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

[bripat9643]

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!!!

Nope. "False" and "hateful" are most often just a matter of opinion.

 

[Levant]

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, that's true - because of the extra special, explicit, specific, exemption they enjoy. That's the thing that has to change. There are plenty of people in prison because they allowed their sites to be used to host child pornography even though the hosting service didn't provide the content - because they did nothing to prevent the illegal content. Calling for an insurrection, calling people to riot, calling people to tear down statues, are all illegal activities and, without the exception, would get those who run the social media companies in prison. If they don't touch legal content then they get an exception. If they touch ALL illegal content, then they get an exception, even if they go overboard on the right.. But when they pick and choose and leave some illegal content, they can't claim it was an accident. They need to go to jail.

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

No good faith can exist when they say that what they do is opposite to what they actually do.

 

[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.

Yes, that's true - because of the extra special, explicit, specific, exemption they enjoy. That's the thing that has to change. There are plenty of people in prison because they allowed their sites to be used to host child pornography even though the hosting service didn't provide the content - because they did nothing to prevent the illegal content. Calling for an insurrection, calling people to riot, calling people to tear down statues, are all illegal activities and, without the exception, would get those who run the social media companies in prison. If they don't touch legal content then they get an exception. If they touch ALL illegal content, then they get an exception, even if they go overboard on the right.. But when they pick and choose and leave some illegal content, they can't claim it was an accident. They need to go to jail.

When it comes to things as serious as child pornography and sex trafficking, Congress has made carve outs in section 230. I'm thinking most recently of FOSTA-SESTA signed in 2018, but even that came with debate about it's effect on free speech on the internet.

Holding platforms responsible for any illegal content that winds up on their server is not a good plan. For example, there's millions upon millions of tweets every day. Lots of them are getting pulled for reasons you state, but it's not possible for Twitter to screen every single one. Saying that Twitter must either touch no illegal content or all of it would be an impossible burden.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah idiot. I know. He doesn’t want his completr bullshit censored. It’s so moronic how you think their censorship ON THEIR PLATFORM is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I can’t get over how fucking stupid that is lol

 

[lantern2814]

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.

Yeah idiot. I know. He doesn’t want his completr bullshit censored. It’s so moronic how you think their censorship ON THEIR PLATFORM is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I can’t get over how fucking stupid that is lol

Trump gets censored for the truth, yet idiots like you cheer as the PROVEN BULLSHIT Russia hoax crap get so to remain up. As well as true hate speech from the Ayatollah and the Democrat Party. When it’s only conservatives getting removed, that’s censorship and illegal. We can’t get over how stupid you are. Lol.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah idiot. I know. He doesn’t want his completr bullshit censored. It’s so moronic how you think their censorship ON THEIR PLATFORM is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I can’t get over how fucking stupid that is lol

Trump gets censored for the truth, yet idiots like you cheer as the PROVEN BULLSHIT Russia hoax crap get so to remain up. As well as true hate speech from the Ayatollah and the Democrat Party. When it’s only conservatives getting removed, that’s censorship and illegal. We can’t get over how stupid you are. Lol.

I wouldn’t give two shits if they censored anything. Because, I’m you know, an adult.

 

[San Souci]

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.

53 Months.

 

[San Souci]

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.

Yeah idiot. I know. He doesn’t want his completr bullshit censored. It’s so moronic how you think their censorship ON THEIR PLATFORM is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I can’t get over how fucking stupid that is lol

Trump gets censored for the truth, yet idiots like you cheer as the PROVEN BULLSHIT Russia hoax crap get so to remain up. As well as true hate speech from the Ayatollah and the Democrat Party. When it’s only conservatives getting removed, that’s censorship and illegal. We can’t get over how stupid you are. Lol.

The Democrat Party is in League with the Ayatollah. And China.

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

Yeah idiot. I know. He doesn’t want his completr bullshit censored. It’s so moronic how you think their censorship ON THEIR PLATFORM is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I can’t get over how fucking stupid that is lol

Trump gets censored for the truth, yet idiots like you cheer as the PROVEN BULLSHIT Russia hoax crap get so to remain up. As well as true hate speech from the Ayatollah and the Democrat Party. When it’s only conservatives getting removed, that’s censorship and illegal. We can’t get over how stupid you are. Lol.

The Democrat Party is in League with the Ayatollah. And China.

