President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know you are being tongue in cheek here, but come on, that is a genuine attempt at finding the good in Trump's administration by Frank!

I laughed.

[frank ryan]

I laughed.

He’s almost as funny as Ted!

[Jeff Lebowski]

He’s almost as funny as Ted!

Uncle Ted is a pretty funny dude.

[frank ryan]

Uncle Ted is a pretty funny dude.

But not nearly as hilarious as he thinks he is with his dumb memes. He's funny in like an nicer version of Alex Jones kind of way.

[Northwestcoug]

It took me a couple of years on this board to understand Ted. I was first dismayed at his jello-on-the-wall responses to every single solid argument thrown at him. But I now know his true purpose on this board: he is the entropy and chaos to our illusion of order on this board. Or maybe a trickster god, messing up sound arguments right before they reach consensus. Also, maybe yin to our yang. Or whatever metaphor you prefer.

The point is, even if he believes only half of the crazy shit he posts, his role here is very important to the CS ecology. He drives the action on at least a dozen threads daily. The Trump threads would have resolved themselves years ago without his posting!

[frank ryan]

Looks like Trump wants to start regulating speech online so that whiny and fragile conservative and altright personalities won't feel picked on when they get in trouble for violating platforms' TOS.


Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced as Dangerous, Unconstitutional Edict

Civil liberties groups are warning of a major threat to online freedoms and First Amendment rights if a leaked draft of a Trump administration edict—dubbed by critics as a "Censor the Internet" executive order that would give powerful federal agencies far-reaching powers to pick and choose which kind of Internet material is and is not acceptable—is allowed to go into effect.

According to CNN, which obtained a copy of the draft, the new rule "calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies."

While Politico was the first to report how the draft was being circulated by the White House, CNN notes that if put into effect, "the order would reflect a significant escalation by President Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an alleged but unproven systemic bias against conservatives by technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see fit."

Following reporting on the leaked draft, free speech and online advocacy groups raised alarm about the troubling and far-reaching implications of the Trump plan if it was put into effect by executive decree.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...nced-dangerous

[UVACoug]

Looks like Trump wants to start regulating speech online so that whiny and fragile conservative and altright personalities won't feel picked on when they get in trouble for violating platforms' TOS.


Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced as Dangerous, Unconstitutional Edict



https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...nced-dangerous

I really hate it when reporters right stories about "leaked" documents then fail to post the actual document. I clicked through several links that just went to other stories, but none of them actually published the draft order.

[BlueK]

Looks like Trump wants to start regulating speech online so that whiny and fragile conservative and altright personalities won't feel picked on when they get in trouble for violating platforms' TOS.


Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced as Dangerous, Unconstitutional Edict



https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...nced-dangerous

He has an an "article 2" that says he can do whatever he wants.

[Eddie]

Looks like Trump wants to start regulating speech online so that whiny and fragile conservative and altright personalities won't feel picked on when they get in trouble for violating platforms' TOS.

Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced as Dangerous, Unconstitutional Edict

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...nced-dangerous

I know where you're coming from on this, Frank. And I don't necessarily trust Trump or his folks to do it right.

But (there's always a but, right?)

I think this is an area where something might need to be done as far as social media censuring content on their platforms.

This quote in particular...

calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms.

...seems pretty relevant. I think we can agree that web platforms have the right and responsibility to provide some monitoring and censuring of their content. Where it becomes more of an issue is when there is disagreement as to what should be removed and what shouldn't - and if they are identified as a public space and free speech for all is guaranteed in that space - then under what circumstances are the social media sites protected by the law, and under what circumstances can they be sued?

I don't spend enough time on Twitter to know what or how much they censor folks and/or if the complaints from the conservatives - who say they've had stuff removed or been banned - are valid or not. Most of what I read I get places like CUF - where they've been posted. I actually don't have a twitter account. But I've seen enough questions - including requests from conservatives who have had opponents calling for someone to find them and silence them permanently - only to be told that twitter has determined that it does not qualify for removal - to have questions myself.

I think it's funny that this is being sold as a Trump trying to censor the internet, but as I actually read it - it sure looks like it revolves around NOT censoring the internet. Or at least allowing for equal free speech.

[Goatnapper'96]

I know where you're coming from on this, Frank. And I don't necessarily trust Trump or his folks to do it right.

But (there's always a but, right?)

I think this is an area where something might need to be done as far as social media censuring content on their platforms.

This quote in particular...


...seems pretty relevant. I think we can agree that web platforms have the right and responsibility to provide some monitoring and censuring of their content. Where it becomes more of an issue is when there is disagreement as to what should be removed and what shouldn't - and if they are identified as a public space and free speech for all is guaranteed in that space - then under what circumstances are the social media sites protected by the law, and under what circumstances can they be sued?

I don't spend enough time on Twitter to know what or how much they censor folks and/or if the complaints from the conservatives - who say they've had stuff removed or been banned - are valid or not. Most of what I read I get places like CUF - where they've been posted. I actually don't have a twitter account. But I've seen enough questions - including requests from conservatives who have had opponents calling for someone to find them and silence them permanently - only to be told that twitter has determined that it does not qualify for removal - to have questions myself.

I think it's funny that this is being sold as a Trump trying to censor the internet, but as I actually read it - it sure looks like it revolves around NOT censoring the internet. Or at least allowing for equal free speech.

I have read enough about Frank to know he is a stickler for equality whenever he believes it benefits his team!

[swampfrog]

I know where you're coming from on this, Frank. And I don't necessarily trust Trump or his folks to do it right.

But (there's always a but, right?)

I think this is an area where something might need to be done as far as social media censuring content on their platforms.

This quote in particular...


...seems pretty relevant. I think we can agree that web platforms have the right and responsibility to provide some monitoring and censuring of their content. Where it becomes more of an issue is when there is disagreement as to what should be removed and what shouldn't - and if they are identified as a public space and free speech for all is guaranteed in that space - then under what circumstances are the social media sites protected by the law, and under what circumstances can they be sued?

I don't spend enough time on Twitter to know what or how much they censor folks and/or if the complaints from the conservatives - who say they've had stuff removed or been banned - are valid or not. Most of what I read I get places like CUF - where they've been posted. I actually don't have a twitter account. But I've seen enough questions - including requests from conservatives who have had opponents calling for someone to find them and silence them permanently - only to be told that twitter has determined that it does not qualify for removal - to have questions myself.

I think it's funny that this is being sold as a Trump trying to censor the internet, but as I actually read it - it sure looks like it revolves around NOT censoring the internet. Or at least allowing for equal free speech.

What was posted is aprogressive site's "interpretation" of a CNN article. The CNN (who claims to have a copy of the proposal) article clearly states that the proposal would "...police alleged social media censorship". I'd like to see the proposal also, if it is simply stating that that it is in the public's interest that censorship in the social media space be transparent--I'm not sure that's a problem. If the government began dictating what is acceptable content, that would be highly problematic. Is this a step in that direction? It's being spun politically that way. It's really two different things, government determining the limits on censorship of content, or government determining the limits on content itself.

It's the same problem as with church finances or any other large organization--transparency. How does your typical citizen/member/employee determine if any large organization is applying the rules fairly, or if the rules are themselves unfair. Cherry picking anecdotal evidence can show any number of things. Only in the aggregate can actual bias be revealed.

This type of argument is leveled by many across multiple environments. If there are mechanisms by which systemic racism, or systemic sexism, etc. operate in the US, then the same oppressive mechanisms can be employed at the political level. The question is are they? And how would one show it?

Social media introduces a new problem for political discourse. While not monopolies, certain platforms (Google/Youtube, Twitter, Facebook) have enough reach that biased restrictions could significantly influence public discourse. For proponents of the free marketplace of ideas (of which I'm one) that represents a new challenge. Previous communication technologies currently face no similar limitation in the US (mail, voice, text, e-mail, etc.) there are no service providers with enough power to disrupt the exchange of ideas in those spaces. As a content host, the social media companies can leverage automated and manual processes to block content and entities. That at least enables biased censorship. Whether or not that is happening is an open question which needs to be explored. In the automated scenario, the law of unintended consequences is invoked. The algorithms can easily be unintentionally biased.

I don't trust Government to do it right, but what other options are there? It just may be that government versus big tech at least allows agents with similar power to contend with one another.

[Eddie]

What was posted is aprogressive site's "interpretation" of a CNN article. The CNN (who claims to have a copy of the proposal) article clearly states that the proposal would "...police alleged social media censorship". I'd like to see the proposal also, if it is simply stating that that it is in the public's interest that censorship in the social media space be transparent--I'm not sure that's a problem. If the government began dictating what is acceptable content, that would be highly problematic. Is this a step in that direction? It's being spun politically that way. It's really two different things, government determining the limits on censorship of content, or government determining the limits on content itself.

It's the same problem as with church finances or any other large organization--transparency. How does your typical citizen/member/employee determine if any large organization is applying the rules fairly, or if the rules are themselves unfair. Cherry picking anecdotal evidence can show any number of things. Only in the aggregate can actual bias be revealed.

This type of argument is leveled by many across multiple environments. If there are mechanisms by which systemic racism, or systemic sexism, etc. operate in the US, then the same oppressive mechanisms can be employed at the political level. The question is are they? And how would one show it?

Social media introduces a new problem for political discourse. While not monopolies, certain platforms (Google/Youtube, Twitter, Facebook) have enough reach that biased restrictions could significantly influence public discourse. For proponents of the free marketplace of ideas (of which I'm one) that represents a new challenge. Previous communication technologies currently face no similar limitation in the US (mail, voice, text, e-mail, etc.) there are no service providers with enough power to disrupt the exchange of ideas in those spaces. As a content host, the social media companies can leverage automated and manual processes to block content and entities. That at least enables biased censorship. Whether or not that is happening is an open question which needs to be explored. In the automated scenario, the law of unintended consequences is invoked. The algorithms can easily be unintentionally biased.

I don't trust Government to do it right, but what other options are there? It just may be that government versus big tech at least allows agents with similar power to contend with one another.

Let me just say that short of seeing the proposal - you're right. It could be OK, or it could be really bad.

I don't necessarily trust the government to best police what speech is OK and what speech isn't either, but I trust private enterprise even less.

You mention email, voice mail, texts, etc as arenas that the government has not stepped into. I'd say that this is very different - as social media is out in the public and seen by everyone. The others you mention are not, unless explicitly posted in public from their original format.

[swampfrog]

Let me just say that short of seeing the proposal - you're right. It could be OK, or it could be really bad.

I don't necessarily trust the government to best police what speech is OK and what speech isn't either, but I trust private enterprise even less.

I'm not sure which I trust less. When tyrannies take a hold of the reigns of speech control, they are very, very bad. I don't want policing of speech except in the immediate physical harm arena. I forget who said it recently, but the idea should be to design a system of speech control knowing that your enemy is going have control of it for the next 10 years.

You mention email, voice mail, texts, etc as arenas that the government has not stepped into. I'd say that this is very different - as social media is out in the public and seen by everyone. The others you mention are not, unless explicitly posted in public from their original format.

In other political systems, the government has taken control of the private conversations. I agree this is very different, this is new and we're still adjusting to the peer-to-peer public network communication mechanism, including how to manage and/or regulate it. It's likely the government will have to adopt some role. Some ideas have to be proposed to get that started. I would prefer a different administration be the one to initiate. Some have equated to this new communication platform to the Gutenberg revolution of the printing press. Culture changing. They may be right.

[Eddie]

This social media thing is hard to wrap my head around.

Other media sources have their obvious political leanings. And that's OK, I suppose, because people know what those leanings are.

Things like social media - built on the premise that EVERYONE has a voice and can be heard - but then having that censored based on political leanings - that starts to get scary.

I agree with the concept that any censorship (aside from the "don't yell fire in the theater" type stuff) begins to take us in a direction that will lead to less freedom and less information. And that is a bad thing.

[Pelado]

This social media thing is hard to wrap my head around.

Other media sources have their obvious political leanings. And that's OK, I suppose, because people know what those leanings are.

Things like social media - built on the premise that EVERYONE has a voice and can be heard - but then having that censored based on political leanings - that starts to get scary.

I agree with the concept that any censorship (aside from the "don't yell fire in the theater" type stuff) begins to take us in a direction that will lead to less freedom and less information. And that is a bad thing.

Were social media platforms really built on the premise of everyone having a voice and being heard? I doubt that was really an overarching goal of any of the founders of these platforms.