Trump signs social media executive order

originally posted by: UKTruth
Whilst I don;t agree with Twitter's bias, they are allowed to be biased. They are allowed to influence elections.
If they turn off enough people then they will lose audience - that's a free market choice.

they shouldn't be allowed to be biased, that's the point. there are two basic problems with it.

first, such corporations have monopolized human contact. people don't use sms or call each other that much anymore, they use twitter, whatsapp, facebook and so on. and as far as commenting on public events and figures goes, twitter has a goddamn monopoly, followed by facebook - except facebook said they don't feel like it's their job to fact check everything, and they're right.

second, most people are too dumb to think for themselves. if they'll see that twitter marked Trump's tweet as untrue, they'll run to their friends screaming about it, without giving it a second thought. whereas the truth is, he was right, and twitter's "fact checking" is twisting the facts to suit their agenda of throwing sh.t at POTUS.

‘Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” That quote isn’t from President Trump, who criticized mail-in voting this week after Wisconsin Democrats tried and failed to change an election at the last minute into an exclusively mail-in affair. It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

www.wsj.com...
yet twitter has the audacity to claim otherwise while "fact checking" Trump? how is that fact checking FFS? perhaps someone should fact check their fact checkers? or do you think twitter cannot be wrong?

because if that's so, you may as well be fine with letting those corporations directly pick the next POTUS. f.ck, that's exactly what will happen few years down the road if they won't be held accountable for their monopoly on influencing the society.

as for "free market", just look at what's going on online, everywhere. many corporations exist and earn money BECAUSE people are stupid and easily manipulated. society is too dumb to see they're being manipulated, so letting those corporations influence people instead of presenting facts and serving as a place for EACH voice to be heard, is simply wrong.

another thing to consider is the "snowflakiness" of people. many, especially from the left side, prefer to live in their own echo chamber and get mad when things don't go their way. i saw a few articles about this whole situation on, clearly left-leaning, the verge. just reading the comments there opens some eyes. people talk about protecting freedom of speech while screaming they wish twitter banned Trump - how is that protecting HIS right to free speech? oh right, if someone doesn't agree with them, he has no rights. same with "it'll lead to protests" - some folks have clearly very short memory if they already forgot all those "peaceful protests" destroying private property and harassing people while crying "not my president" right after the elections.

seriously, America, get your sh.t together. if you think your president makes you a laughing stock of the world, you're wrong. it's your moronic, hypocritical, dumb beyond belief, whiny society - or at least most of the left side of it. your beloved corporations you're so hellbent to protect are laughing their asses off while telling you what to think - and instead of showing them a middle finger, you're clapping your hands like a child that got a lollipop? because what, "orange man bad"?

are you f.cking insane, America?

a reply to: Gryphon66


How did Trump lie about mail fraud? It can happen which is what he is arguing. Also, it has happened. There is an investigation in Patterson New Jersey right now for the very thing. www.nbcnewyork.com...

Also, you can't fact check an opinion with an opinion which is what twitter was doing.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
Section 203 only requires that they censor "in good faith", not that they don't censor. You've got this all backwards.

To qualify for Section 230 protections, they are not allowed to make editorial decisions. None.

Censoring anything that does not violate their TOS is making editorial decisions. Fact checking is making editorial decisions.

What would be interesting is if they modified their TOS to say they only allow content that has been approved by 'certain defined and approved fact-checking organizations'...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
Section 203 only requires that they censor "in good faith", not that they don't censor. You've got this all backwards.

To qualify for Section 230 protections, they are not allowed to make editorial decisions. None.

Censoring anything that does not violate their TOS is making editorial decisions. Fact checking is making editorial decisions.

What would be interesting is if they modified their TOS to say they only allow content that has been approved by 'certain defined and approved fact-checking organizations'...

the problem is, twitter may claim Trump's tweet violates their TOS by "influencing elections/spreading lies about them". of course, their "fact checking" got it wrong, but at that point it's a mess either way.

that's why if they're editing anything, they shouldn't be protected, period. otherwise their TOS prevent their users from influencing the elections while doing the exact opposite for twitter itself - because twitter decides what violates its TOS. it may seem logical, considering they're a corporation, but considering their influence, it should NOT be allowed.

a reply to: tanstaafl

To qualify for Section 230 protections, they are not allowed to make editorial decisions. None.

They are. It's right in their Terms and Conditions of Service. It says they have the right to remove posts at will. It even says they might remove your post, but not someone else's that you think is a violation of their TOS, that they're under no responsibility to apply their rules equally, although, in good faith they try to.

