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

[justoffal]

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.

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics. You have it exactly backwards. Like it or not responsibility is contagious when people take liberty with their boundaries. When the preacher of a congregation stands up in front of his people and advocates for a certain candidate he is giving up the separation of church and state and assuming the mantle of government regulated activism. Likewise when a monopolistic giant such as Google Facebook or Twitter decides not simply to have standards but also to enforce them based on preference they change the nature of their entity from private to public by encroaching on police powers disseminated properly only by elected government. I don't want to see this happen but it will by virtue of the irrevocable patterns of human nature. Like I said the courts are still catching up to these guys..... The opinions are growing more and more specific and are building a bridge that will eventually adjudicate the virtual world. This is not the choice of the people it is the choice of The entity that oversteps its bounds and assumes the mantle of governance belonging only to elected officials.

Arguably size and reach factors into this transformative mechanism.



Jo

 

[liarintheWH]

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.​

Trump is just upset his alt-fact-universe bullshit gets called out.

It's ok, this silly nonsense will be thrown out as unconstitutional, Trump will get tossed in Nov and we can get past this shit stain on America's history.

Will you admit how ignorant you are when he wins?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

 

[AntonToo]

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.​

Trump is just upset his alt-fact-universe bullshit gets called out.

It's ok, this silly nonsense will be thrown out as unconstitutional, Trump will get tossed in Nov and we can get past this shit stain on America's history.

Will you admit how ignorant you are when he wins?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

What am I "ignorant" of?

Granted, it's not a fact that Trump will lose in November, but he will very likely. But whether he is gone in 2021 or 2025 everything I said about his unconstitutional executive order and deeply soiled presidency stands.

 

[AntonToo]

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

In the age of Trump moderating voodoo horsecrap according to established science and medicine is "insertion into politics"

 

[justoffal]

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

In the age of Trump moderating voodoo horsecrap according to established science and medicine is "insertion into politics"

It's called freedom of speech. There is still a large contingent of flat earth adherents out there who although they are hopelessly lost are still protected by the first amendment. You cannot pick and choose what speech is protected.
When you do that you become government.... When you become government you become subject to regulation.

Jo

 

[AntonToo]

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

In the age of Trump moderating voodoo horsecrap according to established science and medicine is "insertion into politics"

It's called freedom of speech. There is still a large contingent of flat earth adherents out there who although they are hopelessly lost are still protected by the first amendment. You cannot pick and choose what speech is protected.
When you do that you become government.... When you become government you become subject to regulation.

Jo

Go speak. How the hell does Facebook stop you or Trump from speaking?

Take your little shitty, hateful, crazy speech to whatever private website will have it and knock yourself out.

 

[justoffal]

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

In the age of Trump moderating voodoo horsecrap according to established science and medicine is "insertion into politics"

It's called freedom of speech. There is still a large contingent of flat earth adherents out there who although they are hopelessly lost are still protected by the first amendment. You cannot pick and choose what speech is protected.
When you do that you become government.... When you become government you become subject to regulation.

Jo

Go speak. How the hell does Facebook stop you or Trump from speaking?

The virtual world vaulted far ahead of the brick-and-mortar world away back in the 80s. Where once it was easy to identify actual violations of the first amendment because physical evidence was present it is no longer that simple.
Once the court systems are populated
With experts who to understand the impact of search algorithms and the technical nuances of engine filters then you will have your answer. It's not far away and you may be surprised at who is pounding the drum for this type of regulation in the near future. I don't think it will be the conservative sector. My bet is that it will be the Bernie Bros.

Jo

 

[BigDave]

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.​

Trump is just upset his alt-fact-universe bullshit gets called out.

It's ok, this silly nonsense will be thrown out as unconstitutional, Trump will get tossed in Nov and we can get past this shit stain on America's history.

Will you admit how ignorant you are when he wins?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

He will be bitching about voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement for the next four years when President Trump is reelected

 

[bottlecap]

The CRUX of the matter is that Conservatives and Christians have been denied access to speak in the public square for decades, Kept out or marginalized in the public school system, of course US school quality plummeted.

Now the TECH Giants have continued on this path of disinformation and prejudice against Christian and Conservatives!! Thank GOD that we have a President that cares about the US Constitution, especially the 1st Amendment.

 

[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).

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.

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

I'm not going to make something simple complex so you have places to hide.

platforms are afforded protection from bad content.

platforms are not allowed to do anything at that point to stop or correct them.

you do that you are no longer a platform and open yourself to have to verify everything now for legal reasons.

you not liking it doesn't change it.

You can dumb it down if it makes you happy, but you realize you are simplify reiterating what I just only I was saying it from tbe publisher side.

 

[Coyote]

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

Bullshit.

Platforms like USMB are PROTECTED from civil liability because USERS are responsible for their own content.

WHEN a company like the Twazis DICTATE content, they assume responsibility for that content. Twitter isn't a message board, it is a publisher of far left commentary. IF as a publisher, their contributing writers slander and libel others - whihc is ALL Twitter does - then Twitter is just like CNN and can be sued.

USMB will tell you WHAT infraction - even the utterly bullshit ones by Will - you are being dinged for. That's called transparency - IF USMB can have transparency in moderation so can the Twazis.

What specifically is bullshit about what I said? I already pointed out they would libel for slander, which means even censorship on their part.

You said they must publish anything - that isn't true. They can be like NBC or DailyKOS and only publish radical left, hate filled bullshit. They simply are not shielded from liability because it is THEIR content, not user opinions.

No. That isn’t what I said. My response was to BriPat who was claiming that if they are publishers they have to publish everything or be sued. And that isn’t true.

