Let’s hope that with his next term and post-Presidency; Trump continues to be an advocate for free-speech; voter fraud (that I hope extends to voter suppression and district gerrymandering); immigration reform; tax reform and deficit reduction. Those are very good things that will benefit us all,
I am no mind reader. I should take things at face value when he does them, and realize that Trump always has, and always will, put the interest of the American people first and foremost.
I read a couple of very short sentences that basically amounted to “you’re wrong about that”. No explanation beyond that was given in what you linked.
Perhaps that’s “eviscerating” an argument on Twitter nowadays. I’ve never particularly liked the 140 character format. I’m not saying the guy is wrong or not a libertarian, just that what you linked is not a coherent argument. A half dozen sentences can’t really scratch the surface of the E.O., can it?
I could just as easily do things like link a Thomas Sowell video and expect people to both watch it and address the points he makes as well as seeking out his other material and both reading and understanding it, but I don’t.
That’s not how forums work and it would be quite dull if that’s what we did, wouldn’t you agree?
It’s up to you how to take them, just like it is everyone else.
Have you heard the story of Chicken Little?
For the last four years we’ve been being told that Trump is the worst possible person with the worst possible intentions. I’m simplifying and paraphrasing a litany of talking points over the years, but people like me have been wondering…
When are all of the bad things that Trump is surely causing going to happen? As best I can tell the world has kept turning while a sub-mediocre (at best) President occupies the White House. None of the predictions about Trumpian Fascism have come to pass, our rights remain as intact as they were in 2016 and the economy was doing quite well until a pandemic struck.
Forgive me if I’m not taking the doom-and-gloom predictions at face value. What have you guys been right about in the past, regarding such predictions? I’m not being facetious here. I’d be curious to know if you guys have any predictions or analysis regarding Trump that were spot-on in terms of predicting outcomes from his policies.
Tell me where he’s awful in that regard. What’s the worst outcome you can name?
I should take the things that Trump does at face value when he does them, and realize that Trump always has, and always will, put the interest of the American people first and foremost.
@loppar The Cato article presented a much clearer argument and I generally share their concerns.
Clearly, none of this is actually in Section 230. Far from expecting websites to “merely provide a platform,” (c)(2)(A) explicitly empowers them to remove anything they find “otherwise objectionable.” Our president seems to have decided that Section 230(c)(1) only “properly applies” to social media platforms that refrain from responding to his outlandish claims.
This is a question worth getting to the bottom of, in my opinion. Are a president’s brain-to-keyboard thoughts “objectionable”? I’m sure they are to many. I’d feel less strongly about this if our benevolent social media titans were also applying the same scrutiny and standards to CCP talking points that are being regurgitated, a wild-eyed Beto claim or even blue check marks that threaten children in MAGA hats with violence. The standards are wildly different for conservatives, and that is plain to see. Even then, I don’t like the idea of our de-facto public square becoming a de-facto ministry of truth, even if their efforts were in absolute good faith and applied as evenly as humanly possible.
@Aragorn Do you really think there is meaningful competition out there? The “T’s and C’s” argument basically amounts to you can say whatever you want, over there in that empty field where nobody can hear you. If you want to say something in the town square, where everyone can hear you, it must be approved speech.
This is what I’m getting at with a 1996 law governing a 2020 media landscape that would have been straight out of science fiction when the law was passed.
Maybe there are better, more libertarian-minded legislative approaches to sorting this out. There probably is, but a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.
Which standards? Trump wouldn’t have won without Twitter. He changed the entire paradigm in 2016 by focusing on direct communication with his base through a platform hitertho reserved for celebrity feuds. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, it’s simply a fact.
And Trump understand this centrality of Twitter to his brand and style - direct messaging to the base, railings against “MSM” and the wink wink nudge nudge retweets to signal his wishes/opinions that we cannot spell out directly.
It wasn’t a coincidence that he pushed hard for meetings both with Zuckerberg and Dorsey.
Now when Twitter adds their own content - not censorship BTW - to one of his videos, they overnight became evil Big Tech.
And it happened in large part not because of “bias against conservatives” but because of accusations against Joe Scarborough.
Sensing a PR disaster, Dorsey decided upon a tame and sensible approach - adding comments to Trump’s ramblings.
From my understanding from what an attorney wrote that I read, by choosing to allow certain speech but not others, Twitter for example, is now endorsing speech which opens them up to liability as they are now responsible for the speech they endorse. Much in the same way a newspaper is liable for any defamatory speech it chooses to publish. Editorializing speech they don’t agree with also transforms them from a platform to content producer and they now are liable for the content they produce. Seems straightforward to me.