The FFC Section 203 code requires social media to act "in good faith" when they enforce their TOS.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: UKTruth
Whilst I don;t agree with Twitter's bias, they are allowed to be biased. They are allowed to influence elections.
If they turn off enough people then they will lose audience - that's a free market choice.

they shouldn't be allowed to be biased, that's the point. there are two basic problems with it.

first, such corporations have monopolized human contact. people don't use sms or call each other that much anymore, they use twitter, whatsapp, facebook and so on. and as far as commenting on public events and figures goes, twitter has a goddamn monopoly, followed by facebook - except facebook said they don't feel like it's their job to fact check everything, and they're right.

second, most people are too dumb to think for themselves. if they'll see that twitter marked Trump's tweet as untrue, they'll run to their friends screaming about it, without giving it a second thought. whereas the truth is, he was right, and twitter's "fact checking" is twisting the facts to suit their agenda of throwing sh.t at POTUS.

‘Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” That quote isn’t from President Trump, who criticized mail-in voting this week after Wisconsin Democrats tried and failed to change an election at the last minute into an exclusively mail-in affair. It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

www.wsj.com...
yet twitter has the audacity to claim otherwise while "fact checking" Trump? how is that fact checking FFS? perhaps someone should fact check their fact checkers? or do you think twitter cannot be wrong?

because if that's so, you may as well be fine with letting those corporations directly pick the next POTUS. f.ck, that's exactly what will happen few years down the road if they won't be held accountable for their monopoly on influencing the society.

as for "free market", just look at what's going on online, everywhere. many corporations exist and earn money BECAUSE people are stupid and easily manipulated. society is too dumb to see they're being manipulated, so letting those corporations influence people instead of presenting facts and serving as a place for EACH voice to be heard, is simply wrong.

another thing to consider is the "snowflakiness" of people. many, especially from the left side, prefer to live in their own echo chamber and get mad when things don't go their way. i saw a few articles about this whole situation on, clearly left-leaning, the verge. just reading the comments there opens some eyes. people talk about protecting freedom of speech while screaming they wish twitter banned Trump - how is that protecting HIS right to free speech? oh right, if someone doesn't agree with them, he has no rights. same with "it'll lead to protests" - some folks have clearly very short memory if they already forgot all those "peaceful protests" destroying private property and harassing people while crying "not my president" right after the elections.

seriously, America, get your sh.t together. if you think your president makes you a laughing stock of the world, you're wrong. it's your moronic, hypocritical, dumb beyond belief, whiny society - or at least most of the left side of it. your beloved corporations you're so hellbent to protect are laughing their asses off while telling you what to think - and instead of showing them a middle finger, you're clapping your hands like a child that got a lollipop? because what, "orange man bad"?

are you f.cking insane, America?

No, THE point - and the only saliant one - is that they ARE allowed to be biased.
UNtil such time as a law is passed to prohibit such bias, then they have done and are doing nothing illegal.
It might be a sh*tty way to do business, but that is what free markets are there for - to make winners out of those businesses that the consumers of a product or service demand and use in great numbers. If people don't like the way Twitter do business they can go elsewhere. It's none of Trump's business or anyone else in Govt.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: UKTruth
Whilst I don;t agree with Twitter's bias, they are allowed to be biased. They are allowed to influence elections.
If they turn off enough people then they will lose audience - that's a free market choice.

they shouldn't be allowed to be biased, that's the point. there are two basic problems with it.

first, such corporations have monopolized human contact. people don't use sms or call each other that much anymore, they use twitter, whatsapp, facebook and so on. and as far as commenting on public events and figures goes, twitter has a goddamn monopoly, followed by facebook - except facebook said they don't feel like it's their job to fact check everything, and they're right.

second, most people are too dumb to think for themselves. if they'll see that twitter marked Trump's tweet as untrue, they'll run to their friends screaming about it, without giving it a second thought. whereas the truth is, he was right, and twitter's "fact checking" is twisting the facts to suit their agenda of throwing sh.t at POTUS.

‘Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” That quote isn’t from President Trump, who criticized mail-in voting this week after Wisconsin Democrats tried and failed to change an election at the last minute into an exclusively mail-in affair. It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

www.wsj.com...
yet twitter has the audacity to claim otherwise while "fact checking" Trump? how is that fact checking FFS? perhaps someone should fact check their fact checkers? or do you think twitter cannot be wrong?

because if that's so, you may as well be fine with letting those corporations directly pick the next POTUS. f.ck, that's exactly what will happen few years down the road if they won't be held accountable for their monopoly on influencing the society.

as for "free market", just look at what's going on online, everywhere. many corporations exist and earn money BECAUSE people are stupid and easily manipulated. society is too dumb to see they're being manipulated, so letting those corporations influence people instead of presenting facts and serving as a place for EACH voice to be heard, is simply wrong.

