Trump's Executive Order on Social Media Censorship Leaked!

[Sammy]

[Swordsmyth]

You are either a publisher or a platform, the law should be enforced.

[phill4paul]

You are either a publisher or a platform, the law should be enforced.

That's pretty much what this comes down to. Enforcing existing law. Law which I happen to agree with. You are either a publisher or a platform.

[AngryCanadian]

That's pretty much what this comes down to. Enforcing existing law. Law which I happen to agree with. You are either a publisher or a platform.

A platform in generally cant censor you for freedom of speech. Unless those messages and posts are threats according by the law then they can remove you. But a platform cant delete you for disagreeing to open borders or views on immigration, etc.

[phill4paul]

A platform in generally cant censor you for freedom of speech. Unless those messages and posts are threats according by the law then they can remove you. But a platform cant delete you for disagreeing to open borders or views on immigration, etc.

Social Media Platforms Or Publishers? Rethinking Section 230...https://www.theamericanconservative....otTN9tg28DbOJw

[r3volution 3.0]

You are either a publisher or a platform, the law should be enforced.

Private enterprise exists (until it angers the POTUS enough, I suppose); it should allowed to do as it pleases.

[PAF]

Private enterprise exists (until it angers the POTUS enough, I suppose); it should allowed to do as it pleases.

What is ignored much of the time, private enterprise gets involved in public/private contracts with the government, and it immediately turns into a fascist company and a fascist government.

[r3volution 3.0]

What is ignored much of the time, private enterprise gets involved in public/private contracts with the government, and it immediately turns into a fascist company and a fascist government.

If the social media companies have contracts with the state, inappropriate ones, then cancel them.

If there are any other improper relations between the two, cancel them too.

But let's not have the state regulating media outlets.

And, especially, let's not pretend that this has anything to do with anything other than that Twitter made Trump feel sad.

It's exactly the same thing as with FISA, in the other thread.

Libertarians need to be the ones pointing out the outrageously obvious partisan horse$#@!.

It does the cause no good to cheer on one side or the other when they're obviously insincere.

[Swordsmyth]

Private enterprise exists (until it angers the POTUS enough, I suppose); it should allowed to do as it pleases.

They are free to be publishers and be treated as publishers or be platforms and be treated as platforms.

[r3volution 3.0]

They are free to be publishers and be treated as publishers or be platforms and be treated as platforms.

None of the big social media outfits have anywhere near the same degree of editorial control as newspapers, TV news, etc.

It's not even close. FOX, for instance, has near-absolute control over what is aired.

Every person who says a word on FOX is pre-approved and the conversations are highly scripted.

Contrast this with facebook, twitter, etc; just about anyone can post just about anything, and hundreds of millions do so daily.

It is fundamentally unjust to hold those outfits to the same standards of liability as traditional media.

Mind you, I say this as someone who loathes both forms of media, and both parties, more or less equally.

[dannno]

Private enterprise exists (until it angers the POTUS enough, I suppose); it should allowed to do as it pleases.

Which social media platforms do you believe are private enterprises?

[r3volution 3.0]

Which social media platforms do you believe are private enterprises?

All of them dannno my mannno

Feel free to show me the SEC or other documents showing state ownership of facebook, twitter, etc

...or, in the alternative, random tweets (wait, what?) from some random dudes saying otherwise...

[fcreature]

None of the big social media outfits have anywhere near the same degree of editorial control as newspapers, TV news, etc.

It's not even close. FOX, for instance, has near-absolute control over what is aired.

Social media companies have near-absolute control over what is published on their platforms, and they do exert a significant amount of control over it. I know this to be a fact.

[r3volution 3.0]

Social media companies have near-absolute control over what is published on their platforms, and they do exert a significant amount of control over it. I know this to be a fact.

You think someone at Twitter reads the tweets before they're sent?

[fcreature]

You think someone at Twitter reads the tweets before they're sent?

Do you think content on these platforms isn't classified before it's made public? Makes little difference whether it be a human or a machine that does the reading.

I will admit, it is less control over the content than say, a Fox News. But the difference isn't as vast as you may imagine.

Anyway, I don't need to take anyones word for it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you think content on these platforms isn't classified before it's made public? Makes little difference whether it be a human or a machine that does the reading.

