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

Is this a win for Freedom of Speech?

  • Total voters
    554
LazarusOwenhart said:
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.
Click to expand...
Considering the speed at which he pushed this through, you'd have to lack some deductive reasoning to not see that this was the reason. Unless you honestly believe Trump just so happened to want to fix the internet on that day out of the goodness of his own heart. Still, something good might come from it.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
I wasn't really worried before, and I still don't think the EO is unreasonable. But now I'm legit worried what's going to happen. Twitter is now escalating the situation.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266231100780744704 (https://archive.vn/9VUti)
1590737186909.png

1590737240714.png
 
  • Lunacy
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, donjulio, pomf and 9 others
  • DRINK!
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, GenericReviewerDraco, Judge Dredd and 1 other person
  • Winner
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, donjulio, Candlelight Desolation and 8 others
Kuchipatchi said:
And if I remember correctly, that "One United States company" was Google.

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.
Click to expand...
I am fine with Google getting cucked, in some form.

The problem is that they do it for fun at home, so it's not much of a hassle to do it to foreigners.
With the same logic Facebook, Google etc. are already dirty because they comply with the European laws of "like don't talk about anything".

Soap box:
The "deep state" is just mad that Google didn't assist making muh revolutions in China. I remember how Twitter and other social media companies were happy about the fedposting about the arab spring and they promoted themselves as so into free speech. (I mean just literal a million people died but hey it was worth it, but oh nonono don't question anything the establishment does it at home.)

To be serious the problem with "big tech" that it is big. If we want to be big on the "neturality about the flow of information"* of democracy, having one guy/company pretty much owning one thing alone doesn't give him much checks and balances. It's more a criticism of industrial society on my part instead of capitalism, because even if the state owned that infrastructure it would have the same ahem, incentives to abuse the hell out of it.

*If we consider everybody equal individuals, they would need to have access to unbiased or more realistically multiple angles of information to form opinions and make decisions.
 
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: I Love Beef, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and lemmiwinks
Fucking love this. Twitter are absolute chads for flagging his messages. Even after an EO they still don't give any shits. Imagine that the President of the USA is in a twitter beef that could result in the need for legislation. This saga is so blessed.

And guys, fuck off with your political views and just enjoy the show. This is funny (well until the dems are in power next time and uses this as precedent to assfuck sites like KF).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, GenericReviewerDraco, Chiri and 7 others
AnOminous said:
And "objectionable content" is entirely discretionary, with no limits to the discretion.
Click to expand...
I suppose that's they key part. He wants the FCC to create regulatory limits on the discretion services have in how they define good faith and objectionable. The real test is what the FCC and FTC come up with in response.

It'll be fun watching a bunch of big government lefties suddenly switch to arguing against regulatory overreach.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
teriyakiburns said:
I suppose that's they key part. He wants the FCC to create regulatory limits on the discretion services have in how they define good faith and objectionable. The real test is what the FCC and FTC come up with in response.

It'll be fun watching a bunch of big government lefties suddenly switch to arguing against regulatory overreach.
Click to expand...

It's not up to the FCC to determine how courts interpret statutory language drafted by Congress.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Slick Willy, pomf and 3 others
AnOminous said:
It's not up to the FCC to determine how courts interpret statutory language drafted by Congress.
Click to expand...
Unless they issue "non-binding" guidelines that definitely won't be used as a cudgel against anyone that doesn't toe the line (until they courts slap them down in six to nine years). There's certainly no precedent for that behaviour from regulatory agencies.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
teriyakiburns said:
Unless they issue "non-binding" guidelines that definitely won't be used as a cudgel against anyone that doesn't toe the line (until they courts slap them down in six to nine years). There's certainly no precedent for that behaviour from regulatory agencies.
Click to expand...

The FCC doesn't even have any authority to decide defamation cases. Those get filed in courts. I can't think of anything the FCC can effectively do, and anyway, they haven't even been ordered to do anything but propose regulations that may or may not amount to anything. I'm sure his little street shitting whore Ajit Pai will come up with something.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Slick Willy and teriyakiburns
Oh wonderful. Two people who like to antagonize others playing chicken with the law that keeps all websites with user generated content online.

I see no way this can go wrong.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Judge Dredd
garakfan69 said:
Trump should just switch to Gab.

No one needs to use Twitter. It's an awful site - it always has been an awful site. Stop using it.
Click to expand...

Incidentally someone recently sued and won because Trump was blocking critics on Twitter. Part of the basis for that suit was they were blocked from exercising their First Amendment right to communicate with the government, specifically Trump, and the public.

Well, Twitter is now interfering with exactly the same right. They're not the government but they're interfering with a basic civil right.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, Candlelight Desolation, Slick Willy and 7 others
I have said it before and I will say it again. Nothing important has ever been, or will ever be said on twitter.
It is a useless tool for idiots that think people hang on their every word.
This entire EO is an exercise in futility that will result in a pissing contest at best.

The only thing I feel coming on is as @AnOminous mentioned. A reappearance of that insufferable fuck, Ajit Pai.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: CEO of Lurkers, Ligoskj, Maggots on a Train v2 and 4 others
HumanHive said:
Blame the sites that didn't act in good faith
Click to expand...
No, I will blame the people for being stupid and the government for being intentionally malicious and opportunistic. We have the government we deserve. If we didn't, the riots would be in Virginia burning down the NSA's building and the Patriot Act would be repealed tomorrow.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: soft kitty, The Last Stand, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 19 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back