Maybe, maybe not. You’re the expert at knowing motivations and intentions. How do you imagine this will eventually backfire on conservatives? You didn’t really explain that, other than saying that Trump’s true intentions are hidden from us by the legalese…
But not from you, apparently. Please, enlighten the deplorables. What’s in store for us if Trump gets his way?
Furthermore, where’s the hypocrisy you were clearly getting at with your “clear the mall” sarcastic remark? What would a principled conservative do? Is this worth my vacation time to protest?
If you have time, anyway. There’s some other question’s I’ve posed to the group as well.
You mean a private entity that you have no right to publish with? We no longer trust a private entity to decide on their own?
The alternative is now (according to the EO) that the government now decides, if not through actual content regulation (though it talks about changing legislation), then through constant litigation over “unfair” censoring, which we know is Trump’s signature move (harass everyone with lawsuits). In the absence if that civil liability, Trump will sue Twitter every time it flags or otherwise “censors” one of his tweets - and don’t pretend otherwise. That’s the goal here - make sure Twitter can’t silence him when he accuses innocent people of murder or spreads demonstrably false misinformation. That’s the endgame.
So, you’re ok with the President determining what the “right” content is versus the private entity that curates the information?
Explain to me how the President determines this. That’s not what I took away after reading the executive order.
Would that not ultimately fall on the FCC and Congress?
@loppar I understand some of this guys gripes with the Senator’s choice of words in the letter, but I’ve not yet found the end of the twitters on his tweet. It just keeps going and going with a bunch of people posting. Does he address the executive order itself, or not?
I already explained one way. The EO opens up civil liability for any “editorial” choices that Trump seems unfair - so, any flagging or deletion of anything Trump says. And Trump made an entire career out of frivolous and harassing lawsuits. He plans on litigating Twitter into submision every time they flag/delete his Tweet. You dispute this?
Assuming you share the notion that trans-national media conglomerates ought not have de-facto control over our de-facto public square of the modern era, what do you think should be done?
This EO seems like it gets the ball rolling on putting this in front of the right people, namely FCC and Congress. If it ends up being grossly misused as some kind of frivolous lawsuit baton, I’ll change my opinion accordingly.
It seems to me like a lot of people are suggesting that this highly selective fact checking is a public benefit. I’d like to hear anyone’s thoughts who believes this.
Edit: As a general statement, I’d also like to remind people that we’ve only got five more years of Trump. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram (not sure if all the same), etc are not going anywhere and no other platforms are gaining ground or set to overtake them.
I guess my only gripe right now is that this wasn’t put forward sooner.
No, I don’t think so. As we all know, Trump doesn’t do things in the public interest - he does what is in his self-interest. He wants to sue Twitter every time they flag his Tweets and create a world where they fear those lawsuits, this chilling their enforcement of stopping blatant misinformation from going public. That’s the motivation here - not some chin-pulling concern that social media companies are more broadly curtailing speech unfairly.
Friendly reminder that what set this EO in motion was not Trump’s post getting deleted (and therefore censored) but Twitter flagging his posts as inaccurate and putting other information to counter the inaccuracy. In other words, Twitter allowed Trump his speech and countered with more speech, exactly what any conservative would argue was kosher pre-2016.
Anyone who wants to read what Trump wrote still can.
But this act moved Trump to an EO to threaten a private entity who dares to contradict his messaging, no matter how outrageous or false.
Yes. But this EO could give extra legal cover to any subsequent lawsuit.
This is true.
My concerns with the EO, besides the nakedly selfish motivation, is that I would much rather have this issue with conglomerates instead of politicians. Other companies may always rise to demand and provide another outlet for content or opinions–see Fox News. More recently the pace of new social media outlets has only accelerated: nature and economics abhor vacuums.
I do not believe that the selective fact checking, as you put it, is a public benefit. However I do believe that according to our founding documents it was never meant to be in the hands of the government. None of the Fathers had a high opinion of newspapers, in fact many of them had exactly the opposite. But they all agreed that government should not have censorship rights.
We are, after all, not talking about child pornography or other clear and present dangers. And conspiracy theories are already censored by the outlets in question.
I understand that the corporations are more permanent than Trump, but I would rather keep the government farther away from having any say in censorship than nearer.
And let me add that there is no way in hell some of you guys are as dumb and blind as you are making yourselves out to be.
This EO was directed squarely at Liberals…and the false narrative that they have been singling out and stifling Conservative speech on these platforms for some time now.
With only a couple of minor changes, have this same EO signed:
…President Barack H. Obama…
Think that mall won’t be filled up with people carrying AR-15’s; full bullet-proof vest; and screaming Censorship, backed by FOX and Conservative radio talking heads?
Please.
How will it backfire? Underneath this EO is the thought that "HELL YEAH! It’s about time we stuck it to those Libtards! (Listen to FOX and Conservative Radio if you think otherwise, @twojarslave) …when in fact it will most likely limit all speech (unless cooler and much smarter heads than Trump prevail).
(and get your CTRL-F out, @twojarslave. I have never called a Conservative person a “deplorable”…)
What was dumb as hell about Twitter was that they could learn some lessons from any parent whom has dealt with teaching a Toddler about discipline…you select your battles.
Twitter had to know that they were in fact dealing with a Toddler when it came to Trump. They also had to know that he would unleash his fury on them if they began tagging his often misleading; often false Tweets.
If they are in someway playing 4-D chess…they are way, way ahead of my ability to understand. I just look at it a dumbbass move.
Well from my limited readings I don’t think Dorsey is a fan of Trump, so probably he was sick of things. Could also be that a regular old mod got it in their head to tag the tweet without any higher up intention.
In any case, Twitter’s pockets are deeper than Trump’s so that they at least can go toe to toe and then some in the legal battles sure to come after this. I wish, however, that the EO did not materialize.
You are calling conservatives hypocrites because of what you imagine the conservative reaction would have been to an executive order Barack Obama never issued?
Fair enough, if that’s your jam. I certainly can’t call foul on a scenario that only exists in your head. I’m sure that’s exactly how it’s going down. AR-15’s and all. You are, of course, free to place me at the National Mall in this fantasy of yours, but please don’t imagine me with an AR-15 in public. There’s no reason for me to advertise to the world I have a gun.
I’d have been on board with the same general idea had Obama proposed it, either in the term I voted for him or the term I did not. I might have protested it if GWB issued the order, but I was opposed to everything he did outside of a short 9/11 grace period. I was a strict leftist partisan at the time with no understanding of policy but strong anti-war feelings. Dubya could have signed an E.O. to support the Special Olympics and I probably would have opposed it because Dick Cheney surely had some ulterior motive.
Like I said, if this is the moment when the mask finally comes off and Trump convinces me all of the worst things everyone says about him are true, I’ll be right here with you. I realize there is an executive over-reach risk, but I’ll give it more than a few hours to see how it plays out. I’ll not pre-judge actions that haven’t been taken.
I never said you did. That’s what is called self-deprecating humor.