I will admit, it is less control over the content than say, a Fox News. But the difference isn't as vast as you may imagine.

I can go create a Twitter account and post things (as can you, as can anyone).

If I say certain things, I might be banned, sure.

But what, in comparison, are my chances of ever getting to say one word on FOX?

That's the difference, and it's immense; it's not the same ballpark, not the same sport, not the same planet.

[dannno]

But what, in comparison, are my chances of ever getting to say one word on FOX?

Did they shut down their internet comment section?

You could also call into a radio broadcast.

To be fair, you also don't have much of a shot of getting in one word on a video promoted by youtube. You watch any non-mainstream political show, on your up next videos will either be Fox News Channel or CNN/MSNBC depending on the content creator you are watching.

[r3volution 3.0]

Did they shut down their internet comment section?

You could also call into a radio broadcast.

To be fair, you also don't have much of a shot of getting in one word on a video promoted by youtube. You watch any non-mainstream political show, on your up next videos will either be Fox News Channel or CNN/MSNBC depending on the content creator you are watching.

I know so many people who attained national audiences through those FOX comments sections...

Are you kidding me dannno?

That's trivial.

No one gets on FOX (or any other traditional media venue) who isn't on board with the message.

Twitter etc are the opposite; just about anyone can say just about anything.

Better have the state stop the "censorship" of the latter (so the former can keep propagandizing unchallenged)?

Also, China is terrible, Hong Kong, something something free speech, Chinese "Communist" Party censoring the internet..

[insert other laughing gif]

[dannno]

I've found that the most valuable part of local news sites in particular are the comment sections.

Two or three of my local news sites shut down their comment section. The one I liked the most was actually a left leaning publication, because I had the opportunity to add information and context to the story and so did others. In fact most of the commenters were conservative, because they had a natural inclination like me to help correct the public record.

They did not like people who made right wing or libertarian leaning comments, and they had discussed shutting it down for years but kept it because they didn't want to lose viewership. When one or two of the other sites shut down their comment section, this site followed suit, almost a year and a half ago.

Now they hide most of their "non-essential" articles behind a paywall, which didn't exist before, and are constantly begging for money.. because the value of their product decreased immensely when people were not able to read the comments.

They did not understand what a valuable service we provided them... and all for free.

[r3volution 3.0]

I've found that the most valuable part of local news sites in particular are the comment sections.

Two or three of my local news sites shut down their comment section. The one I liked the most was actually a left leaning publication, because I had the opportunity to add information and context to the story and so did others. In fact most of the commenters were conservative, because they had a natural inclination like me to help correct the public record.

Don't take this personally, but...

So long as you believe in insane nonsense like Q...

...and say that everything that you don't like is a false flag....

...you're not in a position to correct anything.

You're in a position to be mocked (and banned as crazy noise) by more sensible people, of both parties and all political persuasions.

They did not like people who made right wing or libertarian leaning comments, and they had discussed shutting it down for years but kept it because they didn't want to lose viewership. When one or two of the other sites shut down their comment section, this site followed suit, almost a year and a half ago.

Now they hide most of their "non-essential" articles behind a paywall, which didn't exist before, and are constantly begging for money.. because the value of their product decreased immensely when people were not able to read the comments.

They did not understand what a valuable service we provided them... and all for free.

Anyway, comments sections on little newspapers don't matter.

What matters is network TV, cable TV, newspapers, and social media.

Of those groups, only social media offer ANY chance of (meaningful) dissent.

And now, because the one political party, the one in power, doesn't think it's helping them, they want to censor it.

That's it, simple as that.

I don't think that's a good idea; your mileage may vary.

[Swordsmyth]

None of the big social media outfits have anywhere near the same degree of editorial control as newspapers, TV news, etc.

It's not even close. FOX, for instance, has near-absolute control over what is aired.

Every person who says a word on FOX is pre-approved and the conversations are highly scripted.

Contrast this with facebook, twitter, etc; just about anyone can post just about anything, and hundreds of millions do so daily.

It is fundamentally unjust to hold those outfits to the same standards of liability as traditional media.

Mind you, I say this as someone who loathes both forms of media, and both parties, more or less equally.

It is fundamentally unjust for them to exercise any editorial control if they want to be treated as platforms.

It's their choice what to be but they have to choose.

