Think of the chaos currently in Minnepolis of #BlackLivesMatter protesters. A lot of damage has been done and I imagine tons injured. If no-one was to contend these blacks, they would slaughter everyone. I say use real guns, kill all violent protestors. — Barabmob

I think the mods should ban this dude because his name is Bomb Arab backwards

My mistake.

Another example is that video. There is nothing manipulated in it.

You know what you champions of personal responsibility and self determination can do? You can make sure that your public speech is well reasoned, well sourced, well justified. You do that, and people won't call you on your bullshit, because you won't have confused your mouth with your asshole as a teenager and learned to like the taste.

You do that, and when in this hypothetical future you are obviously imagining an org like Twitter "fact checks" you based on false, partisan information, you'll have recourse to complain.



He's already banned.

:up:

Remember kids: fact checking is an abuse of human rights!

All that being said, it is wrong for Trump to try to regulate social media companies, and I suspect his EO will be slapped down in the supreme court. Twitter is a public company (not a private one as an idiot would claim), and Trump should simply walk away from the platform and watch its stock prices fall.

Another example is that video. There is nothing manipulated in it. — NOS4A2

Right?!

it is right to use hate speech — NOS4A2

I knew you were a scumbag but, wow.

I think when a social media company gets as powerful as Facebook or Twitter it is only right that they are regulated. Such companies have enormous political power and foreign/national powers may well seek to control them and the narrative that runs through them.

As things stand it is clear that the big western social media companies have a left-liberal bias that needs regulating.

Did Twitter get people to fact check when the WHO implied that Covid 19 was not transmittable between people?

I think it’s a step too far. But the question of who fact-checks the fact-checkers is an important one. The capricious and political use of their labelling and anti-Trump sources, all of whom endorse opposing candidates, makes plain their motives, which seems to me to score points against Trump and to influence the election.

So today an executive order to regulate social media and tomorrow an order to regulate the “enemy of the people” fake news media?

Apparently this is a draft of Trump's executive order on social media.

I was worried that Trump would attempt to regulate Twitter, but the EO seems to be consistent with law without getting all authoritarian.

1. To order the FCC clarify Section 230 of the Communications decency act ("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").

2. To review federal spending of tax-payer dollars on advertising upon social media platforms.

3. A federal review of unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

4. To establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

Is there anything objectionable in it?

There's this:

It is the policy of the United States that large social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum, should not infringe on protected speech.

It's not clear what it means for this to be the "policy" of the United States, but if the intention is to legally declare social media to be public forums (such that the First Amendment applies) then there's a problem. Social media are private sector businesses, not public spaces.

as the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum

A traditional public forum is something like a street or park; "public property which have, as 'a principal purpose, ... the free exchange of ideas'"¹. Social media platforms aren't public property. Is Trump planning to nationalise social media?

¹ https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/the-public-forum

Now I have the right to use hate speech in the United States. It's protected speech. — NOS4A2

Yes and no. Yes in the sense the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled it is protected by the first amendment. It can be said speaking about law and order and justice is hateful against criminals. That Christianity is hateful and depending on verse is virtually threatening non-believers ie. Hell, punishment and whatnot. As would many religions.

Before we get to why, rather when it is not. Let's define hate speech. There are two widely held understandings, both related. First being abusive speech toward any group (which could literally be anything- even hateful ones themselves) especially when it targets a race, religion, or orientation. And the other is only when it targets one of those three. I could make a religion right now that says all people are garbage, so are governments, rights too, and God wants us to destroy all three. Now. I have a right to speak, recruit, and accomplish this.

It is not allowed in the sense when doing so in a setting that would cause a riot. For example, going to the George Floyd protest and saying things I frankly won't even type here. I'm sure you can think of some. People would get hurt, often those who you would be claiming to be speaking for, who happen to be present. You may be able to skirt away, but perhaps other wouldn't. Another reason why racial hate speech should be curtailed by their own first before it gets out of hand and people they claim to be speaking for just trying to live their lives end up dealing with whatever it is that was said. To summarize, racial hate speech is dumb and counterintuitive. And frankly should be illegal. It isn't in and of itself and so remains a utility to gauge a given group's hostility to an open and free nation's constitution.

Is there anything objectionable in it? — NOS4A2

Also this:

The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) monitoring or creating watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or users (e.g., likes, follows, time spent);

and

(ii) monitoring users based on their activity off the platform.

Which users are they going to monitor? Why are they monitoring them? I don't know how to read this as anything other than Big Brother tracking critics.

A traditional public forum is something like a street or park; "public property which have, as 'a principal purpose, ... the free exchange of ideas'"1. Social media platforms aren't public property. Is Trump planning to nationalise social media?

I think the term “functional equivalent” means it is not actually public property, but functions in a similar manner. Recall when the courts claimed Trump’s Twitter account to be a “designated public forum”. But I agree that is a hard sell.

Which users are they going to monitor? Why are they monitoring them? I don't know how to read this as anything other than Big Brother tracking critics.

It is my understanding that they want to collect publicly available information on the tracking of users by social media companies, along with complaints.

Edit: here’s the actual EO, just signed. It’s similar to the draft, but not the same.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

The standard in first amendment law is “immanent lawless action”, or in other words, the advocacy of criminal activity, if and only when the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action.

I think the term “functional equivalent” means it is not actually public property, but functions in a similar manner. Recall when the courts claimed Trump’s Twitter account to be a “designated public forum”. But I agree that is a hard sell. — NOS4A2

Yeah, they took out the part about them being a "traditional public forum."

I don't know how to read this as anything other than Big Brother tracking critics. — Michael

Reminds me of a story I read this morning: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/28/trump-campaign-attempts-to-remove-satirical-cartoon-from-online-retailer

From the story:

In a statement, Anderson praised Redbubble for recognising the error, but said there were some “troubling issues” raised by the affair, including that the cartoon was removed less than 24 hours after he posted it, before he had received a single order.

“I doubt anyone had even seen it yet on the site,” he said. “This reveals that the Trump campaign has a system in place, trawling for material they find objectionable. If it happened to me so quickly, it likely has happened to others. How much other content has been removed this way on Redbubble and other sites?”

Heh, I saw this too. The cartoon is a dime a dozen, it's strange to me that they went after it specifically. Although given Trump is a giant fucking baby, I guess maybe not.

Or. Likely to cause people to get hurt. See, "yelling fire in a movie theater".

Trump should simply walk away from the platform — NOS4A2

Great idea. His incessant tweeting is worse than a mosquito buzzing around my head. I just want to swat him. Maybe he could take the time to learn how to make an intelligent statement.

I imagine because it ridicules not just him but his followers as well, and touches on the cultish (and somewhat Jim-Jonesian in recent months) bond between them.

Eh, they just saw red hats and went "let's get 'em for copyright".

Trump’s Order on Social Media Could Harm One Person in Particular: Donald Trump

Man, he drags his feet on a pandemic but mess with his twitter account and he's bypassing congress and signing an executive order faster than you can say "dictator wannabe".

See, "yelling fire in a movie theater".

It’s a poor phrase used to illustrate an old standard which was used to censor opposition to the draft.

Also, Twitter bullshit aside - 100,000 Americans have now died under Trump's watch from COVID. That's almost 3 times as many as the next highest count - the UK, at 37k deaths or so. What a fucking tragedy. What a fucking useless piece of shit asshole.

Ah yes, the classic "deploy the military to shoot at civilian looters in the name of a man killed by police" tactic.

Definitely nothing to worry about here...

If I were the CEO of Twitter, I'd just ban Trump from using it - stating the legal fall out Trump is trying to create is too much of a hassle and since it's my platform he can go fuck off.