Trump signs social media executive order

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: 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!

3 cheers! hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip horray

Just don't complain when the shoe is on the other foot, and a Democrat misuses power in this realm (again).

Each president has put the bar higher, and it's possible because partisans cheer it on while it fits their agenda... Then cry bloody murder when that starts a chain of events that inevitably screws them, and more importantly everyone.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It doesn't matter what platform you use to voice your opinions.

Moderators can act with leniency or extreme prejudice.

I think ATS mods are very fair. To compare ATS to Twitter is Apples and Oranges.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yeah right, Sookie. If they monitored THAT much then your post count wouldn't even be in the triple digits.

What did burn say that was knowingly false?

a reply to: Sookiechacha
They better make damn sure they have enough proof
to stand up in court when they claim a tweet is untrue.

And this goes for any one of their fake "fact checkers".

That is where this is headed.

Argh censorship......

wait a minute Mr Trumps tweet is still there and has always been there, seems like some people are shouting at the sky, how come its those same people who normally say its the left who act like children.

here is his tweet so you can all sleep easy again in your safe spaces

Psycho Joe Scarborough is rattled, not only by his bad ratings but all of the things and facts that are coming out on the internet about opening a Cold Case. He knows what is happening!

The leader of America, makes you proud to be British boris is daft but not narcissistic

originally posted by: American-philosopher

This is nonsense.
Trump is powerless to enforce any executive order he writes to restrict Twitter.
The route for change is Congress, not the Executive Branch.
Having read Section 230 again recently the language is pretty clear. It mentions nothing about bias. It just says that online platforms can not be held accountable for the content the users upload.

a reply to: UKTruth

Again I will repeat it again in this thread, But Barr made the point that these companies grew on pretending that that they were public forums.

Maybe thats what they need tu turn into. is public forums.

Barr's point was dumb. Who cares how they grew. A private company is allowed to change it's policies as they grow.
Your choice and Trump's choice is simple - use another platform. Twitter have done nothing illegal. They are simply biased against Conservatives, which they are allowed to be.

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?

a reply to: neutronflux

Twitter would lose there special status because they use censorship to promote a biased political view.

If that is true, then the injured party can sue Twitter for discrimination. Removing their liability shield against what 3trd parties post is counter productive to free speech. If Twitter is liable for the president's tweets, they won't post them.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
...it's why a lot are moving to Minds, Bitchute etc with Patreon accounts.

That's the way it should work, the free market should dictate, not dictatorial government action.

If only the average American understood this principal.

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.

Which, even if they did, a private company can do

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

thats why hopefully this EO or more legislation to come can change these big tech compnaies into a "public forum"

So we can stop this never ending tango.

Like the president said it himself " I can reach 183 million people with twitter."

If you dont like it start your own platform not really viable for reaching 183 million people.

It blows me away that folks in this thread are trying to make this about politics.

George Orwell called it.

They didn't even remove the tweet

a reply to: CriticalStinker

that basically called him a liar on the fact checking which is even worse them removing the tweet.

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.

originally posted by: UKTruth
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.

They can break rules too as long as they use the DNC for cover.

a reply to: burntheships

They better make damn sure they have enough proof
to stand up in court when they claim a tweet is untrue.

And this goes for any one of their fake "fact checkers".

Do you feel the same way about the social media platform you're posting on right now? I'm thinking you might be one of first people to click on the ALERT button if someone was posting falsehoods about a pet topic of yours.

ATS has a HOAX bin they dump lies and falsehood in. What standard do you hold ATS staff and mods to?

originally posted by: American-philosopher

They didn't even remove the tweet

a reply to: CriticalStinker

that basically called him a liar on the fact checking which is even worse them removing the tweet.

OMG.... How horrible.

When you put it like that, I definitely think the federal government should be able to intervene when a politicians feelings are hurt.

I had no idea that's what was going on. We should definitely have the trusty government regulate it. They have our rights and best interest at heart.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hello. Thats the argument. They can discriminate because the are a private company that can set their terms of use. But they want their cake and eat it to by supposedly remaining “neutral” so they get out of liability suits. Social media is playing all sides.

a reply to: trollz
There are far more important matters re social media and politics.

Just because the Donald had a couple of posts for pretty obviously factual reasons, it is seen as an attack on a particular political grouping...namely the Donald party. Oh! fecking dear, when this is a man who attacks just about everybody and their granny with cant and lies, and made up stories.
So, now it's up to Twitter to follow through on all rubbish posts, (that includes Mr Donald BTW) a formidable task for sure, while Trump wants to prosecute social media....it better be good stuff though, not the work of a low grade dictator.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


Do you feel the same way about the social media platform you're posting on right now? I'm thinking you might be one of first people to click on the ALERT button if someone was posting falsehoods about a pet topic of yours.

No, using your logic it would be YOU that would hit the alert button.

And the executive order is not aimed at the weak minded folks
on twitter who can't stand to read an opposing view. It is aimed
at the owners of Twitter.

See the difference?