DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus One Nation Under Facism: Trump To Sign Executive Order Against Social Media

Facism:

Source

Stand and be counted. I want to know who's stanning for this social media executive order.

Kellyanne and others encourage harrassment of twitter employee.


Link


They're really opening up Mussolini's playbook now, aren't they?

Best case scenario...

This is the beginning of the end of Executive Orders as we've come to see them.

Without seeing the executive order, I don't have enough info to base an opinion on, but I have posted this before:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By the first amendment, twitter can police their site as they see fit. They are not a government entity. Personally, I'd like to see a competitor against twitter run by more fair minded people, or just see the platform collapse. It's rumored that there's more bots than people on that site anyway.

Yes - because highlighting when Trump is flat out lying is sooooooooo left wing snowflake awful.

Well twitter could easily ban trUmp for breaking their rules. They have his phone number.

And trump is the best Russian bot they have.

Still haven't read all of schiffs secret testimony, huh? Here's the short version, "I have no evidence, nor have I seen any evidence of any cooperation between the Trump campaign and russia."

Triggered agin.

And you libs accuse Trump of lying.

I almost missed another giant lie - this one the same size as the "mass voter fraud" propaganda.

Care to try to substantiate this claim in any way shape or form.

Dude, "it's rumored". No one knows how many bots. Bots are made to seem human. Me saying "it's rumored" should tell you there's no proof. Reading comprehension. Please work on it. This is getting tedious.

Please - show me where it's rumored ... I did a quick google search and found nothing. Show me ANYWHERE - even one of your coo-coo-cachoo crazy alt right wackadoodle web sites that mentions, suggests or has a RUMOR that there are more bots than real accts.

See - you saying it's a rumor doesn't mean you can say something without backing it up. . . . For example if I said: It's rumored Trump is a moron with a below 60 IQ. It's rumored Trump is an alien. It's rumored Trump was married to Putin at a secret wedding ceremony at a G8 summit .... none of those are true and if I said them, even quoting "Rumor" I still wouldn't and shouldn't be able to get away with saying them.

So show me where there is actually a rumor that you claim ... or it will be added to the list of other falsehoods you have spouted.

And again - my comprehension is fine. Your posts are not.

What I saw was possibly 48 millon bot accts / posts ... 319 million twitter accounts ... so your "rumor" that you either made up or will provide a sample of ... is off by a factor of 111.5 million.

It appears that trump feels he can say anything he wants because he's the president,,, But damn, don't let any of us do that....Boy will we get a spanking.

To twitter and Facebook, You are Media,, social, but Media just the same. You should want to hold yourselves to a higher standard.. But instead, you are allowing a Politician to tell you how to run your business..

Trump and other republicans are saying that you are treating them unfairly. I say the exact opposite is true.

If I wrote the things that Trump does, You'd ban me. You hold me to a higher standard than the men and women who We've ELECTED to serve us are held too.

So basically, IMO, Trump and other republicans are full of BS... You should treat them the exact same way you'd treat us regular folks.

They left out the part about who exactly this objective person is that Twitter put in charge of fact checking...

Twitter fact-checker has history of politically charged posts
By Steven Nelson and Natalie MusumeciMay 27, 2020 | 2:01pm | Updated

Twitter’s “Head of Site Integrity” Yoel Roth, who is in charge of the team responsible for developing and enforcing the social media site’s rules, faced heavy criticism Wednesday for previous 2017 tweets in which he referred to team Trump as “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE” and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “personality-free bag of farts.”

“How does a personality-free bag of farts like Mitch McConnell actually win elections?” Roth wrote in the tweet.

On Nov. 8, 2016 – the date the presidential election was held — Roth mocked Trump and his supporters in a tweet, writing, “I’m just saying, we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.”

Roth once compared White House advisor Kellyanne Conway to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.

”Today on Meet The Press, we’re speaking with Joseph Goebbels about the first 100 days…’ – What I hear whenever Kellyanne is on a news show,” Roth wrote, according to a 2017 tweet.

Roth in 2016 also tweeted his support for then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, writing, “I’ve never donated to a presidential campaign before, but I just gave $100 to Hillary for America. We can’t f–k around anymore.”

House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Conway ripped Twitter Wednesday for having Roth in the post-policing position.

“I think if you run a company like Twitter you’d probably first look at what that individual would put out on Twitter themselves,” McCarthy told reporters outside the Capitol in reference to Roth.

“I do not think somebody who would think Republicans are racist, label those who are in the Republican Party equal to people who [are] in the Nazi Party…I’m not quite sure that’s the person I would have being the individual in charge of Twitter determining whether the facts are correct or not, because I think he already is biased in that opinion,” McCarthy said.

Twitter should boot Roth out of his position, said McCarthy, who noted that he’s “concerned about who they have doing a fact check.”

Conway also waded into the issue Wednesday, saying that Twitter fact checks are carried out by the same “people who attack him all day long.”

“We turn around, and we use the same people who are going to endorse Joe Biden for president, reluctantly, are constantly attacking the president and the people around him,” she said in a “Fox & Friends” interview, adding, “They’re relying upon the same people who attack him all day long to, quote, fact check him.”

Conway singled out Roth by name, and claimed that he is “constantly attacking Trump voters, Trump, Mitch McConnell, you name it.”

“It’s horrible the way he looks at people who should otherwise have a free and clear platform on Twitter,” she said.

