulating anything with this.

I guess you're right. It's not really "regulation". Just the government ordering the media to abide by the President's wishes. Authoritarian much?

 

[MisterBeale]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Right now they can... What Trump is doing is pretty much going to remove that. THEY ARE private entities. Private entities can be sued. The ToS will pretty much be if it's not illegal, you can post whatever you want, OR they are a publisher that can be sued. Then they just bring back the "ignore" function just like this site has. If someone doesn't want to see a post, they just ignore that person.

I believe she is saying she likes it the way it is, and it shouldn't change?

 

[justoffal]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

The real answer here is simply to open the way for competing conservative media. Once Google and Facebook began losing sharedJust to show everybody here how full of shit you really are..... Please explain in detail how the tariffs failed.... I simply can't fucking wait to hear point-by-point how the long-overdue theft penalties placed on the Chinese bandits actually failed please do inform us.
the real answer is to open the way for competing conservative media. Once Google and Facebook begin losing shares of their advertising money to such an organization trust me no one will have to look over their shoulders.

 

[justoffal]

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

Negative... The government isn't regulating anything with this.

I guess you're right. It's not really "regulation". Just the government ordering the media to abide by the President's wishes. Authoritarian much?

At this point anyone with more than 65% market share in that particular market should be considered a public utility and should follow such rules that govern a public utility.

 

[Faun]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

LOLOL

You birthers always crack me up. No, his wife never admitted it. And Yes, Russia hacked us....

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

 

[Shelzin]

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

Negative... The government isn't regulating anything with this.

I guess you're right. It's not really "regulation". Just the government ordering the media to abide by the President's wishes. Authoritarian much?

Mmm... That has no biases in reality. It's literally saying no regulation, and treating it like a private entity.

 

[Faun]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Uhh... An executive order against censorship is censorship? What?

libs just say shit. it does not mean anything. everything they say, is bullshit that should be dismissed, without consideration.

If that were true, you wouldn't be posting here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

The real answer here is simply to open the way for competing conservative media. Once Google and Facebook began losing sharedJust to show everybody here how full of shit you really are..... Please explain in detail how the tariffs failed.... I simply can't fucking wait to hear point-by-point how the long-overdue theft penalties placed on the Chinese bandits actually failed please do inform us.
the real answer is to open the way for competing conservative media. Once Google and Facebook begin losing shares of their advertising money to such an organization trust me no one will have to look over their shoulders.

As I stated several times, Parler is a social media that guarantees free speech left or right. Nobody has to use the big 2. As far as Google goes, I often use Bing or Duck Duck Go because it's much more private.

Next month will be my 5 year anniversary here. How did I end up on USMB? I was on Topix. Topix kept getting more and more left to the point you couldn't post anything conservative without the chance of it getting removed. Several of my posts were removed, and I adhered to their TOS and never used one dirty word, not even damn.

Topix had to close a few years ago because obviously, like me, users were leaving, probably in droves. That's the way it should be done.

 

[justoffal]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

The real answer here is simply to open the way for competing conservative media. Once Google and Facebook began losing sharedJust to show everybody here how full of shit you really are..... Please explain in detail how the tariffs failed.... I simply can't fucking wait to hear point-by-point how the long-overdue theft penalties placed on the Chinese bandits actually failed please do inform us.
the real answer is to open the way for competing conservative media. Once Google and Facebook begin losing shares of their advertising money to such an organization trust me no one will have to look over their shoulders.

As I stated several times, Parler is a social media that guarantees free speech left or right. Nobody has to use the big 2. As far as Google goes, I often use Bing or Duck Duck Go because it's much more private.

Next month will be my 5 year anniversary here. How did I end up on USMB? I was on Topix. Topix kept getting more and more left to the point you couldn't post anything conservative without the chance of it getting removed. Several of my posts were removed, and I adhered to their TOS and never used one dirty word, not even damn.

Topix had to close a few years ago because obviously, like me, users were leaving, probably in droves. That's the way it should be done.

Parler????

Thanks I'm in!

 

[Coyote]

The difference (well, one of them) is that the networks employ those who create the content and those are the people whose words are subject to lawsuits. Social media platforms are not employing those who post. Calling social sites "publishers" is one hell of a stretch, unless someone they employ or pay posts something in their name.

No it's not... They are choosing what can be published on their site even if it's not illegal. Whither or not anyone is paid is irrelevant as far as I'm aware.

Here is what the legal dictionary Says:

PUBLISHER. One who does by himself or his agents make a thing publicly known; one engaged in thecirculation of books, pamphlets, and other papers.
2. The publisher of a libel is responsible as if he were the author of it, and it is immaterial whether hehas any knowledge of its contents or not; 9 Co. 59; Hawk. P. C. c. 73, Sec. 10; 4 Mason, 115; and it isno justification to him that the name of the author accompanies the libel. 10 John, 447; 2 Moo. & R.312.
3. When the publication is made by writing or printing, if the matter be libelous, the publisher may beindicted for a misdemeanor, provided it was made by his direction or consent, but if he was the ownerof a newspaper merely, and the publication was made by his servants or agents, without any consentor knowledge on his part, he will not be liable to a criminal prosecution. In either case he will be liableto an action for damages sustained by the party aggrieved. 7 John. 260.
4. In order to render the publisher amenable to the law, the publication must be maliciously made,but malice will be presumed if the matter be libelous. This presumption, however, will be rebutted, if thepublication be made for some lawful purpose, as, drawing up a bill of indictment, in which the libelouswords are embodied, for the purpose of prosecuting the libeler; or if it evidently appear the publisherdid not, at the time of publication, know that the matter was libelous as, when a person reads a libelpresence of others, without beforehand knowing it to be such. 9 Co. 59. See Libel; Libeler; Publication.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

Oh God...Birtherism is still alive and kicking.

