- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Can somebody, in layman's terms, describe what this bill is?
Trump HAS SIGNED Executive Order after Twitter fact-checks his tweet - How fucked are social media corporations for fucking with the First Amendment?
- Thread starter Get_your_kicks_with_30-06
- Start date
The Demon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2017
are you doing okay, buddy? how are you holding up against all this
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2019
Blame the sites that didn't act in good faith. Internet was doing just fine before Twitter and Google decided to start "fact checking".
Flea Man Marbles
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 20, 2019
It's well within Twitter's rights to 'fact check' anybody. Truth is a privilege, not a right unlike free speech. No one's stopping Trump from yelling out the window exactly what he shits out on his Iphone 19 twenty times a day on Twatter. The old man is literally so MATI he signed a fucking EO lmao. This is just another distraction from the real important issues.
Seriously, put your money where your mouth is and stop fucking using Twitter. Stop posting it, stop clicking on links, delete your account instead of screaming about how awful it is.
Seriously, put your money where your mouth is and stop fucking using Twitter. Stop posting it, stop clicking on links, delete your account instead of screaming about how awful it is.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2013
Twitter only has the right to choke on my dick and lick my asshole clean and if anything (even if it's a dangerous bill) causes Silicon Valley to sink, I'll go visit their grave just to shit on it.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Interesting provision I noticed. I don't know how easily a lawyer can get around this, but I wonder if this could prevent people from getting banned from payment processors
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
It's not a bill (meaning persistent legislation, something Congress has to vote on) but an Executive Order (a directive from the President). That has a lot of implications both in terms of how easy this may be for Trump opponents to un-do in both the short and long term, and in terms of how enforceable and substantial the action is, that I can get into later.
In layman's terms, Trump directed two executive agencies, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to do several tasks:
- He asked the FCC to supply a clarification on the rules surrounding companies censoring their platform "in good faith" with respect to the oft-debated Section 203(c) (in particular actions that otherwise violate their own TOS or FCC rules - he drew particular attention to those cases), with the implication that they hand him rules that satisfy him, obviously. He gave them a 30 day deadline (paraphrasing Section 2, part B).
- He asked the FTC and a smattering of other more minor federal agencies, task forces and whatnot to conduct internal reviews about social media policy in light of a 2017 Supreme Court decision (Packingham vs. North Carolina) where the court ruled that banning pedophiles from social media violated their first amendment rights, characterizing those spaces as "public forums" (Sec 4, pt. a). In particular he directed the FTC to consider amending their policies to enforce compliance with this decision on social media firms and to determine if Twitter's habit of disciplining people for interacting with other users (blocklists being shared/encouraged, rumored blacklists) and off-site behavior (banning of several e-celebs) is in conflict with that order (sec 5, pt. b)
- And (because it wouldn't be a Trump E.O. without something legitimately petty), a ban on ad spending by any executive department/agency on online platforms determined to have violated free speech principles, via some internal assessment that I'm sure will accomplish a great deal and isn't at all pointless political signaling (Sec. 3).
In even more (slightly cynical) layman's terms, 3 points:
-Tell social media firms they can't be protected as platforms if they censor people too blatantly, especially in ways that're illegal in other contexts
-Update social media policy to reflect this new "public forum" decision by the Supreme Court and prosecute twitter for FTC violations (Trump being super-duper
here, imo)- Don't spend money advertising on any site Trump, or anyone else in the executive branch, say violates free speech
For a legal document, it's really quite readable. Here's my source, referenced above by section if you want to see more detail: https://roar-assets-auto.rbl.ms/documents/6668/EO - Preventing Online Censorship.pdf
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
If this ends causing this dude to be pushed out by the company he started to appease Trump I'll laugh.
If anyone is concerned about their websites they could just relocate their company / website in a place outside of US legal jurisdiction like Panama.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2019
BREAKING NEWS: US annexes Panama
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2019
That's Butch Cassidy "let's go to Bolivia" logic. Eventually you run out of frontier and have to live with the laws of the civilized world. They might as well be laws worth living with.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
Finally! I can curse on Clubpenguin!
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Is that even constitutional? Just signing a law saying "Twitter can't say mean things about me any more"?
