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: 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.