Trump's executive orders and the implications for social media

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi,

I don't post here much, but I do stop by frequently to read others. There are several posters I enjoy reading.

I am very middle of the road in my politics. I agree with conservatives on some matters and progressives on others. I don't mean this topic to cause controversy.

I just wanted to know if able2know will be changing any policies or administrative action in the wake of Trump's announcement today.

Again, I am very much a centrist, but I have noticed over a long period of time a pattern of abuse and censorship of conservative posters here.

If Trump successfully changes laws such that social media companies who editorialize become publishers under the law, then it would necessitate them to allow all differing voices if they didn't want to be held liable for the material they publish.

Just curious to read thoughts, not sure if I will comment much or not.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 10 • Views: 4,073 • Replies: 120
Topic Closed

@Webb,

I think it's worth waiting until we see how this plays out in the early stages; it may not amount to anything.

And remember that right-wing social media companies would be obliged to allow differing voices as well or be held liable for the material they publish. Losing their echo chamber could hurt them severely. It might be best to let this one alone.

1 Reply

@Webb,

I'm not aware of any opinions having been censored. Insults to fellow members are a different matter, of course.

0 Replies

1. I think there is a theoretical risk to sites like Able2know. Currently if one of us says something libelous or otherwise illegal, able2know is shielded from liability. Someone who is hurt could sue me. They couldn't sue the owners of the site.

Trump is threatening to remove this protection.

2. I think Trump's action is almost completely. This is a distraction and a dog whistle to his followers. Trump wants to play the victim in the upcoming election. A war with Twitter and Facebook plays well into his narrative.

3. His followers (who aren't generally that bright) are acting against their own interests. The current shield laws makes it harder to prosecute insults and threats from right wing groups online. Many of these groups who would be most hurt (theoretically) by the changes Trump is threatening are supporters of Trump.

4. I have nothing to do with the management of Able2know, but I don't think they are worried at all, nor should they be.

1 Reply

Trump once more is blowing smoke to get you to look away from more important an real issues such as going over a hundred thousands virus deaths.

No he have no power to rewrite either the constitution or even the laws as written by congress.

Wonder if we will ever get to see this so call executive order.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hannity would have another Hannity an Combs type pf show and itd be another freefrall.

1 Reply

Below viewing threshold (view)

@Webb,

Quote:

If Trump successfully changes laws such that social media companies who editorialize become publishers under the law, then it would necessitate them to allow all differing voices if they didn't want to be held liable for the material they publish.

What's wrong with the idea that if a social media site monitor sees somebody post something he views as dangerous or illegal, he or she notifies the appropriate authorities? Do you really need anything more than that?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

But wouldn't it only apply to Able2know if they started censoring content for political reasons? In my opinion Able2know never does that.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

But wouldn't it only apply to Able2know if they started censoring content for political reasons? In my opinion Able2know never does that.

No Brandon... you have it wrong. In fact you have it backwards.

Yes. Trump is pissed because he feels he is being censored.

But. The legal agreement that Trump is threatening is putting companies at risk for not censoring. Able2know will never be in legal risk for censoring. The legal risk is if someone posts something that is not protected free speech and Able2know doesn't take it down. The principle that Trump is taking way says that platforms (such as Able2kno) can't be held liable for what their users post.

This little temper tantrum from Trump doesn't make logical sense.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230).

In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

0 Replies

@panther2020,

Yes, we do need something more than that.

Who judges what is "dangerous" or "illegal"? These are things that aren't always clear and are often settled by long court cases.

If Able2know can be punished for what its users say, it puts them in legal risk. There are people who find jokes about women's underwear to be offensive. It seems unlikely that any court would award monetary damages for victim of an underwear joke... but in the court system who knows?

If you take away legal protections, then platforms such as Able2know would be smart to play it on the safe side. If their attitude was "better safe than sorry", then they would censor a lot of posts that wouldn't actually be considered illegal in a court of law.

0 Replies

@Webb,

Webb wrote:

If Trump successfully changes laws such that social media companies who editorialize become publishers under the law, then it would necessitate them to allow all differing voices if they didn't want to be held liable for the material they publish.

