Trump Signs Executive Order on Big Tech Censorship

[jacksonsprat22]

They violated their legal status as a platform which falls under the regulatory authority of the FCC and likely the FEC as well.

FCC states you have to be nice to the President?! No.

[Cinnabar]

But the real issue is...

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

[FreeSpeech]

FCC states you have to be nice to the President?! No.

No but the regulations state that platforms don't get to editorialize that would be a publisher.

[Cinnabar]

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.

[AProudLefty]

I can tell you big tech and their shareholders aren't laughing.

I dunno, maybe. Because the E.O. will do nothing.

[FreeSpeech]

But the real issue is...

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

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%.

[FreeSpeech]

I dunno, maybe. Because the E.O. will do nothing.

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

[jacksonsprat22]

No but the regulations state that platforms don't get to editorialize that would be a publisher.

I fail to see the difference or the issue. Trump is mad that he cannot control all media.

[AProudLefty]

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

Are you telling me that Twitter cannot make disclaimers?

[FreeSpeech]

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.

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.

[Phantasmal]

I fail to see the difference or the issue. Trump is mad that he cannot control all media.

He’s mad he’s being fact checked

[FreeSpeech]

Are you telling me that Twitter cannot make disclaimers?

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.

[Trumpet]

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/tru...a-personality/

[FreeSpeech]

He’s mad he’s being fact checked

No he's mad because Twitter violated their neutral platform status by editorializing, big tech also uses censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning to push their editorial view as well. Clearly not neutral platforms.

[jacksonsprat22]

He’s mad he’s being fact checked

Trump lies all the time.