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: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @05:39PM (32 children)
The Federal Government is prohibited from retaliating against people for criticizing the government by the First Ammendment.
This is flagrantly clear retaliation we're witnessing...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2020, @05:49PM (31 children)
You are being intentionally obtuse.
Twitter wants the immunity service providers get and publishers don't, while being a publisher. THAT immunity is by mere statute, not the Constitution.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @05:55PM (30 children)
They want the same immunity all sites with a forum have.
And you expect us to believe the timing of this executive order is just a coincidence?
Also, remember when executive orders where the spawn of Satan?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2020, @06:14PM (29 children)
Of course it isn't coincidence -- it's a reaction. Why would you think I think it is a coincidence?
To the broader point though, SN doesn't editorialize any posts with a "well actually ..." tag. There is a fundamental difference between responding to a post, which twitter could do as a normal user, and editorializing a post, which twitter is doing as an authoritative overlord exercising a power nobody else has.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @06:42PM (19 children)
So SN admins/editors "correcting" moderations by the users is not "authoritative overlord exercising a power nobody else has"? What about banning IPs for posts they deem goes against their Code of Conduct?
Critical thinking really isn't the conservative strong suit, and it really gets tiring having to explain things just because conservatives are happy to ignore reality when it suits them. There is no civil discourse that can occur when you are willing to make exceptions when it suits you.
What is truly galling is how easily you conservatives flip-flop from protesting and supporting fascism. When it suits you freedom of speech is absolute, but when inconvenient you claim government over reach. You have no ideals, you have only tribalism that morphs your ideals into whatever supports the tribe at the moment in time. You are fools being led cheering into fascism and no amount of logic, reason, or discussion seems capable of penetrating that partisan loyalty.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 29 2020, @07:17PM (11 children)
Conservative logic in a nutshell:
If I do it, it's fine.
If someone else does it, and I disagree with it, it's TYRANNY!
(Score: 2, Touché) by slinches on Friday May 29 2020, @10:46PM (8 children)
Liberal/Progressive logic in a nutshell:
If I do it, it's fine.
If someone else does it, and I disagree with it, it's FASCIST!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @12:37AM
Uh oh, your brain is leaking again :(
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fascist [thesaurus.com]
One guess what one of the synonyms is.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:08AM (6 children)
It's funny that slinches' post is modded troll, but the one above is modded way up.
GWB: due process free detention based on secret legal memos: https://youtu.be/DlhGFyOfgLk?t=31 [youtu.be]
Obama: due process free execution based on secret legal memos: *crickets*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:04AM (5 children)
Incorrect, I myself have brought up Obama's failures and fascist bullshit many times myself. As usual we liberals are the ones who are objective and willing to compromise. Conservatives, and ex-liberals apparently, are the ones who refuse to compromise or acknowledge objective reality.
GoT iT ThAaAaAAnKS!
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:44AM
Yeah -- but you aren't the legacy media
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday May 31 2020, @01:28PM (3 children)
These days it seems to me that "liberals" (to my mind they are no such) are the ones who refuse to compromise or acknowledge objective reality. 99.9999% of humanity thinks it's female or male, but "liberals" cite those 0.0001% who have gender dysphoria as "evidence" that gender is all in the mind and not biological at all.
"Liberals" like the ones in TFA are the ones who are censoring speech they don't like, but somehow that makes them "willing to compromise?" Somehow it doesn't make them fascist?
If you don't like what a man has to say, then answer him. But never censor him. Let him have his say, and if his words have merit then they'll remain, and if they don't, they will be forgotten.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @04:08PM (2 children)
Ok dude, provide some citatio s of such censorship if you want to be considered.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 01 2020, @02:56PM (1 child)
Trump was just censored on twitter.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @07:50PM
Yeah, for promoting violence and death. Even the 1st Amendment has exceptions, and if you believe Trump's death threat re-tweet should be "debated" then you are a fucking slimeball.
Now, go find some examples of censorship that are unjust. I can't believe I have to add such a qualifier, but here we are.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:06AM (1 child)
Not so long ago liberals were preaching "TOLERANCE!" Then it kind of bit them in the ass, so we don't hear it from them anymore.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @09:14AM
Not calling for actual censorship of Trump's lies is tolerance. Not being outraged that twitter appended a link to less biased information is not intolerance.
