US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. ThePIGI King

    ThePIGI King Ibanez Enthusiast

    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    808
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Location:
    Ohio
    So, not saying I agree with the President on this one, but what he is getting at makes some sense. This article helped clear some stuff up for me:
    https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891

    I think that extreme censorship is wrong, although not illegal. For example, during the primaries for the Dems this year, a coworker said that Google had censored anything positive about Gabbard (including her own website not appearing as a result on any page) and he couldn't find anything about her via google. Messed up, but not illegal.
     
  2. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,736
    Likes Received:
    1,268
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    Not a Trump supporter, but I'm with you. This executive order appears to violate the private companies' first amendment rights, so I'm sure it will be challenged and almost certainly dismissed in the courts.
     
    Randy likes this.
  3. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    726
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    To be perfectly clear. Twitter did not censor anything. The definition of censor clearly states "suppress information". They did not do that. They annotated more information in addition to what a government official publicly stated. Trump is trying to stop them from doing that, which *is* censoring, by the government... And violating their constitutional rights. It is illegal if it is done by the government.
     
    vilk, AxRookie, JSanta and 3 others like this.
  4. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    5,625
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
  5. SpaceDock

    SpaceDock Shred till your dead

    Messages:
    3,631
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Location:
    Windsor, CO
    StevenC likes this.
  6. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    726
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Well according to his own text, censoring "harassing" and "otherwise objectionable" content is still protected, so Twitter can officially block everything he tweets without fear of retaliation.
     
  7. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    726
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    In all seriousness, reading that EO is hard to take without seeing a bias tone. There is a very clear attitude in the way it is written and it calls out specific companies that he has a problem with. If someone could just hire an impartial legal assistant to rewrite it without the defensive tone, it might make good points about when a platform becomes an editorial. But it is so conflated with hatred for platforms which honestly have helped him in the long run more than they have hurt him, it is hard to take more than a temper tantrum by a Putin wannabe.
     
    sleewell, vilk, StevenC and 2 others like this.
  8. AxRookie

    AxRookie Aspiring Expert

    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    260
    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Trump logic, In order to stop the censorship of government officials, we need to implement government-mandated censorship???

    Oh yeah, that makes total sense all right?

    There is something very wrong with his "aaa-biga-braina" brain...

    And he's talking out of his a$$ because he was never censored at any time and none of his lies were removed???
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
    Randy likes this.
  9. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    726
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    This is the conflated part. Most of the order actually discusses websites like Facebook and YouTube moderating and taking down false information. It is claiming that the act of doing that for reasons that are not protected means they are acting like a publisher / editor and not a information platform. I can understand where this perspective comes from, even though I don't agree the government should intervene.

    I think someone had written this up and then they interjected Twitter and the whole annotation thing last minute (it was very obviously rushed considering the numbers and letters aren't correctly in order throughout the doc). They are claiming that inserting additional content without consent of the author is also more like an editorial / publisher model.

    So they pretty much want information platforms to be regulated by the government for "fairness", after comparing the platforms to newspapers. Government controlling content of publishers... Kind of sounds like communist / socialism to me... And Republicans will eat it up because 'Merica

    Edit: There is some irony here. They want to classify Twitter, Facebook, YouYube, etc. as publishers/editors so the FCC can regulate and defund "unfair" publishers, yet FoxNews is a pretty clearly biased publisher that seems to go under the radar for all the same reasons. The only difference is that they pay their opinionated people? Ug, politics is stupid.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
  10. JSanta

    JSanta SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,262
    Likes Received:
    1,068
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Because it's clearly that he doesn't want companies like Twitter or Facebook to apply any type of fact-checking to the ridiculous, and sometimes harmful content he and many others put out there. And this isn't just a Trump issue, there are plenty of people on the left that are just as bad about posting lies, or at best misleading information.

    This EO is very scary because of the connotations it has to what we see in places like China and Russia, where the Government controls media in such a way that it is weaponized.

    In other news, did anyone happen to see this last night? https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...dges-to-step-aside-ahead-of-november-election
     
  11. thraxil

    thraxil cylon

    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    820
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Location:
    London
    The irony of doing an EO like this after repealing Net Neutrality...
     
    fantom, Randy, JSanta and 1 other person like this.
  12. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    5,625
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
  13. Randy

    Randy ✝✝✝ Super Moderator

    Messages:
    23,409
    Likes Received:
    11,061
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    An escalation on their part, really.
     
  14. GoldDragon

    GoldDragon SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,268
    Likes Received:
    389
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2014
    Location:
    Delaware
    https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891

    In a similar vein, GOP tech critic Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) wrote in a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday that the company's “decision to editorialize regarding the content of political speech raises questions about why Twitter should continue receiving special status and special immunity from publisher liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "And he later teased on social media plans for a separate proposal to "end these special government giveaways."

    "If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers. Fair is fair," Hawley tweeted.
     
  15. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    5,625
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    If, and that's a HUGE If, it went through, you're just going to see them editorize the shit out of Trump and have it backfire on him spectacularly. You think Dorsey, Zuckerberg etc will take this lying down? They actually are as rich as they claim to be, they can afford the legal battle.

    I don't think much positively of social media companies, but Trumps just having a tantrum because things aren't going this way after he's been allowed to spew bullshit and lies for so long without consequences. It's like anytime Fox says one small negative thing about him. This will be another non-story in a week or two.
     
    tedtan likes this.
  16. Demiurge

    Demiurge Intrepid Jackass

    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    2,485
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Location:
    Worcester, MA
    It seems like the threat to remove special privileges & immunity is patently hollow. Wouldn't that mean that Twitter would need to regulate their content more if they were exposed to liability? Of course, their recent annotation of Trump's tweet about Minneapolis suggests that his own content barely survives under the aegis of the current arrangement.
     
  17. AxRookie

    AxRookie Aspiring Expert

    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    260
    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Well they are not an information platform (other than youtube sort of), they are a privately run social media platform that can do what they like on that platform...

    They shouldn't have to let anyone say anything they like on those privately run platforms!
     
  18. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    726
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    I think you are hyperfocusing on words and missing the forest for the trees. The EO says "internet platform". Social media is information. The platforms are the same in that they host 3rd party content: tweets, videos, status updates, etc. They don't own the copyright and they are not commissioning people to upload. They are just a hosting service. The argument is that when they choose to filter what they host, they become a publisher. To me, it is dumb. They are a private business. But the protections they have are clearly defined. You should read the EO. The argument is that they should still do whatever they like but lose protections they are given... Oh and lose government funding too..because gotta stick it to em.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
  19. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    726
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Alternate facts... I finally figured it out. We have been misunderstanding the term the entire time. They want to alternate when to use facts and when to ignore them.
     
    LordIronSpatula likes this.
  20. SpaceDock

    SpaceDock Shred till your dead

    Messages:
    3,631
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Location:
    Windsor, CO
    IMO these sites should be required to filter what is being published, they should be moderating content, and they should be treated like other publishers. Social media sites like FB have been given a pass on this for too long and they choose not to be responsible. In fact, I find that this website has been more responsible with moderating hate speech and aggressive escalations than those media giants. If SSO can do it, so can FB and Twitter. They just don’t want to because it would cost money and I don’t think Zuckerberg is short on cash.
     
    zappatton2 likes this.

Share This Page