Does this include trustworthy news sources such as InfoWars? If so I'm moving to Mexico with Jonesy himself
Section 230 is still there and the courts have still interpreted it in the manner it is. If Trump wants to change it, he has to ask Congress. About the only thing in this that he might be able to do is somehow cut federal funding to these social media platforms, and he didn't even order that be done, just demanded federal agencies do their own research into whether it can be done.
This is heavy on rhetoric and light on action, which is fine with me.
Will it get chucked out if anything in it supposedly violates people's (including corporations) rights? Maybe. Twitter is already on life support and is a money losing proposition.
Also I have to love the irony where somehow Twitter can censor the most powerful government official in the entire world. But somehow, Trump isn't trying to censor them by saying if he says something, it's somehow "censoring" him for them to say something too.
Section 230 has never let moderation be the basis of liability, even when it's outright deleting things. It's very unlikely it could be because of how they presented it.
That said, Section 230 immunity is not absolute. There are some rather narrow exceptions. I'd recommend Eugene Volokh's post on this today: https://reason.com/2020/05/28/platf...blocking-and-screening-of-offensive-material/
Panama in under the United States sphere of influence, you don't think that most major nations maintain a their own tax and data haven so that bureaucrats and rich men can hide their assets.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It isn't a bill. It's an executive order. It doesn't actually order much, though. The President can order executive agencies to do things but he actually hasn't ordered them to do much beyond conduct a review of what they could do, which isn't a lot because Section 230 governs courts, not executive agencies.
The President can't unilaterally overrule court interpretations of the law or court interpretations of the Constitution. Only Congress can do the first, and nobody can do the second without actually amending the Constitution itself.
Much like Obama's executive orders, the next President can wipe his ass with Trump's.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2020
I have read the executive order.
Overall it looks like a good idea. Better late than never. It certainly raises some questions that I am simply not capable of forming an opinion about.
The questions:
This part really makes me go hmm. CJ calling Big Smoke black much?
Overall it looks like a good idea. Better late than never. It certainly raises some questions that I am simply not capable of forming an opinion about.
The questions:
- Will the courts let this be used? (The judges, lawyers and NGOs could really get away with anything lately.)
- How will this be enforced? (Selectively? Will non mainstream guys have a shot at using it?)
- Is it just about getting leverage on the Social Media companies while a different agenda is being pursued (ie. breaking encryption)?
- How will this law interract with the already set US precedent of Group libel not being free speech. (fun fact: this means that the US already has a sleeper hate speech law.)
- How will this law interract with the Anti BDS law(s)? It's a low key illegal political opinion. Can facebook delete that or it need to pass it to the state to punish the offender?
This part really makes me go hmm. CJ calling Big Smoke black much?
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2018
And if I remember correctly, that "One United States company" was Google.This part really makes me go hmm. CJ calling Big Smoke black much?
How great was the pay when you would willingly created a search engine that black listed human rights? For normal people, that's a massive red flag. I hope the money they got from taking away important information from oppressed citizens was worth it.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Fox and co don't have section 230 liabiliy protection. If they publish a lie about you, you can sue them. Twitter and co do have section 230 protection: if someone uses their platform to publish a lie about you, you can't sue the platform; you sue the person who published the lie.
230 exempts action taken to remove illegal and objectionable content from their service and allows leeway for good faith activity by the service in removing such content. The question is where they draw the line on objectional and what counts as good faith.
"Fact checking" and banning people for political speech, or for saying mean or "wrong" things, is arguably a breach of their section 230 responsibilities, but there is a lack of clarity on the matter that has allowed them to get away with biased censorship of people they treat as ideological opponents. Trump's EO is asking the FCC and FTC to clarify these responsibilities in regard to such activities.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
No, that describes the state of law before Section 230 with the Stratton Oakmont decision which was viewed as so bad that Congress overruled that with Section 230.
And "objectionable content" is entirely discretionary, with no limits to the discretion. The only thing that has not been found to be in good faith is specifically anticompetitive behavior, i.e. censoring the speech of a competing product. They also haven't even removed any of Trump's content, just said something next to it.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
Exactly. He's throwing a massive pissfit over somebody offering a counterargument. Twitter have committed the heinous crime of suggesting that he isn't the smartest, handsomest, bestest Pres EVER and he doesn't like it.