10 ms·

Trump's executive order targets political bias at Twitter and Facebook: draft

80 points by tobltobs 6y ago

Causality1 6y ago
If Twitter just up and bans him I will laugh so hard I'm likely to stroke out.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  Hahaha political censorship is so funny hahaha
  - Causality1 6y ago
    Banning someone for violating the EULA is not political censorship.
  - La1n 6y ago
    It isn't but neither is politicians spreading lies and misinformation.
  - arrrg 6y ago
    Ordinary users would be banned for the stuff he said. No question about that. Twitter is already giving the president a lot of leeway in what he can say.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    Donald Trump is a user on the platform who agreed to the terms of service like everyone else. Private firms have the right to terminate the account of people who breach those terms, which he has done repeatedly, which is why he should have been banned a long time ago. If he wants special privileges and communicate as the president he can use the official communication channels. It seems to be increasingly lost on the US government (and people) that the presidency is an institution, not a person. If Donald Trump starts a barfight in a nightclub he can get arrested like everyone else.
Operyl 6y ago
All of this because they finally chose to draw a line in the sand. Wow.
T-A 6y ago
I guess somebody at the White House is reading HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23330463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23330463
- bcoates 6y ago
  I don't get it, is there a legal obligation for twitter to follow its own terms of service? This EO seems to be a nothingburger, the courts have already established that the text of 230 creates broad immunity, they aren't going to defer to the FCC about that. Has the FTC even established that platforms have obligations towards their non-customer users?
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    > I don't get it, is there a legal obligation for twitter to follow its own terms of service? The ToS will be written to allow discretion; that is why Trump hasn't been banned.
- loopz 6y ago
  The parties use Big Data-mining in elections. There's no reason to expect otherwise outside of elections.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  It's a nice concept but I'm not sure it would work I don't doubt the US government could do that to an extent, but how much legal precedent is there for doing it? I find it very hard to believe that Twitter (and arguably many other companies in the sector, and possibly other tech companies too) wouldn't immediately lawyer up and challenge any thing like that. Not least because Twitter could start playing dirty too i.e. lobbying etc. Government decisions get challenged from inside the government (or own administration as seen from the migrant ban) let alone externally by legal teams with practically unlimited budgets (remember that the church of Scientology successfully "beat" the IRS)
sneak 6y ago
Here comes the real deal government-on-server censorship, not the fake stuff that they’re complaining about. Censorship platforms, even the “good guys” who only censor occasionally or predictably or “according to law” (or whatever), are all vulnerable to this. The state can threaten them with guns and imprisonment, ultimately, and they have no immediate recourse. The content comes down. Maybe it gets restored later, after the election or war is over. Maybe it doesn’t. Either way, it comes down today. Neither Jack nor Sundar are going to jail to protect your hosting account showing videos of war crimes. This is an inherent danger in all censorship platforms. Whether you like Jack or not, trusting him not to censor arbitrarily (while Twitter always has the technical capability) is not a reasonable choice for the society-wide message bus. This failure mode is inherent in these censorship-possible systems, and it must be addressed if we are to maintain publishing that cannot be suppressed by the state during emergencies. https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/ https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/
- vkou 6y ago
  If the state is threatening the operators of a platform with guns, because the supreme leader does not like the things said about him on it, whether or not that platform of choice is censoring arbitrarily has long stopped being the most pressing problem for speech.
  - sneak 6y ago
    They never threaten with guns directly. It’s always “regulation”, which is code for “do what we tell you because if you don’t, then the men with guns will show up and shackle you”. The guns are implicit. The threat rarely needs to be so direct. Imagine what happens if Twitter continues to do the legal publishing things that Twitter does on twitter.com, and the state arbitrarily changes the liability protections of the CDA out from under them, and Twitter tells them to piss up a rope. Next, Twitter’s bank accounts will eventually get looted, and if they opt out of the traditional state-controlled no-burden-of-proof banking system[1] to continue operating and paying staff, you can bet your ass that their resulting shutdown will be at the point of a gun, because payments outside of that system are already illegal without a special license. That’s the only authority the state ultimately has: the claim to legitimately use violence to enforce the law: the law, as we are about to see, that can be changed arbitrarily by corrupt politician edict. (The last time I recall him doing so was by an EO that overturned decades-old published and written BATFE interpretations of existing federal law (and assurances related to same) regarding bump stocks. The lawsuit proceeds, but good luck to you while you rot in jail for years if you are in possession of a bump stock (which were legal for decades) in the interim.) [1]: https://sneak.berlin/20191119/your-money-isnt-yours/ https://sneak.berlin/20191119/your-money-isnt-yours/
seanwilson 6y ago
