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

[GreatOldOne]

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

The techs will become the authoritarian figures everyone feared and kick controversial content right off their platforms...including Trump.

brb Trump no longer appears in a Google search, twitter. Or ********, or anything.

Just Tik Tok.

Trump will be relegated to lip syncing on Tik Tok.

[GreatOldOne]

Trump wants to get kicked off of Twitter and ******** and IG.

Now that he has millions of followers, he will make an OnlyFans account to milk his supporters even more.

[BetaAsPhuck]

EO will remove liability shield for social media platforms.

That's giving them a good excuse for even tighter control, when it comes to political views that go outside of the mainstream.

Can kiss goodbye to independent journalism, if a platform is held liable for what is posted. They will vet anything controversial, or outright ban controversial channels even worse than they are now.

Why would they take the risk of liability? This will also affect anti censorship platforms like Bitchute, Gab, etc. Videos and posts will get purged to avoid being sued.

[MuscleXtreme]

Well it looks like the Reeeeeing from the left is a growing crescendo.

Not too surprising their ability to play both sides of the platform/publisher fence is coming to an end.

It would be great if the major social media sites existed truly as a platform that they claim to be and to remove truly egregious material. However, once they begin selectively editorializing, modifying, or removing non-egregious user created content, then they’re acting as a publisher.

Libs, do you prefer that the major social media platforms be a publisher or a platform?

[MuscleXtreme]

That's giving them a good excuse for even tighter control, when it comes to political views that go outside of the mainstream.

Can kiss goodbye to independent journalism, if a platform is held liable for what is posted. They will vet anything controversial, or outright ban controversial channels even worse than they are now.

Why would they take the risk of liability? This will also affect anti censorship platforms like Bitchute, Gab, etc. Videos and posts will get purged to avoid being sued.

Not if they do one of the following:
1. Accurately report information.
2. Declare their bias
3. Write in conditional terms

How do you think the National Enquirer stays in business as a publisher?

[katya422]

Not if they do one of the following:
1. Accurately report information.
2. Declare their bias
3. Write in conditional terms

How do you think the National Enquirer stays in business as a publisher?

That page of tiny print that everyone clicks through without reading? Or something more substantive?

[MuscleXtreme]

That page of tiny print that everyone clicks through without reading? Or something more substantive?

Are you referring to the EULA? I suppose that could be an option.

That’d be a start. Truthfully, I’m still mixed on the matter. I’m having a hard time seeing an argument against having a social media company declare itself a publisher or platform and then being beholden to that choice.

If there is a logically sound argument against that, I’d like to hear it.

[BadMonkeyFunker]

incoming ban from twitter.. he thought he could game the platform and use it to spread lies and propaganda without any consequences.

We Analyzed Every Twitter Account Following Donald Trump: 61% Are Bots, Spam, Inactive, or Propaganda


https://sparktoro.com/blog/we-analyz...or-propaganda/

[MuscleXtreme]

incoming ban from twitter.. he thought he could game the platform and use it to spread lies and propaganda without any consequences.

We Analyzed Every Twitter Account Following Donald Trump: 61% Are Bots, Spam, Inactive, or Propaganda


https://sparktoro.com/blog/we-analyz...or-propaganda/

What’s your point? Bots and spam should be banned. Do you think they shouldn’t?

[BadMonkeyFunker]

What’s your point? Bots and spam should be banned. Do you think they shouldn’t?

trump is using millions of bots to spread propaganda. It's against twitters rules. Even though twitter removes some of his bots from time to time - they let him go on for all this time. They dont need to anymore. He has broken their TOS millions of times already.

[Ephedra]

The whole story:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...edia-companies

Flanked by Attorney General Bill Barr, President Trump signed an executive order in the Oval Office on Thursday that calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) to remove statutory liability protections and cut federal funding for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct.

The president's order came just two days after Twitter took the unprecedented step of slapping a "misleading" warning label on two of Trump's tweets concerning the fraud risks of nationwide mail-in balloting. The move immediately backfired: Experts disputed that Trump's tweet was actually misleading, in part because mail-in balloting has been linked to ongoing fraud, and Twitter failed to apply the standard of review to other users.

