Friday, August 16, 2019

White House Proposal Would have Feds Police Social Media

A draft executive order from the White House could put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of shaping how Facebook (FB), Twitter (TWTR) and other large tech companies curate what appears on their websites, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

More

Comments

It was inevitable Trump would try this, just as it was inevitable he would kill someone.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2019-08-16 10:35 AM

If you don't have a winning message...control what messages can be seen.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-16 10:51 AM

Words of advice for Benedict Donald.
Grow a thicker skin Snowflake!

#3 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-08-16 12:03 PM

The drafters of the Constitution never had the internet in mind when they wrote the first amendment. It should only apply to the technology available at the time.

#4 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-08-16 01:15 PM

No word from the pocket "constitutionalists" brigade on this matter

They must be busy elsewhere normalization racist or otherwise cretinous behavior

Color me surprised

#5 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-08-16 01:16 PM

It should only apply to the technology available at the time.

#4 | Posted by visitor

The same goes for the 2nd amendment in your eyes?

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-16 01:37 PM

It's my version of reduction to absurdity.

#7 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-08-16 01:47 PM

So you were being facetious.

Sorry. That didn't come through.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-16 01:48 PM

LOL. What a bunch of posers.

You'd censor and suppress everything you disagree with if allowed to.

Shouldn't you guys be on your flights to Portland for this weekends black-masked curb-stomping?

#9 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-16 02:05 PM

"You'd censor and suppress everything you disagree with if allowed to."

So I guess it's okay if Trump does too.
Good point.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-16 02:24 PM

LOL. What a bunch of posers.

You'd censor and suppress everything you disagree with if allowed to.

Shouldn't you guys be on your flights to Portland for this weekends black-masked curb-stomping?

#9 | POSTED BY comrade SHEEPLE/Nobias/Lieberg/JordyStPete
Let me see if I have this right...

The Ruskie troll posing as an American calling other people posers?

Ain't that rich! I'm sure your own hypocrisy was lost on you however.

The pretzel logic of Boris strikes again!

#11 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-08-16 03:46 PM

Question, why do the alt-right (R)tards hate America and the constitution so much?

#12 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-08-16 03:48 PM

@#9 ... You'd censor and suppress everything you disagree with if allowed to. ...

Even if that were true, those of whom you speak are not the President with the ability to do so.


#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-16 03:54 PM

If they're policing what foreigners are writing that's just fine.

If they're arresting Americans for writing about what a scum bag Trump is they're insane.

#14 | Posted by Tor at 2019-08-16 04:24 PM

"Every American must oppose this clear attack on the First Amendment."

But it's not an attack on the first amendment. It is an attack on private property rights.

#15 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-08-16 05:31 PM

Social Media sites will tell the FCC to pound sand. They will win in court. This just red meat to the deplorable base.

Imagine if Obama had tried this.

#16 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-16 06:31 PM

Trump can spend our money better quicker than a Marine at the Mustang Ranch.

#17 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-08-16 07:02 PM

Yeah. It's theater. It'll be tied up in court for years.

#18 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-08-16 07:04 PM

Of course it's an infringement on our 1st Amendment rights. The founders knew there would be new ways of conveying speech and that speech, no matter how it is conveyed, is protected by the 1st Amendment. If not, then your phone can be tapped without a warrant and everything you say can be recorded, analysed and used as evidence against you. The Founders didn't know about phones either.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-16 08:35 PM

#19 it's also the GOP showing yet again their principles and morals are meaningless to them.

Using an executive order to have a federal agency directly interfere with a private company. Obama doing this would have meant the end of the US as we know it and clear evidence he was an America hating dictator.

With Trump, who shows far greater authoritarian tendencies? It's meh.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-17 10:23 AM

It's getting harder and harder not to call Trump a fascist.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-17 10:37 AM

Even if that were true, those of whom you speak are not the President with the ability to do so. - #13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-16 03:54 PM
The President also doesn't have the ability to do so, your argument is baseless. At best you've concluded that 'those of whom you speak' and the President both agree that they want to censor speech and both lack the ability to do so. Hardly a stellar result.

Oh wait. That proposal is "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship." It's exactly the opposite of what nearly everyone here has falsely claimed that it is. How odd that some here would assume, without bothering to actually review the thing, what it meant and how it would work.

From the article:


Under the draft proposal, the FCC will be asked to find that social media sites do not qualify for the good-faith immunity if they remove or suppress content without notifying the user who posted the material, or if the decision is proven to be evidence of anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive practices.

Too many of you are knee-jerk partisans seemingly without the ability to actually wait to formulate an opinion until you have facts.
This EO, were it ever enacted, works to protect your 1st, not detract from it.

#22 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-17 11:12 AM

Of course it's an infringement on our 1st Amendment rights. The founders knew there would be new ways of conveying speech and that speech, no matter how it is conveyed, is protected by the 1st Amendment.
#19 | POSTED BY DANNI

I agree with you Danni.

Also, you obviously agree with Trump's proposal as outlined in the threads article:

"According to the summary seen by CNN, the draft executive order currently carries the title "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship." It claims that the White House has received more than 15,000 anecdotal complaints of social media platforms censoring American political discourse, the summary indicates. The Trump administration, in the draft order, will offer to share the complaints it's received with the FTC."

Actually, it looks like everyone in the thread agrees with President Trump.

No Censorship! The entire Retort supports Trump's position on free speech!

#23 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-17 11:17 AM

If you don't have a winning message...control what messages can be seen. - #2 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-16 10:51 AM
The humor here is that this EO is designed to limit social media sites from removing or suppressing content.
I'm glad that you are acknowledging that social media tries to suppress content because they social media corporations don't have a winning message. When did you reach that point of clarity?

#24 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-17 11:20 AM

It's getting harder and harder not to call Trump a fascist. - #21 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-17 10:37 AM

What is it about this proposed EO which limits social media censoring the free speech of Americans seems the most fascist to you, Joe?

#25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-17 11:27 AM

Most social media removes content that advertisers dont like. Good luck changing that. Most try and censor illegal speech. Some try to censor what they view as immoral speech.

If you dont like that you can buy your cake somewhere else.

#26 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-17 11:32 AM

Leftists love censorship as long as it's Leftists doing the censoring, like universities and the social media companies.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-17 11:33 AM

For someone who said executive orders were bad, donald sure likes to hammer them out.

#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-08-17 11:43 AM

The humor here is that this EO is designed to limit social media sites from removing or suppressing content.

Which runs contrary to the supposed beliefs of "c-c-conservatives".

In any case, you're arguing for forcing a company to disseminate white supremacy and political trolling hit jobs.

Because the only way your side wins is by sowing division and disinformation.

I'm glad that you are acknowledging that social media tries to suppress content because they social media corporations don't have a winning message. When did you reach that point of clarity?

If you're going to try and do the whole flip the post on the poster thing at least make sure it makes sense.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-17 12:01 PM

Leftists love censorship as long as it's Leftists doing the censoring, like universities and the social media companies.

But that's supposedly the norm if you believe the brain dead morons like you.

When did it become acceptable to righties for government to interfere with a private business by executive order? What speech did Reagan give outlining that "c-c-conservative" ideal?

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-17 12:04 PM

Which runs contrary to the supposed beliefs of "c-c-conservatives".
In any case, you're arguing for forcing a company to disseminate white supremacy and political trolling hit jobs.
If you're going to try and do the whole flip the post on the poster thing at least make sure it makes sense.
#29 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-17 12:01 PM

In what world does preventing censorship run contrary to the beliefs of conservatives?
No, I'm not advocating for anything, you are again falsely assigning me a position. The EO advocates for social media sights to lose good-faith immunity when censoring content. Yet you felt the need to pass along untrue information about that.

Just because you are unable to comprehend a post, doesn't mean it didn't make sense. Maybe go back and read it again slowly. Have someone help you.
If you really can't get it, check back and I'll try to use small words to explain it for you.

#31 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-17 12:16 PM

When did it become acceptable to righties for government to interfere with a private business by executive order? - #30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-17 12:04 PM
Nixon created the EPA by executive order in 1970.
So, at least 1970.

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-17 12:27 PM

In what world does preventing censorship run contrary to the beliefs of conservatives?

