President Trump's Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

[Real Money]

Guess who else prohibits private companies from pointing out when their leader lies? You guessed it, China! If you dislike China so much, why in the world are you advocating for us to be more like them in restricting freedoms?

Let's get something straight. I did not advocate anything.

I said that this executive order is clearly meant to address the administration's concerns about the dangers of having monopolist technology platforms control what gets into the public sphere. That danger, ostensibly, is that these monopolies will be coerced into censoring 'sensitive' discussion (read the OP, it's all there).

That's not a position, that's not a view, that's a paraphrasing of the statements presented.

And Trump is trying to protect free speech and do something good for once and everyone seems to hate him, the pres is the perfect pres, he's just as dumb as his country or maybe just slightly to clever.
Facebook censored via fact checking a few science videos on C19 which later proved to be correct I'd shared.

This guy is advocating for Trump, and saying he agree's there's a problem.

So first off, Twitter is a private company. In a democracy, private companies have complete control over what they allow or don't allow to be published on their platform. But let's get to the crux of the matter. Trump told a blatant lie on Twitter.

The irony is that these companies are operating in China as well, and the POTUS is saying that those freedoms are being compromised to appease foreign interests. Again, this is stated in the EO. It's not my view, my position, or something I'm advocating. Your assertion that "the crux of the matter" is one of Trumps tweets is debatable. But, I don't care to do so.

The first amendment of the US Constitution does not mean you can tell a private company what they can or cannot do.

And this (seemingly) is the reason for the EO, read it again. It says that a foreign government is influencing the operation of a US based company. They are unconcerned about the first amendment. In his words they (a US company)

"...created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance."

To your comments [Sig]

My opinion (and statements) are that this EO is aimed at addressing Chinese gov influence on US based social media platforms and tech businesses. That's all. I'm not advocating anything, I don't have a position.

But I can read between the lines here. This isn't about one of Trump's tweets, even if you want it to be.

It's about what's coming in the form of sanctions and countermeasures to Chinese soft power moves.

Seems like you're desperate to frame me as a Trump supporter, and ignore the motivations for the EO, and downplay any possibility of the mega tech monopoly's plausible impartiality as to the management of 'sensitive' content on their platforms.

 

[KCalhoun]

Except "freedom of speech online" is a made-up concept that not only doesn't exist in our constitution but is expressly prohibited by it. Let me just quote the first amendment here to make it clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Note the first word of the amendment, "Congress". The government can't restrict free speech, and that is all. There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution or anywhere in our history compelling private companies or individuals to follow this restriction, and in fact the first amendment was specifically written to ensure private companies and individuals could do whatever that wanted with respect to speech. The founding fathers would no doubt be appalled to hear that anyone considered restricting a private company's right to speak up and accurately point out when the President was lying was "free speech".
But was really concerns me is you. You're a smart, reasonable guy. You already know everything I just said. Four years ago you would have been on the opposite side of this discussion. You would have rightly said that the constitutional remedy to a private company restricting what could be said or criticizing our leaders was to stop using that company and if you wanted to, use another or start another. Twitter is mostly open source, it would be trivial to replicate it, heck if you want to help raise funding I'll do it. You would have said that the President's remedy against a company pointing out he was lying was to not lie! What happened to cause you to sell your soul on something as fundamental as the first amendment? What can we do to get you back?

I completely agree with your points, free speech must be protected 110%. I fiercely believe in that.

The question I suppose is practical implementation.... what venues are appropriate for various content? Eg look at the extensive YouTube tos updated content guidelines.

Politicizing the platforms vs moderating fairly vs stifling free speech vs wild west anything goes is widely debated..

fwiw I've been a fan of Trump, though disappointed in how he's handling the cvid situation; big picture the Twitter fact check bs seems politically motivated since I don't see them doing that to dems

Platforms do need moderation, eg free speech doesn't mean anything goes, the key is doing things fairly, eg you wouldn't want to see viagra spamming here or extremist posts here on et despite freedom of speech rights etc I'm sure forum owners have to spend a lot of time deleting spam posting, and other content, while maintaining freedom of on-topic speech.

 

[newwurldmn]

I completely agree with your points, free speech must be protected 110%. I fiercely believe in that.

The question I suppose is practical implementation.... what venues are appropriate for various content? Eg look at the extensive YouTube tos updated content guidelines.