> The executive order would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to propose and clarify regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law largely exempting online platforms from legal liability for the material their users post. Such changes could expose tech companies to more lawsuits. > The order asks the FCC to examine whether actions related to the editing of content by social media companies should potentially lead to the platform forfeiting its protections under section 230. > It requires the agency to look at whether a social media platform uses deceptive policies to moderate content and if its policies are inconsistent with its terms of service. Is there any merit to this?
tasogare 6y ago
Very good. If the biais was in the other direction the leftists would by crying 24/7 about fascism and dictatorship. They are in power in the medias and corporations and they use that position to bully their political opponents, just like they did, more fiercely, in every country they got power (China, Vietnam, Korea, Russia, etc.) A least this time they don’t kill people directly.
- acallaghan 6y ago
  Except this "biais" as you call it is pointing out the facts? There are objective facts still in this world, it's right that they fact check any politician
- TooManyhooks 6y ago
  There are sites where the bias goes the other way. They just happen to be disused by most people because of that clear bias.
  - loopz 6y ago
    If there's true fact-checking, there should be no bias in involved. You don't get to pick and choose facts.
- netsharc 6y ago
  2020... "The sky is green" "Actually, the sky is blue" "That is political bullying! You're abusing your powers! This is oppression!" My god, how insane we've gotten. Obviously I think I have my head screwed on right and can see right from wrong, but this belief about the self is also shared by Trump and every lunatic on Twitter and outside of it. I guess civilization will die due to the effect noted by Dunning-Kruger.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> The order asks the FCC to examine whether actions related to the editing of content by social media companies should potentially lead to the platform forfeiting its protections under section 230. Honestly, that part seems very reasonable. If a platform curates or modifies content or promotes it beyond what some system thinks the specific user might like, then yes, the platform should be responsible for that content. The real question would be, should the platform become responsible for all ontent, or just the content it curates / modifies / promotes? My opinion is that this should work on a per-content basis, where the platform only becomes legally responsible for a unit of content once it associates itself with it by promoting, modifying, etc. this content. Whether it is realistic to enforce it this way is, of course, another question.
- zpeti 6y ago
  That's a really interesting suggestion I haven't seen before. It makes sense from a completely non legal perspective. If you're halfway between a platform and a publisher, as I believe all these platforms are, then a could compromise on how to solve this massive issue could be that modified, curated, fact checked content (by CNN not an independent fact checker) is what they are responsible for in terms of being a publisher.
  - dTal 6y ago
    With power comes responsibility. If you have the ability to censor/moderate/otherwise modify content, but choose not to do so, then you are tacitly responsible for that content. You can see the problem if Twitter allows politician A to accuse politician B of eating babies, but getting all high and mighty about politician B doing the same to A.
    - zpeti 6y ago
      That's not how the law works. If you don't touch it, even if you have the ability to do it, you remain a PLATFORM not a PUBLISHER. Any platform has the ability to modify anything on it. Does that make them tacitly responsible for all the content on it? No, that is just silly, and that's the way the law looks at it too.
zpeti 6y ago
I guess this was inevitable in the end, it must have come to this, but I just find what twitter did so silly. At least if they'd have used some sort of impartial looking fact checker, or an independent panel, or something, as facebook is doing, perhaps they would have prolonged this for longer. But calling CNN a fact checker on the president is so inherently stupid, it's asking for trouble. And of course CNN couldn't get their facts right either, so they are blatantly just representing the other side and not "facts". Twitter really could have done a better job here.
- dmarchand90 6y ago
  I love that they started to fact check the president, but the very stupid choice to use CNN basically means that shot themselves in the foot...
  - bzb3 6y ago
    It was a pure act of arrogance. They might have a plan, but they probably don't. A mistake like this will cost them.
  - Rapzid 6y ago
    Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet. Besides, all news outlets post a bunch of BS under the cover of "analysis", "opinion", and "op-ed" pieces. Those are all carefully crafted to engage a target audience. NYT does it. WAPO does it. CNN. They are all running outrage factories just producing slightly different flavors..
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      > Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet. That's the point, me thinks
- arrrg 6y ago
  In democratic societies media is the fact checker. That’s how it’s supposed to be. Linking to related media resources makes total sense.
pr_nik 6y ago
The gameplan might be to build a direct connection between the vast financial resources of the republican party and their ability to influence online audiences. This has already worked quite well with the Super PACs which amount to unlimited anonymous donations to parties or candidates. This was declared legal based on the 1st amendment in 2010. The same goal could be pursued here: cite 1st amendment and rule by decree that fact-checking violates 1st amendment principles, fight it out up to the supreme court (which is firmly in republican hands) and then write it into law for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, sue social media providers for ridiculous sums if they provide fact-checking prior to the election. Technically, you still have a democracy, albeit one that is no longer united in its perception of reality.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  The 1st amendment isn't the issue here. The issue is Facebook pretending to be a publisher when it is in fact much more like a newspaper editor. You don't get to run a private company with unparalleled influence over US politics and not play by the rules of other media companies.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Actually, the issue is that his primary campaign strategy consists of saying completely unsubstantiated bullshit, and that the introduction of any kind of fact checking would fly in it's face. What rules do newspaper editors have to play by, exactly? Most of the major outlets are 24/7 propaganda machines. Calling any particular politician out on lying is hardly controversial for them, depending on who the politician in question is.
