'Tantamount to monopoly': Trump signs executive order to curb 'unchecked power' of so - Graybeard Outdoors
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-29-2020, 10:14 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tdoyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: windber, pa
Posts: 2,867
Send a message via MSN to tdoyka
Default 'Tantamount to monopoly': Trump signs executive order to curb 'unchecked power' of so

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...l-media-giants

'Tantamount to monopoly': Trump signs executive order to curb 'unchecked power' of social media giants
by Spencer Neale
| May 28, 2020 04:31 PM

Print this article
President Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies for the way they regulate content on their platforms.

Speaking from the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump accused Twitter and other social media giants of repressing free speech.

"What they're doing is tantamount to monopoly, you can say it's tantamount to taking over the airwaves," Trump said. "Can't let it happen. Otherwise, we're not going to have a Democracy, we're not going to have anything to do with a republic."

Trump announced that he is directing his administration to "develop policies and procedures to ensure taxpayer dollars are not going in any social media company that repress free speech."

Trump said he would delete Twitter if there was a "fair press" in the United States but that he refuses to do so because of the wide reach the platform gives him.

The president added that he would "not allow" social media companies to "bully" the "American people."

“All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”
― Nikola Tesla

https://www.go2gbo.com/forums/custom...tar99498_6.gif
tdoyka is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-29-2020, 10:28 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tdoyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: windber, pa
Posts: 2,867
Send a message via MSN to tdoyka
Default

You were warned.
Q


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...edia-companies

WHITE HOUSEPublished 17 hours agoLast Update 14 hours ago
Trump signs social media executive order that calls for removal of liability protections over 'censoring'
Gregg ReBy Gregg Re | Fox News

Flanked by Attorney General Bill Barr, President Trump signed an executive order in the Oval Office on Thursday that interprets Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) as not providing statutory liability protections for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct.

The president's order, which also cuts federal funding for social media platforms that censor users' political views, came just two days after Twitter took the unprecedented step of slapping a "misleading" warning label on two of Trump's tweets concerning the fraud risks of nationwide mail-in balloting. The move immediately backfired: Experts disputed that Trump's tweet was actually misleading, in part because mail-in balloting has been linked to ongoing fraud; Twitter's fact-check itself contained false statements; and Twitter failed to apply the standard of review to other users.

At Thursday's signing ceremony, Trump called the fact-check "egregious," and held up a photo of Twitter executive Yoel Roth, who heads up the site's fact-checking and rules-making operation. Fox News reported on Wednesday that Roth has mocked Trump supporters, called Trump's team "ACTUAL NAZIS," slammed "scary trannies" in New York City, and called GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a "bag of farts." (In a statement, Twitter did not dispute Fox News' reporting, but called it "unfortunate.")

"My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield," the president said.

He added: "My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. This commerce resides in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ... Additionally, I'm directing the attorney general to work cooperatively with the states ... to enforce their own laws against such deceptive business practices. The states have broad and powerful authority to regulate in this arena."

Under the CDA, platforms are ordinarily not liable for users' defamatory or otherwise problematic posts, while publishers that actively shape and create content do face liability. (Copyright law, which has a strong constitutional foundation, ordinarily does require sites like Twitter to remove offending content, or face liability.)

The CDA, which was drafted in the Internet's early stages to guard against offensive material while also encouraging an open Internet, states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. ... No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ... any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Although the "good faith" standard is ambiguous, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has noted that some case law suggests that "blocking material ostensibly because it's offensive but really because it's from your business rival might well be seen as being not in good faith," while "blocking material that you really do think is offensive to many of your users (much like sexually themed or excessively violent or harassing material is offensive to many of your users) seems to be quite consistent with good faith."

Trump's order instructs the federal government to interpret and apply the CDA, as agencies typically do when laws give them that flexibility. "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," the order states.

Volokh, for his part, argued that while there could be an argument that providers act in "bad faith" when they remove content they don't truly find objectionable, it would be a nonstarter to argue that removing "offensive" content necessarily transforms a platform into a publisher.

However, Trump made his position on the matter clear. "The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadowban are editorial decisions, pure and simple," Trump said. "In those moments Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform and they become an editor with a viewpoint."