Politicizing the platforms vs moderating fairly vs stifling free speech vs wild west anything goes is widely debated..

fwiw I've been a fan of Trump, though disappointed in how he's handling the cvid situation; big picture the Twitter fact check bs seems politically motivated since I don't see them doing that to dems

Platforms do need moderation, eg free speech doesn't mean anything goes, the key is doing things fairly, eg you wouldn't want to see viagra spamming here despite freedom of speech rights etc

Says the guy who had poopy deek banned from posting to his threads. That was probably politically motivated too.

 

[Sig]

I completely agree with your points, free speech must be protected 110%. I fiercely believe in that.

The question I suppose is practical implementation.... what venues are appropriate for various content? Eg look at the extensive YouTube tos updated content guidelines.

Politicizing the platforms vs moderating fairly vs stifling free speech vs wild west anything goes is widely debated..

fwiw I've been a fan of Trump, though disappointed in how he's handling the cvid situation; big picture the Twitter fact check bs seems politically motivated since I don't see them doing that to dems

Platforms do need moderation, eg free speech doesn't mean anything goes, the key is doing things fairly, eg you wouldn't want to see viagra spamming here or extremist posts here on et despite freedom of speech rights etc I'm sure forum owners have to spend a lot of time deleting spam posting, and other content, while maintaining freedom of on-topic speech.

You say you agree but then go on to almost purposely miss the point. Free speech in the context of the constitution and our democracy ONLY means that the government can't interfere with speech. At the point you start to talk about moderation or platforms you're talking about private enterprise and any idea that they must be compelled to provide anything that you or I or anyone else decides is "free speech" is not only a fairy tale but the antithesis of the Constitution's definition of free speech. Full stop!

There's lots of things in life that aren't fair. It's not fair that kids in Baltimore City schools have no air conditioning and have to sit in 90 degree classrooms for 3 months a year. It's not fair that the standard for arrest of someone passing a single fake $20 bill is a clerk's say so, but the standard of arrest for the police officer who kills that guy by putting a knee on his neck with ample video evidence is days of deliberation. And guess what, it may very well not be "fair" that a social media platform points out that the President of the United States says something patently false and damaging to the fabric of our democracy (although I would disagree it's unfair and you would too if it was Obama?). But unlike the other two "unfair" things, the constitution guarantees them the right to do that.

Once again, I'm struck by how you as a reasonable, intelligent guy, can be concerned about the "fairness" of a private company pointing out what was without a doubt a falsehood to the point that you're unable to say what you would have 4 years ago....the government has no business, ever, telling a private entity what they can and can not say. Especially when they're abridging their right to point out a falsehood by someone in office. That runs counter to everything you've believed in all your life, and you're selling it out to support a demagogue. You're better than that!

 

[Sig]

Let's get something straight. I did not advocate anything.

I said that this executive order is clearly meant to address the administration's concerns about the dangers of having monopolist technology platforms control what gets into the public sphere. That danger, ostensibly, is that these monopolies will be coerced into censoring 'sensitive' discussion (read the OP, it's all there).

The "monopoly" of Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube and the dozen other prominent social media platforms is what you're concerned about? You seriously need to look up the word monopoly. Is English your first language?

That's not a position, that's not a view, that's a paraphrasing of the statements presented.

This guy is advocating for Trump, and saying he agree's there's a problem.

The irony is that these companies are operating in China as well, and the POTUS is saying that those freedoms are being compromised to appease foreign interests. Again, this is stated in the EO. It's not my view, my position, or something I'm advocating. Your assertion that "the crux of the matter" is one of Trumps tweets is debatable. But, I don't care to do so.

And this (seemingly) is the reason for the EO, read it again. It says that a foreign government is influencing the operation of a US based company. They are unconcerned about the first amendment. In his words they (a US company)

"...created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance."

It's a pretty chicken-shit thing to parrot a position, claim you didn't ever claim that position, then go on to reinforce that position. Own your opinions or get out of the debate.

And if you really think that this executive order that came out days after Trump clearly expressed his fury at Twitter pointing out his falsehood because they were concerned about a completely different company creating a search engine for China that actually happened years ago and could have been easily rectified by addressing the search engine in China.....then again, you've given up any semblance of intellectual honesty and you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

To your comments [Sig]

My opinion (and statements) are that this EO is aimed at addressing Chinese gov influence on US based social media platforms and tech businesses. That's all. I'm not advocating anything, I don't have a position.