The first thing to recognize is that Plump cannot unilaterally change a law resulting from a congressional act signed into law by another president. I know that monkey think's he's the king, but it doesn't work that way. These companies, which have deep pockets, which certainly challenge the order in court, and with a high probability of getting a stay immediately.

But more than that, I don't think you really are a " centrist," and I say that because you are basically parroting Plump's line of "reasoning" when you say that these service providers would be obliged to "allow all differing voices," as though they don't do that now. Basically, the fat boy in the White House is whining like a child who has been criticized, and attempting to bully his critics into silence. There is a Federal court system to deal with these matters, and that's the first place it will go. Several times, and the last time during the 2016 campaign, Mr. Obama told reporters basically, "Look, I'm not the king." Plump thinks he is the king.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I don't think you really are a " centrist," and I say that because you are basically parroting Plump's line of "reasoning"

This is exactly what I'm talking about and why I don't comment much.

I voted for Hillary in the last election (although I don't much like either of them). Are you able to even fathom that?

This is what I mean when I say that "I have noticed over a long period of time a pattern of abuse and censorship of conservative posters here."

I am not a Trump supporter by any means, and yet if I don't denounce him as 'literally Hitler' every time his name is mentioned I'm met with vitriol across all social media by the left.

I do not see this kind of irrationality from the right, where they won't allow any sort of nuanced opinion whatsoever.

This is the kind of behavior that pushes people in the center to the right. They get fed up with being attacked for not conforming and prefer to be around people who aren't so unhinged.

Quote:

service providers would be obliged to "allow all differing voices," as though they don't do that now

They don't. People are de-platformed every single day. It's one thing if you don't agree with conservatives, but it's a detachment from reality to say that social media as a whole isn't heavily slanted to the left.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

But wouldn't it only apply to Able2know if they started censoring content for political reasons? In my opinion Able2know never does that.

No Brandon... you have it wrong. In fact you have it backwards.

Yes. Trump is pissed because he feels he is being censored.

But. The legal agreement that Trump is threatening is putting companies at risk for not censoring. Able2know will never be in legal risk for censoring. The legal risk is if someone posts something that is not protected free speech and Able2know doesn't take it down. The principle that Trump is taking way says that platforms (such as Able2kno) can't be held liable for what their users post.

This little temper tantrum from Trump doesn't make logical sense.

Well, you may have a point, but you certainly said it incorrectly. The only type of post I can think of that wouldn't be protected free speech is an invocation to imminent violence and maybe obscenity. Everything else is protected by the first Amendment. Of course, anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Now in the case of libel, I am not sure A2K could be sued for just being the platform if they agree to take it down when requested. You can't really get into a lot of trouble for not being aware of everything posted on your platform instantly.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

You can't really get into a lot of trouble for not being aware of everything posted on your platform instantly.

That is exactly what 230(c) says. And that is exactly the protection that Trump is threatening to take away.

1 Reply

@Webb,

I might have responded to this drivel, had it not been for the condescending, snotty remark about what I am able to fathom. You have a very skewed point of view, which seems to be very much right-wing, and I will waste no more time on you.

1 Reply

Below viewing threshold (view)

@Setanta,

Quote:

You have a very skewed point of view, which seems to be very much right-wing

Because I don't boot lick progressive talking points I am labeled "right wing".

You prove me 100% correct.

1 Reply

@Webb,

Hey, are you from the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg? Come on, you can tell me.

Nobody said or implied that you should lick any boots. You're promoting Plump's line of bullshit. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

are you from the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg? You're promoting Plump's line of bullshit.

...and there we go. I'm a "Russian bot. Russia! Russia! Russia!"

Do you listen to yourself bro? Are you feeling well?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
You can't really get into a lot of trouble for not being aware of everything posted on your platform instantly.

That is exactly what 230(c) says. And that is exactly the protection that Trump is threatening to take away.

Even without that law, it's readily apparent that a platform isn't guilty of libel just because it's not omniscient.

1 Reply

Forums
» Trump's executive orders and the implications for social media

Read Question
Reply to All

Trump's executive orders and the implications for social media

Quick Links

My Account

able2know