Trump signs executive order which threatens social media companies

[Deidre]

Well, I'm glad he's done worrying about that pesky Covid virus and all those uninsured and unemployed Americans! Whew, glad he can move on to major priorities now, like Twitter!

 

[Kenny]

Hopefully we can have some good dialogue here and not just who can get a jab in.

First of all: What happened to support for capitalism? If someone doesn't like Facebook and Youtube... why don't they just open a Personbook and a Wetube? It's a free country.

So, the issue here is that he is trying to not let these media outlets be selective in what is shown?

I have a question about this since I think this is a hot subject:

if memory serves me correctly, do radio/newspaper outlets have to give equal access to all political parties? (One of those things I can't seem to get a google answer -- maybe on page 1,596 - but I'm tired of hitting "next page".

 

[Stevicus]

Hopefully we can have some good dialogue here and not just who can get a jab in.

First of all: What happened to support for capitalism? If someone doesn't like Facebook and Youtube... why don't they just open a Personbook and a Wetube? It's a free country.

So, the issue here is that he is trying to not let these media outlets be selective in what is shown?

I have a question about this since I think this is a hot subject:

if memory serves me correctly, do radio/newspaper outlets have to give equal access to all political parties? (One of those things I can't seem to get a google answer -- maybe on page 1,596 - but I'm tired of hitting "next page".

Well, there's the Equal Time Rule (Equal-time rule - Wikipedia), but I believe that only applies to broadcast media, not print media.

 

[Kenny]

Well, there's the Equal Time Rule (Equal-time rule - Wikipedia), but I believe that only applies to broadcast media, not print media.

Thanks Stevicus. You are a blessing.

I noticed it says:

"The equal-time rule was created because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was concerned that broadcast stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view, and excluding other candidates."

I know this is somewhat deviating from the OP...-but I think it is kind of tied to it.

1) I wonder why it didn't include print media? Rationale?
2) Is internet media the new "radio" of today in its capacity to manipulate? Or is it the new "print media" of today? why? (Question is obviously tied to today's issue)


As I develop a position (with these questions) - at this point I am leaning that it is a wrong knee-jerk reaction. What could tip the issue for me is the "why's" for the radio vs print material.

 

[Kenny]

I think there is ample reason to believe that Mr. Trump does what Mr. Trump thinks he can get away with doing. Should he ever come to believe he can retaliate against reporters with 'a knock at their door' you can lay money he will.

I truly don't believe there isn't a president that didn't think that. All of them press the lines of capacity.

 

[Stevicus]

Thanks Stevicus. You are a blessing.

I noticed it says:

"The equal-time rule was created because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was concerned that broadcast stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view, and excluding other candidates."

I know this is somewhat deviating from the OP...-but I think it is kind of tied to it.

1) I wonder why it didn't include print media? Rationale?
2) Is internet media the new "radio" of today in its capacity to manipulate? Or is it the new "print media" of today? why? (Question is obviously tied to today's issue)


As I develop a position (with these questions) - at this point I am leaning that it is a wrong knee-jerk reaction. What could tip the issue for me is the "why's" for the radio vs print material.

At the time, I believe it was justified because broadcast media only included a certain range of frequencies, which made it a limited commodity. Print media was more widely accessible.

 

[Sunstone]

I truly don't believe there isn't a president that didn't think that. All of them press the lines of capacity.

All the more reason to be wary of this one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Beat me to it. This is a very troubling development. And he only did it because Twitter made him mad by putting a fact check notice on some of his statements. Facts and Trump don't go together very well.

Facts and Trump have never met...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I hope your right. But executive orders are very powerful. This is basically the president seizing control of the media. I hate to say it, but this is starting to resemble Germany in the early 1930s. How long before reporters that displease him get a late-night knock on their door? I really am concerned.

Good for you for seeing it. America is on its way...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since when is an admonition to check facts equated with discrimination against anyone at all?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

At the risk of getting howled down by both sides, can I offer a somewhat naive view on this...?

