Trump signs social media executive order

Which makes Twitter liable.

This EO has NOTHING to do with third parties.

Damn.....some people are really ignorant.

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.

a reply to: neutronflux

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.

So? Just because a social media business can't be sued for their users posts doesn't mean that they don't have responsibilities to their other users and readers, to keep their business model profitable and socially acceptable. In the end, they're still a private business that has the right to demand company policy compliance of their users or censor, add disclaimers and/or ban users.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

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?

They SHOULD let people say what they want - especially as they have liability protection baked into law.
That does not mean the Executive Branch has any right to intervene if Twitter chooses to be biased.

Where does it say in law that Twitter can not be biased?

This is all because Trump was affected... He's done nothing at all for 3 years as conservatives were targeted and banned from social media platforms. He does not care one jot about them, he's just pissed that he has now been affected. It's actually pretty pathetic.

I think this EO will only strip them of their 230 protection if they don't follow their own TOS and show unfair political bias.

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

a reply to: Blaine91555

Can you explain that, I am not sure I fully understand? social media becomes authors or the user who post becomes the author??

a reply to: DeathSlayer

This EO has NOTHING to do with third parties.

Yes it does. Because Twitter added a disclaimer to Trump's 3rd party post, he's accusing them of acting like publishers, and therefore aren't entitled to their legal liability shield against being sued for 3rd party content...since Trump now deems them publishers...because they published a disclaimer below his post.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So a guy posts on Twitter that he thinks mass postal ballots aren't to be trusted.

That's some dangerous sh!t right there.

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!

This is exactly the point. I'm seeing people badmouth the president because this is just him getting his way through a temper tantrum but what they fail to realize, it goes so much deeper than Trump. This is something bigger than Trump. It affects all groups that these media giants don't care for. For something so big... That's BS! They should be taken down to a point to where they're not allowed to sensor whoever they feel like it.

Amazon is starting to do the same damn thing with their censoring of feedback. If you're not nice to the people who sell you junk... Amazon will censor you.

Screw Amazon, Google, FB, Google and everyone else that wants to take sides and play communist to please inhumane countries for the sake of their billions of dollars. Monopolies have gotten out of hand for so long, now they're doing real damage to free speech just like they did to all of the mom and pop businesses.

There was a reason monopolies were outlawed... Before they called it something else to get around it.



Anarchy baby! let's do this! Social media must pay! They owe a lot of back pay to the people they've been stealing from and the voices they've been shutting out for a long time now. Make them pay every cent's worth!

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I guess so! I mean look at Trump's reaction! He wrote and executive order, he's so mad! He's so mad he wants laws changed!

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

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?

They SHOULD let people say what they want - especially as they have liability protection baked into law.
That does not mean the Executive Branch has any right to intervene if Twitter chooses to be biased.

Where does it say in law that Twitter can not be biased?

This is all because Trump was affected... He's done nothing at all for 3 years as conservatives were targeted and banned from social media platforms. He does not care one jot about them, he's just pissed that he has now been affected. It's actually pretty pathetic.

Well when you put it like that, I see your point.

However, if that's what it takes to get the discussion moving then it's a start towards equality.

a reply to: trollz

This is good but notice how it was only AFTER he was hit by twitter police that it is now a must. Why not before all the conservative voices were thrown from twitter or youtube etc. ?

Thank you

I wish others who post in this OP could understand instead of starting confusion about talking about third parties.....

Sounds like Twitter is here within this thread..... lol

originally posted by: Blaine91555
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.

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

I guess so! I mean look at Trump's reaction! He wrote and executive order, he's so mad! He's so mad he wants laws changed!

No, he wants laws abided by.

Social Media can't have it both ways.

Irony!!!

If Mango Mussolini had worked half as fast on covid as he did on this, the tweet would never have even needy to be made, or fact checked.

Your politics is better than than the last pay per view war.

What's next?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: trollz

This is the USA, not communist China or North Korea, and these companies better remember that!

This is 2020 not the 1950's , mccarthyist witch hunts with no base in reality have no place in a functioning Democracy , the road to dictatorship is a slippery one.

Twitter did nothing but fact check his claim and Trump flipped his lid , government control or influence over freedom of expression on the internet is a bad thing and nothing to be celebrated.

The did not FACT CHECK anything. They gave other opinions as fact on his opinion which was a fact. Fact is that there are MANY examples of mail in voter fraud. So Trumps opinion was ACCURATE and the opinion pieces placed to "correct" Trump were completely INACCURATE.

I have a feeling that you try hard to not look into subjects at hand when they side with whatever your notions are. Maybe you don't have the time to check.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

No, he wants laws abided by.

What law?

Social Media can't have it both ways.

What both ways?

If social media companies can be sued for what you post on their website, they're going to limit what you can post. This move is anti-free speech, all because Twitter fact checked Trump's claim.

originally posted by: StallionDuck

I'm seeing people badmouth the president because this is just him getting his way through a temper tantrum but what they fail to realize, it goes so much deeper than Trump. This is something bigger than Trump.

Yes, it is a much deeper issue, only it seems many people
will be led to their own demise if someone they hate goes first.

People have lost their minds, they truly can't think straight
due to "Trump hurt my feelings".

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
No, he wants laws abided by.

Social Media can't have it both ways.

If a law was broken, there would be no EO, just an investigation.

I doubt he realized that by issuing the EO, he is outright showing that the law has not been broken, by changing it so that it will be.

originally posted by: opethPA
He signed an EO that "MAY" lead to chages, it doesn't actually change anything.

I keep waiting for examples of how Trump was censored on the two Tweets in question.

Since you're not able to see what many of us see as obvious:


2 people are walking down the street in different directions. One has a person following everywhere they go, shouting "This person is lying - This person is lying", continually, over and over again.

The other person has no such thing following. They can say and do what they please while the shouting person ignores them completely even if this person is saying untrue things.


THAT is a form of censorship.


You can not be a multi billion dollar business and allow one customer to do what the hell they want and say what they want while telling another customer to get the hell out of their store or STFU.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Actually...that is called harassment.

You already have laws about that.