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

[dblack]

Edit: You may very well be right why Trump is doing what he's doing. Why he's doing it doesn't mean much to me. What does mean something to me, is people getting banned for saying "Men aren't women though" and "Learn to code".

I don't know whether you've ever considered yourself a conservative, but if you have, you may have heard about how Constitutional rights work. They only apply to government and the laws it passes. That's why the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law ...". It says government can't pass laws stifling your speech. It doesn't say that anyone else has to accommodate your views. When Facebook deletes your post, or Twitter attaches a warning to it, they're not violating your rights.

I think it's this kind of thing that bothers me the most about the Trumpster movement. People who previously pretended to favor Constitutionally limited government, have jettisoned all principle in the name of revenge - to get back and at the mean ole Democrats. And their pissing our country down the toilet. Winning!

 

[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.

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.

I like the spell check but sometimes it's a pain in the ass. Yes thank you very much for the reference I will begin patronizing them immediately.

Jo

 

[bripat9643]

Edit: You may very well be right why Trump is doing what he's doing. Why he's doing it doesn't mean much to me. What does mean something to me, is people getting banned for saying "Men aren't women though" and "Learn to code".

I don't know whether you've ever considered yourself a conservative, but if you have, you may have heard about how Constitutional rights work. They only apply to government and the laws it passes. That's why the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law ...". It says government can't pass laws stifling your speech. It doesn't say that anyone else has to accommodate your views. When Facebook deletes your post, or Twitter attaches a warning to it, they're not violating your rights.

I think it's this kind of thing that bothers me the most about the Trumpster movement. People who previously pretended to favor Constitutionally limited government, have jettisoned all principle in the name of revenge - to get back and at the mean ole Democrats. And their pissing our country down the toilet. Winning!

And yet, I'll bet that you whine constantly about Citizens United.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

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.

They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.

Aren't following this discussion?

No, that is not a reason for being sued as a publisher. The can be sued for libel. But at end of the day, like any other private entity, including WAPO and Fox, they are not required to publish everything or anything. They can pick and choose.

They can pick and choose and they can be sued for what they choose. The whole theory behind reg 230 is that these websites wouldn't pick and choose.

No, they can’t be sued for not publishing something. They are not REQUIRED to publish something. They are private entities.

You're totally lost on this issue.

No, I am not.

Here is some enlightenment:

https://www.morse.law/news/publishing-legal-issues

 

[dblack]

Edit: You may very well be right why Trump is doing what he's doing. Why he's doing it doesn't mean much to me. What does mean something to me, is people getting banned for saying "Men aren't women though" and "Learn to code".

I don't know whether you've ever considered yourself a conservative, but if you have, you may have heard about how Constitutional rights work. They only apply to government and the laws it passes. That's why the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law ...". It says government can't pass laws stifling your speech. It doesn't say that anyone else has to accommodate your views. When Facebook deletes your post, or Twitter attaches a warning to it, they're not violating your rights.

I think it's this kind of thing that bothers me the most about the Trumpster movement. People who previously pretended to favor Constitutionally limited government, have jettisoned all principle in the name of revenge - to get back and at the mean ole Democrats. And their pissing our country down the toilet. Winning!

And yet, I'll bet that you whine constantly about Citizens United.

Another bet you'd lose. I should hire a collection agency.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

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.

They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.

Aren't following this discussion?

No, that is not a reason for being sued as a publisher. The can be sued for libel. But at end of the day, like any other private entity, including WAPO and Fox, they are not required to publish everything or anything. They can pick and choose.

They can pick and choose and they can be sued for what they choose. The whole theory behind reg 230 is that these websites wouldn't pick and choose.

No, they can’t be sued for not publishing something. They are not REQUIRED to publish something. They are private entities.

You're totally lost on this issue.

No, I am not.

Here is some enlightenment:

https://www.morse.law/news/publishing-legal-issues

Yes you are.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

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.

They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.

Aren't following this discussion?

No, that is not a reason for being sued as a publisher. The can be sued for libel. But at end of the day, like any other private entity, including WAPO and Fox, they are not required to publish everything or anything. They can pick and choose.

They can pick and choose and they can be sued for what they choose. The whole theory behind reg 230 is that these websites wouldn't pick and choose.

No, they can’t be sued for not publishing something. They are not REQUIRED to publish something. They are private entities.

You're totally lost on this issue.

No, I am not.

Here is some enlightenment:

https://www.morse.law/news/publishing-legal-issues

Yes you are.

Prove that publishers can be sued for not publishing someone’s submission ( this time about a fee and contract arrangement).

 

[justoffal]

Edit: You may very well be right why Trump is doing what he's doing. Why he's doing it doesn't mean much to me. What does mean something to me, is people getting banned for saying "Men aren't women though" and "Learn to code".

I don't know whether you've ever considered yourself a conservative, but if you have, you may have heard about how Constitutional rights work. They only apply to government and the laws it passes. That's why the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law ...". It says government can't pass laws stifling your speech. It doesn't say that anyone else has to accommodate your views. When Facebook deletes your post, or Twitter attaches a warning to it, they're not violating your rights.

I think it's this kind of thing that bothers me the most about the Trumpster movement. People who previously pretended to favor Constitutionally limited government, have jettisoned all principle in the name of revenge - to get back and at the mean ole Democrats. And their pissing our country down the toilet. Winning!

Facebook Twitter and Google live in a twilight world in between public entity and government agency. The spirit of the Constitution was there to prevent an aggregation of unreasonable power in the hands of anyone given group of people. Eventually enough legal opinions will be written on the matter to demonstrate that large companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter qualify as de facto government agencies in their own right by virtue of their size and market control. Trust me this is coming.

Jo

 

[dblack]

Facebook Twitter and Google live in a twilight world in between public entity and government agency.

Uh huh... that's the soft sell we always hear from socialists when they want to nationalize an industry.

The spirit of the Constitution was there to prevent an aggregation of unreasonable power in the hands of anyone given group of people.

Nope. Your socialist fantasies notwithstanding, the spirit of the Constitution was to prevent unreasonable power for government.

Eventually enough legal opinions will be written on the matter to demonstrate that large companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter qualify as de facto government agencies in their own right by virtue of their size and market control. Trust me this is coming.

Most likely. This is exactly why I say Trump is hastening our descent into socialism. While the deplorables cheer.

 

[Shelzin]

Edit: You may very well be right why Trump is doing what he's doing. Why he's doing it doesn't mean much to me. What does mean something to me, is people getting banned for saying "Men aren't women though" and "Learn to code".

I don't know whether you've ever considered yourself a conservative, but if you have, you may have heard about how Constitutional rights work. They only apply to government and the laws it passes. That's why the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law ...". It says government can't pass laws stifling your speech. It doesn't say that anyone else has to accommodate your views. When Facebook deletes your post, or Twitter attaches a warning to it, they're not violating your rights.

I agree. However I also think that you should be able to sue a private entity for a wrong to your person.

I think it's this kind of thing that bothers me the most about the Trumpster movement. People who previously pretended to favor Constitutionally limited government, have jettisoned all principle in the name of revenge - to get back and at the mean ole Democrats. And their pissing our country down the toilet. Winning!

And you seem to think I'm one them... However on this topic you are incorrect. What is happening is the government is NOT regulating anything... It's taking it's first steps to remove a immunity that never should have been there in the first place.

I absolutely agree with this:

But that doesn't mean anything to the point I'm making.

 

[dblack]

And you seem to think I'm one them... However on this topic you are incorrect. What is happening is not the government is NOT regulating anything... It's taking it's first steps to remove a immunity that never should have been there in the first place.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. I didn't hear any of you complaining about this until these companies refused to be propaganda outlets for Trumpsters. Before that, it was all good. Your argument just sounds like an excuse, whipped out because, this time, the free market didn't do what you wanted. So it's time for government to step in force them to comply with your wishes.

 

[Shelzin]

And you seem to think I'm one them... However on this topic you are incorrect. What is happening is not the government is NOT regulating anything... It's taking it's first steps to remove a immunity that never should have been there in the first place.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. I didn't hear any of you complaining about this until these companies refused to be propaganda outlets for Trumpsters. Before that, it was all good. Your argument just sounds like an excuse, whipped out because, this time, the free market didn't do what you wanted. So it's time for government to step in force them to comply with your wishes.

*shrugs*

I don't see how I can prove otherwise to you. I don't know what it would mean even if I could. Believe whatever you want. Well met.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

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

lol to prevent censorship you believe Trump is censoring people?
I don't believe you gave your comment any thought before you posted it. lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The President cannot order that private entities be forced to provide forums for free speech.

I believe he can if that is the forum/ vehicle he uses to address America.
It's like the Radio with FDR

 

[dblack]

And you seem to think I'm one them... However on this topic you are incorrect. What is happening is not the government is NOT regulating anything... It's taking it's first steps to remove a immunity that never should have been there in the first place.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. I didn't hear any of you complaining about this until these companies refused to be propaganda outlets for Trumpsters. Before that, it was all good. Your argument just sounds like an excuse, whipped out because, this time, the free market didn't do what you wanted. So it's time for government to step in force them to comply with your wishes.

*shrugs*

I don't see how I can prove otherwise to you. I don't know what it would mean even if I could. Believe whatever you want. Well met.

No proof necessary. I'll take your word for it - are you saying that removing the so-called "immunity" for these companies was something you were lobbying for before they started censoring Trumpsters?

If so, I'd say that puts you in a vanishingly small minority. In fact, many of the people arguing for this crackdown would be bending over backward to defend the freedom of private companies if the Democrats were behind it.

 

[Shelzin]

No proof necessary. I'll take your word for it -

Thank you.

are you saying that removing the so-called "immunity" for these companies was something you were lobbying for before they started censoring Trumpsters?

