Trump HAS SIGNED Executive Order after Twitter fact-checks his tweet - How fucked are social media corporations for fucking with the First Amendment?

[Get_your_kicks_with_30-06]

The draft is here!

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

Considering the media and social media were happy to parrot shit like the Covington kid was racist when he was, if anything, nervous and actually had done stuff to diffuse the situation a bit, and people just gulped it down and social media did little to stop it and did not "fact check," and people are dumb enough to believe that and Pissgate, I'm not sure it's in society's best interest to allow these propaganda machines to keep destroying lives and letting an impressionable and gullible populace to rely on their "critical thinking."

Do you really think social media should not be culpable when they don't remove stuff like life-destroying smears about the Covington kid but are willing to correct relatively-minute things Trump says? When you play an uneven ball game, you're editorializing and thus complicit in the libel.

I'm not disagreeing with you per se but my counter argument would be that the price of free speech and a free press is an acknowledgement that they'll use that freedom to say what they want. The problem with regulating something like this is you have to have an unbiased way of enforcing the regulation. All media is ultimately somebody's opinion and if somebody else has a dissenting opinion who decides where the bias lies? Are you going to have a jury trial every time Facebook wants to delete a post? I'm honestly not trying to be shitty, I don't disagree with you but the idea of regulating social media is such a dumpster fire of an idea out of the gate. You have to answer the questions of Who decides what's biased, or censorship, how the process is conducted, what are the penalties, who is responsible for the content, who is liable for the punishments. How is a complaint raised and where does the authority lie?

Dealing with facts is easy, if a newspaper states it's a FACT that Trump eats babies and Trump sues them for libel, unless the paper can categorically prove that he does in fact eat babies, they've defacto told a lie. If the editor writes an opinion piece that says Trump seems like the kind of guy who wouldn't have a problem eating babies then that's an opinion. Now if Trump takes offence at that and demands the opinion is retracted who enforces that? Trump is of the opinion that mail in ballots are vulnerable to fraud. Twitter are of the opinion he's full of shit. Trump could have made that statement anywhere but chose to do it on a platform that he knows disagrees with him.

As for the Covington kid? Yeah he became an undeserved poster boy for easy left wing sniping, and much as I personally disagree with his politics, he wasn't expressing them in a way I disagree with and then some photographer got a lucky split second picture of him looking like a smug arsewipe in front of a scared looking old man.

Ultimately media restriction is unworkable, free press is a sort of all or nothing deal and part of being a leader is coping with the fact that the press hate you and love you in equal measure. The rise of social media has given misinformation a platform to spread in ways never before thought of and it does spread, because generally bullshit is more interesting than facts. If Trump makes Facebook and Twitter libel for the opinions of users, they'll go dark in the US faster than Trump can eat a 12 piece bucket. Being the man who took Facebook away is going to lose him the election so he probably wont do that, which means this executive order is most likely going to be a toothless "Aww be nice!" made to look like a real change.

EDIT Nah he's trying to take section 230 protection away from them. Enjoy that shitstorm.

 

[acmeurquhart]

“The corporate press is factual but not truthful.” —some jеw on twitter.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

I'd agree with you moreso if I thought the internet was in a salvageable state but I just want to see everything burn.

I'm going to enjoy watching this shitstorm.

 

[CrunkLord420]

Unless I missed some details I'm pretty happy with the draft. It barely changes any laws, just makes the existing language about maintaining your protections more specific and puts out good faith requirements. The biggest change is the interpretation that editorializing ("fact-checking") is not really different than outright removal of content.

Calling out Twitter and Facebook as being publishers is absolutely correct, they do not deserve protections as long as they engage in their current moderation policies. All they're really required to do in order to maintain protections is actually be transparent and honest about it.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The draft is here!

View attachment 1327274View attachment 1327275View attachment 1327279View attachment 1327280
View attachment 1327283View attachment 1327284

Oh boy, daddy trump wants to "clarify" section 230. @Null on suicide watch.

 

[HumanHive]

Oh no, he called out big tech on China. They really did piss off the wrong shitposter. The EO stops just short of accusing them of treason.

 

[Get_your_kicks_with_30-06]

https://twitter.com/Romans5_4/status/1266046724285575168

Dear leader @Null seems a bit upset over the new EO draft

 

[Кот Бегемот]

Oh boy, daddy trump wants to "clarify" section 230. @Null on suicide watch.

I bet Null's dick got so hard, his lost foreskin practically grew back.

 

[NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE]

What you can't do is go to your local supermarket and call the cashier a racist name. You can't do this because you're in a public place and racist and xenophobic language and behavior in public isn't considered protected speech

wrong, bootlicker. your twitter safespace is about to be crushed. now you will have to deal with seeing racist and trans-xeno-otherkinphobic facts and opinions on the internet and make up your own mind on whether to believe them, like an adult.
edit: found a video proving you wrong. I say nigger as much as I want to every time I go shopping and nobody can stop me.

 

[CrunkLord420]

oh no now Janny Jewsh will need to be clear and transparent about his sweeping activities

 

[Absolutego]

lol, the order draft Null linked references Packingham vs North Carolina directly and demands the FTC investigate whether Twitter specifically engaged in unfair practices, using a public complaint desk to feed the investigation. Some interesting practices the order calls out as specifically needing evaluation by the FTC:
i. monitoring or creating watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or users (e.g., likes, follows, time spent)
ii. monitoring users based on their activity off the platform

So checkmark block lists and the ever-fascinating phenomenon of the facebook app capturing mic data when the app is closed are potentially on the chopping block.
Still pretty hacky to do it via Executive Order, but part of a long-running trend, sadly.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

I love how the left is suddenly extremely upset and indignant about this and Twitter and Facebook's free speech, despite their long-held, though quiet, support of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[Marissa Moira]

We will all dreep dinkly the blood of jannies.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Oh boy, daddy trump wants to "clarify" section 230. @Null on suicide watch.

The text of the EO doesn't seem to do much more than require companies abide by the law that they're hiding behind, equally to all sides, with a little fuck-you to jack and co for being disingenuous shits.

e: I suppose the problem would be whether they consider the removal of spam, illegal shit, and obvious attempts to disrupt communication on the platform as falling under 230 protections or not. From the reading of it, I don't think they'll treat spam removal or deletions of that nature as breaching the law.

 

[Boss Nigger]

Dear Leader is just sitting in his bathtub razorblades ready

 

[Bland Crumbs]

Unless I missed some details I'm pretty happy with the draft. It barely changes any laws, just makes the existing language about maintaining your protections more specific and puts out good faith requirements. The biggest change is the interpretation that editorializing ("fact-checking") is not really different than outright removal of content.

Calling out Twitter and Facebook as being publishers is absolutely correct, they do not deserve protections as long as they engage in their current moderation policies. All they're really required to do in order to maintain protections is actually be transparent and honest about it.

It is actually less stupid than I expected by a pretty large measure.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Apparently he is doing this under the authority of the federal trade commission act? Yikes.

Trump dunking on the Soy King Twitter censor is funny though. Dont get in a penis measuring contest with the us president.

 

[Lone MacReady]

I'm pressing it as hard as I can

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

Is anyone else excited because they are just so disenchanted with the internet, politics, and humanity, that they just want to see people angrily fight about this shit, and you just hate everyone so much that you no longer even care about how this EO might backfire and be shitty to us, and just want to see people angry and fighting because there is nothing really left to enjoy other than chaos and seeing social media companies get a dick up the butt?