331–340 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of them disagree with this thankfully. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.
Uh... are "progressives" opposed to private businesses having rights?
First, the administration must formulate the rule itself. In formulating the rule, it must also provide supporting documentation justifying the rulemaking, which must include a record of the data looked at in deciding upon the need for the rule, research and conclusions drawn from that data. If the research is external to the agency, they must also justify the selection of research used in drafting the rulemaking.
Once the proposed rule is published in the federal register, there is a comment period of at least 60 days or up to 180 days (depending on the complexity of the rule).
The administration must then spend time reviewing the comments. It doesn't need to respond to comments individually but it does need to address all of the issues raised by those comments, especially if the issues raise constitutional concerns.
Assuming that they get that out of the way without modifying the proposed rule (which could trigger another comment period, depending on the extent of the changes), the final version of the rule must then be published in the federal register.
A final rule does not take effect until at least 30 days after it is published in the federal register. There are very few rules which can be ex post facto (generally only rules that grant additional rights or freedoms, or which are tax-related).
So, even assuming the the crackerjacks in the Trump Administration could get a proposed rule out tomorrow, and review comments after the comment period in one day, they're still looking at 92 days before the rule could take effect, or approximately the end of August.
Note:this doesn't include challenges to the rule proceeding through the federal court system. While SCOTUS could theoretically hear emergency appeals to a temporary injunction or district court ruling on the merits, they've refused to grant appeals in much less contentious cases where they ultimate sided with the administration. If they were to do so, the ruling would come in the middle of the electoral cycle, and it would likely result in the Democrats taking the House, Senate, and Presidency. And then they could simply override the rule using the APA in January.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If enough people feel that it has a bias, and are discontent with it, they are free to start their own platform. They are also free to not moderate their platform, or even moderate it with whatever bias they so choose. This has happened a few times (Voat, Gab) and the utopia of a hands-off content platform has never played out to anything other than a cesspool. Popular platforms remain popular and useful because they…
> If enough people feel that it has a bias, and are discontent with it, they are free to start their own platform. This is, of course, disingenuous. It's like saying, just a monolithic railroad company was about to bulldoze your house in the mid 1800s, "If you're discontent, you can always start your own railroad company." We're dealing with a complex system of interconnected motivations. "Start your own Twitter" is…
Why is this the First Amendment issue? Trump was not blocked from tweeting. Twitter just added one small sign next to his tweets. Even Trump owns his tweets and Twitter owns the rest of the webpage.
From a few days ago (prior to Trump being fact checked): https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/23/21268433/president-trump-...
All because Twitter dared to fact check him.
devil's advocate: why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? Twitter is picking sides on a comment made by a user so they should be held liable for that content
They're fact checking more than just Trump:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If enough people feel that it has a bias, and are discontent with it, they are free to start their own platform. They are also free to not moderate their platform, or even moderate it with whatever bias they so choose. This has happened a few times (Voat, Gab) and the utopia of a hands-off content platform has never played out to anything other than a cesspool. Popular platforms remain popular and useful because they…
> If enough people feel that it has a bias, and are discontent with it, they are free to start their own platform. This is, of course, disingenuous. It's like saying, just a monolithic railroad company was about to bulldoze your house in the mid 1800s, "If you're discontent, you can always start your own railroad company." We're dealing with a complex system of interconnected motivations. "Start your own Twitter" is…
You’re on a street with a 100 houses and one of them is having a cool party. But the cool kids don’t like you and don’t want you in their house. The other 99 houses (Gab, Mastodon, theDonald.win , bulletin boards, etc.) welcome you in, but you don’t think their owners are cool and don’t want to hang with them.
Should the government force the owner of the cool party house to let you hang with the cool kids?
Many would say that violates freedom of association.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs for some that it happens to be a private company with a bias. And for better of for worse it does have a bias.
What’s the bias? It’s verifiable facts versus lies and disinformation.
I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). It's a disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.
I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). It's a disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.