Trump Signs Executive Order on Big Tech Censorship

Cinnabar said:
But the real issue is...

Why is pussy boy Trump crying about Twitter when 100,000 Americans have died of coronavirus?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure this Orwellian nightmare is a lot more serious than what is tantamount to a slightly worse than a bad flu season especially considering that Dr. Birx is on the record stating that the CDC has inflated their infection and death rates by as much as 25%.
 
AProudLefty said:
I dunno, maybe. Because the E.O. will do nothing.
Click to expand...

No, there's meat in it, Trump is sicking the FCC on them:

(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
 
FreeSpeech said:
No, there's meat in it, Trump is sicking the FCC on them:

(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
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that Twitter cannot make disclaimers?
 
Cinnabar said:
The warning label includes a link to a new page debunking Trump claims about mail-in voting ballots.

It's free speech too when you point out bull-shit, lies and gaslighting pussy boy Twitler.
Click to expand...

Ya from far left hacks at CNN and WaPo who have been thoroughly debunked by three cases of vote by mail ballot harvesting fraud just this week in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Nevada. Which is irrelevant anyways, twitter engaged in editorializing any way you slice it.
 
AProudLefty said:
Are you telling me that Twitter cannot make disclaimers?
Click to expand...

I'm telling you they aren't allowed to editorialize which is what they did and have been doing for years as have YouTube and Facebook. Deny it all you like but try being honest with yourself for once in your life.
 
Trump’s new anti-Twitter order could blow up in conservatives’ faces: Top right-wing media personality

In analyzing the reported contents of Trump’s new order, conservative Ben Shapiro warns that stripping websites’ immunity for the content posted on their pages by third parties could seriously damage conservative media in the future . Which suggest that conservative groups use disinformation as a means to propagate their ideology.


https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/tr...tives-faces-top-right-wing-media-personality/
 
Trumpet said:
Trump’s new anti-Twitter order could blow up in conservatives’ faces: Top right-wing media personality

In analyzing the reported contents of Trump’s new order, conservative Ben Shapiro warns that stripping websites’ immunity for the content posted on their pages by third parties could seriously damage conservative media in the future . Which suggest that conservative groups use disinformation as a means to propagate their ideology.


https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/tr...tives-faces-top-right-wing-media-personality/
Click to expand...

DailyWire isn't a platform they're a publisher as is all right wing media on the internet this doesn't effect them in any way if they use disqus as a third party platform for their comment sections. Nobody is talking about stripping immunity from platforms that are actually neutral like discus.
 
Trumpet said:
Trump’s new anti-Twitter order could blow up in conservatives’ faces: Top right-wing media personality

In analyzing the reported contents of Trump’s new order, conservative Ben Shapiro warns that stripping websites’ immunity for the content posted on their pages by third parties could seriously damage conservative media in the future . Which suggest that conservative groups use disinformation as a means to propagate their ideology.


https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/tr...tives-faces-top-right-wing-media-personality/
Click to expand...

Twitter should set up a new social media company dedicated to debunking Sweet Potato Hitler's lies.
 
FreeSpeech said:
I'm telling you they aren't allowed to editorialize which is what they did and have been doing for years as have YouTube and Facebook. Deny it all you like but try being honest with yourself for once in your life.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "editorializing", it was a fact check. And what am I denying? Do you really want politicians to lie or make potentially harmful suggestions and Twitter couldn't do anything to protect their asses?
I wonder how you would feel if they have done the same to AOC or Pelosi.

Don't answer, I know the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top