Yes. Or at least... Ever since I've learned that it existed. The media never told me about it when it first happened.

Edit: Actually... I don't know what your definition of Trumpster is. Is anybody that got banned that has conservative leanings a trumpster?

If so, I'd say that puts you in a vanishingly small minority. In fact, many of the people arguing for this crackdown would be bending over backward to defend the freedom of private companies if the Democrats were behind it.

I've been called a socialist and a Trumpster on these forums. I'm NOT a part of the minority. I am however a minority of the people who think like I do. Because they just don't say shit, they don't come to boards like this, they don't post on facebook or twitter... They don't want to be a part of the VOCAL minority in these places because then you get Trumpsters AND the Snowflakes ragging on you on forums such as this.

I'm happy as a pig wallowing in shit if both groups have a problem with me in some fashion. I'm doing something right as far as I'm concerned, I'd be worried I was doing something wrong if it wasn't this way.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

I

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.​

Ya illegal and unconstitutional.

It will.go no-where. Particularly not in the few months he has left.

Of course the source is Gateway Pundit.
Trump can't sign an EO telling private companies what to do with their business.
If he pushes it, it will just go to court, like the Hobby Lobby thing and birth control for their health care for employees.
Hobby Lobby won.
This is all bullshit.

 

[iceberg]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

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.

They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.

Aren't following this discussion?

No, that is not a reason for being sued as a publisher. The can be sued for libel. But at end of the day, like any other private entity, including WAPO and Fox, they are not required to publish everything or anything. They can pick and choose.

They can pick and choose and they can be sued for what they choose. The whole theory behind reg 230 is that these websites wouldn't pick and choose.

No, they can’t be sued for not publishing something. They are not REQUIRED to publish something. They are private entities.

You're totally lost on this issue.

No, I am not.

Here is some enlightenment:

https://www.morse.law/news/publishing-legal-issues

Yes you are.

Prove that publishers can be sued for not publishing someone’s submission ( this time about a fee and contract arrangement).

You don't even make any sense. the purpose of s230 was so that boards like this are not liable. for shot I may say. ergo you don't have to delete it cause you are not responsible for it.

now if you corrected me and edited my posts to your views, you are not acting the the intent of the 1996 decree.

 

[CowboyTed]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

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

Hey, they love their big, centralized government, authoritarian strongman. This is what they want.

Most of the discussion in Yesterday's hearing was about the government-provided monopoly these corporations enjoy.

This executive order is likely unconstitutional, but since when has that stopped Trump… who is mockingly doing the same thing Obama did, and he may get the SCOTUS to make that order irreversible by the next administration (5 years from now) like they did on DACA, which will be a nice big fat FUCK YOU to the establishment...which is pretty much why we have Trump in the first place.

People forget the Clinton years when he was fining Microsoft a million dollars a day for monopoly practices. Even back then I was an Apple user, and still am today. I've never once used a Microsoft product because I never needed one. It was not a monopoly at all. The real problem Bill had is that Gates was cheap as all hell. He didn't contribute to charities, politicians or political parties. He kept every dime he made for himself.

Of course he did a 180 after that. He realized that being wealthy is a pay-to-play game, and is still handing out money today to various causes and politicians.

Well you don't remember the ninties much...

Microsoft was fined because of antitrust issues in relation to Netscape...

At the time Microsoft was shipped with 85%+ personal computers and they shipped with IE...

Microsoft Accused Of Antitrust Violations Justice Department Asks Federal Court To Fine Software Giant $1 Million A Day

The Justice Department accused Microsoft on Monday of stifling competition on the Internet and urged a federal court to fine the software giant $1 million a day. The action strikes at the heart of Microsoft's multibillion-dollar effort to extend its dominance of the PC industry to the rapidly...

www.spokesman.com

Can you explain to me who has 85% of the Social Media market...

View attachment 369232

It's still utter bunk, because I've never used a Microsoft product in my life. What is windows? Windows was created to duplicate the Macintosh interface. We used to laugh back then when a new version of Windows came out, and people were jamming the stores to try and get a copy. We laughed because people were killing each other to get a program that turned their PC into a five year old Mac.

In any case, it had nothing to do with it. Gates didn't pass his money around. That was really the bottom line.

So you didn't use window like 5 % of the people at the time... but you are not the world... Microsoft had 85%+ of the market share...

Did your Mac do statistics?

Microsoft used there dominance in the PC market to shut Netscape out.... A Judge found that out... You can't by so myopic to not understand that.

By the way I am a Mac user and so is my whole company. We tried to give a guy a Windows PC once about 7 years ago (the guy was on a government paid training) after 2 weeks the other lads came and said we had to give him a Mac.

 

[Uncensored2008]

are you sure, given the completely arbitrary moderation on this board? LOL

If the Twazis were 1% as even handed as USMB moderators, no one would complain about Twitter.