ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , executive orders , social media , social media incidents , social media issues

Reply
Old 29th May 2020, 12:49 AM   #1
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,870
Trump's Social Media Executive Order

Today, Donald Trump issued an executive order regarding "censorship" on social media.

You can read the order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...ne-censorship/

It's an interesting order. The core issue is that once upon a time, in a section of the Communications Decency Act, there was a provision that declared internet sites to be people providing a place for speech, as opposed to publishing content. In other words, my words here are not the opinion of ISF. ISF is just presenting a platform that I, and a lot of other people, can post in. They are not publishing my work, so ISF cannot be held to account if I say something bad.

The basis of that judgement is that they aren't picking and choosing what goes in here. They are just providing a platform.

As part of that act, media giants like Twitter (I don't know if it existed yet, but maybe Myspace would be a better example) would also be allowed to eliminate "harmful" material, like pornography. Court rulings had said that if they edited data, removing objectionable material, that meant that they ceased being a public platform, and became a publisher, because they were influencing the content. The CDA provision got rid of that idea, at least in part.

The executive order calls that into question, saying that if the media platforms are exercising editorial control based on politics or ideology, they should be treated as publishers. Sure it's ok to take down pictures of naked ladies, but if they start messing with political content, they become publishers, and subject to the rules that apply to publishers. Most importantly, if I say something libelous on a site that engages in political censorship, they are publishing my libel, and can be held accountable.

In the midst of it, there was a rant about how horribly unfair Twitter was because they labelled Trump's tweets about Joe Scarborough as false, or whatever it said about them, but didn't say anything about Adam Schiff. It was somewhat embarrassing to read, but it wasn't clear how it related to the rest of the order. Had they deleted Trump's tweets it would have made some sense, but as it was, it just seemed stuck in there as a Trump tantrum.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of it. On the one hand, I do think it's dangerous to have a company like youtube having so much power to exercise censorship, because although they are technically a private company, their near monopoly gives them almost governmental power. This order doesn't say it, but it is a lot more about Dennis Praeger than about Donald Trump. Praeger has been involved in long standing legal disputes with youtube.

On the other hand, this order will likely result in more litigation, especially of a political nature, directed at companies, and I certainly don't trust the Trump administration to make anything remotely resembling fair judgements on any aspect of this law over which the executive branch could exert control.

I've only read through the order once, and quickly, so I'm not an expert on it. I hope my summary is adequate and doesn't contain significant error, but it could. However, I found it interesting and could be an interesting topic, so I thought it deserved its own thread.

Note to Mods: I chose "Social Issues and Current Events" for this thread. I tend to reserve "Politics" for things specifically about whether someone ought to be elected, or whether a specific politician was an awful person. This one is more about how government ought to behave with respect to social media companies, so I thought SI&CE was a better fit, but it could go either way. I promise not to whine if it's moved.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 01:08 AM   #2
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 20,314
Twitter should either troll Trump like the little bitch that he is or kick him off their platform. Leaving him alone and on their platform will only hurt Twitter. If Twitter accepts this as de facto regulation they will be tying their own hands for years. This is going to court no matter what. All of Silicon Valley will send an army of lawyers to support them. They will also max out political contributions to the Biden campaigns and Democratic PACs. Twitter picked this fight and now they need to go for the proverbial throat.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 01:22 AM   #3
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,007
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Twitter should either troll Trump like the little bitch that he is or kick him off their platform. Leaving him alone and on their platform will only hurt Twitter. If Twitter accepts this as de facto regulation they will be tying their own hands for years. This is going to court no matter what. All of Silicon Valley will send an army of lawyers to support them. They will also max out political contributions to the Biden campaigns and Democratic PACs. Twitter picked this fight and now they need to go for the proverbial throat.
Or the opposite might happen:
Trump's orders is giving social media platforms legal cover to never moderate anything.
If Twitter drops his "no call for violence" rule as a result of the EO, and Trump's twitter gets flooded tomorrow with explicit and graphic calls for him and his family to meet a gruesome end, Twitter could tell him that he told them not to moderate.
Silicon Valley Companies might be eager for being indemnified against all lawsuits.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 01:24 AM   #4
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,471
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Today, Donald Trump issued an executive order regarding "censorship" on social media.

