Trump expected to sign an executive order tonight pertaining to social media

[GreatOldOne]

These big social media companies have become to big and influential. They should be controlled.

You can't compare this to a single baker who didn't want to bake a gay cake.

I don't have a complete opinion about this yet, but there is something to be said about regulation of media and news...even news opinion.

It didn't take long for mass media, radio...to result in a humongous disaster and genocide in Rhwanda, which was a nice place and years later...is a nice place again.

Completely an aside, they kept hunting for the perpetrators and recently got one of them...hiding in France I believe. Yup, France

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/16/85739...for-war-crimes

That happened because in part...media brainwashing people.

[twovalvekid]

His question is bull**** because Twitter censors/bans things/people every day. If you'd lose the victim complex for a brief moment, you'd be able to see this.

So no. Got it.

[z4v4]

So no. Got it.

Keep trying, son.

[NitrogenWidget]

Maybe so, but I'm still married and have my kids. You?

15,922.
Damn!
that's alot of posts in such a short time.

i underestimated just how much a looser you are.
you'll be working on 17k before the month is over.

[twovalvekid]

Keep trying, son.

Ironic.

[z4v4]

15,922.
Damn!
that's alot of posts in such a short time.

i underestimated just how much a looser you are.
you'll be working on 17k before the month is over.

If making posts like these make you feel better about yourself, then by all means, continue.

[DarthCholo]

Why doesn't he hit them where it hurts and shutdown his social media accounts?

Agree or. He's easily the most followed poster. He should switch to another platform. The eyes will follow him.

[I3igAl]

Nothing really substantial as of yet; just speculation based on his past comments about censorship and vague messages from Trump himself.



I found this quite ironic:

It costs ******** a lot of money to employ people or run algorythms to fact check. It would also make them liable to be sued, when they don't do it probably.

He was really angry, when Europe introduced similar laws.

[PlanoLifter]

Twitter, ********, and YouTube have been outright deleting comments that they feel underplay the impact of Covid 19

Yes, which makes Procta's statement false. Twitter is not censuring Trump and only Trump.

[kusok]

Like what?

Border security
Wall
Military rebuilt
Gangs
Bring troops home
Economy
Manufacturing
Stock market
Getting rid of individual mandate of Obamacare
Unemployment
Trade deals
Pollution reduction
Funding of black colleges
Criminal justice reform
Regulation cuts
Tax cuts
Lowering prescription drug prices
Etc.

[BetaAsPhuck]

I agree. I am very much against any sort of control of media or social media.

But until the left plays fair? It has to be done.

The US is done.

Trump is literally doing exactly what the Establishment wants.

Obama gave them the PRISM program, and now Trump is (allegedly) going to create legislation to formerly put social media companies in partnership with the state, regarding what they can and can't allow on their platform regarding political views. And some Trump supporters seem to think this action is 'anti-estblishment', seemingly because Trump is doing it.

This legislation will not disappear with Trump's presidency, just every other act increasing Corporate and state collusion, and acts increasing the abilities of surveillance communities.

You guys are supporting the creation of the technological surveillance state, whilst thinking that you are fighting the establishment. You've been duped.

Expect more and more of this kind of legislation to come out over the next few years, under various pretexts. Disguisng what the Agenda is... To create a technological surveillance state, for commerical and political ends.

[GreatOldOne]

Wasn't it a tweet when Schiff said he had evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election? Wonder if that ever got fact checked

That did get fact checked


I. Summary of Major Findings
https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/g...-on-collusion/

The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

...

Also:

As many experts have noted, what’s missing from the Mueller Report is the Special Counsel’s counterintelligence findings. We don’t know what the Special Counsel’s Office or the FBI have assessed, for example, with respect to whether Trump associates engaged in reciprocal efforts with Russian agents without entering a criminal agreement to do so, whether Americans have been witting or unwitting Russian assets, and what leverage or influence Moscow may have over particular individuals.

[kusok]

I would too. Normally alt-right conspiracy theories are alright to be left alone, occasionally their members getting raided and arrested by the FBI.

But in 2020 with the capacity of widespread mis/disinformation and the unprecedented threat of a pandemic it's good that these companies are taking a responsible approach.