(I mean...it's not really naive if I'm flagging it, but...overly optimistic maybe...)

US politics appear to becoming more and more divided and partisan. I would imagine no-one is claiming that's positive, even if they blame others for why it's occurred.

Is a Republican President moving to suppress a business from moderating their own completely optional, non-essential platform something that could unite some otherwise unlikely allies?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is the draft https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6931604/EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf

I found it via a link on TechDirt The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media: (1) It's A Distraction (2) It's Legally Meaningless

Read it. Remedy? Just have Twitter (and any other social media) append the message "please fact check claims made in this communication before taking action."

That ought to do it.

Oh, dear, I'm dreaming in Technicolor again...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House

Did the dimwitted orange roughy really sign that?

What a colossal moron!

 

[Father Heathen]

Wow Trump really is turning back into a Democrat.

He's always been a dumpster fire. Your dumpster fire. Own up to it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hopefully we can have some good dialogue here and not just who can get a jab in.

First of all: What happened to support for capitalism? If someone doesn't like Facebook and Youtube... why don't they just open a Personbook and a Wetube? It's a free country.

So, the issue here is that he is trying to not let these media outlets be selective in what is shown?

I have a question about this since I think this is a hot subject:

if memory serves me correctly, do radio/newspaper outlets have to give equal access to all political parties? (One of those things I can't seem to get a google answer -- maybe on page 1,596 - but I'm tired of hitting "next page".

Because the big guys crush the little guys; they've never had a realistic chance. The irony is that those who preach "The American Dream" form of capitalism have also supported those who've destroyed it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Conservatives: Corporations should be able to self police them selves and their customers.
Corporations do things conservatives don’t like
Conservatives: not like that! We meant the left and gay people!

 

[fantome profane]

Trump is just lashing out blindly. But if this order has any effect it will be the exact opposite of what he claims he wants.

This order would make Twitter more liable for things posted by their users, and as a result they would be forced to be more active in removing offensive content.

For example, if someone {like Trump} tweets something that glorifies violence, Trump wants Twitter to be held accountable for that. They would have to remove it or they could be sued.

 

[Kenny]

Conservatives: Corporations should be able to self police them selves and their customers.
Corporations do things conservatives don’t like
Conservatives: not like that! We meant the left and gay people!

I wish I could find some reality and truth in all of this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trump signs executive order threatening social-media companies after Twitter fact-checked his tweets



The part I found interesting is that Trump is apparently trying to remove section 230 (of the Communications Decency Act) protections for social media.

I wonder if Trump realizes that Section 230 is the only reason why he has any social media accounts.

If Twitter found itself corporately liable for Trump's defamations and false statements on their service, they'd drop him like a hot potato, quicker than it would take for any of the people Trump has tweeted libelously about over the years to finish dialling their lawyer's phone number.

 

[Stevicus]

I wonder if Trump realizes that Section 230 is the only reason why he has any social media accounts.

If Twitter found itself corporately liable for Trump's defamations and false statements on their service, they'd drop him like a hot potato, quicker than it would take for any of the people Trump has tweeted libelously about over the years to finish dialling their lawyer's phone number.

This might change the face of social media and internet communication. I've been reading some discussions about the difference between internet platforms as "utilities" as opposed to acting as publishers. For example, the electric company can't cut someone off if they say or write something they don't like - even if they used their electricity to do it. Publishers, on the other hand, have to review content and make sure there's nothing in there that they could be sued for.

Section 230 indicates that internet platforms are not responsible for the content of users. So one might well wonder then, if they're not being held responsible for it, why bother to police for content at all? As far as I can tell, they've been doing it just because they can. Their terms of service allow them to remove any content they want, but if they allow some offensive content while disallowing other content, it makes them appear inconsistent, frivolous, biased, and whimsical (just like Trump).

By removing section 230, it appears to send a message to these companies: "If you insist on acting as a publisher, then okay, you're a publisher - and will be held legally accountable for everything that appears on your platform."