On Tuesday, Twitter attached warning links to two of Trump’s tweets claiming that allowing large scale mail-in voting would result in a “rigged election.”

“Get the facts about mail-in ballots,” the label states, and links to news articles disputing that voting-by-mail would allow for rampant fraud.

Trump, himself, has slammed the unprecedented move, accusing Twitter in a tweet of “interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election” and “stifling FREE SPEECH.”

The commander-in-chief on Wednesday morning claimed social media outlets are censoring conservatives and threatened to shut them down.

“Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives [sic] voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again,” Trump tweeted.

Later Wednesday, Trump said in another tweet: “WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE OF AMERICANS IS WRONG!”

A Twitter spokesperson said in a statement that the Trump tweets the site labeled “contain potentially misleading information about voting processes and have been labeled to provide additional context around mail-in ballots.”

Twitter’s decision to make the move, the spokesperson said, was “in line with the approach” the site publicly outlined earlier this month when it comes to “misleading information.”

The spokesperson confirmed to The Post that Twitter has used the fact check label on other users, but never on another US president or presidential candidate. The site started using the label on May 11.

Commenting on the criticism of Roth, the spokesperson said, “No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies or enforcement actions, and it’s unfortunate to see individual employees targeted for company decisions.”

Roth will not face any disciplinary action from Twitter as a result of his controversial, newly surfaced tweets, the spokesperson said.


NYP

Trump can't lie to us on twitter wha wha wha...

What a loser POTUS.

THAT ^^^, is what you got out of the article?

As a business who regulates what users on our sites can talk about, I extremely dislike this eo. I'm not sure Trump knows what the first ammendment says.

If I posted what trump has, I'd be banned.,,, He should as well. Being president shouldn't give him license to flaunt the rules

Today the idiot in the oval said in a tweet about Minneapolis that he would send in the national guard and when the looting starts the shooting starts. smh Twitter tagged it with a glorifying violence label.

He got out of it exactly what he wanted to get out of it. It's a factually based article displaying actual tweets from the person in question for which he has no justifiable response.
So this is his attempt to minimize the fact that the person Twitter put in charge of fact checking is an unqualified, hard-left, unobjective twatwaffle...

So rather than address whether the things he stated were true or false has no meaning based on the person who is in charge of the fact checking?

Typical shoot the messenger response.

The media perpetuated a Russian Collusion hoax across social media for years. No Fact checking. If you can't see that "fact checking" has been weaponized by partisans who propagate their biased opinion of facts as cold hard fact, I don't know what to tell you. We are going to allow a private company run by predominantly leftist to censor/correct the President of the United States? Under NO circumstance, regardless of WHO the President is should this be allowed and ESPECIALLY not when you have people in prominent positions like this person.....






This is an honest question. What avenue of voting has the biggest amount of fraud? I am willing to be it is mail in, but I genuinely do not know.

Yet Mueller plainly said he was not exonerated. I think your hoax theory is a hoax.

Sort of like when Trump said the Covid 19 virus was a hoax.

Cool

Here’s a crazy idea:

If trump doesn’t want to get fact checked on Twitter, maybe he should STOP LYING AND inciting violence on that platform.

Seems like his brain dead supporters will mention everything else but the easiest solution. Odd.

But facts are a liberal invention!

Quick check.. and I know most of you would lie anyway... but who has actually read the EO? Anyone? Anybody?

Well here it is, the full text. See, now you can actually fight about what it says if you want instead of whatever your media handlers told you to think about it.

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY

Issued on: May 28, 2020
SHARE:


menuALL NEWS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

White House EO

have at it.

Trump's EO was laughable. Like many of his acts it was symbolic and self preservation at best.

Trump wasn't censored. This is what a tantrum look like.

Perhaps you should, too?

Quoted for truth.

All of his 'tweets in question' are there to be read.
There is one difference: the 'tweets in question' have been flagged with disclaimers. That isn't censorship.

Deleting his tweets is censorship. That's a classic case of:
#ChekDatAzz.

All of his tweets are still there for anyone to read.

If he is truly serious about seeing this EO through, he should be prepared to defend it from pushback. And not just partisan political pushback. There is legal pushback he can expect as well... and that can't be tweeted away or tossed into the ongoing dumpster fire that is the 'social politics' arm of his re-election platform.

If he's really serious about this, he'll have to put in the effort, time and intellectual discipline/rigor that such an undertaking requires.

He didn't even do his own Civics homework in High School.

Trump tosses another turd.
Watch it slide down the wall... like 90% of all his other st00pit distractions.

He is in Florida today. Golfing on your dime

We heard from him on twitter:

"When the looting starts, the shooting starts."

Just another white supremacist dog whistle with echoes of the Jim Crow era from Trump.

The History Behind 'When The Looting Starts, The Shooting Starts'

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/864818368...shooting-starts

I'm taking it this part of your response was purely satirical?

He'll be here all week end folks. The special is the veal and please don't forget to tip your waitress.

First, thank you for posting the EO. I read it and I appreciate you putting it up.

The EO did read as I expected, though. The text of it sounds good enough. Reading it w/o any context, everyone should support the President's move here.

But with context, it's very different. This was done in response to a fact-check label being placed on his tweets. He didn't get censored, as others have pointed out. He got a BS-label put on his tweets because... get this... they were total BS. Honestly, the real crime here is that it took them this long.

And Nixons