You can read the order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...ne-censorship/

It's an interesting order. The core issue is that once upon a time, in a section of the Communications Decency Act, there was a provision that declared internet sites to be people providing a place for speech, as opposed to publishing content. In other words, my words here are not the opinion of ISF. ISF is just presenting a platform that I, and a lot of other people, can post in. They are not publishing my work, so ISF cannot be held to account if I say something bad.

The basis of that judgement is that they aren't picking and choosing what goes in here. They are just providing a platform.

As part of that act, media giants like Twitter (I don't know if it existed yet, but maybe Myspace would be a better example) would also be allowed to eliminate "harmful" material, like pornography. Court rulings had said that if they edited data, removing objectionable material, that meant that they ceased being a public platform, and became a publisher, because they were influencing the content. The CDA provision got rid of that idea, at least in part.

The executive order calls that into question, saying that if the media platforms are exercising editorial control based on politics or ideology, they should be treated as publishers. Sure it's ok to take down pictures of naked ladies, but if they start messing with political content, they become publishers, and subject to the rules that apply to publishers. Most importantly, if I say something libelous on a site that engages in political censorship, they are publishing my libel, and can be held accountable.

In the midst of it, there was a rant about how horribly unfair Twitter was because they labelled Trump's tweets about Joe Scarborough as false, or whatever it said about them, but didn't say anything about Adam Schiff. It was somewhat embarrassing to read, but it wasn't clear how it related to the rest of the order. Had they deleted Trump's tweets it would have made some sense, but as it was, it just seemed stuck in there as a Trump tantrum.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of it. On the one hand, I do think it's dangerous to have a company like youtube having so much power to exercise censorship, because although they are technically a private company, their near monopoly gives them almost governmental power. This order doesn't say it, but it is a lot more about Dennis Praeger than about Donald Trump. Praeger has been involved in long standing legal disputes with youtube.

On the other hand, this order will likely result in more litigation, especially of a political nature, directed at companies, and I certainly don't trust the Trump administration to make anything remotely resembling fair judgements on any aspect of this law over which the executive branch could exert control.

I've only read through the order once, and quickly, so I'm not an expert on it. I hope my summary is adequate and doesn't contain significant error, but it could. However, I found it interesting and could be an interesting topic, so I thought it deserved its own thread.

Note to Mods: I chose "Social Issues and Current Events" for this thread. I tend to reserve "Politics" for things specifically about whether someone ought to be elected, or whether a specific politician was an awful person. This one is more about how government ought to behave with respect to social media companies, so I thought SI&CE was a better fit, but it could go either way. I promise not to whine if it's moved.
And a circuit court judge will decide it is unconstitutional and unenforceable in ten, nine, eight...............
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 01:51 AM   #5
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 20,314
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Or the opposite might happen:
Trump's orders is giving social media platforms legal cover to never moderate anything.
If Twitter drops his "no call for violence" rule as a result of the EO, and Trump's twitter gets flooded tomorrow with explicit and graphic calls for him and his family to meet a gruesome end, Twitter could tell him that he told them not to moderate.
Silicon Valley Companies might be eager for being indemnified against all lawsuits.
That's a really good idea. If Twitter took away Trump's ability to block followers or people responding to his post and just let people from all over the world vent on him unfiltered, Trump would go mad.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 04:40 AM   #6
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,912
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Twitter should either troll Trump like the little bitch that he is or kick him off their platform. Leaving him alone and on their platform will only hurt Twitter. If Twitter accepts this as de facto regulation they will be tying their own hands for years. This is going to court no matter what. All of Silicon Valley will send an army of lawyers to support them. They will also max out political contributions to the Biden campaigns and Democratic PACs. Twitter picked this fight and now they need to go for the proverbial throat.
Exactly. This is not a fight Trump can hope to win. Besides, it's just an executive order, those don't require much to overturn. If court battles over this last five months the order was already useless.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 05:39 AM   #7
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 55,964
The king simply demands nobody criticize his mad rantings. I don't see what's so unexpected about that. Next he will seize Twitter and make it a property of the crown, then he will decide who gets to say what.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 06:03 AM   #8
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,565
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
And a circuit court judge will decide it is unconstitutional and unenforceable in ten, nine, eight...............
And then Trump's Supreme Court will override the circuit court in 20, 19, 18....
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 06:26 AM   #9
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
That's a really good idea. If Twitter took away Trump's ability to block followers or people responding to his post and just let people from all over the world vent on him unfiltered, Trump would go mad.