another thing to consider is the "snowflakiness" of people. many, especially from the left side, prefer to live in their own echo chamber and get mad when things don't go their way. i saw a few articles about this whole situation on, clearly left-leaning, the verge. just reading the comments there opens some eyes. people talk about protecting freedom of speech while screaming they wish twitter banned Trump - how is that protecting HIS right to free speech? oh right, if someone doesn't agree with them, he has no rights. same with "it'll lead to protests" - some folks have clearly very short memory if they already forgot all those "peaceful protests" destroying private property and harassing people while crying "not my president" right after the elections.

seriously, America, get your sh.t together. if you think your president makes you a laughing stock of the world, you're wrong. it's your moronic, hypocritical, dumb beyond belief, whiny society - or at least most of the left side of it. your beloved corporations you're so hellbent to protect are laughing their asses off while telling you what to think - and instead of showing them a middle finger, you're clapping your hands like a child that got a lollipop? because what, "orange man bad"?

are you f.cking insane, America?

No, THE point - and the only saliant one - is that they ARE allowed to be biased.
UNtil such time as a law is passed to prohibit such bias, then they have done and are doing nothing illegal.
It might be a sh*tty way to do business, but that is what free markets are there for - to make winners out of those businesses that the consumers of a product or service demand and use in great numbers. If people don't like the way Twitter do business they can go elsewhere. It's none of Trump's business or anyone else in Govt.

except it has everything to do with the government - because by having huge influence over the society, those corporations are able to influence the elections - something you yourself admitted.

and with people being the idiots they are, you end up with corporations deciding the outcome of democratic elections. sure, it's still a democracy, since the point of democracy is to give every single idiot a vote, but i kinda doubt that's the kind of democracy reasonable society would want.

political bias is everywhere, that's obvious, but while you have newspapers and tv channels from both sides of the fence, there's only one twitter, one facebook and so on. they've reached critical mass and they're all left-leaning. lets even forget about Trump and about republican party, but how is that fair to those people that don't agree with their bias? how can those people present their views on even grounds where the number one platform for quick social interaction, twitter, is biased, and can MISLABEL their posts ON PURPOSE, effectively spreading lies about those posters? it has nothing to do with TOS and everything to do with corporations like twitter making political calls.

if they wanna get political, they should state it on their website: "we support democratic party of the USA, we are not neutral". alternatively, Jack can just go and start his own political campaign. manipulating people from behind the scenes while using BS excuses to do so is just pathetic and the government has every right to intervene.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

good faith my ass.

with good intentions the road to hell is paved.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
a reply to: Sookiechacha

good faith my ass.

with good intentions the road to hell is paved.

IF you read Trump's Executive Order, it's almost completely arguing that tech giants like Twitter, are not enforcing their rules in good faith. As a matter of fact, his Executive Order treats their lack of good faith as factual, and therefore the need to reevaluate the law, keeping that in mind.

The EO is not enforceable. It's just a fancy plaintiff complaint.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: UKTruth
Whilst I don;t agree with Twitter's bias, they are allowed to be biased. They are allowed to influence elections.
If they turn off enough people then they will lose audience - that's a free market choice.

they shouldn't be allowed to be biased, that's the point. there are two basic problems with it.

first, such corporations have monopolized human contact. people don't use sms or call each other that much anymore, they use twitter, whatsapp, facebook and so on. and as far as commenting on public events and figures goes, twitter has a goddamn monopoly, followed by facebook - except facebook said they don't feel like it's their job to fact check everything, and they're right.

second, most people are too dumb to think for themselves. if they'll see that twitter marked Trump's tweet as untrue, they'll run to their friends screaming about it, without giving it a second thought. whereas the truth is, he was right, and twitter's "fact checking" is twisting the facts to suit their agenda of throwing sh.t at POTUS.

‘Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” That quote isn’t from President Trump, who criticized mail-in voting this week after Wisconsin Democrats tried and failed to change an election at the last minute into an exclusively mail-in affair. It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

www.wsj.com...
yet twitter has the audacity to claim otherwise while "fact checking" Trump? how is that fact checking FFS? perhaps someone should fact check their fact checkers? or do you think twitter cannot be wrong?

because if that's so, you may as well be fine with letting those corporations directly pick the next POTUS. f.ck, that's exactly what will happen few years down the road if they won't be held accountable for their monopoly on influencing the society.

as for "free market", just look at what's going on online, everywhere. many corporations exist and earn money BECAUSE people are stupid and easily manipulated. society is too dumb to see they're being manipulated, so letting those corporations influence people instead of presenting facts and serving as a place for EACH voice to be heard, is simply wrong.

another thing to consider is the "snowflakiness" of people. many, especially from the left side, prefer to live in their own echo chamber and get mad when things don't go their way. i saw a few articles about this whole situation on, clearly left-leaning, the verge. just reading the comments there opens some eyes. people talk about protecting freedom of speech while screaming they wish twitter banned Trump - how is that protecting HIS right to free speech? oh right, if someone doesn't agree with them, he has no rights. same with "it'll lead to protests" - some folks have clearly very short memory if they already forgot all those "peaceful protests" destroying private property and harassing people while crying "not my president" right after the elections.

seriously, America, get your sh.t together. if you think your president makes you a laughing stock of the world, you're wrong. it's your moronic, hypocritical, dumb beyond belief, whiny society - or at least most of the left side of it. your beloved corporations you're so hellbent to protect are laughing their asses off while telling you what to think - and instead of showing them a middle finger, you're clapping your hands like a child that got a lollipop? because what, "orange man bad"?

are you f.cking insane, America?

