Trump to sign executive order on social media amid Twitter furor

[antaeus]

I'm not sure what the argument here is. Trump's executive order attempts to remove S230 protections from politicized social media platforms. Supposing that the order isn't found to be unconstitutional, that means that certain platforms will no longer be treated as information service providers with liability exemptions, but as publishers/speakers. The order doesn't force social media platforms to do anything (they are at leisure to curate their own websites as they see fit), it merely seeks to make them choose between being neutral venues with S230 protections or partial venues without. Most of this was outlined by an article Sumkilz posted at the beginning of the thread.

The argument for Twitter is that they don't want to be forced to be one or the other. They want the protections of the former, with the editorial privileges of the latter.

To be clear, I don't agree with them, but I can see why they're aiming for a grey area in a hyper partisan environment. They need to keep their progressive users retweeting in outrage while ensuring their conservative posters keep shouting from the rooftops. It's a fine balance they manage to keep everybody tweeting.

[Vanoi]

You're right, traditional publishers don't have to be neutral and clearly twitter isn't. Why should I care if a tradtional publisher faces lawsuits? When we got to the point of leftists with open contempt of their opponents are linking me articles because they can, I could care less what happens to twitter.

As i pointed out this will affect more than just Twitter but anything to own the libs right? I'm glad other conservatives disagree.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-dr...23.html?bcmt=1

[tgoodenow]

As i pointed out this will affect more than just Twitter but anything to own the libs right? I'm glad other conservatives disagree.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-dr...23.html?bcmt=1

Should this attempt to redirect the discussion be considered a concession that you agree Twitter has become a traditional publisher?

[Cope]

As i pointed out this will affect more than just Twitter but anything to own the libs right? I'm glad other conservatives disagree.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-dr...23.html?bcmt=1

Liberals are just as much - if not more - involved in pressuring social media companies to bend to their political interests as conservatives are. The rush by Dems to accuse large platforms of facilitating Trump's electoral success in 2016 by not combating "fake news", "Russian bots" or "hate-speech" is where this all started. It is why, as I mentioned previously, Joe Biden has recently supported either revoking and/or limiting S230 provisions; in his own words, social media companies are "not merely tech companies", they're "propagating falsehoods they know to be false".

[Aexodus]

Governments dictating to social media companies is nothing new. This from 2019.

[Gaidin]

While I think that Trump is a crybaby who really should be held to account at every opportunity for the record setting untruths or half truths he offers up every time he talks, I don't think it is up to Twitter to flag something is untrue.

Really? Is fact checking that hard? Let me know when it's that hard to tell that Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg isn't a pedophile.

You need to learn the difference between fact-checking and truth-spinning.

[Tactics Mayers]

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic://

Here's a link that explains what section 230 is and why is it improtant for protecting internet speech.

Basically. If my comment is deemed deflammatory by someone, they can sue the owner of this forum and other similar sites. In order to avoid lawsuit fees, they will remove my comment since it's much more cost effective than spending time to determine whether my comment is deflammatory, is that correct?

Rather chilling too hear.

Reminds me of the time CNN threatened to dox a user for posting a meme comment that insulted them.

[Ludicus]

Freedom of speech is one of the most precious and important human rights. But let's contextualize this discussion.
Trump on twitter,

"when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

From the news,

The "historical context" is a reference to the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts", coined by Miami Police Chief Walter Headley in 1967, in reference to his aggressive policing policies in black neighbourhoods.
"In a Twitter thread, the social network said: "This tweet violates our policies regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today."
We've taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance."
Twitter's policy of adding a warning to, rather than deleting, tweets that break its rules when it comes to major public figures was announced in mid-2019.

More,

The notification on Mr Trump's tweet shows a blue exclamation mark and a link suggesting readers "get the facts about mail-in ballots".

Frankly,I see nothing wrong with a fact checking function.
--------



Should I say: "well done? " nope, obviously...

But I still keep asking myself: why wasn't Floyd's assassin arrested yet?
---
Edit- everything is related. More here: #1670

[mongrel]

Good post Ludicus. that tweet could easily have been read as permission for law enforcement agencies to have the same meaning as Walter Headley's policy, which in light of heightened tensions over police behaviour including an apparent murder in plain sight, indicates a massive lack of judgment on POTUS's part.

[Coughdrop addict]

These latest Republican attacks on free speech, if they get the results Trump wants, will be the death of sites like TWC or any other forum not run by a big company. If a platform's owner is liable then nobody but a big company will want to run the risk of owning a platform. Who wants to police their platform 24/7 or risk getting sued because someone doesn't like what someone else said?

Meanwhile companies like Facebook and Twitter will decide it's better to clamp down on any opinion anyone complains about in order to evade accusations that they're editorializing, and unless you're rich enough to go to court over it you'll be out of luck when it happens to your opinions.

And all of this because Trump's ego can't bear dissent.

[Frostwulf]

Really? Is fact checking that hard? Let me know when it's that hard to tell that Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg isn't a pedophile.

You need to learn the difference between fact-checking and truth-spinning.

Yes fact checking is that hard, when you have to fact check the fact checkers.

[Coughdrop addict]

Yes fact checking is that hard, when you have to fact check the fact checkers.

But as I've been saying, all legitimate fact checkers list their sources, allowing anyone who thinks they are lying to do the research themselves and prove it. So far none of the "ZOMG DA FAK NUZ!" people seem to want to do that, perhaps afraid of what they will find.

[Frostwulf]

But as I've been saying, all legitimate fact checkers list their sources, allowing anyone who thinks they are lying to do the research themselves and prove it. So far none of the "ZOMG DA FAK NUZ!" people seem to want to do that, perhaps afraid of what they will find.

