SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Leaked draft details Trump's likely attack on technology giants:
The Trump Administration is putting the final touches on a sweeping executive order designed to punish online platforms for perceived anti-conservative bias. Legal scholar Kate Klonick obtained a draft of the document and posted it online late Wednesday night.
[...] The document claims that online platforms have been "flagging content as inappropriate even though it does not violate any stated terms of service, making unannounced and unexplained changes to policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints, and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse."
The order then lays out several specific policy initiatives that will purportedly promote "free and open debate on the Internet."
First up is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
[...] Trump's draft executive order would ask the Federal Communications Commission to clarify Section 230—specifically a provision shielding companies from liability when they remove objectionable content.
[...] Next, the executive order directs federal agencies to review their ad spending to ensure that no ad dollars go to online platforms that "violate free speech principles."
Another provision asks the Federal Trade Commission to examine whether online platforms are restricting speech "in ways that do not align with those entities' public representations about those practices"—in other words, whether the companies' actual content moderation practices are consistent with their terms of service. The executive order suggests that an inconsistency between policy and practice could constitute an "unfair and deceptive practice" under consumer protection laws.
Trump would also ask the FTC to consider whether large online platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become so big that they've effectively become "the modern public square"—and hence governed by the First Amendment.
[...] Finally, the order directs US Attorney General William Barr to organize a working group of state attorneys general to consider whether online platforms' policies violated state consumer protection laws.
[Ed Note - The following links have been added]
Follow Up Article: Trump is desperate to punish Big Tech but has no good way to do it
The Executive Order: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @03:06PM (44 children)
The cable networks are their owners speaking to you. Twatter and Facefuck's content are the masses trying to communicate with the masses. These platforms are in a market-dominating position. To protect free speech, you can break them apart (as we used to do) or force common carrier rules on them (we also have done this before). The second option will be more to the liking of management.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2020, @04:03PM (31 children)
The way to protect free speech online is to create decentralized systems of communication. That could mean:
1. Set up your own website where you can say whatever you like.
2. Use something like Diaspora* instead of Facebook and Twitter.
3. Use email lists, or even resurrect Usenet.
And for the short-term, there's always the option of using different forums with looser rules. Heck, independent web forums for just about every little thing imaginable used to be quite common.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @05:31PM
As you said, "used to be".
1) is like "why don't you take two dixie cups and a string".
2) Fascists will come after the hosting provider and credit card companies of the forum provider if they host "problematic" content.
3) Email is in the same situation: Due to the spam problem, an oligarchy has formed that is already shadow-banning legitimate email.
Anyway, nothing in the EO would stop attempts to start up an independent service. It is aimed at the 900 lb gorillas that have the ability to influence what communication the vast majority of people can have.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:23PM
The Fediverse (artist's impression) [fediverse.party].
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:04PM
Usenet's not dead (well, not dead as in no longer available). It is still there, and it would be good if a few more folks jumped in to bolster the conversations.
Check out https://www.eternal-september.org/ [eternal-september.org] or https://www.aioe.org/ for free access to non-binary groups.
The group most aligned with Soylent is 'comp.misc'.
(Score: 3, Touché) by slinches on Friday May 29 2020, @09:25PM (16 children)
With your site deindexed or on the eighth page of results due to deprioritization in search engines. That is until your domain is delisted entirely by the registrar.
And have an audience even smaller than posting here on Soylent.
Email lists aren't public and unsolicited emails get caught in spam filters. Usenet has the same problems as Diaspora, few users and no growth since they require more effort and some non-mainstream technical knowledge to use.
These aren't substitutes for social media any more than going around and trying to talk to everyone face to face would be.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday May 29 2020, @09:41PM
I think you've dismissed #2 too quickly.
https://fediverse.party/en/post/fediverse-in-2019 [fediverse.party]
Your audience could definitely be smaller depending on which service you use and how you use it, but it could also be a lot larger.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:15AM (6 children)
> And have an audience even smaller than posting here on Soylent.
Look, the first amendment grants freedom of speech. It doesn't grant a large audience.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:32AM (3 children)
Look, the constitution grants freedom of movement. It doesn't grant that someone must let you sit in the front of the bus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:53AM (2 children)
You are really trying to compare fact checking or banning hate speech to racial discrimination?