You’re zeroing in on Trump and one platform, Twitter. Understandable, considering yesterday’s events, but this extends far beyond that and has for some time. YouTube, a company that went from code to a near monopoly under the current framework, made its billions and solidified its position by being a free and open platform with few restrictions that were easily understood and fairly clear-cut.
I loved that concept and I’ve had a youtube account for a long time, so I can speak to that more than I can about Twitter. A few years ago I noticed strange things beginning to happen in my feed. Conservative channels I subscribed to weren’t showing up in my feed… but the Young Turks were. That’s odd. De-monetization is another mechanism that’s seemingly weaponized against conservatives. Youtube was happy to let them say what they wanted to when independent content creation was their only real cash cow, but their position is now solidified into a near-monopoly. All of the giants have moved in and youtube seems to be deciding more and more content isn’t advertiser friendly, and is encouraging me to watch more Vox and NBC through their platform. Even my guy Skallagrim got de-monetized, and he’s just a dorky guy making videos about medieval weaponry. I don’t see any rhyme or reason beyond a broad pattern of conservative suppression along with anything that might be remotely offensive to modern liberal sensibilities.
If you care to sit through a long format discussion on this topic, the Joe Rogan podcast with Tim Pool and Jack Dorsey was illuminating. Plenty of people have done a lot more homework on this than I have.
The concerns extend far beyond Trump, which is why I’m wondering why liberals aren’t on board with the general idea at least. I get the reflexive opposition, but what about the policy itself? I’m generally libertarian-minded, but even I’m not in favor of private roadways.
We need a liberty-minded framework for the new landscape of social media. I want the socialists and communists to have the same opportunities to be heard as conservatives. I’m firmly of the opinion that the best way to stamp out a bad idea is to get it out in the open where people can see as much as possible, which means making different viewpoints easily accessible.
I don’t know exactly how to accomplish this, but I’m curious where the ball that started rolling yesterday ends up.
That attorney doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Twitter, like almost all social media platforms, has terms of service which users accept prior to using them. Also, I think we have all read or heard the whole, “the views expressed … do not represent…”
This is also not true.
See terms of service also, editorialize is a vague term.
When Trump was Tweeting about birther nonsense, did Obama ask for him to be censored or banned from Twitter? Your position that somehow liberals are being inconsistent because it’s Trump, doesn’t follow actual facts.
My position isn’t that liberals are being inconsistent (although that’s an easy case to make on MANY different issues), it is that social media corporations are.
If we look at what started this, Trump being the garbage person he has always been by calling a dead women not only a murder victim but guilty of infidelity, with zero evidence, maybe it’s a case of a company showing the compassion and morals that we should expect from a grown man, especially one who is president.
The idea that people will look past something as revolting as what Trump has been Tweeting to instead try and find some defense for his EO (which was a reaction to being called on his sick, childish, unmanly and cowardly behavior) is pitiful. And everyone defending the EO has fallen for his attempt to divert attention from those disgusting Tweets as well as his entire history of lying, harassing, spreading misinformation and demeaning people on Twitter. Twitter probably could have banned him and been well within their rights, so Trump got off easy but he did get scolded which he can’t take. The EO will go nowhere but Trump will have accomplished one thing: make himself out to be the victim to his base.
That’s what this is really about. It isn’t censorship but Trump being held to the same standards as other Twitter users. Twitter blocked his latest Tweet which contained the phrase: when the looting starts, the shooting starts. This is not only a grown man with grandchildren, but the president. He shouldn’t have to follow Twitter’s rules? The truth is, if he were not a garbage person, this would never have been an issue.
But people are free to believe this is about censorship and that Trump is fighting the good fight. It’s just funny that some of the people defending him have also stated that they don’t believe anything any politician says.
You’re free to zero in on Trump if that’s what you believe this is all about. Maybe it is, but forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. I read through the entire E.O. and it seems mostly sensible to me.
The only way it is not sensible is if the E.O. is, in fact, a nefarious Trumpian plot to undermine free speech. We won’t know until we have an outcome in-hand.
On second thought, scratch the “we”. I won’t know until I have an outcome in-hand. I don’t have the gift of Trump vision to know what he’s really up to. That’s what I depend on you guys for.
A. Who signed the EO? Trump.
B.What is it about the timing of the EO? Trump and how Twitter “censored” him.
So tell me again how this isn’t about Trump? Or am I supposed to believe it’s all a coincidence?
Again, Obama didn’t call on Twitter to be regulated because of Trump’s lies and insults. What changed? Could it be, the person who sits in the Oval Office?
The simple answer to why is this is about Trump is, because Trump is always about Trump. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.
It is about Trump, but not only about Trump, for reasons I’ve already covered. Is it possible for you to hold those two ideas in your head simultaneously, or do they conflict somehow?