Trump to end liability protections for "social media outlets" with Executive Order

[devil21]

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology...trump-postings

Gaetz said:

A lot of people don’t see that Facebook and Twitter … you see Twitter disadvantaging the president, they enjoy liability protections that are not enjoyed by your local newspaper or your local TV station, or Fox News, or CNN, or MSNBC. They have special benefits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as digital platforms because they’re not creating content for which they should be liable. They’re not making decisions about content, they’re simply saying come one, come all with your content. And as a consequence of that, they’re getting a bunch of protections.

And Republicans will cheer hooray! This is actually backdoor legislation to allow lawsuits against websites like RPF, where inconvenient speech is still allowed and not (usually) censored. Currently, RPF can't be sued for the content posted on the site and maintains immunity under the same section 230. Since FB, Twitter, etc are Deep State sponsored creations and large components of stock markets and future agendas (see: Facebook's Libra cryptocurrency), they are not at risk of being shut down or seriously impeded in any material way. They do, however, make for useful excuses to pass statutes that will then be enforced against everyone else.

[PAF]

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology...trump-postings



And Republicans will cheer hooray! This is actually backdoor legislation to allow lawsuits against websites like RPF, where inconvenient speech is still allowed and not (usually) censored. Currently, RPF can't be sued for the content posted on the site and maintains immunity under the same section 230. Since FB, Twitter, etc are Deep State sponsored creations and large components of stock markets and future agendas (see: Facebook's Libra cryptocurrency), they are not at risk of being shut down or seriously impeded in any material way. They do, however, make for useful excuses to pass statutes that will then be enforced against everyone else.

Whoop there it is.

[TheCount]

Whoop there it is.

Oops, Zerohedge accidentally said the quiet part loud

[kahless]

With each passing day lately, it is something new Trump is saying or doing that makes me believe he trying really hard to lose in November. This election should be a cake walk for him if he just stuck to what he ran on instead of continually betraying his base and things like this.

H-1B immigration during a pandemic with massive unemployment and this is a deal killer. If Biden gets elected the best I could hope for is the country to breakup into Progressive and Conservative regions since no one is going to put up with that nonsense Biden is running on.

If this keeps up I bet the next thing Trump does is to thank the Minneapolis cops for their service so he can shed more potential voters.

[Cleaner44]

With each passing day lately, it is something new Trump is saying or doing that makes me believe he trying really hard to lose in November. This election should be a cake walk for him if he just stuck to what he ran on instead of continually betraying his base and things like this.

H-1B immigration during a pandemic with massive unemployment and this is a deal killer. If Biden gets elected the best I could hope for is the country to breakup into Progressive and Conservative regions since no one is going to put up with that nonsense Biden is running on.

If this keeps up I bet the next thing Trump does is to thank the Minneapolis cops for their service so he can shed more potential voters.

How have you not noticed that the general population doesn't pay detailed attention to anything like this?

[nikcers]

How have you not noticed that the general population doesn't pay detailed attention to anything like this?

Pay attention to what? What specific details did you notice that i didnt since i must be part of the general population? What are you specifically upset about?

[kahless]

How have you not noticed that the general population doesn't pay detailed attention to anything like this?

When it is the lock down, economy and job loss effecting them they pay attention. Don't be fooled by the wealthy and secure that have time to post or that are paid to post on social media.

It is as if the news media and politicians have no clue what is going on right now in this country. Combined with police abuse riots this can turn nationally bad quickly.

[Cleaner44]

Pay attention to what? What specific details did you notice that i didnt since i must be part of the general population? What are you specifically upset about?

I am not upset at all. I just have observed that most people don't pay attention to issues the way that many of us here do. It just seems silly to me to expect that Trump will lose votes in November for some executive order in May. Hell 2 weeks from now people will have moved on to other issues and this will be left in the dust regardless of whether one is for or against said executive order.

When it is the lock down, economy and job loss effecting them they pay attention. Don't be fooled by the wealthy and secure that have time to post or that are paid to post on social media.

It is as if the news media and politicians have no clue what is going on right now in this country. Combined with police abuse riots this can turn nationally bad quickly.

When I read your comment it just reminded me of people saying 4 years ago that he didn't really want to win. You seem to think that his base will see this as a betrayal and I disagree. His base will probably see this as delivering an ass whooping to leftist social media, regardless of reality.

Trump has a rock solid base. It is him against the world don't cha know? He is battling the fake newspapers, the liars on TV, the biased social media companies, the deep state, the Democrats and even some Republicans. Perception is Reality. Trump is battling all of these forces and his base is with him through thick and thin. The people have a champion smashing the face of their leftist enemies and they love it.