That isn't what I said.

In post 216. That is what it sounds like.

 

[AntonToo]

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

In the age of Trump moderating voodoo horsecrap according to established science and medicine is "insertion into politics"

It's called freedom of speech. There is still a large contingent of flat earth adherents out there who although they are hopelessly lost are still protected by the first amendment. You cannot pick and choose what speech is protected.
When you do that you become government.... When you become government you become subject to regulation.

Jo

Go speak. How the hell does Facebook stop you or Trump from speaking?

The virtual world vaulted far ahead of the brick-and-mortar world away back in the 80s. Where once it was easy to identify actual violations of the first amendment because physical evidence was present it is no longer that simple.
Once the court systems are populated
With experts who to understand the impact of search algorithms and the technical nuances of engine filters then you will have your answer. It's not far away and you may be surprised at who is pounding the drum for this type of regulation in the near future. I don't think it will be the conservative sector. My bet is that it will be the Bernie Bros.

Jo

Ok no more drugs for you. The answer is very simple, IT DOES NOT.

Trump can have his own little website and he can publish anything he wants short of his kiddie porn collection. Facebook or Tweeter can't stop his speech.

 

[Uncensored2008]

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

Bullshit.

Platforms like USMB are PROTECTED from civil liability because USERS are responsible for their own content.

WHEN a company like the Twazis DICTATE content, they assume responsibility for that content. Twitter isn't a message board, it is a publisher of far left commentary. IF as a publisher, their contributing writers slander and libel others - whihc is ALL Twitter does - then Twitter is just like CNN and can be sued.

USMB will tell you WHAT infraction - even the utterly bullshit ones by Will - you are being dinged for. That's called transparency - IF USMB can have transparency in moderation so can the Twazis.

What specifically is bullshit about what I said? I already pointed out they would libel for slander, which means even censorship on their part.

You said they must publish anything - that isn't true. They can be like NBC or DailyKOS and only publish radical left, hate filled bullshit. They simply are not shielded from liability because it is THEIR content, not user opinions.

No. That isn’t what I said. My response was to BriPat who was claiming that if they are publishers they have to publish everything or be sued. And that isn’t true.

That isn't what I said.

Yes it is; you said " BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for. "

 

[Uncensored2008]

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

In the age of Trump moderating voodoo horsecrap according to established science and medicine is "insertion into politics"

It's called freedom of speech. There is still a large contingent of flat earth adherents out there who although they are hopelessly lost are still protected by the first amendment. You cannot pick and choose what speech is protected.
When you do that you become government.... When you become government you become subject to regulation.

Jo

Go speak. How the hell does Facebook stop you or Trump from speaking?

The virtual world vaulted far ahead of the brick-and-mortar world away back in the 80s. Where once it was easy to identify actual violations of the first amendment because physical evidence was present it is no longer that simple.
Once the court systems are populated
With experts who to understand the impact of search algorithms and the technical nuances of engine filters then you will have your answer. It's not far away and you may be surprised at who is pounding the drum for this type of regulation in the near future. I don't think it will be the conservative sector. My bet is that it will be the Bernie Bros.

Jo

Ok no more drugs for you. The answer is very simple, IT DOES NOT.

Trump can have his own little website and he can publish anything he wants short of his kiddie porn collection. Facebook or Tweeter can't stop his speech.

So the answer of the Communist is "NUHN UHN?"

Well, imagine that.....

 

[busybee01]

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

The Executive Order does no such thing. It’s a petition to the FCC to clarify the section in existing law about platforms and liability.

Which they have no power to do.

 

[busybee01]

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.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

No they will not be. The federal government has no power to do anything. Social media is not bound by free speech. The FCC has no statutory authority to regulate the internet nor do I want them doing so. Why don't you clowns start your own social media company. Then you can do anything you want.

 

[Levant]

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.

What did they hack? Hack has a definition. Google it.

We know that Obama's birth certificate was fake. His wife admitted he's from Kenya. I don't care where he was born. As a foreign born American, I have no problem with his right to be President. But he hid his birth and lied about it because he didn't want it to come up in the election - and, as is usually the case, the lie leads to more scrutiny than had he just dealt with it honestly... Haha. That's funny.. using honestly and Obama in the same sentence.

 

[busybee01]

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.

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics. You have it exactly backwards. Like it or not responsibility is contagious when people take liberty with their boundaries. When the preacher of a congregation stands up in front of his people and advocates for a certain candidate he is giving up the separation of church and state and assuming the mantle of government regulated activism. Likewise when a monopolistic giant such as Google Facebook or Twitter decides not simply to have standards but also to enforce them based on preference they change the nature of their entity from private to public by encroaching on police powers disseminated properly only by elected government. I don't want to see this happen but it will by virtue of the irrevocable patterns of human nature. Like I said the courts are still catching up to these guys..... The opinions are growing more and more specific and are building a bridge that will eventually adjudicate the virtual world. This is not the choice of the people it is the choice of The entity that oversteps its bounds and assumes the mantle of governance belonging only to elected officials.

Arguably size and reach factors into this transformative mechanism.



Jo

Social media companies have endorsed no political candidates.

 

[busybee01]

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

In the age of Trump moderating voodoo horsecrap according to established science and medicine is "insertion into politics"

It's called freedom of speech. There is still a large contingent of flat earth adherents out there who although they are hopelessly lost are still protected by the first amendment. You cannot pick and choose what speech is protected.
When you do that you become government.... When you become government you become subject to regulation.

Jo

Freedom of speech applies to the government not private companies.

 

[Levant]

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.

I thought you dealt in facts. Where are your links to the official government reports on those hackings?