Indeed, the executive order reads: "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," the order adds.

The White House had discussed a social media executive order for the past several months, and lawmakers -- including GOP Sens. Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley -- have increasingly sought CDA reforms.

On Thursday, Trump pointed out that some Democrats agreed with him. Former Vice President Biden, in a January interview with The New York Times, said that Section 230 “should be revoked, immediately should be revoked” because Facebook “is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy.”

"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," Trump's order reads. "Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets."

Also at the signing ceremony, Trump openly said he would "shut down" Twitter if he could legally. He also called out Facebook's new oversight "tribunal" for hiring Pamela Karlan, the anti-Trump professor who testified at his impeachment hearing.

"Finally, I'm directing my administration to develop policies and procedures to ensure taxpayer dollars are not going to any social media company that suppresses free speech," Trump said. They're rich enough."

"What they're doing is tantamount to monopoly, to taking over the airwaves," Trump said. "Can't let it happen. Or else we're not gonna have a democracy."

On Wednesday, however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed Twitter and other tech giants an early win on the issue, finding that in the absence of state action, there can be no First Amendment violation. The court also did not find a Sherman Antitrust Act violation, even though the plaintiffs alleged that big tech was conspiring to advance a left-wing agenda in restraint of commerce.

The president had teased the executive order Thursday morning, saying: “This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!”

Fox News is told that, separately, the administration is working on a commission to look at alleged anti-conservative bias among big social media platforms.

Meanwhile, Republicans were waging a broad, all-out war against what they perceive as pervasive Silicon Valley bias. Several Republican lawmakers suggested on Thursday they will soon take action against Reddit, saying the influential Internet message board systematically singled out, censored, and destroyed a once-popular pro-Trump "subreddit," or subforum, known as "r/The_Donald."

And, Vox reported on Wednesday that big tech billionares are fighting back against Republican efforts, in part because of Joe Biden's struggling operation. The outlet said LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, Laurene Powell Jobs, and ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt were leading the charge -- sometimes upsetting Democratic operatives, who had wanted to run their own operation.

Hoffman has been a big financial backer of MotiveAI, which has been linked to spreading overtly fake news. For example, The Daily Beast reported that four Colorado-based companies "associated with MotiveAI" used "50 seemingly independent Facebook pages to purchase ads in 2018" -- including a page that suggested Brett Kavanaugh "had helped Bill and Hillary Clinton cover up the murder of a White House aide."

Hoffman alone has also dumped approximately $10 million into Acronym, which backed the company Shadow -- which, in turn, was behind the disastrous Iowa caucus app.

According to Vox, Acronym hopes to secure another $25 million "to set up seven of its own media properties in swing states, creating local news sites that portray moderate Democratic candidates in a favorable light, but appear to be objective, homespun outlets."

“All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”
― Nikola Tesla

https://www.go2gbo.com/forums/custom...tar99498_6.gif

Last edited by tdoyka; 05-29-2020 at 02:20 PM.
tdoyka is offline  
post #3 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-29-2020, 11:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 2,831
Default

So much for "free markets" and don't bother with free speech if it doesn't adhere to the government positions...

YOU can't say what I say is misleading what do you think this is a land of "Free Speech"!!!!!
NWBear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-29-2020, 03:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,821
Default

Big Tech censorship violates a number of statutes, not the least of which are anti-Trust laws, campaign law violations, and laws providing civil immunity for "open" forums. Big tech fraudulently represent themselves as politically neutral even as they discriminate against conservatives. This is a fraudulent practice which induces people to sign up and to increase the profits of these platforms. When they induce people to sign up based on fraudulent representations, that's fraud. Consumer fraud.

The LA Times I read every day represents itself as a newspaper, not an open forum and the Times does not enjoy the legal protection from law suits provided for big tech. The LA Times can exercise complete control over its content.