You don't have a right to someone else's property, regardless of how entitled to it you feel.

It’s not right what you are saying, you are losing your way, be careful, you sound dictatorial. There are voices that warn of deadly impact of a prolonged lockdown, this doesn’t mean they disagree with science or any of that, it just means people look at it differently. We know that deaths from lockdown now outnumber deaths from COVID.

I would never ban you or Fauci on my platform if I had one, I would disagree and present other view points of other experts, censoring is going down the wrong path.

[BetaAsPhuck]

I would too. Normally alt-right conspiracy theories are alright to be left alone, occasionally their members getting raided and arrested by the FBI.

But in 2020 with the capacity of widespread mis/disinformation and the unprecedented threat of a pandemic it's good that these companies are taking a responsible approach.

Their approach, is to ban any discussion that disagrees with the WHO. Even from Doctors examining the evidence, and studies.

JPMorgan recently came out with a study, stating that the lockdown does not have a significant impact on infection rates, and is severely damaging to the economy. Which is exactly what those Doctors who got banned were arguing.

We'll see if youtube starts banning discussion of that JP Morgan study.

[NitrogenWidget]

If making posts like these make you feel better about yourself, then by all means, continue.

daaaammmmnnnn son.
15,938 posts, that's almost 20 posts in just a few hrs.
don't you eat lunch?
you are a machine.

a sad little machine.

[NitrogenWidget]

Yes, which makes Procta's statement false. Twitter is not censuring Trump and only Trump.

I'm sure you understand there is a difference between deleting a post and flagging it as false?
Are they flagging D politicians posts as false when they are?

If so then I have no problem with it.

[wesleysh21]

But in 2020 with the capacity of widespread mis/disinformation and the unprecedented threat of a pandemic it's good that these companies are taking a responsible approach.

They are not taking a responsible approach. They have simply chosen sides. You can still spread all of the misinformation you want, so long as it fits a certain agenda. That's where they lose me.

[Cleveland33]

I forget the topic but I did a see post last week where ******** actually fact checked an opinion

[Jayarbie]

Here is more on the executive order:

https://www.protocol.com/donald-trum...xecutive-order

As written, one section of the order would require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a small agency within the Department of Commerce, to file a petition asking the FCC to review Section 230, tech's prized liability shield. The section heavily implies that online platforms could be considered publishers of content under certain circumstances — and therefore could be held directly responsible for the content they host

Don't they see the obvious blowback from this? If the platforms are now legally responsible for the content of their users, they will have to start deleting Trump's falsehoods to protect themselves from liability from them instead of just fact checking them. For example, today Trump retweeted a video of some wingnut saying the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. Twitter would be forced to delete that to protect themselves in case any of the nutcases in Cult-45 took it to heart.

[LatinoWarrior2]

As expected, this EO has no teeth at all. It merely orders the FCC to review social media company practices vs stated policies and reopens that dumb White House form where you can complain that you were censored.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/a...mpression=true

This article also slips in that section 230 protections for companies are already under fire because of "hate speech" while neglecting to mention that so-called "hate speech" is not illegal, once again prepping the public for the day when it is declared so.

[FatBallz]

He's going to make these social media platforms choose what they want: being responsible for everything that is said or being responsible for none of it.

It's a chess game. This is a crucial move.

[Johnez]

Here is more on the executive order:

https://www.protocol.com/donald-trum...xecutive-order



Don't they see the obvious blowback from this? If the platforms are now legally responsible for the content of their users, they will have to start deleting Trump's falsehoods to protect themselves from liability from them instead of just fact checking them. For example, today Trump retweeted a video of some wingnut saying the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. Twitter would be forced to delete that to protect themselves in case any of the nutcases in Cult-45 took it to heart.

In a roundabout way, this is exactly what some people want. The ability to crush opposing media, first amendment be damned.

Anybody supporting Trump on this better pepper your angus come the day Rs lose it all. And they will. And when your communist dystopian nightmare becomes reality, you will forget Trump's role, because you'll have moved on to be underground CT tards oblivious to the real life removal of freedoms. Fukking idiots.

[KINGFABIAN]

The US is done.

Trump is literally doing exactly what the Establishment wants.