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      I don't buy this. If Clinton had won, she would have went after Facebook with tough regulations over Russians using that platform to influence the election. Both parties see Twitter and Facebook as a problem because they change the power landscape. If you want to know what rules newspapers follow, ask a journalist about their laws and ethics rules and ask a lawyer about publisher rules. I can't give legal advice.
puranjay 6y ago
What's stopping another company - or Twitter itself - moving somewhere outside the US jurisdiction? I can't imagine it would be easy to regulate a service that isn't really location dependent.
- quantummkv 6y ago
  It would be very easy for the US in this case. Twitter's entire revenue stream is ad based. All the US has to do is to sanction any US company that is doing business with Twitter. Once the ad money dries up, Twitter would be as good as dead.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - puranjay 6y ago
    Has something like this ever happened in the past? Wouldn't a friendlier political regime just reverse the sanctions?
    - quantummkv 6y ago
      It might reverse the sanctions, but that would be too late for twitter.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  IT Companies have limited features to outside the EU countless times, search engines even locally censor search results here in some cases; I can imagine twitter might just do the same and offer a slightly different user experience inside the USA for legal reasons. --- EDIT: Of course they could also attempt to separate this fact-checking from their platform, for example by having another company build browser-extensions and endorse these extensions in some way. How far they could go with this is beyond my understanding of the legal system of the USA, but I imagine it should be doable to some extent.
  - 6y ago
ilaksh 6y ago
> The draft order also states that the White House Office of Digital Strategy will re-establish a tool to help citizens report cases of online censorship. > Called the White House Tech Bias Reporting Tool, it will collect complaints of online censorship and submit them to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). > It requires the FTC to then “consider taking action”, look into whether complaints violate the law, develop a report describing such complaints and make the report publicly available.
lazyjones 6y ago
IANAL, but this seems reasonable and similar to what e.g. Germany is already practising: if you assume responsibility of your users' content by verifying/correcting it, you are held liable. For example, portals that collect user reviews and check whether they are complete and correct: https://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=2820 https://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id... (German).
- grumple 6y ago
  It’s not reasonable in context, which is as a temper tantrum resulting from having a fact check posted alongside Trump’s blatant lies. The content wasn’t edited and taking responsibility for the speech of others is absurd.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>resulting from having a fact check posted Except for the Fact 1. It was on opinion not a statement of fact that needed fact checking 2. Twitter supports directly an opposing opinion 3. The "Fact Check" organizations linked are provably bias and are not fact check organizations 4. The links went to opposing opinion pieces not a statement of fact
    - grumple 6y ago
      Let's take a look at the tweets in question: > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way! This composed two tweets. It's from an authority figure (granted, one known to be extremely untrustworthy). There are many statements of "fact", or what any reasonable reader would take as assertions of fact. Sentence one: > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. This is clearly a statement of fact. It's asserting (and context is important here, because Trump has repeatedly said mail in voting is rife with fraud) that mail-in voting is rife with fraud. Even a charitable interpretation would have to see this as intended to degrade trust in our voting system (to what end?) and discourage voting. If I say "The sun will rise tomorrow", it's a statement of fact, even though it's about the future. > Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. Again, this is a statement of fact. There is no qualifying clause to make this opinion, such as "I believe", or "I think". > The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. Another statement of fact, this one clearly about the present. > That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. Statement of fact. > This will be a Rigged Election. Again, a statement of fact. That's five lies in 6 sentences. Now let's look at the Fact Check link - it goes here: https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384 https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384 This is a feed leading to many articles from many sources about the matter in question.
jonnypotty 6y ago
Fight America, please.
nojito 6y ago
Very clever. This has nothing to do with the twitter tagging of his tweet that everyone is talking about. The tagging incident just accelerated the idea that social media shouldn’t enjoy the cost benefits from being classified as a publisher or a platform depending on how much it costs to answer a legal question poised to them. This has nothing to do with free speech, so I completely expect the conversation to go completely off the rails.
