President Trump's Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

[SteveH]

A social media platform is no different now than any other news / information outlet. It's time to remove their special treatment provisions.

Differing opinions, truths and falsehoods are posted all the time on ET here yet it functions quite well without the heavy hand of the owners / moderators weighing in as judge and jury.

 

[maxinger]

This is a double edge sword for Trump.

 

[Sig]

It's not for Twitter to investigate whatever you said, then decide whether it may be a lie, and then point out that you may be lying. This is what communists do - make decisions about your speech and suppress it. How can they even treat a billion people equally if they try to label everyone's tweets. It's not even possible to implement without bias, and without selecting whatever they want to investigate. That would give them more power than any government.

Once again, are you not bothered by the freaking President of the United States blatantly lying? I know, it's inconvenient to face that fact, and I guess easier to get yourself all riled up about supposed suppression of your speech. But seriously, if you can't admit that the President telling blatant lies is utterly reprehensible then what does that say about your beliefs? Are you incapable of admitting this or are you honestly fine with his behavior? Focus, you can do it!

 

[Sig]

A social media platform is no different now than any other news / information outlet. It's time to remove their special treatment provisions.

Differing opinions, truths and falsehoods are posted all the time on ET here yet it functions quite well without the heavy hand of the owners / moderators weighing in as judge and jury.

Actually the moderators do remove posts here on ET. And every news outlet in America can also publish whatever they like, be that a lie, truth, or, gasp!, pointing out that the President is lying. As they should be allowed to, BECAUSE ITS THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY TO DO WITH AS THEY LIKE BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! They didn't remove his post, they pointed out the factually incorrect portions of his post. What kind of dystopian reality are you asking for when you insist that a private company be banned from pointing out when the President is lying? For Peet's sake, you've all lost your minds!

 

[wrbtrader]

Twitter should close his account ... sorted

I don't know how much money governments in the U.S. spend on advertising on Twitter per year...

President Trump stopping that cash fund may hurt for awhile and when that happens...

Close his account and then if he losses the election...let the new President open a new twitter account and re-continue the money spending on Twitter but keep the fact checks because you know he'll be on a daily rant in attacking the new White House.

• Regardless, the timing of this sucks and maybe he got wind of something else that Twitter was planning to do going into the elections in November ?

• Did the fact check button designed to remove the message post if false and how does that prevent his freedom of speech ?

Hell...its time for Baron to put a fact check button at the bottom of our message posts !!!

wrbtrader

 

[tommcginnis]

It's not for Twitter to investigate whatever you said, then decide whether it may be a lie, and then point out that you may be lying.

Errrr, yeah, it is. "Freedom Of Speech" carries no guarantee of an audience.
It is *TWTR's* platform, used with *their* permission.
It is used by responsible adults without regard for age, gender, religion, race or creed, etc.
However, such a platform is not without restrictions -- hateful speech is not permitted, nor are untruthful statements when presented as truth.

Just not that hard of a concept.

 

[never2old]

I think he should close Twitter ... sorted.

I don't know how much money governments in the U.S. spend on advertising on Twitter per year...

President Trump stopping that cash fund may hurt for awhile and when that happens

what was that name again - yes that's it wikileaks

so whether its twitter, wikixxx or other, a social media site can be set up in any part of the world - it doesn't have to be in the US, UK or Europe or be a stock exchange listed company.

zuckerberg should take notice & keep his trap shut

moving twitter offshore just as APPL are, anything is possible.

the media are dangerous, social media even more so & no one, from a President, Dictator or Emperor can stop 'freedom of information' or the 'power of the people' One man or one women against a whole global village doesn't stand a chance in hell.

history shows that each ruler has an end of life, in the case of a US president two term office, the revolving door spins.

like doctors without borders - social media without borders or restrictions

 

[guru]

Errrr, yeah, it is. "Freedom Of Speech" carries no guarantee of an audience.
It is *TWTR's* platform, used with *their* permission.
It is used by responsible adults without regard for age, gender, religion, race or creed, etc.
However, such a platform is not without restrictions -- hateful speech is not permitted, nor are untruthful statements when presented as truth.

Just not that hard of a concept.

Of course. So they must accept liability for their actions and you should be able to sue them if you like. The order simply states that they can't be immune from being sued by you, just like an other company.
That's really not that hard of a concept.

 

[guru]

Once again, are you not bothered by the freaking President of the United States blatantly lying? I know, it's inconvenient to face that fact, and I guess easier to get yourself all riled up about supposed suppression of your speech. But seriously, if you can't admit that the President telling blatant lies is utterly reprehensible then what does that say about your beliefs? Are you incapable of admitting this or are you honestly fine with his behavior? Focus, you can do it!

That's the whole point. You and I can be bothered as much as we want, but this doesn't give us any rights over Trump. The difference between me and you is that I'm not a dictator and I'm not trying to put myself above him or you, and I don't feel I should have the right to censor or suppress him or you.
Why would I be even allowed to act on anything that bothers me?
While if I want to have a website where I censor you, then I cannot claim immunity from the law when others sue me for any other content I'm allowed to let through.
The order simply states that you and I should be able to sue Twitter for anything we want, vs Twitter lying and claiming legal immunity due to supposedly being no different than a park where people speak freely.
Doesn't it bother you that any company has power to do anything they want with impunity and legal immunity, while lying that they're just maintaining a park where you and I can speak?

 

[Cuddles]

Cons:
It's not welfare when the business is too big too fail

Also cons:
It's not private enterprise when they opine or censor against opinions I agree with