No, THE point - and the only saliant one - is that they ARE allowed to be biased.
UNtil such time as a law is passed to prohibit such bias, then they have done and are doing nothing illegal.
It might be a sh*tty way to do business, but that is what free markets are there for - to make winners out of those businesses that the consumers of a product or service demand and use in great numbers. If people don't like the way Twitter do business they can go elsewhere. It's none of Trump's business or anyone else in Govt.

and here you have the result of allowing political bias from corporations with too much power:
Twitter isn’t a government, but it’s the best one we’ve got

twitter goes all political, and - also left-leaning - the verge, praises it for it. is that what the society wants? country as strong economically and militarily as USA, ruled by corporations and their interests?

pull your head out of your ass, people, and look at the bigger picture.

a reply to: trollz

If there anyone on Earth that deserves to be fact-checked its Trump.

The Man tells more Porkie pies than Pinocchio on meth.

a reply to: UKTruth

No, THE point - and the only saliant one - is that they ARE allowed to be biased.
UNtil such time as a law is passed to prohibit such bias, then they have done and are doing nothing illegal.

The law was passed; it's called "Section 230" and it applies only to social media sites that do not editorialize and only delete posts according to their T&C in good faith... like Sookiechacha says. "Good faith," incidentally, does not include deleting only posts they politically disagree with. But now they ARE editorializing, and they ARE "fact-checking" (which is a type of editorializing), and they ARE deleting posts with a political agenda. Therefore, they no longer qualify for Section 230 protection and they have to abide by the same rules as any other publisher. The Executive Order simply recognizes that they do not get special protections.

Nothing in the Executive Order prevents Twitter from continuing to press their agenda. They are free to do so. However, as a publisher, they now face the same legal requirements as other publishers. I'm not sure why anyone would consider that unfair... it is unfair to give Twitter special protections that were never intended for companies who do what they are now doing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: trollz

If there anyone on Earth that deserves to be fact-checked its Trump.

The Man tells more Porkie pies than Pinocchio on meth.

You can't fact check an opinion, using an opinion. CNN and HuFFpo, being used to fact check is laughable. If Twitter decided to fact check Dems using Fox News and New York Post your head would explode.

a reply to: kyosuke

When the opinions can not be backed up by viable factual evidence that needs to be clearly pointed out.

I don't even have a Twitter account, that's Trump's bag of spanners to contend with.

The dude took the huff and started passing executive orders out of spite, priceless really and completely predictable given the Man in question.

a reply to: trollz
Who is this Trump person you speak of and what is social media?

Such hypocrisy. If obama did this to right-leaning companies this website would have been in an uproar.

OP says this isnt a communist and socialist nation but then goes on to cheer for big gov regulating how companies interact with their users.

Typical political hypocrites. Your societal ethics on operate according to your bias.

a reply to: blueman12
This started under Obama! That's exactly why it has become such a problem. Obama greenlighted this stuff. #ing Obama used the IRS as his own political weapon.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

To qualify for Section 230 protections, they are not allowed to make editorial decisions. None.

They are. It's right in their Terms and Conditions of Service. It says they have the right to remove posts at will. It even says they might remove your post, but not someone else's that you think is a violation of their TOS, that they're under no responsibility to apply their rules equally, although, in good faith they try to.

The FFC Section 203 code requires social media to act "in good faith" when they enforce their TOS.

It is section 230, not 203, and the meaning of 'good faith' apparently escapes you.

Anyone who suggests they are acting in good faith right now has serious mental issues they should be addressing.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

A lovely example actually as the verge is owned by vox media, founded by partisan political leftist Jerome Tyler and now also partially owned by Comcast through NBC universal And various other subsidiaries. Lovely thing when the liberal media tries to tell the public that they are the government.

originally posted by: UKTruth
No, THE point - and the only saliant one - is that they ARE allowed to be biased.

No, The point is...

UNtil such time as a law is passed to prohibit such bias, then they have done and are doing nothing illegal.

It is called the CDA. Their time is nigh... but go on, feel free to wail and gnash away. It is really fun to watch.