cft 6y ago
Section 230 should stay but the definition of re-publisher vs publisher should be narrowed down. The law should be written such that if you go beyond removing spam and illegal content, and especially if you are editorializing user-submitted content, you are are a publisher, rather than a re-publisher. This will put large platforms in a situation where they will have to chose whether they maintain neutrality. Each platform can then pick whether to be a publisher or a re-publisher.
originalvichy 6y ago
Imagine being a part of a party that has been pushing for the destruction of net neutrality, and complain that specific services on the internet are censoring the internet. Deciding what traffic to allow on the networks is OK but services shouldn’t be allowed to police things on their own platform.
GnarlyWhale 6y ago
This period of Trump benefiting off unfettered, direct access to the public, and Twitter benefiting off of greater clout through hosting the president is most definitely coming to a conclusion.
sudhirj 6y ago
In scenario 1, this is a Sabre rattling move, where Trump is hoping that the social media companies will allow his nonsense against the threat of more legal headaches from section 230 complaints and violations. This might happen. In scenario 2, this backfires phenomenally against the very bullshit that Trump is trying to protect - the goal of section 230 seems to be enforcement of terms of service, and the first action of companies trying to enforce their terms against hate speech and lies will be to block Trump and his entire cohort. Seems like a risky play, threatening someone with legal action if they don’t destroy you hoping that the threat will get them to stop destroying you. This might also just the universe conspiring against Trump - he’s plugging OAN and Fox is slowly inching away from him, choosing to break on mask wearing. His Twitter soapbox now carries a bullshit warning on the stuff he says, his other platforms will follow, now that precedent has been set. The Democrats have chosen a nominee white enough to appeal to Trump supporters but black enough to have Obama in his corner. A black man was murdered by a MAGA cop, causing riots and police overreaction. There might not be an avalanche yet, but this is the scene where there’s a slight rumbling sound and everybody looks up at the mountain.
- syshum 6y ago
  Personally I hope twitter does ban Trump, but not for the same reasons I suspect you do. Not because I believe he has violated a nebulous and subjective "hate speech" policy, not be cause I believe "Trump lies" and all Democrats are pure virtue and sunshine (which is largely the opinion of the twitterverse) No I hope they do, because Trump will select another platform, and that Platform will see a HUGE boost and hopefully start to crack the foundation of the Silicon Valley social media oligopoly I want to see a return to Open Protocols, and Federated Communications, not 4 or 5 companies controlling most human communications
w_t_payne 6y ago
On the face of it this seems to be a dangerous step towards the industry being coopted by the lunatic conspiratorial fringes and forced to spread their dangerous nonsense against our will. Not a game I'd be happy to play.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
apatters 6y ago
Why does the federal government miss the ball Every. Single. Time? Twitter censoring conservatives wouldn't be a big deal if Twitter had more competitors. America keeps on saying it's committed to free and open markets. Why doesn't it make one here? Break up Twitter. Or make them open up their protocols. Or whatever. I don't care. Just promote competition. Enough of these quasi-fascist state regulated oligopolies run and reaped by 1-3 companies while the rest of us stand in the bread lines. It's not the American way, not the democratic way, not the capitalist way, and I'm sick of it.
- loopz 6y ago
  Isn't this what the free market is supposed to deliver? Now you want a marginalized gov under fire to save you?
  - apatters 6y ago
    There's nothing marginalized about the American government, it's the biggest and most powerful government in the world and it has an unfathomably huge budget. I haven't seen a free market in America in decades. Free markets can be destroyed by governments or by megacorps, but most often they're destroyed by a collaboration between the two. Put two and two together and resist.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > Twitter censoring conservatives wouldn't be a big deal if Twitter had more competitors How much evidence of this in practice is there (I mean evidence of systemic bias throughout the site beyond what could reasonably be expected with millions and millions of tweets etc.)? The fact the Donald Trump himself tweeted this [1] recently and it's still up, suggests they aren't exactly thorough. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-retweets-video-saying-only-good-democrat-is-dead-democrat/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-ret...
tinus_hn 6y ago
Do people really not see through this transparent attempt at distraction?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cletus 6y ago
So I would guess that Twitter is internally torn apart on this. I imagine the rank-and-file for the most part despise Trump but as a business Twitter (and its shareholders) are more than happy to be the Propaganda Wing of the Republican Party. So I imagine an effort to distance themselves from the outright lies of the commander-in-chief was token resistance to this role, probably aimed at mollifying the collective consciences of the employees. But it's doomed and they've fallen into a trap. Here's how this is going to go: There is simply no line in the sand you can draw between objective truth and objective lies. What's more, even if you can, propagated lies exist because people want to believe them and they see any effort to disabuse them of their provably false views (eg vaccines cause autism) as biased actors trying to hide the "truth". Human nature can be ugly at times. The take on Section 230 is actually an interesting one and I imagine that's going all the way to the Supreme Court if the