You guys are supporting the creation of the technological surveillance state, whilst thinking that you are fighting the establishment. You've been duped.

So much this ^ ! Holy $hit the cucks would defend taking away or regulated free speech just because he does not like the way the platform is treating his lies. Why can’t trump simply do what ALLLLLLL other POTUS’s did before Twitter and social media and just hold regular PRESS CONFERENCES?!!!? Why does social media even need to be involved in this?? How about stop relying on your social media popularity, put on your big boys pants & run the fukcing country out of your office like every freaking POTUS has been doing before this?!? For Christ sakes we are in the middle of a pandemic and our country needs leadership but team MAGA is still on “let’s own the libs” time. Wtf?!?!

[Ephedra]

He's going to make these social media platforms choose what they want: being responsible for everything that is said or being responsible for none of it.

It's a chess game. This is a crucial move.

That's it.

[Johnez]

The US is done.

Trump is literally doing exactly what the Establishment wants.

Obama gave them the PRISM program, and now Trump is (allegedly) going to create legislation to formerly put social media companies in partnership with the state, regarding what they can and can't allow on their platform regarding political views. And some Trump supporters seem to think this action is 'anti-estblishment', seemingly because Trump is doing it.

This legislation will not disappear with Trump's presidency, just every other act increasing Corporate and state collusion, and acts increasing the abilities of surveillance communities.

You guys are supporting the creation of the technological surveillance state, whilst thinking that you are fighting the establishment. You've been duped.

Expect more and more of this kind of legislation to come out over the next few years, under various pretexts. Disguisng what the Agenda is... To create a technological surveillance state, for commerical and political ends.

This. Holy chit I never thought I'd see the day red blooded Americans would push for repression.

[BadMonkeyFunker]

I am reading everywhere big donors and companies are done with him. huge move towards biden.

90% of the products you use everyday are made in china. Companies are done with his constant fight with china.
either put incentives to make people move back or STFU!

there wont be another tax cut for the rich. Useful idiot no more useful

authoritarian moves. more regulations, forcing companies to do what he wants using the power of the government. Nothing scares business more than that.

he aint getting elected without cheating.

/done

[katya422]

Which is why I don't think they should do it in the first place to be honest. In regards to your other post about having users vote on the factuality, seems to defeat the purpose of why a fact check would be implemented in the first place. It will inevitably be influenced by politics and opinion with half of the people saying Trump is right and the other half wrong. Not to mention certain tweets are more commentary, opinion rather than espousing facts. Also not to mention the fact check itself not necessarily disproving anything.

Like when Trump said mail-in ballots won't be anything less than fraudulent. Is he right? We won't know that for sure unless it happens and there are investigations into it. But is it necessarily wrong for being concerned that mail-in voting can be subject to more fraud? That's up for debate.

Also Twitter I think is also going to label tweets as COVID-19 fake news. With the amount of conflicting studies and information that is being put out, you would probably have to label a CDC tweet as fake news at some point. But what I think will likely happen is that anything that criticizes stay at home orders and social distancing will likely be hit with a fact check.

I believe Twitter has also censured tweets about Covid 19. So it's not just Trump they're doing this to.

User votes was just an option for a kind of self moderation by the community vs. moderation by Twitter.

Just read a little about Section 230 which it seems began as a way for social media platforms to moderate offensive material (mostly pornography).

Prior to that a company was sued as a publisher:

Stratton Oakmont, a brokerage firm, sued Prodigy Services, an internet service provider, for defamation in the 1990s. Stratton was founded by Jordan Belfort, who was convicted of securities fraud and was portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the Martin Scorsese film about financial excess. An anonymous user wrote on Prodigy’s online message board that the brokerage had engaged in criminal and fraudulent acts.

The New York Supreme Court ruled that Prodigy was “a publisher” and therefore liable because it had exercised editorial control by moderating some posts and establishing guidelines for impermissible content. If Prodigy had not done any moderation, it might have been granted free speech protections afforded to some distributors of content, like bookstores and newsstands.

The ruling caught the attention of a pair of congressmen, Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Christopher Cox, a Republican from California. They were worried the decision would act as a disincentive for websites to take steps to block pornography and other obscene content.