At Thursday's signing ceremony, Trump called the fact-check "egregious," and held up a photo of Twitter executive Yoel Roth, who heads up the site's fact-checking and rules-making operation. Fox News reported on Wednesday that Roth has mocked Trump supporters, called Trump's team "ACTUAL NAZIS," slammed "scary trannies," and called GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a "bag of farts." (In a statement, Twitter did not dispute Fox News' reporting, but called it "unfortunate.")

"My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield," the president said.

He added: "My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. This commerce resides in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ... Additionally, I'm directing the attorney general to work cooperatively with the states ... to enforce their own laws against such deceptive business practices. The states have broad and powerful authority to regulate in this arena."

Under the CDA, platforms are ordinarily not liable for users' defamatory or otherwise problematic posts, while publishers that actively shape content do face liability. (Copyright law, which has a strong constitutional foundation, ordinarily does require sites like Twitter to remove offending content, or face liability.)

Trump's order would instruct the federal government to interpret and apply that legislation, as agencies typically do when laws give them that flexibility. The White House had discussed a social media executive order for the past several months, and lawmakers have increasingly sought CDA reforms.

"The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadowban are editorial decisions, pure and simple," Trump said. "In those moments Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform and they become an editor with a viewpoint."

Fox News has not yet obtained a copy of the executive order, but the White House said it would make it available soon.

Trump pointed out that some Democrats agreed with him. Former Vice President Biden, in a January interview with The New York Times, said that Section 230 “should be revoked, immediately should be revoked” because ******** “is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy.” LOL!

Also at the signing ceremony, Trump openly said he would "shut down" Twitter if he could legally. He also called out ********'s new oversight "tribunal" for hiring Pamela Karlan, the anti-Trump professor who testified at his impeachment hearing.

"Finally, I'm directing my administration to develop policies and procedures to ensure taxpayer dollars are not going to any social media company that suppresses free speech," Trump said. They're rich enough."

"What they're doing is tantamount to monopoly, to taking over the airwaves," Trump said. "Can't let it happen. Or else we're not gonna have a democracy."

[KingKringe]

Finally, sick of these shills and blue marked cucks on twitter, get blown the fk out censoring commies.

[BadMonkeyFunker]

Under the CDA, platforms are ordinarily not liable for users' defamatory or otherwise problematic posts, while publishers that actively shape content do face liability.

trump tweeting defamation, calling people names - spreading unbased allegations they all can be used to kick him off twitter because now it'd be twitters liability.

Great ... LMFAO!

[Ephedra]

Under the CDA, platforms are ordinarily not liable for users' defamatory or otherwise problematic posts, while publishers that actively shape content do face liability.

trump tweeting defamation, calling people names - spreading unbased allegations they all can be used to kick him off twitter because now it'd be twitters liability.

Great ... LMFAO!

I don't think I've ever seen you this triggered. Post #211 you were mocking Trump for not taking action. Now that you see he's taking action you're even more upset. Which is it?

[BadMonkeyFunker]

I don't think I've ever seen you this triggered.

LMFAO! trumpy is so stupid he doesnt understand what he's asking for... he's calling the social media companies to be classified as 'publishers' so they can be liable for their content.

so when he calls someone names on twitter, people can sue twitter because it's considered their content. So what do you think twitter gonna do now ? Censor even more. Delete and/or ban people.

LMFAO!

[|ceman]

Trump wants to get kicked off of Twitter and ******** and IG.

Now that he has millions of followers, he will make an OnlyFans account to milk his supporters even more.

The whole story: At Thursday's signing ceremony, Trump held up a photo of Twitter executive Yoel Roth, who called GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a "bag of farts."

[ImpressiveGainz]

The whole story:

So basically, they want to be private companies and control user content, they are liable for said content. Seems reasonable to me.