Good idea Karen!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:50PM (1 child)
There is no such thing as hate speech, you stupid fucking slave. Also, racial or any other discrimination in private affairs is everyone's natural right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @03:52PM
So now seats on public transit are private affairs? Apparently you were sleeping in when they handed out brains.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:17AM (1 child)
We gots 4 peoples here on SN, at any one time. And about 15 out of Ten Thousand accounts active at any one time? Yes, Thank Goodness SN Censors aristarchus, because otherwise he would have an audience of tens, and maybe even tens of tens!
I had hopes we would outstrip the unameable site, which massive subscriptions and UIDs in the six-or seven-digits. But, alas, such was not to be. The TMB put the kaibosh on the aristarchus early on, and the site ceased to grow. Now, we are only a lesser Gab, or a less gross Voat. I have seen things, that most humans have never seen.
Time for Soylent to die. Trump's Execution Order has sealed the fate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:04PM
"Time for Soylent to die. Trump's Execution Order has sealed the fate."
Well, any time you feel the urge to leap off the bridge, you go right ahead.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:45PM (7 children)
Ah, so what you're upset about isn't that you can't speak, but that you can't shove your message in the faces of large audiences that didn't ask for your thoughts without help (or spending money on ads).
That's never been part of First Amendment protections.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:12PM (6 children)
What I'm upset about is that there is no digital public right of way. Every space is owned by someone who is allowed to restrict speech, so there is no real public square. Only private squares that pretend to be public for their own benefit.
All I want is that if you choose to host a public forum and be protected from the consequences of the speech that happens there, then you must abide by the same rules as a public space and don't get to assert control over what people say there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @07:10PM (5 children)
An interesting idea. If you get it into the right ears, it's even possible that you could get legislation proposed to make that happen.
Such legislation would likely run afoul of various constitutional protections like freedom of expression and property rights.
Which is too bad for you. If that's really what you want, I suggest you propose new Amendments to repeal the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or convene a constitutional convention [uslegal.com].
Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:09PM (2 children)
What freedom of expression? When you are censored or shadow-banned or down-ranked, you don't have freedom of expression anymore.
What property rights? If I want to put a sliding glass door in my house, I have to get a permit from the town, and to get that I have to get an architect to draw up plans. Some property rights. It's the illusion of property rights while the reality is we're all just renters with different landlords.
If social media wants the protections that common carrier status affords, it cannot act as a publisher. If it acts as a publisher, then it will be liable for everything its "writers" write. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:37PM
Express yourself on someone else's platform (that is, someone else's property) and you abide by *their* rules.
Just like when you were a kid and your parents said "You won't do that as long as you live in *my* house!"
Want freedom of expression? Express yourself on your own property. Don't like how that works on *other people's property? Too fucking bad. It ain't yours, so you don't get to decide.
If you believe that the *owners* of a platform on which you want to express *yourself* do not have the right to decide what and how expression is done on their property, then it shouldn't be an issue for me to come into your house and read pornography aloud while I masturbate furiously.
What's that? *You* decide who can come onto your property? *You* decide what they can do and say there? Yet you claim that you should be able to dictate to others what you do and say on *their* property?
It's either you get control of your property and other folks do too, or no one does. Let me know what you think.
I'll be by later. Maybe I'll bring some hookers too. I'm sure your family will be properly amused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @08:13PM
I'm curious. While you may need a permit to perform construction (which is not unusual, especially in a big city like New York), you shouldn't need permission to add a sliding glass door [nyc.gov] as long as construction methods meet code and don't compromise the structural integrity of the building. I suppose there may be additional requirements if you live in a landmark building [nyc.gov].
Given that adjacent buildings in Park Slope are generally either in contact with each other or in very close proximity, it seems reasonable to make sure that any construction is up to code and doesn't endanger the buildings nearby.
Landmark buildings are another story, since modifications to the facade require approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission. I'm not 100% sure that applies to exterior walls that don't face the street, but that could be true too.
Then again, I've been in a number of Park Slope (and others in Brooklyn) brownstones, even some that are landmark buildings, and almost every single one had a sliding glass door out to the backyard.
So. What was it you were going on about?