The Russians did hack us - the fact that voting machines were not hacked is irrelevant. They hacked and attempted to hack both political parties and who knows what else.

How did they hack us, by putting ads on Facebook?

I have no idea how. I'm not a hacker But they hacked Podesta, the DNC, individual Republican targets, and the Illinois RNC as some examples.

See, technically, that is only the official account. There is disagreement among experts, but the political and financial establishment has decreed this, "hacking" as the paradigm, so that is what folks accept.

If it were a leak, not a hack, the entire Muellar Report, the investigation, the media coverage. . . a lot of the conservative account take downs. . . etc. have been unjustified.

What if the DNC Russian "hack" was really a leak after all? A new report raises questions media and Democrats would rather ignore

A group of intelligence pros and forensic investigators tell The Nation there was no hack— the media ignores it

www.salon.com

". . . VIPS states two things with what they describe as a high degree of certainty: There was no Russian hack on July 5, and the metadata from Guccifer’s June 15 document release was “synthetically tainted” with “Russian fingerprints.”

How did the group come to the conclusion that it was a leak, not a hack?

Investigators found that 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded locally on July 5, 2016. The information was downloaded with a memory key or some other portable storage device. The download operation took 87 seconds — meaning the speed of transfer was 22.7 megabytes per second — “a speed that far exceeds an internet capability for a remote hack,” as Lawrence puts it. What’s more, they say, a transoceanic transfer would have been even slower (Guccifer claimed to be working from Romania).

“Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible,” Folden told The Nation.. . . "

Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence

In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 “assessment” that Russia “hacked” Democratic emails last year. MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Profe

consortiumnews.com

Not only that, but when the FBI wanted to investigate the system, the Democrats refused. They were hiding something because they hired a private firm to do the investigation instead.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

The real answer here is simply to open the way for competing conservative media. Once Google and Facebook began losing sharedJust to show everybody here how full of shit you really are..... Please explain in detail how the tariffs failed.... I simply can't fucking wait to hear point-by-point how the long-overdue theft penalties placed on the Chinese bandits actually failed please do inform us.
the real answer is to open the way for competing conservative media. Once Google and Facebook begin losing shares of their advertising money to such an organization trust me no one will have to look over their shoulders.

As I stated several times, Parler is a social media that guarantees free speech left or right. Nobody has to use the big 2. As far as Google goes, I often use Bing or Duck Duck Go because it's much more private.

Next month will be my 5 year anniversary here. How did I end up on USMB? I was on Topix. Topix kept getting more and more left to the point you couldn't post anything conservative without the chance of it getting removed. Several of my posts were removed, and I adhered to their TOS and never used one dirty word, not even damn.

Topix had to close a few years ago because obviously, like me, users were leaving, probably in droves. That's the way it should be done.

Parker????

Thanks I'm in!

No, it's Parler. Your spell check will change that every time. From what I understand, their growth is pretty substantial.

 

[Shelzin]

The difference (well, one of them) is that the networks employ those who create the content and those are the people whose words are subject to lawsuits. Social media platforms are not employing those who post. Calling social sites "publishers" is one hell of a stretch, unless someone they employ or pay posts something in their name.

No it's not... They are choosing what can be published on their site even if it's not illegal. Whither or not anyone is paid is irrelevant as far as I'm aware.

Here is what the legal dictionary Says:

PUBLISHER. One who does by himself or his agents make a thing publicly known; one engaged in thecirculation of books, pamphlets, and other papers.
2. The publisher of a libel is responsible as if he were the author of it, and it is immaterial whether hehas any knowledge of its contents or not; 9 Co. 59; Hawk. P. C. c. 73, Sec. 10; 4 Mason, 115; and it isno justification to him that the name of the author accompanies the libel. 10 John, 447; 2 Moo. & R.312.
3. When the publication is made by writing or printing, if the matter be libelous, the publisher may beindicted for a misdemeanor, provided it was made by his direction or consent, but if he was the ownerof a newspaper merely, and the publication was made by his servants or agents, without any consentor knowledge on his part, he will not be liable to a criminal prosecution. In either case he will be liableto an action for damages sustained by the party aggrieved. 7 John. 260.
4. In order to render the publisher amenable to the law, the publication must be maliciously made,but malice will be presumed if the matter be libelous. This presumption, however, will be rebutted, if thepublication be made for some lawful purpose, as, drawing up a bill of indictment, in which the libelouswords are embodied, for the purpose of prosecuting the libeler; or if it evidently appear the publisherdid not, at the time of publication, know that the matter was libelous as, when a person reads a libelpresence of others, without beforehand knowing it to be such. 9 Co. 59. See Libel; Libeler; Publication.

What was the point?