Is PolitiFact a legitimate fact checker?
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/illeg...-income-taxes/

In the last presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Clinton said that “half of all” illegal immigrants in the U.S. “actually pay federal income tax.” PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning fact check organization, investigated Clinton’s claim and reported: “While there is no official figure, experts estimate that about half of all undocumented workers pay federal income taxes, if not more.”In reality, the polar opposite is true. Federal government data shows that while roughly half of illegal immigrants file federal tax returns, the vast majority of them don’t pay any federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, which are a form of cash welfare. In other words, illegal immigrants mainly use the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens.

This is but one example of fact checking the fact checkers, what PolitiFact wrote was very misleading. I don't have time to continue this, but perhaps later.

[Knight of Heaven]

These latest Republican attacks on free speech, if they get the results Trump wants, will be the death of sites like TWC or any other forum not run by a big company. If a platform's owner is liable then nobody but a big company will want to run the risk of owning a platform. Who wants to police their platform 24/7 or risk getting sued because someone doesn't like what someone else said?

Meanwhile companies like Facebook and Twitter will decide it's better to clamp down on any opinion anyone complains about in order to evade accusations that they're editorializing, and unless you're rich enough to go to court over it you'll be out of luck when it happens to your opinions.

And all of this because Trump's ego can't bear dissent.

Is it? because his argument is that Conservative voices have been silenced, on twitter, and other social media.

Everybody knows twitter specially has a left wing, progressive bias. This claim isn't knew either. The Donald sub reddit was recently banned on reddit as well.

I do feel recently even on youtube has been a push to ban such channels and media.

Im not surprise there is backlash on this.

That said. Twitter and other social media, are a far cry from free press as well, their influence and interference in democratic elections has been named problematic for a long while on both sides of the aisle. If you can sue the press for their pieces,a nd opinions, why would a social media platform, that acts pretty much in the same way not be liable to do so?!

[Ludicus]

Everybody knows twitter specially has a left wing, progressive bias.

In my opinion, some conservatives love to play the victim card. Curiously, no research has ever suggested that Republicans have been disadvantaged on social media platforms...let's keep in mind that Trump, a social media star, became the president of America.
In fact, the real bias is against false information and conspiracy theories, as I said before. And again: it's well worth a reading. Full article: Eliot Weinberger · The American Virus.
--
More. This is very enlightening article, from Covid Reference, top articles.

Ball P, Maxmen A. The epic battle against coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy theories. Nature 2020, 581, 371-374. Full-text: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01452-z

This article shows how analysts and researchers have been scrambling to track and analyse the disparate falsehoods floating around — both ‘misinformation’, which is wrong but not deliberately misleading, and ‘disinformation’, which refers to organized falsehoods that are intended to deceive. Inaccurate information doesn’t only mislead, but could be a matter of life and death if people start taking unproven drugs, ignoring public-health advice, or refusing a coronavirus vaccine if one becomes available.

I quote,excerpt,

Spreading agendas
...Neil Johnson, a physicist at George Washington University in Washington DC, has reported4 COVID‑19 misinformation narratives taking shape among online communities of extremist and far-right ‘hate’ groups, which occupy largely unregulated platforms including VKontakte, Gab and 4Chan, as well as mainstream ones such as Facebook and Instagram.

The study says that a “hate multiverse” is exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to spread racism and other malicious agendas, focusing an initially rather diverse and incoherent set of messages into a few dominant narratives, such as blaming Jews and immigrants for starting or spreading the virus, or asserting that it is a weapon being used by the “Deep State” to control population growth (see ‘Highways of hate’).

Read the whole article.


-------
A statement of clarification, post 48.
In 2014, Eric Garner died during an arrest in New York, repeatedly pleading with officers, "I can't breathe". As far as I know, Minnesotans have voted for Democratic presidential candidates ever since 1976. But nothing has changed. So, this is an endemic problem in the US.

[Surgeon]

Twitter didn't shoot themselves in the foot, they stuck a chaingun up their ass and begged politicians to pull the trigger. Let's declare war against the government guys, galaxy-brain business move.

First they came for twitter... and nobody gave a rat's ass because twitter is a pos and everyone hates everything about it.

Lookit the fashy types suddenly caring about free speech tho.

[Knight of Heaven]

In my opinion, some conservatives love to play the victim card. Curiously, no research has ever suggested that Republicans have been disadvantaged on social media platforms...let's keep in mind that Trump, a social media star, became the president of America.

Ludicus im not against fact checking, but who decides who is fact checked and who isn't? That is my problem with this, specially in this particular case, where Top democrat tweets go unchecked as well.

Honestly about conspiracy theories, and memes out of context on social media for COVID or whatever.... what happened to common sense? Is internet platforms jobs to be the arbiter of truth? Its the internet...

[Gaidin]

Twitter didn't shoot themselves in the foot, they stuck a chaingun up their ass and begged politicians to pull the trigger. Let's declare war against the government guys, galaxy-brain business move.

First they came for twitter... and nobody gave a rat's ass because twitter is a pos and everyone hates everything about it.

Lookit the fashy types suddenly caring about free speech tho.

Those caring have always been there. But I mean. Funny thing, there have been people with accounts just solely dedicated to reposting what Trump does. Not twitter reposting. Just literally, copy, pasting, as if their own. Occasionally they get shut down for a day or two for otherwise bad content.

Game this out for me. Just. Think Trump's order a few moves ahead for me.

Let's say Trump gets his wish and the law gets rolled back and these sites actually have to do more than attempt to moderate. What if they actually have to moderate? Trump still has the POTUS45 account. First thing that goes is his personal account. And twitter's just gonna go "What? You asked for it." They certainly can't not moderate him as well. Politician or not. Conservative or not.