Trump's executive orders and the implications for social media

I'm not your "bro."

Why you mad bro?

I am not mad, nor am I angry; I am also not your "bro." Why are peddling Plump's propaganda about social media?

Ignore Setanta. He is a nasty troll. And he is sucking you in. He isn't even trying to add anything to the discussion. He is just here to throw insults and earn himself upthumbs from the bubbleheads.

You don't have to respond to him. And it makes these discussions a lot easier if just let him rant on his own. Then you don't get pages of back and forth insults that derail the thread.

Setanta can't start these silly arguments if no one will argue with him. Just don't respond.

In my opinion, the 230(c) part of the law is important. Tech companies agree with me.

The risk of lawsuit is a problem, especially for smaller companies. Even if the "a platform" won't be found guilty of libel in a court... they will still have hire lawyers and deal with the off chance that they might lose.

This provision in the law means that these suits won't happen, or will be thrown out without a lengthy trial.

Ah, hahahahahahahaha

The irony here is killer. Pages and pages of back-and-forth indeed!

Yup, he is. I've watched his behavior.

He is easily one of the worst posters and offenders here.

I think you're one of the better posters, and I like reading what you have to say. However, the abuse you have to take from people here is kind of what I'm talking about. You don't get it quite as bad as others I've seen here, but you get it pretty good.

I haven't seen your posts be removed like some others here, and that's what I was originally getting at. I think if Trump actually gets these orders codified, it would be in the best interest of able2know and other social media companies to start to respect the concept of free speech for all differing voices.

We saw just this week that twitter used CNN as a 'fact checking' source to annotate Trump's tweets. That is ridiculous on it's face. CNN is obviously incredibly left leaning, so why should they be seen as an authoritative voice in regards to a political figure they are actively working to undermine?

Then the very next day one of Trump's tweets was essentially shadow banned, where it couldn't be shared because he said he would send the national guard into Minneapolis.

This kind of thing is outright censorship of the most visible public figure in the entire world, and it sets a very bad precedent for the rest of us 'little people'. Keep in mind that social media companies like twitter not only receive government subsidies, but also special protection under the current laws that no one else has including all other traditional media companies.

Getting back to setanta for a minute, have you noticed how all his posts are upvoted while those who disagree with him are downvoted? It doesn't matter how asinine his comments are, they always get voted up. It's a gang up mentality against anyone who isn't stridently, fanatically progressive.

Do you see any conservatives able to get away with that? I truly am a centrist. I come here and don't tow the progressive line and guess what happens? I get called a "Russian".

Do you see any conservatives doing this sort of gang up behavior? Do you see anyone and everyone who isn't 100% lock step in agreement with them being called silly names and told they're something they clearly aren't.

This behavior is ridiculous, and the social media companies not only allow it, they encourage it. It's gross.

Who are the conservative posters that you enjoy reading?

I appreciate what you said. But I think I mostly disagree with you.

1. Trump's tweets are demonstrably untrue. This whole thing started with the fact that Trump is acting irresponsibly. Trump should take the responsibility for this whole thing

2. I do agree with you that CNN is left-leaning (and is getting more politically biased over time). I don't think it is relevant. Smart consumers will realize this on their own.

3. I don't think what Twitter is doing is morally or legally wrong. They are a private company and get to set their own standards. Trump can go elsewhere if he isn't happy.

4. I don't think that what Twitter is doing is censorship. It certainly isn't "outright censorship". Censorship is when the government prevents a private organization from publishing something. It isn't censorship when a private organization chooses not to publish something.

5. I have never heard that Twitter receives government subsidies. I would be surprised if this were the case. Do you have a link for this?

6. I think that the 230(c) protections are a good thing irrespective of which party they help.

7. The 230(c) protections help conservatives online. They may help conservatives more than they help liberals.

8. That being said. I mostly agree with Zuckerberg on this. I respect Facebook's decision to resist being the "arbiter of truth". However, I understand why Twitter wants to set and maintain community standards.

I just checked. I see no record of Twitter receiving subsidies from the Federal government. I believe that what you are referring to are local tax breaks that are designed to lure tech companies to a local economy in exchange for creating jobs.

