Executive order leak looking to censor online speech

[El OchoCinco]

Isn't it relevant if they claim publicly to be politically unbiased? I mean in basic theory, a website should be allowed to be as liberal or conservative as they want. But a website should be held to a different standard if they claim to be unbiased.

Like CNN and FOX claim to be unbiased...how is a website any different than a TV program or newspaper. It is up to people to not be sheeple and use their brain to listen and analyze and not follow dogma blindly.

No false advertising because CNN and fox are not claiming their programs cure cancer or reduce diabetes. They are information channels.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I'm no legal expert, but ....

Pretty much ends after that but haha

 

[LS1Z28]

Like CNN and FOX claim to be unbiased...how is a website any different than a TV program or newspaper. It is up to people to not be sheeple and use their brain to listen and analyze and not follow dogma blindly.

No false advertising because CNN and fox are not claiming their programs cure cancer or reduce diabetes. They are information channels.

Whether or not a news outlet is unbiased is based off opinion. Whether or not a social media platform uses politically motivated algorithms to push or suppress certain points of view is either fact or fiction.

Facebook, Twitter, & Google all claim to be politically unbiased. Why would they have any issues complying with an EO like this if they're telling the truth?

 

[Cuddles]

Whether or not a news outlet is unbiased is based off opinion. Whether or not a social media platform uses politically motivated algorithms to push or suppress certain points of view is either fact or fiction.

Facebook, Twitter, & Google all claim to be politically unbiased. Why would they have any issues complying with an EO like this if they're telling the truth?

Because they shouldn't have to. If I open a website and claim to be unbiased yet choose to be a cunt, that is still protected speech.

 

[LS1Z28]

Even lying's protected speech and legal (Trump should know), unless it's about their earnings

Because they shouldn't have to. If I open a website and claim to be unbiased yet choose to be a cunt, that is still protected speech.

So based off this logic, I would assume you have no problem with Russian hackers using social media as a tool to spread misinformation in an attempt to influence our elections?

 

[Cuddles]

So based off this logic, I would assume you have no problem with Russian hackers using social media as a tool to spread misinformation in an attempt to influence our elections?

Well, one's hacking private servers and disseminating private info, the other is moderating speech. When you say "hackers" you need to be more specific. I don't have a problem with foreign governments pushing misinformation, but they should expect retaliation in kind or stronger (by sanctions). I do have a problem with American citizens coordinating w/foreign governments to circumvent election financing laws, the egging of those attacks by American citizens, and the defacto aiding and abetting by congressmen who refuse to clamp down on said attacks by downplaying their effectiveness.

 

[LS1Z28]

Well, one's hacking private servers and disseminating private info, the other is moderating speech. When you say "hackers" you need to be more specific. I don't have a problem with foreign governments pushing misinformation, but they should expect retaliation in kind or stronger (by sanctions). I do have a problem with American citizens coordinating w/foreign governments to circumvent election financing laws, the egging of those attacks by American citizens, and the defacto aiding and abetting by congressmen who refuse to clamp down on said attacks.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/16/trump-russia-indictments-mueller-investigation-415667
Sorry for the confusion. I was referencing the 13 Russian nationals that were indicted by Mueller for conducting an illegal "information warfare" scheme.

Personally, I would prefer that no one was able to spread misinformation in an attempt to influence our elections.

 

[Cuddles]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/16/trump-russia-indictments-mueller-investigation-415667
Sorry for the confusion. I was referencing the 13 Russian nationals that were indicted by Mueller for conducting an illegal "information warfare" scheme.

Personally, I would prefer that no one was able to spread misinformation in an attempt to influence our elections.

Ideally I would too, but it wouldn't be possible without surrendering some liberties, so I "tolerate it" with the expectation we'll dish it back in kind

 

[vanzandt]

hold these companies liable for content posted by their users. That would be virtually impossible. .

They did it to Backpage.com. Damn shame to.
Fear not though Ocho... https://www.yesbackpage.de/

 

[Cuddles]