Meanwhile the Democrats have a candidate with Frontotemporal Dementia crapping his pants on TV while insulting black people...

[nikcers]

Fake news. Where does it say anywhere that Trump was targeting section 230. Joe Biden said he was going to if he wins though.

[devil21]

Fake news. Where does it say anywhere that Trump was targeting section 230. Joe Biden said he was going to if he wins though.

It's ok if you can't put 2 and 2 together to see where this going. Trump doesn't have authority to issue any direct EOs regarding what Twitter/"social media" does but Congress does and Gaetz already let the cat out of the bag as to what the agenda is. Whatever Trump's EO says is to soften up Republicans for the incoming assault on free speech that Congress is cooking up. You haven't figured out how this works yet?

[nikcers]

It's ok if you can't put 2 and 2 together to see where this going. Trump doesn't have authority to issue any direct EOs regarding what Twitter/"social media" does but Congress does and Gaetz already let the cat out of the bag as to what the agenda is. Whatever Trump's EO says is to soften up Republicans for the incoming assault on free speech that Congress is cooking up. You haven't figured out how this works yet?

You mean like the elections when democrats censored conservative emails in millions of americans accounts by labeling them spam so they dont go out and vote?? I know whats coming up. The democrats want to cheat. The same way they took the house.

[devil21]

You mean like the elections when democrats censored conservative emails in millions of americans accounts by labeling them spam so they dont go out and vote?? I know whats coming up. The democrats want to cheat. The same way they took the house.

Republicans Democrats blah blah blah. *yawn*

[nikcers]

Republicans Democrats blah blah blah. *yawn*

Facts matter. They won the house by dumping Republicans emails into spam or not delivering them at all in a lot of cases and thats why they won because people dont go out and vote in elections they dont hear about or get reminded of.

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump should use Gab or some other alternative. It would be the single biggest action that could be taken to introduce some competition to the current popular social media cabal.

[BortSimpson]

Trump should use Gab or some other alternative. It would be the single biggest action that could be taken to introduce some competition to the current popular social media cabal.

Absolutely. He wouldn't need to regulate social media (which is a really creepy precedent to set anyway). And a good number of people would definitely migrate to that new platform if he were there. Of course, there's the danger that Gab could be compromised so he might want to have accounts at multiple places, which could be confusing for people.

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump should use Gab or some other alternative. It would be the single biggest action that could be taken to introduce some competition to the current popular social media cabal.

Some people are also recommending "Parler".

What is Parler?

The site was launched in 2018 by libertarian business owner John Matze as a so-called “free speech” alternative to Twitter, one that would allow smaller websites to capture and grow their own engagement without having to work within Twitter’s rules and revenue structures.
...
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/what-...ial-media-app/

[nikcers]

I would go a step farther. They were pretty much given government access and protection in order to do immoral things that might not of been illegal but were wrong. The democrats used social media and tech monopolies that they created to reverse engineer the first and fourth amendment. You are so brainwashed they even have you thinking that the government is supposed to protect the speech of social media websites. That basically means that anything on their website isnt even your speech. Your mom facebooks you nope that was the website talking to you. You see how upside down that is?? Electronic speech is how people talk to eachother nowadays and that speech ought to be protected from technologies that reverse engineer the constitution. Your fourth amendment should be protected they shouldnt be able to use private business as a cover up to subvert your rights.

[Created4]

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology...trump-postings



And Republicans will cheer hooray! This is actually backdoor legislation to allow lawsuits against websites like RPF, where inconvenient speech is still allowed and not (usually) censored. Currently, RPF can't be sued for the content posted on the site and maintains immunity under the same section 230. Since FB, Twitter, etc are Deep State sponsored creations and large components of stock markets and future agendas (see: Facebook's Libra cryptocurrency), they are not at risk of being shut down or seriously impeded in any material way. They do, however, make for useful excuses to pass statutes that will then be enforced against everyone else.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to devil21 again.

I am just as much against this bias by social media as anybody, as it has harmed the Health Impact News network. But not because of "right vs. left" wars. We publish the truth about Big Pharma which they routinely label as "Fake News," even if what we publish are actual government documents, such as the quarterly DOJ reports about settlements for vaccine injuries and deaths in the U.S. Vaccine Court.

But my recourse is NOT to ask government to protect me, but to sue them in court for libel/slander, which is really what Trump should be doing.

They are slandering him which can cause real loss, at least theoretically, if you believe people who vote determine elections.