That's an important point I hadn't thought of - is the platform providing a tool for the user to block certain people "editing" or "editorializing"? If you block one idiot for posting stupid opinions about politics, does that leave the platform host open to lawsuits?

What is the threshold here? If one person is stopped from posting one comment to one other person, is that enough?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 06:38 AM   #10
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 22,609
I believe the accounts, being the official statements of the White House, are already disallowed from blocking followers and comments by the First Amendment.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 06:42 AM   #11
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,565
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I believe the accounts, being the official statements of the White House, are already disallowed from blocking followers and comments by the First Amendment.
I always assumed trying to get around that was the reason "Donald J Trump" and "President Trump" are seperate, distinct (but both verified) accounts on Twitter.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 07:18 AM   #12
StillSleepy
Critical Thinker
 
StillSleepy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Where the wild goose goes
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I always assumed trying to get around that was the reason "Donald J Trump" and "President Trump" are seperate, distinct (but both verified) accounts on Twitter.
Wait... This sounds familiar... The Presidential entity is separate from the person? Constitution doesn't apply to him? Everyone who disagrees is wrong?
__________________
I just want some outdoors left to enjoy.

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." ~ Patrick F. McManus, “Never Sniff A Gift Fish”
StillSleepy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 07:20 AM   #13
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,565
Originally Posted by StillSleepy View Post
Wait... This sounds familiar... The Presidential entity is separate from the person? Constitution doesn't apply to him? Everyone who disagrees is wrong?
I think some version of that is what he is going to try and argue (or at one point had planned on trying and argue until he got distracted by a squirrel or his daughter's boobs).
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 07:23 AM   #14
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,870
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
That's an important point I hadn't thought of - is the platform providing a tool for the user to block certain people "editing" or "editorializing"? If you block one idiot for posting stupid opinions about politics, does that leave the platform host open to lawsuits?

What is the threshold here? If one person is stopped from posting one comment to one other person, is that enough?
If the tool creates a way for me to control what I post, what I read, or what others can do in "my area", that wouldn't be anything like editing or publishing by the company. It's giving me control over what I post.

On the other hand, if the company says, "Person X is no longer allowed to post here." that could, potentially, be seen as an editorial decision. Recent interpretations have given platforms pretty wide latitude on that. ISF need not fear that by banning members Icerat suddenly becomes a "publisher" of the drivel that we type every day.

This executive order pushes the threshold of allowed moderation and content control back a bit. If you do too much of it, you might become a "publisher".

It's a bit murky.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 07:25 AM   #15
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,866
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If the tool creates a way for me to control what I post, what I read, or what others can do in "my area", that wouldn't be anything like editing or publishing by the company. It's giving me control over what I post.

On the other hand, if the company says, "Person X is no longer allowed to post here." that could, potentially, be seen as an editorial decision. Recent interpretations have given platforms pretty wide latitude on that. ISF need not fear that by banning members Icerat suddenly becomes a "publisher" of the drivel that we type every day.

This executive order pushes the threshold of allowed moderation and content control back a bit. If you do too much of it, you might become a "publisher".

