Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies

  • Thread starter Thread starter RidgeSprinter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Twitter could not have selected to better examples in which to apply the fact check.
The tweets are indefensible factually. The Scarborough one is vile, and the other totally devoid of proof.
 
Really didn’t expect this. I suppose the trigger is what Twitter did, but it’s weird to see the whole “social media is silencing conservatives” online culture war stuff leak into real legislation. Another reminder of how integrated the online right/alt-right and the Trump administration are.
 
It is better to see this now, because it is inevitable if Trump wins. I hope there is more and more of it now. So there is no mistake about presidential control and extortive plans for news media outlets.
Let’s see it all, in all it’s horror, now, when we can choose to live free or choose a Trump reality some might prefer to our Constitutional system.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I’m not too worried about it. The way these platforms are developing is tending towards greater “censorship” of what users can post and restrictions on how they engage with the platform anyway. All these companies care about is making their platforms marketable, and squeezing more ad revenue out of them. There were leaked plans from Twitter a while back which suggested they wanted to allow people to change the settings on their tweets to stop the public from interacting with them. Basically the tweet would just appear as an announcement, which others cannot respond to or ‘like’. This would clearly just be a measure to appease brands and celebrities, who can advertise without being subject to ridicule from the wider community, while making the experience less interactive for average users.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
All these companies care about is making their platforms marketable, and squeezing more ad revenue out of them.
Click to expand...
That’s both true and often overlooked. YouTube’s “Adpocolypse” was largely driven by advertisers pulling out of advertising not only on YouTube but on the Google ad network in general. A significant portion of their revenue comes from advertisement. While it was sometimes labeled as a move against conservatives it was driven by advertisers and what they consider brand-friendly content. Not that conservatives were the only ones affected.

There was also a lawsuit that was raised claiming that there was an anti-gay/queer bias because content that talked about aspects of one’s life as a non-heterosexual would receive less visibility and paired with advertisers less
 
Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies on Thursday, days after Twitter called two of his tweets “potentially misleading.”

Trump signs executive order targeting social media companies - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...
oh the irony, of TRUMP keeping his word to make America first

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I wonder if this will apply to any website that removes comments? Could be a pretty slippery slope. Might affect CAF too.
 
Csakimavan said:
I wonder if it is now acceptable to post news about home-made WMD’s with description on how to make them. Freedom of expression has never included “shouting fire” in a crowded theater. And now the so-called conservatives would like to disseminate their lies under the First Amendment.

The proper way would be: “let them say whatever they want to” and use the best available AI (Watson) to fact check and mercilessly stamp them “LIES!”, when appropriate. Not just a wimpy “misleading”, but “LIE” and “vicious LIE”.
Click to expand...
Easier to “DELETE”?
or
Put a “VICIOUS LIE” watermark on the comment?
 
Not many people mention Section 230 of the FCC code by which Big Tech sets its model of performing editorial functions while pretending not be editors via its exemption from Section 230 controls.

This section is part of the 1996 CDA (Communications Decency Act) and there is likely some leeway for the FCC to decide that through their editorial control of certain content that these companies can no longer avail themselves of the Section 230 safe harbor provisions.

On the other hand, we are dealing with core First Amendment issues along with the nature of public vs private platforms. If the Citizens United decision gave very wide leeway toward the First Amendment, it’s hard to justify going away from that as a means of combating the editorial prerogatives at Twitter, Alphabet, Facebook, et al.

Maybe the best thing would be to let the Section 230 exemptions remain in place, but instead bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Just kicking that around.
 
Last edited:
Trump tried to limit comment and lost.
I see your point. I don’t think he is going to bully them in an election year. They can retaliate
 
The problem for Trump is this:

Facebook is a privately-owned company. So are Google, Twitter, Snapchat, and all the other social networks. Because they are privately owned, they have to right to control what content is allowed and not allowed on their service.

His executive order will be toothless. He thinks he can do anything with an executive order. God Complex?
 
He is exposing them to litigation. Same bully tactic he always used.
 
Well, it has been 4 hours and no executive order yet. Pessimistic it will not happen.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
Not many people mention Section 230 of the FCC code by which Big Tech sets its model of performing editorial functions while pretending not be editors via its exemption from Section 230 controls.

This section is part of the 1996 CDA (Communications Decency Act) and there is likely some leeway for the FCC to decide that through their editorial control of certain content that these companies can no longer avail themselves of the Section 230 safe harbor provisions.

On the other hand, we are dealing with core First Amendment issues along with the nature of public vs private platforms. If the Citizens United decision gave very wide leeway toward the First Amendment, it’s hard to justify going away from that as a means of combating the editorial prerogatives at Twitter, Alphabet, Facebook, et al.

Maybe the best thing would be to let the Section 230 exemptions remain in place, but instead bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Just kicking that around.
Click to expand...
This is a relevant post. The social media tech companies get legal exemptions from being sued for libel, unlike news outlets. However, if they censor content, which they are free to do, and it provides almost an in-kind contribution to a particular party or point-of-view, then they should be subject to the laws everybody else is subject to. (Including campaign finance laws).
 
RidgeSprinter said:
Facebook is a privately-owned company. So are Google, Twitter, Snapchat, and all the other social networks. Because they are privately owned, they have to right to control what content is allowed and not allowed on their service.
Click to expand...
A couple of points:
What makes the NY Times, et al, different from Facebook and Twitter? They’re both platforms for descriptions and expressions of current events, after all. What makes NY Times subject to Section 230, but Twitter not subject to that?

This is why I suggested a return to the Fairness Doctrine might be better than fighting over Section 230 designations. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land from 1949 to 1987 with some provisions surviving until 2000. Private companies were not only subjected to it, it survived a Supreme Court challenge.
KMC said:
The social media tech companies get legal exemptions from being sued for libel, unlike news outlets. However, if they censor content, which they are free to do, and it provides almost an in-kind contribution to a particular party or point-of-view, then they should be subject to the laws everybody else is subject to. (Including campaign finance laws).
Click to expand...
If these companies are performing editorial controls, what makes them different from the NY Times that aspect of their business? Shouldn’t they be subject to the same laws that the NY Times is?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top