Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Friday May 29 2020, @02:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the two-minutes-hate dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by lentilla on Friday May 29 2020, @07:26PM (2 children)

    by lentilla (1770) on Friday May 29 2020, @07:26PM (#1000701)

    I have the niggling feeling that you are trolling but I will reply as best I can and in all honesty. The too-long-won't-read precis is: when we use those words, it is likely that we are being abusive, and we should examine why we are allowing ourselves to behave this way.

    That's objectively false

    Well; without getting too pernickety over the objective/subjective difference; I did say "equivalent". Equivalent - as in getting a fist in the face and the use of this language are both forms of abuse, and about on par with each other.

    It doesn't even make sense on any level.

    I can only reply that it makes perfect sense to me. The fact that it apparently doesn't make sense to you is; however; worrisome.

    Say the school bully is holding you upside-down by the legs with your head in the toilet bowl. Naturally; between the occasional gasp and sounds that resemble "gurgle, gurgle"; you manage to exclaim "Pardon me, but I find the sensation of being held upside-down in a toilet bowl to be frightfully uncomfortable, would you be so kind as to restore my feet to the ground, kind Sir?"

    The bully replies "That doesn't make any sense! I don't feel in the slightest bit uncomfortable!" And of course he flushes the toilet again as his cronies clutch their bellies in mirth.

    Moral of the short story: if someone says "please don't do that", it's not so much of a request - think of it as a clear indication that you might be in the wrong. And if you happen to be holding their ankles - or hurling choice epithets like "nigger" or "faggot" at the time - you are most definitely in the wrong.

    I could arbitrarily state the same thing about any word.

    Well - you could - but why would you so do? There is nothing arbitrary about the words "nigger" and "fag". They are terms well understood to be abusive and demeaning.

    and you know it

    No, I really do stand by what I said. Those words (excluding certain contexts) are terms of abuse. At the end of the day it really only matters that society has asked us not to use those terms because it has been reliably informed by people on the receiving end of persistent abuse that those terms are extremely hurtful. It's not the words themselves - it's the emotion and gross disrespect that gives birth to the utterance of those words. Thus, when we choose that particular vocabulary we bring to bear the meaning behind the words. This also gives us a handy short-cut: when we feel ourselves about to use those words, it's a helpful flag that we are about to hurl abuse at someone - and that we should stop and consider our position.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:41AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @03:41AM (#1000904)

    "The too-long-won't-read precis is: when we use those words, it is likely that we are being abusive, and we should examine why we are allowing ourselves to behave this way."

    I think a much more salient point is that these words are not just abusive but actual threats. To claim they are "just words" is to show a stunning lack of appreciation of historical context. Just ask any African-American what will inevitably come next after being called "nigger".

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2020, @04:09AM (#1000913)

      Just ask any African-American what will inevitably come next after being called "nigger"

      "Sup, bro!"?