It's a bit murky.
It's not really 'If you do too much of it' though is it? It's much more 'If you do it to the wrong people'.
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 07:26 AM   #16
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,870
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I believe the accounts, being the official statements of the White House, are already disallowed from blocking followers and comments by the First Amendment.
It has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but I think some interpretation of some sort of Official Records Act or something said that. I think a judge ruled that it is not ok for Trump to block followers, for reasons that eluded me at the time, but I never read the opinion. I find that media summaries of court rulings miss the point as often as not. All they report on is who wins and who loses. So I wouldn't say I understood the substance of the ruling, but I know there was at least one court ruling that said he couldn't block followers.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 01:43 PM   #17
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 20,314
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Exactly. This is not a fight Trump can hope to win. Besides, it's just an executive order, those don't require much to overturn. If court battles over this last five months the order was already useless.

McHrozni
It's in Twitter's interest that Trump no longer be president. They should work to remove him from office for their own good. Maybe even kick him off the platform for a violation in September so there's no time to get on and develop a following of his supporters on another platform.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 02:27 PM   #18
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,870
Looking over the order again, I think this is a real wolf in sheep's clothing sort of order. It purports to support free speech, so that's good. It makes a lot of good points about how these big behemoths of media companies like Google and Twitter have the power to restrict free speech. It doesn't demand that people stop speaking. It demands that companies allow them to speak.

So, it sounds all good. It's just a bigger than average sheep, I guess.

However, what it really does is create a situation where any platform that exercises any control at all over their content based on ideology risks being declared a "publisher" and thus made liable for anything anyone posts. This power would undoubtedly be abused to go after enemies of the President, not just Trump, but any President. Trump would just be the first to abuse the power. Others would follow. So, if they restrict the Klan, they can be sued by the Republicans.

The order addresses a genuine problem, but right at the moment it is not an extreme problem that requires drastic action. Congress should make note of the problem and attempt to address it by some other means.

ETA: And that ignores the question of whether the order is actually legal. I'm saying it's a bad idea, whether or not it's legal.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 29th May 2020 at 02:30 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 07:08 PM   #19
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but I think some interpretation of some sort of Official Records Act or something said that. I think a judge ruled that it is not ok for Trump to block followers, for reasons that eluded me at the time, but I never read the opinion. I find that media summaries of court rulings miss the point as often as not. All they report on is who wins and who loses. So I wouldn't say I understood the substance of the ruling, but I know there was at least one court ruling that said he couldn't block followers.

I think the big problem with Trump blocking people is that, on twitter, if a person blocks you, you can't even see their tweets:

Quote:
Blocking helps people in restricting specific accounts from contacting them, seeing their Tweets, and following them.
So they had the situation where Trump's tweets were "Official statements from the POTUS", but certain US citizens weren't allowed to even read them, just because they had personally annoyed Trump. We obviously wouldn't accept that situation for other types of official communications, so they said Trump wasn't allowed to block people on Twitter.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 07:15 PM   #20
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,091
Back to the issue of blocking. Yes, there has been a ruling that Trump can't block anyone, but that only applies to Trump, because of his unique position as The Twitter President.

My concern is that blocking can still be used by anyone else.

Let's say I decide to start an anti-nazi twitter account, and, as a matter of policy, I routinely block any nazi accounts that I see reading, following, or re-tweeting my account. That blocking is clearly motivated by their political position. Even a Polite Nazi would get blocked.

So now, a tool created by and managed by Twitter is censoring the activities of those Nazi accounts I've blocked. Doesn't that seem like something that would open Twitter to sanctions under this new EO?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 07:40 PM   #21
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,870
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
So now, a tool created by and managed by Twitter is censoring the activities of those Nazi accounts I've blocked. Doesn't that seem like something that would open Twitter to sanctions under this new EO?

I don't think so, because Twitter was not involved in any decision to block or censor the speech.

On the other hand, if Twitter banned them, it would. Trump also seems to think that if Twitter attached some sort of warning to them, it would.

