Trump signs social media executive order

originally posted by: burntheships
When these so called platforms discriminate against certain
political leanings and perform "fact checks" they are acting
as a publisher and need to be held accountable.

This is good news!

Plus, people have to keep in mind that the president of the United States is privy to certain information that is not available to the General Public.

Therefore it is impossible for a platform or a news organization to fact-check him or her on everything said or revealed.

The whole "fact check" thing is f-ing stupid. Especially when its CNN doing the fact checking.

How about they let people make up their own mind.

We don't need an executive order and we don't need fact checked tweets. Just some of that oh so uncommon, common sense.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: trollz

The order may alter Section 230, which protects them from litigation.

I fail to see the point. If Twitter becomes liable for the content of 3rd party posts, they're going to censure even more. They're going to have censure President Trump, if they could be held liable for his tweets.

The word you're looking for is "censor". Censure has a different meaning.

Thanks.

censure
VERB
express severe disapproval of (someone or something), especially in a formal statement.

That is actually what Twitter did, by putting a fact check disclaimer under Trump's post.

Now, we have government overreach looking for ways to force Twitter to censor 3rd party posts, to protect themselves from liability.

a reply to: opethPA

Poor choice of word.

Monitored would be more befitting in this case.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here’s the argument...

Republicans working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

thehill.com...

The lawmakers began work on legislation following Twitter's decision to add warnings to two tweets by President Trump this week in which he railed against California's decision to expand mail-in voting. Trump tweeted without evidence that mail-in voting could increase voter fraud.

Both Hawley and Gaetz argued that Twitter's decision to flag the tweets called its legal liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act into question. Section 230 protects social media platforms from facing lawsuits over what users post.

Hawley sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday questioning why the platform should be given Section 230 protections and tweeted that he would soon introduce legislation to end "government giveaways" under the legal shield.

"If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users' posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers," Hawley tweeted. "Fair is fair."

Hawley questioned Dorsey on whether Twitter's "fact check" was part of an effort to "target the President for political reasons" and raised concerns that Twitter fact-checkers were biased against Trump.

Sorry double post.

a reply to: trollz

Yes there is a left wing bias in social media.

What has just happened is that we allowed federal government to inject itself into free speech.

Imagine what Biden will do if he wins.

Double post? Delete please.

This should be handled better. They need to force the companies to a source code inspection and see if algorithms are present that renders certain things to be seen in mass for a purpose. Like election influencing by tech companies (which they did in fact try last election) and then take it from there.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Imagine what Biden will do if he wins.

He wouldl do nothing except take naps, and his female VP
would change his diaper now and then.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: UKTruth

Whilst I don;t agree with Twitter's bias, they are allowed to be biased. They are allowed to influence elections. 

Unless they're Russians eh?

No, Russians are allowed to influence elections too. Anyone in the world is as long as they don;t break any laws in doing so.

Did I imagine the last 3 and a half years?

I thought Trump only won because of illegal Russian trolls?

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think that was my view.

I know it's not your view which is why I'm so baffled by your statement.

You shouldn't be baffled. It's possible to be against the crazy whack job Russian Collusion hoax AND think it is a stupid idea for Trump to try and impose restrictions on Twitter. He's basically shot himself in the foot. It's an idiot move to enter a fight you can't win.

Obviously people want to concentrate on the lighting rod that is President Trump.

But can we look at from the stand point that voices and content need to be given a voice and not banned. or censored.

If you listen to podcast or stream content from different shows and personalities they are all worried about what they are saying and not having freedom of expression because they are worried about losing thier platform.

think about how much better their content would be if they had the ability to be fully creative and expressive.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
The whole "fact check" thing is f-ing stupid. Especially when its CNN doing the fact checking.

How about they let people make up their own mind.

We don't need an executive order and we don't need fact checked tweets. Just some of that oh so uncommon, common sense.

I fully agree, and I think CNN and Twitter are just as bad if not worse than politicians as far as their virtue signaling.

But let's be honest. Both sides are filled with SJW wanting the feds to enact their brand of justice. By it's very nature, it's authoritarian, and partisans on both sides want the government to be their muscle man dictating what is acceptable out of society and individuals.

The proof is in the pudding. Both sides have been silent as congress and presidents have grabbed more and more power. And both act like pundits and private companies are somehow the ones who oppress us.

Well I don't watch CNN and haven't in years... I don't use twitter and never will at length past tech support with trivial companies. Optional companies can't oppress me near as much as my government who has made the constitution powerless.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
Obviously people want to concentrat on the lighting rod that is President Trump.

But can we look at from the stand point that voices and content need to be given a voice and not banned. or censored.

If you listen to podcast or stream content from different shows and personalities they are all worried about what they are saying and not having freedom of expression because they are worried about losing thier platform.

think about how much better their content would be if they had the ability to be fully creative and expressive.

The opposite will happen. Platforms are going to be overly cautious if they don't have protection from law suits. They will stiffle freedom of expression far beyond simply being biased with their policies.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: UKTruth

Whilst I don;t agree with Twitter's bias, they are allowed to be biased. They are allowed to influence elections. 

Unless they're Russians eh?

No, Russians are allowed to influence elections too. Anyone in the world is as long as they don;t break any laws in doing so.

Did I imagine the last 3 and a half years?

I thought Trump only won because of illegal Russian trolls?

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think that was my view.

I know it's not your view which is why I'm so baffled by your statement.

You shouldn't be baffled. It's possible to be against the crazy whack job Russian Collusion hoax AND think it is a stupid idea for Trump to try and impose restrictions on Twitter. He's basically shot himself in the foot. It's an idiot move to enter a fight you can't win.

Perhaps but people tell lies a million times a day on Social Networks. Why can't they just let people believe what they want to believe?

Considering these networks are so much in peoples lives, is it so bad to let people say what they want to say? Whether it's true or not?

They are void from publishing liability so why are they censoring opinions?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: FauxMulder
The whole "fact check" thing is f-ing stupid. Especially when its CNN doing the fact checking.

How about they let people make up their own mind.

We don't need an executive order and we don't need fact checked tweets. Just some of that oh so uncommon, common sense.

I fully agree, and I think CNN and Twitter are just as bad if not worse than politicians as far as their virtue signaling.

But let's be honest. Both sides are filled with SJW wanting the feds to enact their brand of justice. By it's very nature, it's authoritarian, and partisans on both sides want the government to be their muscle man dictating what is acceptable out of society and individuals.

The proof is in the pudding. Both sides have been silent as congress and presidents have grabbed more and more power. And both act like pundits and private companies are somehow the ones who oppress us.

Well I don't watch CNN and haven't in years... I don't use twitter and never will at length past tech support with trivial companies. Optional companies can't oppress me near as much as my government who has made the constitution powerless.

But see that's where it gets crazy too. Google built a town specifically for social engineering as an experiment. When you have a corporation making that much money and doing things like that ....... well, we all know the digits talk in government, and god only knows what monster that'll create in the future.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yep, a vicious cycle. It's why the government is as big as it is. Supposed to be what the constitution is for...

A republic, if you can keep it.

a reply to: Flesh699

Do you trust the government protecting you from Google when they're in cahoots?

Only a matter of time until a federal judge shuts it down. Not too worried about it.

At first, I was angry at Trump, until I read the actual EO.

It's not removing Section 230 protections. It's more tightly defining them to better reflect modern reality.

The Executive Order

The idea here is that when social media decides to comment on peoples posts, they then become authors rather than hosts. It will have no impact at all on the opinions of people posting. It will only hold the company responsible for their own speech.