I don't know about Twitter, but Facebook is located in California, and when I looked into what it would take to find a law firm to file a suit against them in California, it was nearly impossible. Almost every single case I looked up to find out who the attorneys were in previous lawsuits where Facebook was the defendant, showed that the plaintiffs were pro se litigants. As I researched further, I found out that Facebook has most of the high end lawfirms in California on their payroll, so that they all would have "conflicts of interest" if you tried to hire them.

This can't be solved by an EO, but I am curious to see what he comes up with.

[nikcers]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to devil21 again.

I am just as much against this bias by social media as anybody, as it has harmed the Health Impact News network. But not because of "right vs. left" wars. We publish the truth about Big Pharma which they routinely label as "Fake News," even if what we publish are actual government documents, such as the quarterly DOJ reports about settlements for vaccine injuries and deaths in the U.S. Vaccine Court.

But my recourse is NOT to ask government to protect me, but to sue them in court for libel/slander, which is really what Trump should be doing.

They are slandering him which can cause real loss, at least theoretically, if you believe people who vote determine elections.

I don't know about Twitter, but Facebook is located in California, and when I looked into what it would take to find a law firm to file a suit against them in California, it was nearly impossible. Almost every single case I looked up to find out who the attorneys were in previous lawsuits where Facebook was the defendant, showed that the plaintiffs were pro se litigants. As I researched further, I found out that Facebook has most of the high end lawfirms in California on their payroll, so that they all would have "conflicts of interest" if you tried to hire them.

This can't be solved by an EO, but I am curious to see what he comes up with.

They cant be sued because they have immunity thats the point.

[Created4]

They cant be sued because they have immunity thats the point.

Not true at all. They can be sued, and have been sued many times....

[nikcers]

Not true at all. They can be sued, and have been sued many times....

Section 230 protects them from being sued because they claim they are not exercising speech they are merely a microphone.

[Created4]

Section 230 protects them from being sued because they claim they are not exercising speech they are merely a microphone.

They have been sued. Many, many times. I deal with facts, not ideological fantasies.

[Mordan]

Section 230 protects them from being sued because they claim they are not exercising speech they are merely a microphone.

so if they are a microphone, they have no business fact checking Trump tweets.

Trump is right. Again.

[parocks]

Section 230 protects them from being sued because they claim they are not exercising speech they are merely a microphone.

I don't see why people are all pissed off about this.

Twitter Facebook Youtube all are getting their cake and eating it too.

They want to be seen as both 1) and 2)

1) just like Ma Bell, allowing you to say your thing - not having editorial control.

and

2) They're censoring viewpoints that they don't like.

I guess that they could be 1) or they could be 2) but they can't be both.

Trump's EO says that the social networks are publishers. That means that they can be sued as Publishers.

The lawsuits that you're going to see will be DEFAMATION lawsuits.

When Facebook Twitter and Youtube start deleting stuff they don't like, they voluntarily put themselves in the editing business, the Publishing business. If they wanted to go back to the way they used to do things - not banning conservatives, no shadow banning, no declaring something is true or not true and simply let it fly, they would not be called Publishers.

When these Publishers start telling people what is true or what is not true, it places the responsibility of making sure that things are true on the Publishers. And there are a lot of people DEFAMING other people and businesses on those social networks.

What is pretty common today is some person has a beef with a business for some real or imagined reason, and they use the social network to spread DEFAMATORY statements against that business, and that business gets hurt badly, losing business, going out of business.

And they all are using Facebook and/or Twitter and/or Youtube to do this.

I can think of a specific case where a music venue had $Millions in damages based initially on an allegation on Facebook that the music venue was involved in some way with a sexual assault. And then a firestorm, mostly on Facebook. 2 years later, that venue is still hurting. And that venue is in the middle of a defamation lawsuit. Suing the original liar. Suing a bunch of other people who made other lies, suing newspapers for repeating the lie, etc. And now, they can sue Facebook. The amount of possible damages is quite huge. But no one on the list of defendants really have the deep pockets. Well, Facebook DOES have deep pockets. Every defamation suit going forward where the defendants used Facebook to spread their message will have Facebook added as defendants.

This all seems pretty good to me.

[PAF]

What is Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA)?

[nikcers]

What is Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA)?

How is it not terrorism to collude with career politicians and unelected beurocrats to bypass the bill of rights? How is it not slavery by other means?

[devil21]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to devil21 again.