I am not sure how that is relevant. Many Americans feel that these companies should actually be controlling content.

The response you have gotten here, in this thread, is a result of your promotion of Plump's bullshit claim about social media, which in his harrow mind means Twitter. People get their posts pulled here if they violate the TOS. It is pure fantasy that there is any kind of bias in operation here.

Is the unmitigated piffle that you promulgate denied you here?

I have a few questions for you.

Are social media platforms a means for people to communicate globally? Are they a way for people to be heard who otherwise wouldn't have a means? Are they a modern day public square?

If phone companies decided that certain things were allowed to be said through their services and certain things weren't, that certain people with certain beliefs shouldn't be allowed phone service, would that be acceptable to you?

If in order to be able to own a cell phone, you weren't allowed to use that tool to express certain opinions, would that be acceptable to you?

Would you say that Verizon is a private company, and that if they choose to ban all people who are Minnesota Twins fans from being able to use their service that that's acceptable?

What if all the cellular phone companies as a group were die hard New York Yankees fans, and none of those private companies wanted Minnesota Twins fans to be able to use their service?

These are private companies, just like how all the credit bureaus are private companies. None of these organizations are government utilities. And yet they are expected to treat people fairly, because they are essential services that everyone is forced to contend with.

I am not sure if these comparisons are appropriate. But I will play along.

A "public square" is owned by the public. When I step out into my town common, it is owned by city and maintained by my property taxes.

In my little suburb of Boston we had a medium sized mall (now closed for an overhaul). Anyone can go to a mall, it is a place that lots of people go to meet, or have lunch, or hang around.

But this mall is owned by a private company. If you disturb other customers, they have the right to kick you out. In fact, malls often post signs limiting speech... saying "no solicitation".

There are also Newspapers which serve a public function. Newspapers have editors that decide who gets a voice and what they get to say.

But Max, who gets to define what a "disturbance" is? What is the standard?

I seem to remember a Christian baker who owned a private company, who was hounded to the ends of the earth because he wouldn't bake a gay wedding cake.



You are 100% correct. And you know why that is Max? It's because newspapers are publishers. They are not platforms. There is a distinct difference.

A platform is a place that facilitates communication. A publisher is an entity with an editorial voice.

This is a statue of Baphomet being adored by two innocent children. It was erected by the "Satanic Temple" in a public square in front of the Arkansas State House.

It upset a lot of people. It almost certainly was designed to upset people. However, since this is truly a public square, the courts ruled that Satanists had the same right to erect a memorial as any other religious group (including the one that erected a monument to the Ten Commandments).

If a Christian owner of a website wants to block this type of imagery on their private website, they can. A website owner can decide what types of messages are acceptable on their website based on their own standards. This is why websites such as this one can ban anything they deem to be offensive, or pornographic, or hateful, or anything else. There is no need to go to court, the owners decide.

I don't see how you can force someone to accept content they deem to be offensive on a website they create.

The Christian baker was a completely different legal issue. He ran afoul of the public accommodations part of the civil rights act. I don't think it is related at all.

Again, you are missing the difference between publishers and platforms.

A website that just posts content is a different animal than a social media website that facilitates global communication. I think you can see the difference, but you don't want to accept it because it negates your point.

What I do not understand is how so many people on the left proclaim to be against the overreach of capitalism, yet yell "private company!" when it fits conveniently into their argument.

Would it be acceptable for a privately owned restaurant chain to have an open policy of "No N****rs allowed"? It's a legitimate question.

Absolute nonsense CNN, like most American news organisations, is right wing, not as right wing as some but it’s far too right wing for my tastes.

You are dishonest, claiming to be a centrist while simultaneously lying about the political bias of a centre right news organisation.

It’s what right wing extremists do because all you have is lies and smears.

Setanta can see right through you and that’s why you’ve gone into meltdown.

I can see why you get on with Max, he’s another right winger who constantly bangs on about being centrist, and he doesn’t fool anyone either.

LOL! You're a "right winger" Max! Just like how I'm a "Russian"