LOL

When it requires telling a company how to run it's own stuff.

Oh Christ I wish Hans was here so he could pull up endless posts from righties explaining how Twitter banning users or deleting posts wasn't censorship because it is a private company that can run its platform however it chooses.

The EO advocates for social media sights to lose good-faith immunity when censoring content. Yet you felt the need to pass along untrue information about that.

Not at all.

I'm calling this what it is-hypocritical big government intrusion into businesses by Conservatives because they have a victim complex and don't actually follow their own beliefs. Otherwise they'd start a Facebook like company friendly to their schitty worldview so that ------------ -------- can go lurk about the dark edges of civilization and leave the rest of us alone.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-17 01:33 PM

What is it about this proposed EO which limits social media censoring the free speech of Americans seems the most fascist to you, Joe?

Social media companies have nothing to do with "the free speech of Americans." The First Amendment places limits on the government, not on private companies. Mark Zuckerberg can publish or delete anything he wants on his own website. You can start your own website if you disagree. I can't wait to see how popular "angry white male grievancebook" is.

Anywho, seeking government control of private media organizations is, be definition, a step toward fascism. So is nominating an ethnonationalist to a judgeship. But you don't care. You're all in on the cult.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-17 01:39 PM

Additionally, the rightwing grievance against social media misses the point, sometimes intentionally. Facebook and Twitter have policies against inciting violence, misinformation, etc. If rightwingers happen to peddle in that nonsense more frequently than others, that isn't Mark Zuckerberg's fault. But even if it were, it's funny to see the "right" abandon the "free market" and not let the invisible hand sort out this private dispute.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-17 01:45 PM

google and facebook are already 'policing' conservatives in an effort to influence future elections, so.......

#36 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-17 04:02 PM

No they're not.

They're just scrubbing their own systems of the lying, dishonest garbage conservatives produce.

I'd say be honest and you won't have any problems, but you likely wouldn't win either so...

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-17 04:52 PM

Hands Up.... Don't Post...

Internet Lives Matter...

and so on...

Answer is simple, just move the servers outside of the US....

...or use the discount server farms that NSA and the CIA runs.

Just don't let Democrats run them...

#38 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-08-17 08:11 PM

Hands Up.... Don't Post...

Internet Lives Matter...

Answer is simple, just move the servers outside of the US....

#38 | POSTED BY PEGASUS

And out of Hillary's basement?!?!

#39 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-08-17 08:20 PM

>federally enshrine the opaque enforcement policies of fedbook, -------, etc.
no thanks

#40 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-08-17 11:47 PM

Haha wow this was a good thread.

Shame on you "liberals" in this discussion for once...

#41 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-08-18 12:28 PM

Cult

*Drink*

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-18 03:22 PM

So, are these big tech companies neutral platforms that prevents them from being regulated or are they news outlets?

They are having their cake and eating it too and it needs to stop. I don't think what Team Trump is proposing is the way to go about it though.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-18 03:24 PM

are these big tech companies neutral platforms that prevents them from being regulated or are they news outlets?

Who's to say they have to be one or the other?

Here's a good read from a source you'd like.

www.cato.org

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-18 03:33 PM

That proposal is "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship."
#31 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

^
Pay close attention people.
"Censorship!" the Trumpers scream, when social media platforms remove Nazi content.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-18 05:01 PM

"So, are these big tech companies neutral platforms that prevents them from being regulated or are they news outlets?"

What difference would it even make?
???

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-18 05:01 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Colt Suspends Making AR-15 for Civilian Markets (146 comments)

Trump Asked Ukraine to Investigate Biden's Son 8 Times on Call (93 comments)

Whistleblower Complaint About Trump Involves Ukraine (80 comments)

Whistleblower Complaint Covers Multiple Trump Actions (48 comments)

How Long Will Republicans Tolerate Trump's Lawlessness? (46 comments)

US Deploying Troops to Saudi Arabia and UAE (43 comments)

'Ukraine, If You're Listening ...' (34 comments)

The Teenager who has Captured Attention for Climate Change (32 comments)

Trump: My Crimes Can't Be Investigated While I'm President (30 comments)