I am just as much against this bias by social media as anybody, as it has harmed the Health Impact News network. But not because of "right vs. left" wars. We publish the truth about Big Pharma which they routinely label as "Fake News," even if what we publish are actual government documents, such as the quarterly DOJ reports about settlements for vaccine injuries and deaths in the U.S. Vaccine Court.

But my recourse is NOT to ask government to protect me, but to sue them in court for libel/slander, which is really what Trump should be doing.

They are slandering him which can cause real loss, at least theoretically, if you believe people who vote determine elections.

I don't know about Twitter, but Facebook is located in California, and when I looked into what it would take to find a law firm to file a suit against them in California, it was nearly impossible. Almost every single case I looked up to find out who the attorneys were in previous lawsuits where Facebook was the defendant, showed that the plaintiffs were pro se litigants. As I researched further, I found out that Facebook has most of the high end lawfirms in California on their payroll, so that they all would have "conflicts of interest" if you tried to hire them.

This can't be solved by an EO, but I am curious to see what he comes up with.

For website operators like you: This EO, Gaetz' legislation and the "Covid-19 Cause of Action" legislation that PAF posted a thread on are very possibly complementary components. A new "Cause of Action" is the creation of a new legal justification to sue or prosecute an entity/person, which didn't previously exist. It will be wise to see what is defined as "social media" in that legislation. Do you allow comments on your posts, for instance? That could broadly be considered "social media". Depending on that legal definition enshrined in the legislation, it very well could mean that websites like yours could be sued by some newly created "anti-disinformation non-profit org" for posting content that is suddenly illegal under the new Cause of Action.

It could also mean that social media outlets would have a newly created justification to censor anyone linking to your site on FB. "We support your speech but we don't want to be sued!" *wink nod*

eta: Thinking on this a bit more, my last sentence will probably be the most common usage of this new censorship agenda, with actual suits/prosecutions being reserved only for the most egregious "offenders" aka the "made examples of" offenders. The creation of a new justification for the main social media outlets to censor anything not agenda-compliant. After this is passed, watch for a high profile "example" like Alex Jones being sued that can be splashed across headlines everywhere as a tool to scare the small website operators.

[Created4]

For website operators like you: This EO, Gaetz' legislation and the "Covid-19 Cause of Action" legislation that PAF posted a thread on are very possibly complementary components. A new "Cause of Action" is the creation of a new legal justification to sue or prosecute an entity/person, which didn't previously exist. It will be wise to see what is defined as "social media" in that legislation. Do you allow comments on your posts, for instance? That could broadly be considered "social media". Depending on that legal definition enshrined in the legislation, it very well could mean that websites like yours could be sued by some newly created "anti-disinformation non-profit org" for posting content that is suddenly illegal under the new Cause of Action.

It could also mean that social media outlets would have a newly created justification to censor anyone linking to your site on FB. "We support your speech but we don't want to be sued!" *wink nod*

eta: Thinking on this a bit more, my last sentence will probably be the most common usage of this new censorship agenda, with actual suits/prosecutions being reserved only for the most egregious "offenders" aka the "made examples of" offenders. The creation of a new justification for the main social media outlets to censor anything not agenda-compliant.

Certainly possible. And don't think I don't know this already.

All eyes will be on Alex Jones, because he is the first one they will take down.

[devil21]

Certainly possible. And don't think I don't know this already.

All eyes will be on Alex Jones, because he is the first one they will take down.

Yeah I added something about AJ before I even read your reply. I'm pretty sure he's controlled opposition now but would make a very public example to scare the small website operators.

How is it not terrorism to collude with career politicians and unelected beurocrats to bypass the bill of rights? How is it not slavery by other means?

Technically, the BoR only restrains government, not corporations (eta: the federal "government" is actually a corporation, think on what that means and why "government" ignores the BoR all the time). This is why the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibited lawyers (titles of nobility, aka 'Esquire', a british lawyer title) from holding public office but that was memory-holed in the aftermath of the Civil War and old 13th erased and replaced with the new 13th.

These days, shell corps and 501s are created to avoid the appearance (if only on paper) of the government violating the BoR. The paper corp/501 does the actual dirty work. 99.9% of what's going to today is nothing more than "lawfare" and that is what the Founders wished to avoid with the original 13th Amendment.

[Created4]

Yeah I added something about AJ before I even read your reply. I'm pretty sure he's controlled opposition now but would make a very public example to scare the small website operators.

I don't know how "controlled" he is as opposition (I honestly don't think he can be controlled at all), but they have already gone to great lengths to suppress him. I think I even read a while back that his ISP was threatening to block him, and that would have been really serious, as I think the FTC then gets involved. It obviously didn't happen, as he is still up and running.