Well one thing is for sure.
They no longer act in allegiance to our flag!

 

[BlueGin]

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.

Except when the main stream left leaning media does it of course.

 

[dblack]

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

So will anyone with any respect for limited government.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

Yeah idiot. I know. He doesn’t want his completr bullshit censored. It’s so moronic how you think their censorship ON THEIR PLATFORM is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I can’t get over how fucking stupid that is lol

Trump gets censored for the truth, yet idiots like you cheer as the PROVEN BULLSHIT Russia hoax crap get so to remain up. As well as true hate speech from the Ayatollah and the Democrat Party. When it’s only conservatives getting removed, that’s censorship and illegal. We can’t get over how stupid you are. Lol.

I wouldn’t give two shits if they censored anything. Because, I’m you know, an adult.

Bullshit. If a conservatives run site removed Obozo or Biden’s posts you’d be here screaming censorship or racism. Because you’re, you know, a raving loon libtard.

 

[Levant]

When it comes to things as serious as child pornography and sex trafficking, Congress has made carve outs in section 230. I'm thinking most recently of FOSTA-SESTA signed in 2018, but even that came with debate about it's effect on free speech on the internet.

Holding platforms responsible for any illegal content that winds up on their server is not a good plan. For example, there's millions upon millions of tweets every day. Lots of them are getting pulled for reasons you state, but it's not possible for Twitter to screen every single one. Saying that Twitter must either touch no illegal content or all of it would be an impossible burden.

It's about intent. When they pick and choose illegal content then they become the enabler of illegal content. There's a lot of illegal content on Facebook yet Facebook censors spend their time on legal, political, content. It proves control over the message and intent to leave the illegal message.

 

[colfax_m]

When it comes to things as serious as child pornography and sex trafficking, Congress has made carve outs in section 230. I'm thinking most recently of FOSTA-SESTA signed in 2018, but even that came with debate about it's effect on free speech on the internet.

Holding platforms responsible for any illegal content that winds up on their server is not a good plan. For example, there's millions upon millions of tweets every day. Lots of them are getting pulled for reasons you state, but it's not possible for Twitter to screen every single one. Saying that Twitter must either touch no illegal content or all of it would be an impossible burden.

It's about intent. When they pick and choose illegal content then they become the enabler of illegal content. There's a lot of illegal content on Facebook yet Facebook censors spend their time on legal, political, content. It proves control over the message and intent to leave the illegal message.

You'd first have to demonstrate that facebook was aware of this illegal content, knew it was illegal content and decided to do nothing about it.

Given the massive amount of information on facebook, there's no conceivable way they could know everything on their servers.

So you're creating an impossible situation for them, which I suspect is the intent all along.

 

[Shelzin]

The company can do as it pleases, just like Facebook. It can be as ideologically closed or biased as it wants to be. If people don't like it, there are other options, as small as they may be.

Unless and until it's officially made a utility, it can operate as it sees fit under the law, and the market will decide.

FOX and MSNBC can, too.

Fox and MSNBC can be sued. It doesn't need to be made into a utility, just a publisher, rather than platform.

 

[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.

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

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

 

[Mac1958]

The company can do as it pleases, just like Facebook. It can be as ideologically closed or biased as it wants to be. If people don't like it, there are other options, as small as they may be.

Unless and until it's officially made a utility, it can operate as it sees fit under the law, and the market will decide.

FOX and MSNBC can, too.

Fox and MSNBC can be sued. It doesn't need to be made into a utility, just a publisher, rather than platform.

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.

 

[Levant]

You'd first have to demonstrate that facebook was aware of this illegal content, knew it was illegal content and decided to do nothing about it.

Given the massive amount of information on facebook, there's no conceivable way they could know everything on their servers.

So you're creating an impossible situation for them, which I suspect is the intent all along.

Nothing at all impossible about the situation: All they need do is to quit censoring political debate. Quit deleting medical information about which they know nothing in order to cause the deaths of thousands to support a political agenda.

 

[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.

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.

It wasn't a hoax. It was concern, and there were enough contacts with Russians, plus lies told, to merit investigating. The investigation did not support a case for criminal collusion. Case over.

You confuse legitimate investigations with hoaxes simply because they don't find any guilt.

Birtherism is a hoax. So is Pizzagate. So is the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory.