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

[Richard-H]

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.

When posts are obviously false or obviously hateful, they certainly should delete them at their discretion.

The problem with you Trump idiots is that you believe your own BULLSHIT!

PITIFUL!!!

 

[MisterBeale]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform

I don't care what they categorize it as, it's social media and not a necessity to life or information. I've never been on Twitter and probably never will. I am on Facebook, but if they do something that's out of line in my book, I can always sign up on Parler which guarantees freedom of any political speech. However most of my friends and family are conservative and post conservative stories and opinions. So far, nobody has complained about being censored.

My brother is banned every other month on The Facebook, which I all but stopped visiting about 2 years ago

Yeah, I have a friend that likes get into political shit on FB. He made two accounts back in the day when you didn't have to have them necessarily verified? I don't know much about FB, not on there very much.

Ever since the virus, he has had them alternately banned. . . .

How do you know my brother Anthony?

. . . I met him in a grocery store. He told me he was saving his pennies for someday. . . .

 

[Richard-H]

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.

Suddenly the left supports free markets. Can you prove your bona fides by posting a link to your similar post about bakers refusing to participate in homosexual weddings?

I support free markets, too. But these companies were founded with federal dollars. They were built on the backs of slaves, remember? All of America was? Oh, wait. Only republican businesses were built on the backs of slaves.

But these companies get special protection as providing the service and not the content - but then they filter the content... Strip their protections and arrest them for child ponography... or give them protections and ban them from interfering with legal content.

I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...

I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?

 

[Faun]

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.​

What action did Impeached Trump take?

 

[MisterBeale]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

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

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

And Antifa is an anti-fascist group....

The logic on the left is just nuts.

It's not the logic of the left, it is the logic of totalitarians.

The left, in other words.

 

[Coyote]

They haven’t figured out that Trump is not, in fact, an emperor.

Negative... This is the first step to allow the people to sue current "platforms". First, you need to know WHY you were banned, and by what procedures were used.

Can people sue yet? No... But once this information is known, it can be shown that it was not implemented the same for everybody.

Edit: Publisher vs Platform argument again essentially. If they don't implement the same rules for everybody, then they are going to lose their Platform status, and they are now publishers that can be sued. Just like CNN or Washington Post. I hope this forum has gone over the Publisher vs Platform debate so I don't have to explain that all.

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.

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

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.

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

While I mostly agree with you?

The TOS are meaningless.

Just ask Dan Dicks about his fourteen years worth of work that YouTube deleted with out warning, no reason given, no violations, nothing.

These firms are nakedly political and looking to make themselves into government sanctioned monopolies.



. . and who the hell determines what a "hoax" is?

Hoaxes are easily disproved.

 

[MisterBeale]

President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its decision to curate (well, really just to fact-check) his posts and deter everyone else from taking similar steps. The good news is that, assuming the final order looks like the draft we reviewed on Wednesday, it won’t survive judicial scrutiny. To see why, let’s take a deeper look at its incorrect reading of Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) and how the order violates the First Amendment

Trump Executive Order Misreads Key Law Promoting Free Expression Online and Violates the First Amendment

This post based its initial analysis on a draft Executive Order. It has been updated to reflect the final order, available here.President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its...

www.eff.org

My reading of this though, although I generally find EFF pretty non-partisan. . .

From following this story for the past several years, it is become very apparent to most folks that the majors ARE NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH anymore.

(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[bripat9643]

President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its decision to curate (well, really just to fact-check) his posts and deter everyone else from taking similar steps. The good news is that, assuming the final order looks like the draft we reviewed on Wednesday, it won’t survive judicial scrutiny. To see why, let’s take a deeper look at its incorrect reading of Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) and how the order violates the First Amendment

Trump Executive Order Misreads Key Law Promoting Free Expression Online and Violates the First Amendment

This post based its initial analysis on a draft Executive Order. It has been updated to reflect the final order, available here.President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its...

www.eff.org

There is no free expression online, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

They haven’t figured out that Trump is not, in fact, an emperor.

Negative... This is the first step to allow the people to sue current "platforms". First, you need to know WHY you were banned, and by what procedures were used.

Can people sue yet? No... But once this information is known, it can be shown that it was not implemented the same for everybody.

Edit: Publisher vs Platform argument again essentially. If they don't implement the same rules for everybody, then they are going to lose their Platform status, and they are now publishers that can be sued. Just like CNN or Washington Post. I hope this forum has gone over the Publisher vs Platform debate so I don't have to explain that all.

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.

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

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.

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

While I mostly agree with you?

The TOS are meaningless.

Just ask Dan Dicks about his fourteen years worth of work that YouTube deleted with out warning, no reason given, no violations, nothing.

These firms are nakedly political and looking to make themselves into government sanctioned monopolies.



. . and who the hell determines what a "hoax" is?

Hoaxes are easily disproved.

It tooks 3 years for you TDS morons to give up on the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" hoax. In fact, many of you still haven't given it up.

 

[MisterBeale]

They haven’t figured out that Trump is not, in fact, an emperor.

Negative... This is the first step to allow the people to sue current "platforms". First, you need to know WHY you were banned, and by what procedures were used.

Can people sue yet? No... But once this information is known, it can be shown that it was not implemented the same for everybody.

Edit: Publisher vs Platform argument again essentially. If they don't implement the same rules for everybody, then they are going to lose their Platform status, and they are now publishers that can be sued. Just like CNN or Washington Post. I hope this forum has gone over the Publisher vs Platform debate so I don't have to explain that all.

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.

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

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.

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

While I mostly agree with you?

The TOS are meaningless.

Just ask Dan Dicks about his fourteen years worth of work that YouTube deleted with out warning, no reason given, no violations, nothing.

These firms are nakedly political and looking to make themselves into government sanctioned monopolies.



. . and who the hell determines what a "hoax" is?

Hoaxes are easily disproved.

If they were, you wouldn't be so dumb and blind to it. Yet you, and millions of other REFUSE, absolutely REFUSE to just look at the data.



The entire world believes this Coronavirus is actually worth shutting down the economy and stopping normal life over.

The magnitude of the problem has been inflated to that of a hoax.

Plug in the data yourself. .

| Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

data.cdc.gov

It is just a severe case, but not out of the ordinary, statistical data proves it, it is factual.

THE ICEBERG - what's below the surface

the-iceberg.net

. . . see there? When the consortium and interlocking directorate own all means of communication and information dissemination, proving a hoax isn't so easy, is it?

 

[BlindBoo]

President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its decision to curate (well, really just to fact-check) his posts and deter everyone else from taking similar steps. The good news is that, assuming the final order looks like the draft we reviewed on Wednesday, it won’t survive judicial scrutiny. To see why, let’s take a deeper look at its incorrect reading of Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) and how the order violates the First Amendment

Trump Executive Order Misreads Key Law Promoting Free Expression Online and Violates the First Amendment

This post based its initial analysis on a draft Executive Order. It has been updated to reflect the final order, available here.President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its...

www.eff.org

There is no free expression online, moron.

True. I pay monthly for the right.

 

[bripat9643]

President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its decision to curate (well, really just to fact-check) his posts and deter everyone else from taking similar steps. The good news is that, assuming the final order looks like the draft we reviewed on Wednesday, it won’t survive judicial scrutiny. To see why, let’s take a deeper look at its incorrect reading of Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) and how the order violates the First Amendment

Trump Executive Order Misreads Key Law Promoting Free Expression Online and Violates the First Amendment

This post based its initial analysis on a draft Executive Order. It has been updated to reflect the final order, available here.President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its...

www.eff.org

There is no free expression online, moron.

True. I pay monthly for the right.

I don't get free expression online, moron.

 

[Levant]

I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...

I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?

Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.

Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.

In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.

In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.

Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.

 

[Faun]

They haven’t figured out that Trump is not, in fact, an emperor.

Negative... This is the first step to allow the people to sue current "platforms". First, you need to know WHY you were banned, and by what procedures were used.

Can people sue yet? No... But once this information is known, it can be shown that it was not implemented the same for everybody.

Edit: Publisher vs Platform argument again essentially. If they don't implement the same rules for everybody, then they are going to lose their Platform status, and they are now publishers that can be sued. Just like CNN or Washington Post. I hope this forum has gone over the Publisher vs Platform debate so I don't have to explain that all.

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.

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

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.

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

While I mostly agree with you?

The TOS are meaningless.

Just ask Dan Dicks about his fourteen years worth of work that YouTube deleted with out warning, no reason given, no violations, nothing.

These firms are nakedly political and looking to make themselves into government sanctioned monopolies.



. . and who the hell determines what a "hoax" is?

Hoaxes are easily disproved.

It tooks 3 years for you TDS morons to give up on the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" hoax. In fact, many of you still haven't given it up.

LOL

It's been 12 years since the rise of birtherism and there are still birthers who haven't woken up yet.

 

[Levant]

If the social media companies posted that they're leftist organizations and support leftist candidates, and followed campaign laws, then they could easily and legally justify deleting right-wing comments. To lie and say they're fair while only deleting right-wing comments destroys the "in good faith" part of the law.

 

[Billy000]

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.​

Ugh you’re such an idiot. If Trump never whines about this, you wouldn’t even give a shut.

More importantly, the fact that you think letting these companies censor content is a violation of the 1st amendment is so fucking stupid. NO ONE IS BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME INVOLVING FREE SPEECH IDIOT. It’s their goddamn platform. Funny how you support regulations that fit your narrative.

 

[bripat9643]

They haven’t figured out that Trump is not, in fact, an emperor.

Negative... This is the first step to allow the people to sue current "platforms". First, you need to know WHY you were banned, and by what procedures were used.

Can people sue yet? No... But once this information is known, it can be shown that it was not implemented the same for everybody.

Edit: Publisher vs Platform argument again essentially. If they don't implement the same rules for everybody, then they are going to lose their Platform status, and they are now publishers that can be sued. Just like CNN or Washington Post. I hope this forum has gone over the Publisher vs Platform debate so I don't have to explain that all.

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.

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

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.

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

While I mostly agree with you?

The TOS are meaningless.

Just ask Dan Dicks about his fourteen years worth of work that YouTube deleted with out warning, no reason given, no violations, nothing.

These firms are nakedly political and looking to make themselves into government sanctioned monopolies.



. . and who the hell determines what a "hoax" is?

Hoaxes are easily disproved.

It tooks 3 years for you TDS morons to give up on the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" hoax. In fact, many of you still haven't given it up.

LOL

It's been 12 years since the rise of birtherism and there are still birthers who haven't woken up yet.

How does that alter the fact that "Russia! Russia! Russia!" is a hoax?

 

[colfax_m]

But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers.

They don't become content providers simply by removing legal content. If they substantively change content, then they are liable for that specific content. Beyond that, the law is clear that the companies in question are not going to be held responsible for the content of any of their users.

 

[bripat9643]

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.​

Ugh you’re such an idiot. If Trump never whines about this, you wouldn’t even give a shut.

More importantly, the fact that you think letting these companies censor content is a violation of the 1st amendment is so fucking stupid. NO ONE IS BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME INVOLVING FREE SPEECH IDIOT. It’s their goddamn platform. Funny how you support regulations that fit your narrative.

Trump isn't asking them to censor content, moron. He's asking them not to censor it.

They have been protected by the law, so it's not "their goddamn platform."

I sure do enjoy watching you have a royal hissy fit when your game is over.

 

[bripat9643]

But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers.

They don't become content providers simply by removing legal content. If they substantively change content, then they are liable for that specific content. Beyond that, the law is clear that the companies in question are not going to be held responsible for the content of any of their users.

Yes they do, moron. If they remove legal content, then they are editing the content.