(Score: 2) by slinches on Sunday May 31 2020, @11:56PM (1 child)
I didn't say anything about preventing anyone from using their platform however they like. They would still be free to censor, delete, down rate, promote or modify content as much as they like. They just don't get the extra privilege of indemnification from the legal consequences of the speech they host if they do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @07:39PM
That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds like you just want to punish platforms for being mean to your political buddies. We have a fancy term for that kind of behavior, I'm sure you can guess what it is ;)
PS: publisher != common carrier
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @11:19PM (10 children)
I get why Trump is outraged, but is free speech really under attack at all? I just can't see it that way.
We all put forth analogies of how servers create some alternate Tron-like world to elucidate our rights. In this case though, it seems simple enough without it.
Trump's speech was not suppressed, and the entire unedited content was still available. What became attached, was another form of free speech. If Trump is free to say something in a venue, then somebody else is free to say something in the exact same venue. Putting aside the fact these are privately owned areas that arguably function as public meeting spaces, Trump's free speech right is exactly the same as any other citizen. Heheh, Citizens United says a corporation is a person, so Twitter has just as much of a right to speak as Trump.
What happened?
If we absolutely need the analogy, Trump was on a soapbox and delivered a speech. Afterwards, Twitter started handing out pamphlets detailing Trump's statements, and presenting factual evidence that Trump's statements were incorrect, incomplete, or in some other way false.
Sure Trump can be pissed. Somebody spoke up and called him a liar in his mind, of course he is going to go into attack mode. We all have just as much right to immediately speak out as well, and since this isn't an ad hominem rebuttal from Twitter, but an attachment of official findings of fact, Trump can go shove it up his butt-hole.
That is, if Dear Leader, in fact possesses a butt-hole. I've heard rumors he does not, and is the product of a World War II top secret project to weaponize radioactive butt-holes by stretching them out about 6 feet and slapping on a really long tie to distract people
Ohhh, how is Twitter fact checking his ass any different than the inordinate number of articles each day that flat out call him a liar and then proceed to give facts instead? Is the "Amazon Washington Post" interfering with his free speech in the rose garden when it publishes a detailed article of just how full of shit Trump was?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:06AM (3 children)
Because Twitter has an air of authority and it isn't some random person Trump can attack as easily. He can't have that and sees it as an unfair abuse of power. The irony just drips from this whole shitshow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:22AM
#JusticeForCarolyn
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:31AM (1 child)
Remember when the President of the United States of America had an air of authority?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:59AM
You mean Obama? Who used that charisma to murder a US citizen without a trial? Or continued the use of torture, and wasteful foreign wars?
I mean I appreciate your comment, Trump is the worst thing since Wonder Bread, but Trump being a piece of human garbage who is the worst president since . . . ever? But an "air of authority" does not excuse betraying every promise made and the constitution itself, along with continuing the blatant abuses of human rights that is the US government's anti-terrorist actions.
We are in 60+ years of creeping fascism, and while the focus right now is removing the near-literal nazi fascist we must not forget the larger picture.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:35AM (3 children)
Trump tweeted last year about how the "fake media" does not employ fact checkers any more, but just make stuff up.
Just in case anyone needed another example of his hypocrisy.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:27AM (2 children)
You're comparing apples to oranges. I couldn't help myself there.
But seriously, Trump as a writer is not the same as Twitter hosting/publishing and fact-checkers. Of course, if the fact-checkers find him inaccurate, he'll deride them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:24AM
https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeForCarolyn?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [twitter.com]
#JusticeForCarolyn How hard can it be?
(Score: 2) by Aegis on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:32AM
And then he'll use the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to punish them, in flagrant disregard to the Constitution...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @01:24AM (1 child)
There's no such thing as "free speech". Once precedent was set, like yelling "fire" in a theater, or "hate speech", it's all a matter of where the censorship line is drawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:28AM
Fuch you, you ferkining Nazi equator of free speech with the advocation of genocide! We will kill all of you, without hate, without prejudice or bias. We just feel sorry for how fricking stupid you are. You are the inferior race, which is why you cannot get a date, or a job, or even hold a rational discussion.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @05:37PM (11 children)
And where in the First Amendment does it say that difference matters?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:23PM (9 children)
Because there's a question of where one's rights ends and another's begins. Marsh vs Alabama [wikipedia.org] is one case everybody should be familiar with because it's going to be popping up a lot over the next few years and it tackled this exact question. Cliff notes: company built a private 'town' of sorts where they owned everything and allowed people access to their private property. One day a Jehova's Witness was distributing fliers on the street. Company didn't want this, told them to leave. They refused. Cops were called, and the person was arrested and charged with trespass. This case made its way to the Supreme Court where it was struck down. They ruled that the more an entity opens themselves to the public, the more the rights of that entity become constrained by the rights, including the first amendment, of those they invite in.
