Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

Post by meragrin_ » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

nsajko wrote: post #320

meragrin_ wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He keeps it only because of his current title. I would not be the least bit surprised if he loses it the second another person is elected president. He will definitely lose it once another person is inaugurated.

Why do you say that Trump will definitely lose it once another person is inaugurated, but only maybe when another person is elected president? Honest question. Edit: I know election and inauguration are separate, I was wondering about the significance of this to Twitter.

Post by hintymad » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

akersten wrote: post #130

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.

Post by inamberclad » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #338

akersten wrote: post #130

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.

Sorry big tech is subject to antitrust laws that have been on the books for 120+ years. The Federal Government could break Twitter up into 10 different pieces if it deemed the service a monopoly. That's not totalitarian, that's clearly justified. These platforms claim all the immunity of a utility while actively engaging in algorithmic and human-induced bias that completely slants the platform. In some cases the plat…

Post by coliveira » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #338

akersten wrote: post #130

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.

Sorry big tech is subject to antitrust laws that have been on the books for 120+ years. The Federal Government could break Twitter up into 10 different pieces if it deemed the service a monopoly. That's not totalitarian, that's clearly justified. These platforms claim all the immunity of a utility while actively engaging in algorithmic and human-induced bias that completely slants the platform. In some cases the plat…

Post by closeparen » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

meragrin_ wrote: post #252

pengaru wrote: post #92

What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. It's like they've never even been to a movie theater where they need to shut the hell up or leave. And here we have a US president signing an executive order in response to being moderated on a web site after years of arguably excessive tolerance of his b.s. I'm n…

Social media are the broadcasters of this age. I see no reason why they should be exempt from the same rules and regulations as old school broadcasters.