I wonder how this platforms that use community moderation might be held liable under this.
Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
11–20 of 220 posts
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#12Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? If a company has an obligation to promote something against their will, violating their own right to free speech, how could a company like Hobby Lobby get away with an exemption on the same grounds? I don’t see this getting past federal courts, even with a heavily conservative judiciary. The fallout would be far too great.
This is a publisher vs platform issue.
Platforms were given a free pass, provided they act in "good faith".
Publishers weren't given a free pass.
Hobby Lobby's case was not related to platform vs publisher issue.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#13If I'm reading this right, platforms must act in "good faith" to restrict access to content that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable".
That seems quite broad and doesn't seem to do anything to stop the current deluge of censorship.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#14America, when are you going to give up on this idiot?
I’m genuinely curious, what’s the last straw? He takes a dump on the Whitehouse lawn in order to show how powerful he is?
My view of America has forever changed, no matter who comes next.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#15How did a professor of Internet law get a hold of a draft EO? Are these things widely circulated before signing?
If I know anything about Trump, then his team leaked it on purpose to get an initial feedback. If it turns out to have a bad reaction then they would repudiate this copy and release some other watered down version.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#16I think you need to vote Donald Trump out of office. We look from afar and are perplexed by his ruinous actions on the United States of America. These actions feel vaguely like authoritarianism. Originally I thought these actions felt like fascism, but I appreciate that fascism's victims would laugh at this comparison... but I think it's a slippery slope. Is Twitter's flagging censorship? People can still make their…
I don’t think he understands free speech. If you tell lies, I’m allowed to call it out.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#17How did a professor of Internet law get a hold of a draft EO? Are these things widely circulated before signing?
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#18How did a professor of Internet law get a hold of a draft EO? Are these things widely circulated before signing?
There appear to be other recipients of this draft doc besides Klonick. Same document, from all appearances. Probably same source sending it out.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mmasnick/status/12658684528346357...
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#19I think you need to vote Donald Trump out of office. We look from afar and are perplexed by his ruinous actions on the United States of America. These actions feel vaguely like authoritarianism. Originally I thought these actions felt like fascism, but I appreciate that fascism's victims would laugh at this comparison... but I think it's a slippery slope. Is Twitter's flagging censorship? People can still make their…
> These actions feel vaguely like fascism.
I begin to suspect that you don't know what the last word in that sentence means in regards to this particular action.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#20Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? If a company has an obligation to promote something against their will, violating their own right to free speech, how could a company like Hobby Lobby get away with an exemption on the same grounds? I don’t see this getting past federal courts, even with a heavily conservative judiciary. The fallout would be far too great.
>Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech?
Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO
"Patreon is and should remain free to disassociate itself from whomever it wants. Like all companies that have guidelines and content‐ moderation policies, Patreon is open to accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistently applying its speech standards. Anyone looking for a company that has been entirely consistent with its own content guidelines will be persistently disappointed.[...]
Classical liberals and other supporters of free association and free speech should indeed be concerned when the government undertakes initiatives such as the Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point, which investigated banks doing business with firearms dealers (among others). But there is a world of difference between a government cracking down on peaceful citizens’ legal behaviour and a private company choosing to sever a business relationship.[...]
But it’s a mistake to portray the ongoing debate about content moderation as one in which supporters of a ‘closed’ and a ‘free’ internet fight it out for supremacy. You’re not less free if a private company won’t host your speech, and an internet where those companies discriminate is not ‘closed’. Those who want a maximally tolerant venue for speech on the internet are welcome to build one. "
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patreon-not-wag...