administration pushes on this. Like you can remove objectionable or illegal content from your platform (in fact you're required to by law) and still maintain safe harbor but where does that end? If you're Google you don't want Youtube filled up with a bunch of racist crap. It's bad for your brand. That content may fall under free speech (from a S230 perspective) and if you decide to remove it for the health of the platform and/or the value of your brand, does safe harbor still apply? Whatever the case, this administration needs to lose in the next election. Badly. The attack on societal norms and institutitotions is unprecedented and reprehensible and I so would like Trump, McConnell, Ivanka, Jared, Pompeo, Barr and a whole bunch of others to end up in prison after all this is over. This is what scares me the most: in the Watergate era even Republicans found Nixon's behaviour beyond the pale. I am utterly convinced that if that happened today there'd be a strict party-line vote as the President's party would happily look the other way. Look no further than the administration's so far successful efforts to block Congressional oversight. At no time in history did any administration think it was totally above the law. Make no mistake: that's what they're doing. Worse, no administration so blatantly engaging in obstruction would've continued to have ~40% of the population support it no matter what. Thanks to decades of gerrymandering in state Houses and voter suppression that 40% almost controls the election by itself as higher-population states are essentially disenfranchises in the modern electoral system. For the record, I'm against the popular vote deciding the presidential election but that's a whole other topic. How anyone who can call themselves "Christian" and support this president and his policies is utterly beyond me.
psych-W 6y ago
Seems like we're relying now upon the same "bureaucracy" that was detested when someone got what he wanted. Now someone very delusional is butthurt. Good thing twitter can basically do whatever they want - it's a private company, first amendment rights are not in question here. If crazies want to eat their fish tank cleaner, but twitter wouldn't let them post selfies promoting this stupidity, then stupid people need to learn how to create their own company and isolate from reality a little longer like maybe a few more generations. I bet that'll work well...
alpacaillama 6y ago
I hope they look into whether social media platforms can use safe harbour (Section 230) stuff or not. Personally I don’t think so. Since they do act as publishers. I know HN will focus on the Trump part but I am more interested in hearing about what you think of section 230, safe harbour, social media as publishers.
- loopz 6y ago
  I've not much love for administrators' love for banning posts and users for unquantifiable reasons. This from 30 years of experience on the matter. One gets to see all kinds of variations, and there's absolutely nothing new here in core powergames and surrounding mechanics. However, such social media platforms can either exist in any form protected by freedom of speech, or they cannot exist at all. This as no moderation is illegal and frowned upon, purported to sway public opinion with false data. The thing is, the power games are inseparable from the mechanics, no matter how well-intentioned on either "side". The inevitable outcome is separation of users, which happens again, and again. What we will see coming is the Great Divide, caused by social media technologies, powered by tribal human nature and selfishness.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>The working group will also monitor or create watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or other users What the hell does this mean? As it sounds like they're arbitrarily creating a list of people they'll actively target for enforcement of state laws.
archagon 6y ago
If we accept corporations as people, I wish some of the ones with actual power had the backbone and gall to do a bit of civil disobedience, instead of rolling over at the first sign of trouble. Twitter should double down and add a fact-check sticker to every single Trump lie, past and current — to hell with lawsuits and the FCC. Otherwise, we'll "maybe parts of this sound reasonable" our way straight into an authoritarian, thought-shaping, Republican-ruled dictatorship. Surely, even the people who scoffed at this idea a few years ago can see this future taking shape. I am aghast that there's any support of this in the once-countercultural Silicon Valley. It's abhorrent and shameful, and it makes me fear that maybe the gravity well is already too large to escape.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
netcan 6y ago
It's so depressing how low the bar is, for regulatory frameworks. Maybe it's totally co-opted by industry incumbents, and serves as a moat against competition. Maybe it's about electoral politics. IE, the problem is stifling of specific voices supportive of Trump... or the opposite. We can't even hope that it will be designed logically to serve a principle or goal. I'm not saying regulation (or better legislation) isn't necessary. Twitter set out to be the "public square" and succeeded. It's a privately controlled public square. This is a problem for democracy. It's no joke either. Twitter & Facebook can and have been the launch point for elections, revolutions, coups and such. "It's their site, they can do what they want" is not, IMO, reasonable. On a related point "platform monopolies," are a well established problem, and we've even had some court ruling to that effect. Courts are narrow though. Legislation is the only way to establish principles. This should be a "step back and think big picture" situation. Establish principles that guarantee freedoms, media diversity or whatever the goals are. Instead, the debate will be dictated by electoral considerations... on both the pro and con side. I doubt they're even thinking past the immediate election.
ENOTTY 6y ago
Here is a link to a purported draft of the EO: https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-...
- loopz 6y ago
  Rich coming from leadership that is implementing new tricks of deception and manipulation on an ongoing basis.