(Assuming the executive order is declared legitimate anyway.)
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 08:32 PM   #22
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 81,557
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
That's a really good idea. If Twitter took away Trump's ability to block followers or people responding to his post and just let people from all over the world vent on him unfiltered, Trump would go mad.
I thought that already happened when Trump declared his Tweets were his formal statements or something like that.
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 08:34 PM   #23
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 81,557
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Exactly. This is not a fight Trump can hope to win. Besides, it's just an executive order, those don't require much to overturn. If court battles over this last five months the order was already useless.

McHrozni
Many of his EOs are a joke. But they make Baby Trump feel all powerful.
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 08:35 PM   #24
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 81,557
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I believe the accounts, being the official statements of the White House, are already disallowed from blocking followers and comments by the First Amendment.
Yeah, this ^. Better said than my post.
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 08:37 PM   #25
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 81,557
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I always assumed trying to get around that was the reason "Donald J Trump" and "President Trump" are seperate, distinct (but both verified) accounts on Twitter.
I think one of those is a parody account, started posting before Trump had is POTUS account or something.

It's all fuzzy in my mind.
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 08:41 PM   #26
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,007
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I thought that already happened when Trump declared his Tweets were his formal statements or something like that.
Trump is still able to do it, even though the Courts have made it clear that he is not allowed to do it.
The courts didn't tell Twitter to take his power away - and he is still blocking people all the time.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 04:57 AM   #27
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 11,277
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
They should work to remove him from office for their own good. Maybe even kick him off the planetform for a violation in September so there's no time to get on and develop a following of his supporters on another platform.

Hasn't the time come to use space force?!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 06:06 AM   #28
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Southern hemisphere
Posts: 7,301
All Twitter has to do is move its official headquarters to the Channel Islands Greenland and it is no longer an American company. So Trump's EO, and also the US constitution, and SCOTUS and all the other US stuff no longer apply. He can be told to go suck an antique family dick.

Unless Trump wants to go the China route and filter the whole Internet in the USA. Which would be even less successful than China's effort was.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 06:20 AM   #29
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 11,277
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
All Twitter has to do is move its official headquarters to the Channel Islands Greenland and it is no longer an American company.

I can't speak on behalf of our Northern Atlantic brothers, but Twitter may face 14 days of quarantine.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 07:19 AM   #30
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,952
To me, the key issue/question, is going to be, "Does putting a link below a tweet stating, '! Get the facts about (mail in ballots)'" count as editing?

(And, as discussed, it putting a link below does count as editing, the platform moves from providing a voice to being an editor of content.)
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 07:42 AM   #31
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,721
Much has already been said about the vagueness and pointlessness of Trump's latest EO about section 230. No serious legal expert thinks it has any legs.

It's funny that conservatives think adding liability to social media companies would result in more freedom for conservative opinion. If social media giants suddenly became liable for things posted on their platforms, moderation and censorship is going to go through the roof. You can say goodbye to pretty much every right wing crank on the platform, because many of them are advocating for medical misinformation or open violence of some form or another that these tech giants aren't going to want to get sued over.

Conservatives already have mostly free reign on the internet. A crack-down would only make things worse for them.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 30th May 2020 at 07:44 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 07:51 AM   #32
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Conservatives already have mostly free reign on the internet. A crack-down would only make things worse for them.


And that shows just how stupid and delusional this crowd is. If they really think they're going to come out ahead in this mess, they're nuts.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 07:58 AM   #33
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,103
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of it. On the one hand, I do think it's dangerous to have a company like youtube having so much power to exercise censorship, because although they are technically a private company, their near monopoly gives them almost governmental power.
Youtube is an entertainment product. It is in competition with things like....going outside. It doesn't not have a near monopoly.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 08:34 AM   #34
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,265
To provide some actual information as to the political leanings of social media and censorship: if anything Facebook predominantly displays conservative and right wing views. Trump’s presence on social media is particularly overwhelming:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/m...hip/index.html
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 08:35 AM   #35
pharphis
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,130
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Today, Donald Trump issued an executive order regarding "censorship" on social media.