This case has been gathering dust balls for a while since company towns ceased to exist in relatively short order, but now we're recreating this exact scenario in the digital world. You now have companies that are difficult, if not impossible, to compete against claiming ownership the online dialog of what at the extreme (Facebook) amounts to about 1/3rd of our entire species. It's going to be the job of the courts to determine where and what point an entity transitions from a private to a defacto public one, but there's no doubt that a company like Facebook is way way beyond whatever that point will be determined to be.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:44PM (6 children)
That is not the same situation. A town is geographically limited, there were no other public space options available. Twitter is just one service and being banned from there does not prevent someone from publishing their opinions online.
False equivalence for the lose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:56PM
If it _was_ the same situation it would be settled. Of course it's not the same situation. Arguing a false equivalence essentially boils down to you don't think the situation is close enough. But maybe it is. It's a question of how close the situations are and I don't think there was proof enough to say they have nothing in common to the point that the same principle might come into play.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @07:47PM (4 children)
What do you mean? There were literally thousands of other cities where they could share their pamphlets, they could have even shared them outside the company's territory. For instance there were connecting neighborhoods and other areas that were not owned by the company.
This case is near identical in nature. Because the issue comes down to meaningfulness. They obviously wanted to distribute on the company's property because the company controlled the central districts or prime areas. The company wanted the best of both worlds in being able to act like a public platform, yet being able to, at its discretion, swap faces back to declaring itself a private entity to effectively restrict the constitutional protections of its residents at its sole discretion.
This case is probably an even more clear example because while there are thousands of other cities and so on, in this case there are a strictly limited number of sites with an outsized share of control of all online discourse. And due to the nature of critical mass, it's probably quite literally impossible to meaningfully compete against these sites at this point. So the argument people can just go elsewhere is, at best, very weak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:09AM (3 children)
Meatspace != cyberspace
Besides, the situation itself isn't even analogous. It would be the same if the company town had set up another representative next to the lady to hand out pamphlets about science and education.
Now they did censor Trump's re-tweet of the death threat against Democrats, but that is not protected speech and they didn't ban Trump's account.
Watching you conservatives flip out over nothing is just too precious.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:14PM (2 children)
That's an interesting take on how people should react when they feel their rights are being violated: they're flipping out over nothing.
Do you feel that way also about the protestors flipping out over George Floyd's death? His rights were violated, but the protestors' weren't. What are they so upset about, right?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @03:59PM
No, I consider Twitter moderating their own platform to be completely legal and in line with the constitution. I may not like how Twitter or Facebook runs their services, but I'm not a moron like you who thinks it is a broach of anyone's freedoms. Well, except for selling people's personal data, but we don't yet have strong data privacy laws yet.
Didn't think you would sink so low, you really did become a true blue Trumpette.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @08:44PM
I don't think you'll find anyone who condones the rioters, but at least they were spurred by murder and not a child's nonsensical temper tantrum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @09:49PM (1 child)
I remember a time when good (northern) democrats were very knowledgable about private entities stifling people's lives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @08:50AM
Sure, but we'd never consider abusing constitutional rights. You can be mad about something yet realize there is nothing you should do about it.
Kinda like those KKK nazi fuckheads who promote violence against a good % of humanity yet support their right to say their piece. Yet here you are defending fascism by the government to breach twitter's freedom of speech while trying to disguise it as a defense of freedom. You are so twisted that your only defense is to falsely attack your fellow citizens who are actually looking out for your best interests.
But OKAY. Be stupid. I will laugh my ass off as you assholes get banned from every online space as the legal liabilities you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:04AM
The difference actually draws social media platforms deeper into first amendment territory. They are in a defacto position of having the ability to censor, curtail and prohibit not only public free speech but also the ability to petition the government. More fundamentally, their operation is regulated and protected by US law, and through their privatisation of the public sphere, the government can easily outsource first amendment violations to them unless their unilateral control of that sphere is regulated.
Nearly every US citizen has a social media account. Calling these servers wholly private, of considering only the first amendment rights of the companies will only invite abuse and trouble in future. In a sense, this out one was inevitable as network monopoly effecs set in. It just happens to be about the current administration.