The Section 230 amendment was folded into the Communications Decency Act, an attempt to regulate indecent material on the internet, without much opposition or debate. A year after it was passed, the Supreme Court declared that the indecency provisions were a violation of First Amendment rights. But it left Section 230 in place.

Since it became law, the courts have repeatedly sided with internet companies, invoking a broad interpretation of immunity.

That interpretation of immunity had been getting pushed at from the left and actually took a hit on trafficking:

The first blow came in 2018 with the signing of a law that creates an exception in Section 230 for websites that knowingly assist, facilitate or support sex trafficking. Critics of the new law said it opened the door to create other exceptions and would ultimately render Section 230 meaningless.

There are legislators on both the left and right that want to change Section 230:

Some Republicans have argued that tech companies should no longer enjoy the protections because they have censored conservatives and thereby violated the spirit of the law, which states that the internet should be “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”

On the flip side, some Democrats have argued that small and large internet sites aren’t serious about taking down problematic content or tackling harassment because they are shielded by Section 230.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/b...et-speech.html

So the Republicans claim anti-conservative bias and the Democrats want the sites to be more PC.

And there are some actual victims in the mix:

There is also a concern that the law’s immunity is too sweeping. Websites trading in revenge pornography, hate speech or personal information to harass people online receive the same immunity as sites like Wikipedia.

“It gives immunity to people who do not earn it and are not worthy of it,” said Danielle Keats Citron, a law professor at Boston University who has written extensively about the statute.

IMO only that last group (persons being maliciously targeted by others using social media as a weapon) have standing worthy of changing the law. And the fairest change I can see would be some kind of federal agency specific to the task that could require platforms to surrender identification information of those using the platform for this purpose and to remove the damaging content temporarily pending investigation then permanently if the victim is found to have just cause. Create some mechanism of set financial penalties, or potentially the ability to file suit against the actual person posting malicious unproven/insupportable content.

To the rest of it?

Decency standards are perfectly reasonable and expected for any platform that is supported by advertising.

A reasonable responsibility to monitor for and moderate/report criminal content should be standard with regard to for profit platforms which engage paid staff and profit from advertising. (IOW held to a higher standard than a non-monetized open platform supported by member contributions and volunteers).

Policing content (censorship) beyond decency/legality should be at the behest/under the control of federal or state government if such policing is found necessary in special circumstances like foreign propaganda campaigns, public health crises, or national emergencies and it should be done openly with public announcements.

Seems to me that beyond that the social media platforms would be either infringing free speech or making themselves potentially liable as publishers.

There are too many what ifs re: possible outcomes for these companies to claim they are not liable for any damages.

What if HCQ did turn out to be a great treatment for COVID-19 when dispensed early in the course of illness and the big social media platforms censored out content supporting the use of the drug due to poorly done studies, media pressure, or political bias?

Would a court find that a class action suit filed by people claiming to have been unaware of the drug or to have refused the drug (because they claim social media is their main source of news and information) have standing to file suit for damages based on not getting that medication and suffering a bad medical outcome?

Platforms either need to take their fat finger off the scales or go all in and open themselves to the hit in court. Alternately the government could step in as a shield in particular situations as proposed above.

[BadMonkeyFunker]

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS HE IS DIRECTING ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COOPERATE WITH STATES TO ENFORCE THEIR OWN LAWS AGAINST WHAT HE TERMS THE DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES

nothingburger... as expected ... all talk no action... LMFAO!

[wesleysh21]

That did get fact checked


I. Summary of Major Findings
https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/g...-on-collusion/

Sorry to fact check you, but you dun goofed. Maybe you should be banned from the misc for misinformation?

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" - Mueller Report

[Procta]

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS HE IS DIRECTING ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COOPERATE WITH STATES TO ENFORCE THEIR OWN LAWS AGAINST WHAT HE TERMS THE DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES

nothingburger... as expected ... all talk no action... LMFAO!

u wot m8?
FTC will prohibit social media platforms from engaging in deceptive acts that interfere with commerce

EO will remove liability shield for social media platforms.

EO will prohibit taxpayer support for social media companies.


its also a warning shot across Google's bow