You can read the order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...ne-censorship/

It's an interesting order. The core issue is that once upon a time, in a section of the Communications Decency Act, there was a provision that declared internet sites to be people providing a place for speech, as opposed to publishing content. In other words, my words here are not the opinion of ISF. ISF is just presenting a platform that I, and a lot of other people, can post in. They are not publishing my work, so ISF cannot be held to account if I say something bad.

The basis of that judgement is that they aren't picking and choosing what goes in here. They are just providing a platform.

As part of that act, media giants like Twitter (I don't know if it existed yet, but maybe Myspace would be a better example) would also be allowed to eliminate "harmful" material, like pornography. Court rulings had said that if they edited data, removing objectionable material, that meant that they ceased being a public platform, and became a publisher, because they were influencing the content. The CDA provision got rid of that idea, at least in part.
From 230 (lifted from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio..._(2016-present))

"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action."

With the highlighted it seems to have a catch-all that allows websites to moderate whatever they want for whatever reason they want, and not be held responsible as publishers for this action, if I understand correctly. So it's even more general than "harmful" material (they get to decide what is "otherwise objectionable", don't they?)



Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I think the big problem with Trump blocking people is that, on twitter, if a person blocks you, you can't even see their tweets:


So they had the situation where Trump's tweets were "Official statements from the POTUS", but certain US citizens weren't allowed to even read them, just because they had personally annoyed Trump. We obviously wouldn't accept that situation for other types of official communications, so they said Trump wasn't allowed to block people on Twitter.
Yes, but that only applies in you're logged in. The simple fix is to: log out.

Sure, you won't be able to comment on that in that tweet thread... but you can comment anywhere else in the world on it. I don't see blocking as a first amendment issue or an issue of preventing people from seeing the president's tweets.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 08:49 AM   #36
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,265
I too share concerns about social media, but I also am well aware that evil people inevitably seek to cloud their agenda by cloaking it to appear to have good intentions. Believing that Trump’s actions have any goal but to intimidate and to suppress the ability of others to counter his lies is naive. One can count on the executive order to be selectively enforced to punish Trump’s opponents and to stifle their freedom of speech. Have any of Trump’s actions to date, or his behavior in general, provided any, any reason to believe otherwise? Why, in fact, did he formulate and announce this order in the first place? Because Twitter dared, for the first time, to suggest that maybe one of his many lies might be less than fully accurate.

Absolutely a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 08:57 AM   #37
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,265
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Youtube is an entertainment product. It is in competition with things like....going outside. It doesn't not have a near monopoly.
Gee Bob, I actually find myself agreeing with much of the spirit of this your post. I find YouTube very entertaining but not essential. I never did understand the attraction of Facebook. In theory anyone could set up a website that competes with either of these. However there really is a frightening amount of money, and therefore power, behind the social media sites. And financial deals that link the giants into even bigger entities.

It worries me, although I don’t know what the correct response should be.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 09:08 AM   #38
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,007
As POTUS, Trump has every possible way to get a message out if he wants to - that he made himself wholly depended on Twitter shouldn't be Twitter's problem.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 09:13 AM   #39
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,870
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Youtube is an entertainment product. It is in competition with things like....going outside. It doesn't not have a near monopoly.
In my opinion, CNN and Fox News are also entertainment products. That's the problem.


But, regardless of the big picture source of Youtube's revenue, it is also a source of political information.

As I noted earlier, this lawsuit was triggered by Twitter fact-checking Trump's tweets, but the executive order has more to do with Dennis Praeger than anyone else. He has been involved in a long running legal dispute with Google/YouTube because they have put many of his videos on a "restricted list", normally used for sexual content, so that they are not found in normal searches.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2020, 09:19 AM   #40
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,428
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I think the big problem with Trump blocking people is that, on twitter, if a person blocks you, you can't even see their tweets
This is not accurate. The problem is that Twitter, in this case, is acting as a public forum, like a town hall meeting. A town hall meeting is not allowed to engage in viewpoint-based discrimination when it comes to public input. This is true even if the meeting is held in a privately-owned convention center. As such, it applies to a digital discussion forum, as well.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.