But I can read between the lines here. This isn't about one of Trump's tweets, even if you want it to be.

It's about what's coming in the form of sanctions and countermeasures to Chinese soft power moves.

Seems like you're desperate to frame me as a Trump supporter, and ignore the motivations for the EO, and downplay any possibility of the mega tech monopoly's plausible impartiality as to the management of 'sensitive' content on their platforms.

If you're not a Trump supporter then come right out and say that his false statements about our election system, the foundation of our democracy, are completely and utterly reprehensible. The fact that you can't say this, which is patently obvious to even the most partisan, then it's absurd for you to claim you're not drinking the Trump cool-aid.

I don't doubt you want Trump's motives to be pure and for the guy who can barely speak a coherent sentence to be playing 3 dimensional chess with China. Restricting the speech of U.S. corporations specifically when that speech points out falsehoods by the President is so transparently not that. And restricting speech of private entities in EXACTLY the same way that China restricts the speech of private entities in China is not the way to make our country more free. It's appalling that you would think it does.

 

[Gaslight Capital]

I'm not the biggest fan of Trump

I'm no fan at all.

This whole Trump v Twitter fight has me thinking of Jacobellis v. Ohio (SCOTUS does not define obscene, but "knows it when it sees it") and the Schenck v. United States case as well ("shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is not protected free speech"). Trump is on the wrong side of history. But this is a different SCOTUS so who knows how they'd find?

 

[Real Money]

..it's absurd for you to claim you're not drinking the Trump cool-aid.

This one made me chuckle.

I don't even give political shit a second thought unless it's gonna move the market.

You're running around in circles trying to put words in my mouth.

Since everything's partisan with you, maybe you can tell me how to like the Biden guy.

He's a fucking clown.

 

[Sig]

This one made me chuckle.

I don't even give political shit a second thought unless it's gonna move the market.

You're running around in circles trying to put words in my mouth.

Since everything's partisan with you, maybe you can tell me how to like the Biden guy.

He's a fucking clown.

I'm not a fan of Biden, never posted anything in support of him. Even if I was, if he claimed without a shred of evidence that a state "is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one.” 4 months before the election I'd call that out as a reprehensible attack on our democratic process. And I'd certainly never support him or anyone else imposing the exact same dictatorial restrictions on U.S. company's ability to point out untruths from leaders as China imposes on it's companies!

You are absolutely unable to do that with Trump, but you've joined the bandwagon of the attack on those who pointed out that statement was false. Not to mention the absurdity of this apologist claim that the entire purpose of this EO was concern about an entirely different company's search engine effort from years ago! If you sincerely think you're some objective nonpartisan you're most certainly fooling yourself. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

And again, this whole chicken shit "I never claimed to support what I just supported" bullshit is pretty childish. If you don't stand for anything, why in the world are you engaged in a discussion about it?

 

[guru]

I'm actually surprised that so many people consider this Twitter story to be pro-republican. It initially seemed to me that Trump is unknowingly playing against himself and against republicans, while democrats are the ones who'd want Twitter to allow as much "free speech" as possible.
That's because just a year ago a republican senator sued Twitter for $250M because his fake mother was trashing him on Twitter. That's when democrats were defending the fake "mother" and stating that "she" must be allowed free speech and to trash republicans as much as "she" wants.

So now, suddenly when for the first time Trump is doing exactly what Democrats wanted, now it's bad because it's coming from Trump?!
This is so hypocritical.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm actually surprised that so many people consider this Twitter story to be pro-republican. It initially seemed to me that Trump is unknowingly playing against himself and against republicans, while democrats are the ones who'd want Twitter to allow as much "free speech" as possible.
That's because just a year ago a republican senator sued Twitter for $250M because his fake mother was trashing him on Twitter. That's when democrats were defending the fake "mother" and stating that "she" must be allowed free speech and to trash republicans as much as "she" wants.

So now, suddenly when for the first time Trump is doing exactly what Democrats wanted, now it's bad because it's coming from Trump?!
This is so hypocritical.

please look up hypocrisy in the dictionary, then take a nap because you're making absolutely no fucking sense at all.