Executuve Order for Social Media.

Chaos Marine

Chaos Marine

Well-known member
edition.cnn.com

White House proposal would have FCC and FTC police alleged social media censorship

A draft executive order from the White House could put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of shaping how Facebook, Twitter and other large tech companies curate what appears on their websites, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.
edition.cnn.com edition.cnn.com


Looks like the rampant bias has finally gone so far that the powers from on high have made a decree. I won't lose any sleep over it but I have to wonder what will happen if an actual extremely left or right wing party gets into power. Lets hope that the proceeding administrations won't decide to expand this like Obama did with the Patriot Act, something I remember a lot of democrats having a problem back when Bush was in full "You're either with us, or you're against us mode."

[Edit]

Also, this is from CNN, beware of bias. etc-etc.
 
Yeah, I can see this being easily abused down the line. But like Tim Pool said, they brought this on themselves.

The best way I can think of off the top of my head to make sure this doesn't get weaponized is to form a non-partisan group/committee with equal amounts of Republicans and Democrats. There's probably a better solution than that though.
 
The general idea is one that I agree with, but how Trump is going about it is something that I really can't support.

EO's don't get to just override laws and that is, in effect, what he is trying to do.

Section 230 should be legislatively changed to strip immunity from any platform over a certain size that actively moderates content that is legal in the US. So yes, they can still ban things that are actually illegal (CP, for example) but if YouTube wants to ban talking about firearms then they lose their legal immunity.

Hit a certain size and you must be content neutral (so long as the content is legal to post/host in the US) if you want to retain Section 230 immunity.

EDIT: It should also go without saying that valid court/government orders to remove a given piece of content also don't void immunity.
 
Emperor Tippy said:
The general idea is one that I agree with, but how Trump is going about it is something that I really can't support.

EO's don't get to just override laws and that is, in effect, what he is trying to do.

Section 230 should be legislatively changed to strip immunity from any platform over a certain size that actively moderates content that is legal in the US. So yes, they can still ban things that are actually illegal (CP, for example) but if YouTube wants to ban talking about firearms then they lose their legal immunity.

Hit a certain size and you must be content neutral (so long as the content is legal to post/host in the US) if you want to retain Section 230 immunity.

EDIT: It should also go without saying that valid court/government orders to remove a given piece of content also don't void immunity.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's preferable but at this point I will take it. Hopefully it makes things better, but given the cultural climate of who owns big tech Im sure they will find some way to continue on doing what they are doing.
 
FriedCFour said:
Yeah that's preferable but at this point I will take it. Hopefully it makes things better, but given the cultural climate of who owns big tech Im sure they will find some way to continue on doing what they are doing.
Click to expand...
Nah, principal and process matter a great deal to me. Especially when it isn't a full blown emergency.

As I said, while I agree with the end goal; the process used makes it something that I can't really support.

I am fairly opposed to the (domestic) Imperial Presidency and the Administrative State. I want SCOTUS to flat out scupper the entire concept actually and force Congress back to having to pass legislation if the federal government wants to mandate something.
 
Emperor Tippy said:
Nah, principal and process matter a great deal to me. Especially when it isn't a full blown emergency.

As I said, while I agree with the end goal; the process used makes it something that I can't really support.

I am fairly opposed to the (domestic) Imperial Presidency and the Administrative State. I want SCOTUS to flat out scupper the entire concept actually and force Congress back to having to pass legislation if the federal government wants to mandate something.
Click to expand...
Those matter to me too, but when the biggest tech corporation in the US has been outed as thoroughly as it has at rigging how people get to see information and disinformation in order to get the election results their company heads and majority of their staff from the bottom to the top would prefer, I would call that an emergency.
 
The Social Media companies are co-ordinating for a massive anti-Trump campaign to be waged over the internet in the upcoming US election. They will de-platform, de-monetise, divert, censor and ban anyone they possibly can who may help get President Trump re-elected. They don't want a fair playing field and honest discourse.

Time is of the essence and a fight through congress and the courts could take months, I'd take any executive order here as a placeholder for later legislation and a shot across the bows of big tech social media.
 
Es Arcanum said:
The Social Media companies are co-ordinating for a massive anti-Trump campaign to be waged over the internet in the upcoming US election. They will de-platform, de-monetise, divert, censor and ban anyone they possibly can who may help get President Trump re-elected. They don't want a fair playing field and honest discourse.

Time is of the essence and a fight through congress and the courts could take months, I'd take any executive order here as a placeholder for later legislation and a shot across the bows of big tech social media.
Click to expand...

They have gone all in on this election if they lose they lose big.

Because they have made a whole lot of enemies who now want payback.
 
Flintsteel said:
That would require Congress to do its job. Good luck with that.

Not that I disagree that this is Congress' problem, but they haven't exactly been doing their job for years now.
Click to expand...
Sure they have.

Their job is to get themselves re-elected a few times before segwaying into lobbying and consulting jobs while sitting on the boards of corporations; right? ;)
 
Emperor Tippy said:
The general idea is one that I agree with, but how Trump is going about it is something that I really can't support.

EO's don't get to just override laws and that is, in effect, what he is trying to do.

Section 230 should be legislatively changed to strip immunity from any platform over a certain size that actively moderates content that is legal in the US. So yes, they can still ban things that are actually illegal (CP, for example) but if YouTube wants to ban talking about firearms then they lose their legal immunity.

Hit a certain size and you must be content neutral (so long as the content is legal to post/host in the US) if you want to retain Section 230 immunity.

EDIT: It should also go without saying that valid court/government orders to remove a given piece of content also don't void immunity.
Click to expand...


I think that is the solution, in combination with a flurry of lawsuits.

Emperor Tippy said:
Nah, principal and process matter a great deal to me. Especially when it isn't a full blown emergency.
Click to expand...

Except this is a full blown emergency. We have a full court press by the oligarchs to overthrow the Republic and substitute an oligarchy.
 
honestly, I look at Trump's presidency and go "well, regardless of any negatives or positives I can be sure of one thing. People might actually be taking a second look at just how much power Congress has been busy abdicating after this. That'd be nice."

of course, it's still just a might. Political Parties are weirdly short sighted.
 
While I respect the wish for this sort of thing to be done via Congress and not EOs, we all know it would never pass in the current state of things.

With Google execs caught talking about trying to shift votes, and other platforms trying to chase away/punish conservatives news/views/opinions, I'm fine with this happening via EO because it measn shit might actually get done before the 2020 election.

Yes, this could be weaponized by the Left, but frankly at this point I think both sides are at an 'all or nothing' mindset regarding 2020, so the fight needs to be fought NOW, not stuck in Congress for 10 years.
 
Bacle said:
While I respect the wish for this sort of thing to be done via Congress and not EOs, we all know it would never pass in the current state of things.

With Google execs caught talking about trying to shift votes, and other platforms trying to chase away/punish conservatives news/views/opinions, I'm fine with this happening via EO because it measn shit might actually get done before the 2020 election.

Yes, this could be weaponized by the Left, but frankly at this point I think both sides are at an 'all or nothing' mindset regarding 2020, so the fight needs to be fought NOW, not stuck in Congress for 10 years.
Click to expand...

honestly by any appreciable measure Google is likely in violation of election laws right now.

And if project dragonfly is real then their actions are treasonus, its a company that is in for a very painful reconking soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top