[dannno]

Don't take this personally, but...

So long as you believe in insane nonsense like Q...

...and say that everything that you don't like is a false flag....

...you're not in a position to correct anything.

You're in a position to be mocked (and banned as crazy noise) by more sensible people, of both parties and all political persuasions.

Uh, ya, well, half the stuff Q has been saying for the last 2-3 years just got declased in the last few weeks so that leaves you to not be the credible one.

As far as false flags, it isn't things I don't like.. It's when there is a clear and obvious agenda by the media and there is clearly scripted acting involved. In this case, I personally have a first hand account. That's good enough for me. You can think what you want.

Anyway, comments sections on little newspapers don't matter.

What matters is network TV, cable TV, newspapers, and social media.

Of those groups, only social media offer ANY chance of (meaningful) dissent.

And now, because the one political party, the one in power, doesn't think it's helping them, they want to censor it.

That's it, simple as that.

I don't think that's a good idea; your mileage may vary.

That is not true at all, a lot of people pay attention to their local media publications. Each individual publication has only some influence in their community, but if you add all of the publications up they have a very heavy influence as a non-monolithic grouping, possibly as much as cable TV or more.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is fundamentally unjust for them to exercise any editorial control if they want to be treated as platforms.

It's their choice what to be but they have to choose.

That's nonsense.

If they exercised no editorial control, they'd have murders-for-hire, etc.

There's a world of difference between striking out especially objectionable, criminal material, or even just material they dislike, for whatever "biased" reason (if they hate redheads, that's their business, ...because it's their business), and having an editor approve every single word printed/uttered, as invariably occurs in "traditional media." As I said, it's not even the same sport. Being editor of the NYT bears zero resemblance to being the chief of the anti-whatever dept. at Twitter.

Be honest, if social media were very much in support of your politics, you'd have no problem with their bias, would you?

[Swordsmyth]

That's nonsense.

If they exercised no editorial control, they'd have murders-for-hire, etc.

There's a world of difference between striking out especially objectionable, criminal material, or even just material they dislike, for whatever "biased" reason (if they hate redheads, that's their business, ...because it's their business), and having an editor approve every single word printed/uttered, as invariably occurs in "traditional media." As I said, it's not even the same sport. Being editor of the NYT bears zero resemblance to being the chief of the anti-whatever dept. at Twitter.

Be honest, if social media were very much in support of your politics, you'd have no problem with their bias, would you?

Legal control is not editorial control.
Nobody said they shouldn't erase illegal content.
And I have said before they should be able to have more control if they published their rules instead of making them up as they go along and if they applied them equally instead of allowing one side to get away with the same things they use as excuses to censor the other side.


And I would have a problem if they were on my side.


You can't exercise subjective editorial control and be a platform, it doesn't matter if you do it to every word or just to some percentage based on algorithms and/or reports.

[r3volution 3.0]

And I have said before they should be able to have more control if they published their rules instead of making them up as they go along and if they applied them equally instead of allowing one side to get away with the same things they use as excuses to censor the other side.

How about, they can make up whatever damn rules they please, because they own the site; and if you don't like it, tough titty?

You can't exercise subjective editorial control and be a platform, it doesn't matter if you do it to every word or just to some percentage based on algorithms and/or reports.

None of the social media platforms have anything remotely resembling the editorial control of a traditional publisher.

Personally, I think free speech in general is highly overrated, as most people have nothing to say that anyone needs to hear.

And so I won't get too worked up about this administration censoring anti-regime media.

But, once that precedent is set, it's going to be fun watching you folks lose your $#@! in however many years when the shoe's on the other foot.

[Swordsmyth]

How about, they can make up whatever damn rules they please, because they own the site; and if you don't like it, tough titty?



None of the social media platforms have anything remotely resembling the editorial control of a traditional publisher.

Personally, I think free speech in general is highly overrated, as most people have nothing to say that anyone needs to hear.

And so I won't get too worked up about this administration censoring anti-regime media.

But, once that precedent is set, it's going to be fun watching you folks lose your $#@! in however many years when the shoe's on the other foot.

You are completely misrepresenting what is happening.

They can make any rules they want and enforce them how they want, but if they do so in a manner that is subjective and biased while also censoring and making public judgements then they don't get to be a platform or be treated as one.