[miscinbro]

Well it looks like the Reeeeeing from the left is a growing crescendo.

Not too surprising their ability to play both sides of the platform/publisher fence is coming to an end.

It would be great if the major social media sites existed truly as a platform that they claim to be and to remove truly egregious material. However, once they begin selectively editorializing, modifying, or removing non-egregious user created content, then they’re acting as a publisher.

Libs, do you prefer that the major social media platforms be a publisher or a platform?

Where do you all get this talking point? You all sound like damn fools.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ublisher.shtml

[miscinbro]

Under the CDA, platforms are ordinarily not liable for users' defamatory or otherwise problematic posts, while publishers that actively shape content do face liability.

trump tweeting defamation, calling people names - spreading unbased allegations they all can be used to kick him off twitter because now it'd be twitters liability.

Great ... LMFAO!

Yes, this is not rocket science. If I say it, I’m liable - if I host someone else ... not so much.

[BadMonkeyFunker]

So basically, they want to be private companies and control user content, they are liable for said content. Seems reasonable to me.

so they can ban conservatives when they curse, spread lies .... etc. Because if they dont they can be sued for those content.

L M F A O !

[miscinbro]

So basically, they want to be private companies and control user content, they are liable for said content. Seems reasonable to me.

Every website “controls” continue. Bb.com sure does, are they liable for the bullsht posted here? I don’t think so.

[KingKringe]

lul banned

[gachase21]

Just reading through the story I’ve almost come to the conclusion Trump may have pre-coordinated with twitter to tag that specific post to start this free publicity stunt.

The court case wil give trump team a high visibility vehicle to “demonstrate” how that specific tweet was incorrectly fact checked with bias, and mail in ballots are indeed a possible fraud issue


Even losing the case he will win.


/CT

[ImpressiveGainz]

Every website “controls” continue. Bb.com sure does, are they liable for the bullsht posted here? I don’t think so.

By definition yes. Cf. supreme gentleman...dumbass

[MuscleXtreme]

trump is using millions of bots to spread propaganda. It's against twitters rules. Even though twitter removes some of his bots from time to time - they let him go on for all this time. They dont need to anymore. He has broken their TOS millions of times already.

That’s a pretty bold claim. Do you have proof that Trump is 1) utilizing bots and 2) if using bots, using them to spread propaganda. Or are you speculating?

[BadMonkeyFunker]

Just reading through the story I’ve almost come to the conclusion Trump may have pre-coordinated with twitter to tag that specific post to start this free publicity stunt.

The court case wil give trump team a high visibility vehicle to “demonstrate” how that specific tweet was incorrectly fact checked with bias, and mail in ballots are indeed a possible fraud issue


Even losing the case he will win.


/CT

LMFAO... mental illness.

More like they're bunch of idiots. trump just wanted to do something and his team came up with this without really thinking. What they're asking for is literally the exact opposite of what trump wants. His posts will be deleted because now they can be sued for those posts.

LMFAO!

[BadMonkeyFunker]

That’s a pretty bold claim. Do you have proof that Trump is 1) utilizing bots and 2) if using bots, using them to spread propaganda. Or are you speculating?

A lot of people are talking about it. Very high level media people. Its everywhere we all see it...we all see it folks. It's all out there. One look and you know what going on.

[BetaAsPhuck]

Not if they do one of the following:
1. Accurately report information.
2. Declare their bias
3. Write in conditional terms

How do you think the National Enquirer stays in business as a publisher?

There is big difference between the National Enquirer and user uploaded social media platforms.

If you've ever been on Bitchute or Gab, you will know that there are a lot (and do mean a lot) of things that would be termed libel or slander on there. If the platform is liable, they will likely delete and ban a lot of users and videos.

[ImpressiveGainz]

[MuscleXtreme]

Where do you all get this talking point? You all sound like damn fools.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ublisher.shtml

So, you are unable to even engage in the argument and try to casually hand wave it away with a link?

Are you not able to provide a counter-argument? I could speculate that you haven’t received your talking points to counter my argument.