As for tolerance, there are also limits. Such as spewing lies and dangerous information that puts the lives of citizens at risk. Why should we have tolerance for greedy sociopaths who harm others? We're not stupid, and trying to play our good will against us shows us your own depravity.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday May 29 2020, @08:42PM (1 child)
If you are for freedom of speech you support trump removing a free pass for twitter to censor whatever without fallout. You can keep hating him at the same time, or imagining he does it for awful plays with the justice system but these have yet to materialize. BTW all scandals involving judges here in Italy see them in bed together with mafia, masons, and leftists. When they will gang up with conservative christians righties, let me know.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @09:23PM
Nope, I have never in my life felt like someone else should be forced to host my speech against their wishes. Twitter does not fall under the realm of public utility the way phone companies and ISPs do because anyone can set up their own server to publish their own speech.
"mafia, masons, and leftists"
You're such a douche bag. Conservatives have been dumping on everyone else since forever, trying to enforce your religious nuttery on others, and now you're crying crocodile tears over the possibility of being persecuted back? Until you are actually persecuted I don't give a fuck. Get lost rightwing nutjob.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday May 29 2020, @10:36PM (1 child)
If they are correcting moderations at the behest of the moderator, then that is not acting as an "authoritative overlord" or considered even an editorial action. Neither is removing content that they are required to remove by law. As far as I'm aware, these are the only changes to posts that have been made on this site. Please enlighten me if there are examples where such powers were abused to modify content, reduce the visibility of or alter context of comments that the administrators just didn't like.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:01PM
Not really paying attention, then? Typical semi-conscious conservative.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 30 2020, @02:14AM (1 child)
I'm not a conservative, I'm just not a Democrat.
You too are being obtuse by intentionally failing to understand the difference between service providers and publishers. A publisher with a comment section may have 230 immunity for the comments, but not for their publishing content. Twitter slapping "fact check" tags is an act of editorializing. If they want to avoid the liability publications have, they need to act like a service provider.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2020, @07:35PM
Twitter can take heat for their own publications, such as the fact checking links.
If they modify someone else's post then they shoudl take the heat for that.
So far all they've done is post a reply to Trump and hide (not even remove) his tweet inciting violence.
There is no trouble here, just you being outraged that Twitter added some links on the same page as Trump's post. Super crazy stuff right there /s
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday May 30 2020, @05:39AM
Oh, that would never happen, except it does all the time? All right there in the IRC logs. Criminal activity, Mod banning. IP blocking. #Freearistarchus!!!!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @08:16PM (4 children)
Exactly. So what part of "the Federal Government is prohibited from retaliating against people for criticizing the government by the First Amendment" did you willfully ignore?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday May 29 2020, @08:46PM (3 children)
Reaction is not retaliation. Especially when the reaction involves removing a privilege. Does your constitution say everybody is equal under the law too?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2020, @11:16PM (1 child)
Why yes, yes it does. We had some problems early on with the definition of a person was. You might have heard of the 3/5ths compromise. It took a second revolution to set that straight, and this [wikipedia.org] is what we came up with:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @02:22AM
To buttress your point, in case someone attempts to say "but that just says the states," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Reverse_incorporation [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @10:03AM
Dear GOD you're stupid! But hey, you're a Catholic, very few of those are capable of independent thought.
"Get 'em before they're twelve and you've got 'em for life!" Sick fucking priests.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @06:38AM (3 children)
Are you arguing that a private entity is not entitled to use its resources as it sees fit?
Which is a direct argument *against* property rights.
Are you a communist?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday June 01 2020, @05:17PM (2 children)
So what you are saying is that Trump is a lefty and Democrats have become hardcore libertarians.
I guess nobody wants to deal with the issue of private companies have inordinate power over the public narrative, but it will end up being dealt with eventually though probably in ways nobody likes or envisions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @07:57PM (1 child)
So that's a 'yes'?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 02 2020, @03:13AM
no
It is interesting though how politics is quite fluid right now and interesting too how Democrats' "we're the good guys" narrative is slipping away into authoritarianism.