6 ms·

Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced

77 points by noja 7y ago

suff 7y ago
My first reaction is to ask who Common Dreams are, and where their funding comes from. Fair questions for a bold claim from an unknown company.
apo 7y ago
> 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. Why doesn't this article directly link to the allegedly leaked documents? The quoted paragraph (the article's first paragraph) contains a link to a Tweet which links to a blog post which links to a CNN article. AFAICT, none of them link to the actual documents. To future journalists: link to the documents in your article. Otherwise you run the risk of readers writing the whole thing off as a misinformation campaign. This possibility can't be ruled out at this point.
- McGlockenshire 7y ago
  > AFAICT, none of them link to the actual documents. Nobody involved has the actual documents. From the second paragraph of the CNN article: > The draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN,
- itg 7y ago
  If they link the document and people read it, then journalists wouldn't be able to spew their biased interpretation and readers would call them out.
  - Namrog84 7y ago
    Even here at hn. Look how many people never read the article and only the comments. I'd imagine the number of people to go down into a link from an article to be quite small unfortunately.
MrSlovenia 7y ago
A lot of outrage on reddit. But it seems that this is not a censorship law at all: instead it makes social media sites liable to be sued if they remove political content they don't agree it. So it's more a free speech law that avoids censorship. Copy paste from a reddit comment: Since no one apparently read the article or paid attention to the actually meaningful quote: The draft "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." In other words, this isn't about the federal government removing content. It is about the extent to which social media platforms are legally shielded from lawsuits when they choose to remove content. The "worst case scenario" of this leaked draft isn't the federal government picks and chooses what content is censored—it's that platforms might have to allow almost every kind of content or risk being sued. Which is the opposite of censorship. (Please note: I am not arguing in favor of this draft. Only pointing out what it is actually saying sans the rampant fear-mongering going on right now.)
- AdeptusAquinas 7y ago
  Seems like the worst case scenario would be that some sites would be able to remove or prevent everything the administration doesn't agree with, and yet not be targeted by your FCC, while other sites would have to accept every contradictory or unbalanced post countering their content or be sued.
  - MrSlovenia 7y ago
    In that case the people could just file a joint lawsuit because their (non-governement) views have been censored.
    - thebooktocome 7y ago
      When literally a quarter of federal judges have been appointed by this administration, do you seriously think that lawsuit is going to get a fair hearing?
      - 7y ago
ausjke 7y ago
Google and Facebook etc are acting like online government and run their censorship at will based on their own ideology, they need to be checked and held liable legally, the top management should go to jail for any wrongdoings. While we hate censorship from the government, the same should be applied to those de facto online big guns and those who actually are in control inside the companies.
master-litty 7y ago
This draft isn't available anywhere. This article cites a CNN article: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media-executive-order-fcc-ftc/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media... In that article, CNN reports on the draft order: >According to the summary seen by CNN CNN hasn't even seen the draft apparently. They've only seen a summary of it and they dare make all these extrapolations. This seems deceitful. I'm not impressed.
- wtf_is_up 7y ago
  commondreams.org is a propaganda outlet so it's not surprising.
  - mwfunk 7y ago
    What non-propaganda news sources do you trust and rely on for news?
    - nihilarian 7y ago
      My brain because all news is propaganda
      - mwfunk 7y ago
        Where does your brain get news from then? How does it get facts about what is happening in the world, that are more trustworthy than facts provided by any news organization? The facts must come from someplace prior to entering your brain, right?
    - espeed 7y ago
      Fox began its remake first.
chadmeister 7y ago
Please don't flag or remove this. This seems rather important and worthy of rational discourse on a site like this. P.S. If this Executive order comes to fruition I'm going to file a lawsuit if this post gets removed!
- burfog 7y ago
  No, the article completely distorts the truth. It makes the order sound as if Trump is implementing a censored internet in the style of China. A less-biased article would describe the order as an attempt to reduce the political favoritism being done by social media.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    Attempting to reduce political favoritism by social media is presumably the stated aim; however, I don't think it is clear that it is the actual aim. Assuming that any politician, and particularly Trump, is altruistic seems like a bad idea to me.
baby 7y ago
I clicked through several links and can't find that document.
ObscureMind 7y ago
* Democracy allows people to choose a government that represents them. * Elected officials are blessed by their votes and work in the benefit of the population. * It's impossible for a society to exist without a centralized, democratic government to rule it. * The state has to intervene and regulate the economy as the invisible hand of capitalism has monopolistic and anti-consumer tendencies. * Taxes are the price we we should willingly pay to live in society and fund activities that only a centralized state can offer, such as infra-structure and law enforcement. * The state needs to take money from the rich and give to the poor in order to fight inequality. * Having a single state managed currency is beneficial to the economy. * When the state prints money it helps the economy to grow and it makes people wealthier. * To create jobs and fuel the economy we need a bigger state. * Individuals are generally ignorant, therefore the state has to stop them from causing harm to themselves. * The state must have the responsibility of managing an army in order to defend its borders. * The state creates laws for the benefit of the population. * The state should regulate relationships between couples, and it should protect women and minorities.
- harimau777 7y ago
  None of these points seem relevant to what is being discussed.
HocusLocus 7y ago
Until there is a draft available, there's no story. If they claim a draft is available and it isn't, there IS a story, and it's that they are deceitful. IF CNN and Politico can both claim to have seen it yet neither sees fit to make full and original text available... while telling us there is serious evil afoot... ...then I just shrug it off with an eye-roll and conclude they are "The Enemy Of The People". And of course I'm using Trump's rhetoric just to annoy them and save a lot of breath trying to explain it further. Oh the time it saves!
tj-teej 7y ago
If the problem with Twitter/Facebook is that they have too much influence (a fair point IMO) and thus need regulation shouldn't we solve that monopoly problem rather than trying to remove the right of forums to choose what content they host?
harimau777 7y ago
It seems to me that platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have become the de-facto public square and therefore, freedom of speech needs to apply to them in order to have a real democracy. However, I think that a better way to approach this might be to declare the platforms to in some sense be public utilities.
- orpheline 7y ago
  I was just having a similar thought, alright the logistics of making that happen are helacious. Not least of which: how does one make a platform with global dominance into a national public utility? How does one split it or manage it when it had to comply with so many local laws?
- theshadowknows 7y ago
  It seems strange to me that something becoming popular is what means it suddenly should be regulated. Pens are very popular yet they are not regulated. And sure there are many to choose from but really Bic has a pretty extensive hold on the market. Should we regulate what people can and can not write with Bic pens? Twitter is Bic here. If Trump and his followers don’t like using Twitter then they are free to go use Mastodon.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    I don't think that pens and social media are comparable in this way. Pens are a tool for writing while social media is a platform for having your writing be heard. In addition, choice of pen has no effect on the ability to communicate your message while choice of social media does. Switching from Twitter to Mastodon isn't a solution because Twitter is the place where the public discussion is taking place. Finally, writing instruments such as pens are something that anyone can easily make on their own. On the other hand, due to the required technical expertise, infrastructure, and network effects it is difficult to enter the social media market.
    - theshadowknows 7y ago
      I’ll most certainly agree that Twitter has the market cornered. But if tomorrow Trump tweeted that he was switching to TrumpNet and would only be using it from then on, how many people would join. He could create the market if he wanted to.
Cyder 7y ago
We know AG Barr is against the 4th amendment. It's not hard to believe Trump would float an idea regulating the 1st amendment.

77 points by noja 7y ago

suff 7y ago

My first reaction is to ask who Common Dreams are, and where their funding comes from. Fair questions for a bold claim from an unknown company.

apo 7y ago

> 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. Why doesn't this article directly link to the allegedly leaked documents? The quoted paragraph (the article's first paragraph) contains a link to a Tweet which links to a blog post which links to a CNN article. AFAICT, none of them link to the actual documents. To future journalists: link to the documents in your article. Otherwise you run the risk of readers writing the whole thing off as a misinformation campaign. This possibility can't be ruled out at this point.

McGlockenshire 7y ago
> AFAICT, none of them link to the actual documents. Nobody involved has the actual documents. From the second paragraph of the CNN article: > The draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN,
itg 7y ago
If they link the document and people read it, then journalists wouldn't be able to spew their biased interpretation and readers would call them out.
- Namrog84 7y ago
  Even here at hn. Look how many people never read the article and only the comments. I'd imagine the number of people to go down into a link from an article to be quite small unfortunately.

MrSlovenia 7y ago

A lot of outrage on reddit. But it seems that this is not a censorship law at all: instead it makes social media sites liable to be sued if they remove political content they don't agree it. So it's more a free speech law that avoids censorship. Copy paste from a reddit comment: Since no one apparently read the article or paid attention to the actually meaningful quote: The draft "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." In other words, this isn't about the federal government removing content. It is about the extent to which social media platforms are legally shielded from lawsuits when they choose to remove content. The "worst case scenario" of this leaked draft isn't the federal government picks and chooses what content is censored—it's that platforms might have to allow almost every kind of content or risk being sued. Which is the opposite of censorship. (Please note: I am not arguing in favor of this draft. Only pointing out what it is actually saying sans the rampant fear-mongering going on right now.)

AdeptusAquinas 7y ago
Seems like the worst case scenario would be that some sites would be able to remove or prevent everything the administration doesn't agree with, and yet not be targeted by your FCC, while other sites would have to accept every contradictory or unbalanced post countering their content or be sued.
- MrSlovenia 7y ago
  In that case the people could just file a joint lawsuit because their (non-governement) views have been censored.
  - thebooktocome 7y ago
    When literally a quarter of federal judges have been appointed by this administration, do you seriously think that lawsuit is going to get a fair hearing?
    - 7y ago

ausjke 7y ago

Google and Facebook etc are acting like online government and run their censorship at will based on their own ideology, they need to be checked and held liable legally, the top management should go to jail for any wrongdoings. While we hate censorship from the government, the same should be applied to those de facto online big guns and those who actually are in control inside the companies.

master-litty 7y ago

This draft isn't available anywhere. This article cites a CNN article: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media-executive-order-fcc-ftc/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media... In that article, CNN reports on the draft order: >According to the summary seen by CNN CNN hasn't even seen the draft apparently. They've only seen a summary of it and they dare make all these extrapolations. This seems deceitful. I'm not impressed.

wtf_is_up 7y ago
commondreams.org is a propaganda outlet so it's not surprising.
- mwfunk 7y ago
  What non-propaganda news sources do you trust and rely on for news?
  - nihilarian 7y ago
    My brain because all news is propaganda
    - mwfunk 7y ago
      Where does your brain get news from then? How does it get facts about what is happening in the world, that are more trustworthy than facts provided by any news organization? The facts must come from someplace prior to entering your brain, right?
  - espeed 7y ago
    Fox began its remake first.

chadmeister 7y ago

Please don't flag or remove this. This seems rather important and worthy of rational discourse on a site like this. P.S. If this Executive order comes to fruition I'm going to file a lawsuit if this post gets removed!

burfog 7y ago
No, the article completely distorts the truth. It makes the order sound as if Trump is implementing a censored internet in the style of China. A less-biased article would describe the order as an attempt to reduce the political favoritism being done by social media.
- harimau777 7y ago
  Attempting to reduce political favoritism by social media is presumably the stated aim; however, I don't think it is clear that it is the actual aim. Assuming that any politician, and particularly Trump, is altruistic seems like a bad idea to me.

baby 7y ago

I clicked through several links and can't find that document.

ObscureMind 7y ago

* Democracy allows people to choose a government that represents them. * Elected officials are blessed by their votes and work in the benefit of the population. * It's impossible for a society to exist without a centralized, democratic government to rule it. * The state has to intervene and regulate the economy as the invisible hand of capitalism has monopolistic and anti-consumer tendencies. * Taxes are the price we we should willingly pay to live in society and fund activities that only a centralized state can offer, such as infra-structure and law enforcement. * The state needs to take money from the rich and give to the poor in order to fight inequality. * Having a single state managed currency is beneficial to the economy. * When the state prints money it helps the economy to grow and it makes people wealthier. * To create jobs and fuel the economy we need a bigger state. * Individuals are generally ignorant, therefore the state has to stop them from causing harm to themselves. * The state must have the responsibility of managing an army in order to defend its borders. * The state creates laws for the benefit of the population. * The state should regulate relationships between couples, and it should protect women and minorities.

harimau777 7y ago
None of these points seem relevant to what is being discussed.

HocusLocus 7y ago

Until there is a draft available, there's no story. If they claim a draft is available and it isn't, there IS a story, and it's that they are deceitful. IF CNN and Politico can both claim to have seen it yet neither sees fit to make full and original text available... while telling us there is serious evil afoot... ...then I just shrug it off with an eye-roll and conclude they are "The Enemy Of The People". And of course I'm using Trump's rhetoric just to annoy them and save a lot of breath trying to explain it further. Oh the time it saves!

tj-teej 7y ago

If the problem with Twitter/Facebook is that they have too much influence (a fair point IMO) and thus need regulation shouldn't we solve that monopoly problem rather than trying to remove the right of forums to choose what content they host?

harimau777 7y ago

It seems to me that platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have become the de-facto public square and therefore, freedom of speech needs to apply to them in order to have a real democracy. However, I think that a better way to approach this might be to declare the platforms to in some sense be public utilities.

orpheline 7y ago
I was just having a similar thought, alright the logistics of making that happen are helacious. Not least of which: how does one make a platform with global dominance into a national public utility? How does one split it or manage it when it had to comply with so many local laws?
theshadowknows 7y ago
It seems strange to me that something becoming popular is what means it suddenly should be regulated. Pens are very popular yet they are not regulated. And sure there are many to choose from but really Bic has a pretty extensive hold on the market. Should we regulate what people can and can not write with Bic pens? Twitter is Bic here. If Trump and his followers don’t like using Twitter then they are free to go use Mastodon.
- harimau777 7y ago
  I don't think that pens and social media are comparable in this way. Pens are a tool for writing while social media is a platform for having your writing be heard. In addition, choice of pen has no effect on the ability to communicate your message while choice of social media does. Switching from Twitter to Mastodon isn't a solution because Twitter is the place where the public discussion is taking place. Finally, writing instruments such as pens are something that anyone can easily make on their own. On the other hand, due to the required technical expertise, infrastructure, and network effects it is difficult to enter the social media market.
  - theshadowknows 7y ago
    I’ll most certainly agree that Twitter has the market cornered. But if tomorrow Trump tweeted that he was switching to TrumpNet and would only be using it from then on, how many people would join. He could create the market if he wanted to.

Cyder 7y ago

We know AG Barr is against the 4th amendment. It's not hard to believe Trump would float an idea regulating the 1st amendment.