When big tech falsely represented itself to be an "open forum" it voluntarily gave up the right to control content, except for outright criminality (i.e. solicitation of crimes, prostitution, gambling, drug sales, etc.)
lgm270 is offline  
post #5 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-29-2020, 05:17 PM
Senior Member
 
ironglow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: rural southwestern N.Y. State
Posts: 44,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWBear View Post
So much for "free markets" and don't bother with free speech if it doesn't adhere to the government positions

Read more carefully,he president didn't say that anyone has to agree with him, all he is saying is for some censor to "butt out" of speech on public media..they do take government funding.

YOU can't say what I say is misleading what do you think this is a land of "Free Speech"!!!!!

The spirit of the 1st amendment is quite clearl... "Let people speak, if they talk like an idiot, let the reader or hearer decided if they are a jerk...if they are want to hear from the guy or not !
Our first amendment was created in the 18th century, primarily because the people contending for political offices in those days (1775-1800)were very much the mud slingers. The 1st amendment was created not to "shut down debate", but to open up the political repartee. The all wise founding fathers also saw it as I do. Do not clamp down on speech, but on the other hand... "let them rattle on, let their stupidity be their own trap" !

The whole debate surrounding this discussion is covered by the 1st amendment;

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.

Both free speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and the freedom of speech are both covered.
The toad at Twitter should have allowed the president to speak and not butt in...then if he disagreed, go ahead and post a reply, much the same as we do here. Nothing wrong with common courtesy..and considering the way Twitter has treated their communicants..a bit of "fair & balanced" wouldn't hurt a thing either.

.

DON'T DRINK THE KOOLAID !

Last edited by ironglow; 05-29-2020 at 05:49 PM.
ironglow is offline  
post #6 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-30-2020, 03:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 2,831
Default

I totally agree. IF they didn't publish his remarks that is wrong. IF they simply added that they believed it to be incorrect or not factual, that is THEIR freedom of speech. One is censorship the other is just "open(ing) up the political repartee"
NWBear is offline  
post #7 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-30-2020, 05:27 PM
Senior Member
 
ironglow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: rural southwestern N.Y. State
Posts: 44,135
Default

.
Perhaps it is time we conservatives could help in raising up a social networking site comparable to Twitter or FB, only with fairness as their watchword.

How would "fairness" be assured..easy, those operating the system should "butt out" and not contribute as a site boss. If they feel compelled to

reply, do it as anyone else would, take their turn and only speak as a regular contributor..not as an arbiter of right or wrong.

..And the crap of picking a "fact checker" as a final arbiter is garbage of the first order, since we all know what most opf the "fact checkers" are.

.

DON'T DRINK THE KOOLAID !
ironglow is offline  
post #8 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-31-2020, 05:55 AM
Moderator
 
lloyd smale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Munising MI
Posts: 22,184
Default

fact is if EVERY republican in this country stayed off of facebook and twitter they would probably die anyway. Funny thing like freedom of speech and about anything people claim violate there constitutional rights is ok if its there side doing it. Heck my own wife is a prime example. She votes republican and complains as much as anyone about the unfair way trump is treated but shes on facebook 3 times a day. My take on it is its there house and I believe just he opposite of NWBear. They should be able to say what can be posted and who can post. Its not different then a fourm like this. Break the rules and your posts are deleted. Step out of line with the management and your banned. Don't like there beliefs? Don't go there. But they sure don't have the right to alter or misrepresent what he or anyone else says or in any way change there words.

BLUE LIVES MATTER!!!!!!!
lloyd smale is offline  
post #9 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-31-2020, 09:09 AM
Senior Member
 
doublebass73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 9,704
Default

I have no problem with social media platforms having their own rules as long as they don't get any preferential treatment from the government. These big tech companies have been sucking off the government teat for a while now so they need to accept that when you suck off the government teat there are strings attached. You can't have it both ways.

Liberal Logic 101:
Americans shall be required to submit to a background check to exercise a right already guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment while any foreigner shall be allowed into America without submitting to a background check.
doublebass73 is offline  
post #10 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-31-2020, 09:44 AM
Dee
Moderator
 
Dee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 23,796
Default

NPR is another obvious offender.

"REPUBLIC OF TEXAS"!
To The Politician: if your not right with God, your not right for this country.
Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty
Dee is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Graybeard Outdoors forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome