12 ms·
It was recently affirmed in court that the first amendment applies to the government, not corporations. See PragerU v Youtube. I'm curious what he thinks he's g
by ngngngng 6y ago
It was recently affirmed in court that the first amendment applies to the government, not corporations. See PragerU v Youtube. I'm curious what he thinks he's going to do though. Any guesses?
- aurelius12 6y agoHe's going to appeal to his base is what he's going to do, while repelling almost everyone else on earth. As usual.
- swasheck 6y agoIt’s what he does. Appeal to the base, defy common sense, and allow for the rabid frenzied masses respond as they will.
- swasheck 6y agoFeel free to respond and not just downvote.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago"appeal to his base" is the a reductive way to describe an enormous number of Americans. Overwhelming, even.
- adjkant 6y agoOverwhelming = under 25% of the US population that voted for him in 2016? Even among registered voters only it's still under 50% - how is that overwhelming?
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agomost people don't vote. but they still support Trump. They would support any republican candidate
- adjkant 6y agoBig citation needed on who of non-voters support Trump. Most opinion polls that include anyone (not just registered voters) still have Trump's approval at 40ish percent the past 4 years. If you say all polling is invalid/not representative, where are you getting your numbers from? And again, what makes this overwhelming?
- foogazi 6y ago> “most people” For “most” do you mean in terms of population count? For “people” do you mean registered voters ? Republicans would win every election if that was the case
- dragonwriter 6y ago> most people don't vote. but they still support Trump. It's like the IRL version of claiming support from lurkers. > They would support any republican candidate Republican Party identification is pretty constant at 25-30%, below both Democratic and Independent.
- Simulacra 6y agoAt least he's not Hillary...or Biden.
- dekhn 6y agohis base is tiny. he was only elected because he had a base, plus a lot of republicans held their noses and voted for him. His true base is getting smaller every day; I have a bunch of friends in the midwest and many of them have reported that even the folks they knew who were huge Trump supporters have decided he's crossed too many lines (specifically, disrespecting the military, the covid press briefings, attacking people unnecessarily, and not actually helping working people) and plan to simply not vote in the presidential election (rather than voting for biden). I was struck at how many of my friends reported this rapid shift over the past few months.
- TechBro8615 6y agoYour guess is as good as mine. Personally, I think the free speech issue is an albatross. What’s much more concerning to me is Twitter arbitrarily “fact checking” Trump’s tweets, but nobody else’s. More generally, the systemic bias tends to lean against conservative voices far more often than liberal voices. There are numerous examples of double standards in terms of who is banned or censored from platforms, or even who/what shows up in the search results. Search “Joe Biden creepy” on google, and then search the same thing on Bing. Why are the results so different? Try sending a private message on Facebook containing the string “joebiden.info.” Why won’t it send?
- rexer 6y agoGenuine question: what do you think of Twitter selectively applying their ToS to Trump?
- coder4life 6y agoAnyone else would have already been banned, so this is kid gloves
- lallysingh 6y agoWoah man, woah. That's crazy. And now They are wearing masks to force us all to get barcodes on our necks to prove we belong to the beast. The ads all really just say Obey.
- MisterBastahrd 6y agoGoogle invests more in making sure that it has quality search results, and the algorithms are just different. Not really that complicated. The NY Post is a low quality tabloid that is just a step above the Enquirer, for example.
- TechBro8615 6y agoI have a hard time believing that the results page for “Joe Biden creepy” is not at least semi-manually curated. For example, none of the “creepy” videos that show up are the most comprehensive versions of the clips someone would want to watch to inform themselves of what somebody is referring to when calling him creepy. It’s also not hard for me to believe Google would take such action, given the political makeup of their employees, and the fact that they have been recorded suggesting their commitment to making Trump a “blip” in history. It’s also worth noting that was only one example I cited. It doesn’t change the fact that Twitter has only ever “fact checked” Trump (by linking to CNN), and that Facebook prohibits you from sending links to JoeBiden.info in private messages. Are these not clear examples of bias? You can make the argument that these companies have the right to as much bias as they want on their own platforms. But you cannot in good faith make the argument that such bias does not exist, or that it’s some conspiracy theory to suggest that it does.
- jmeyer2k 6y agoJust a guess: He's going to enact an illegal order that will be overruled by a court immediately. He can't change the first amendment.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agoAt least it will bring up the larger discussion that the social media platforms are the de facto sources for news and information. Hopefully this will lead to a Senate evaluation of the roles that Twitter, Facebook, and Google play in dissimmination of information to Americans.
- Simulacra 6y agoAnd hopefully removing their immunity
- foogazi 6y agoRepublicans have had full control of the house, senate, supreme court & FCC a couple of times and no action has been taken on it
- downerending 6y agoTrue, but the situation has gotten notably worse recently. Even some of the left must be getting a bit nauseated by what's happening.
- paulgb 6y agoSection 230 is the most obvious target here.
- casefields 6y agoFrom a previous draft: "The Trump administration’s proposal seeks to significantly narrow the protections afforded to companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the current law, internet companies are not liable for most of the content that their users or other third parties post on their platforms. Tech platforms also qualify for broad legal immunity when they take down objectionable content, at least when they are acting “in good faith.” 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...
- alharith 6y agoI am not sure why it ever survived. Every other piece of that law was dismantled. At the very minimum, it needs to be reformed so that Big Tech that takes advantage of these protections lose them with evidence of clear abuse, bias, or lack of promoting/allowing opposing viewpoints.
- tptacek 6y agoDoes the CDA delegate regulatory authority over 230 to the executive branch? If so, what authority is that?
- anigbrowl 6y agoHe might try having the FCC enforce it; they recently got a quorum again.
- Simulacra 6y agoWhich should be eliminated.
- belltaco 6y agoAnother similar ruling just a few hours ago rejecting an appeal in a different case. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/499808-appeals-court-rejects-claim-facebook-twitter-suppress-conservative-views https://thehill.com/policy/technology/499808-appeals-court-r...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]