80 points by tobltobs 6y ago

Causality1 6y ago

If Twitter just up and bans him I will laugh so hard I'm likely to stroke out.

deathgrips 6y ago
Hahaha political censorship is so funny hahaha
- Causality1 6y ago
  Banning someone for violating the EULA is not political censorship.
- La1n 6y ago
  It isn't but neither is politicians spreading lies and misinformation.
- arrrg 6y ago
  Ordinary users would be banned for the stuff he said. No question about that. Twitter is already giving the president a lot of leeway in what he can say.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Donald Trump is a user on the platform who agreed to the terms of service like everyone else. Private firms have the right to terminate the account of people who breach those terms, which he has done repeatedly, which is why he should have been banned a long time ago. If he wants special privileges and communicate as the president he can use the official communication channels. It seems to be increasingly lost on the US government (and people) that the presidency is an institution, not a person. If Donald Trump starts a barfight in a nightclub he can get arrested like everyone else.

Operyl 6y ago

All of this because they finally chose to draw a line in the sand. Wow.

T-A 6y ago

I guess somebody at the White House is reading HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23330463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23330463

bcoates 6y ago
I don't get it, is there a legal obligation for twitter to follow its own terms of service? This EO seems to be a nothingburger, the courts have already established that the text of 230 creates broad immunity, they aren't going to defer to the FCC about that. Has the FTC even established that platforms have obligations towards their non-customer users?
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > I don't get it, is there a legal obligation for twitter to follow its own terms of service? The ToS will be written to allow discretion; that is why Trump hasn't been banned.
loopz 6y ago
The parties use Big Data-mining in elections. There's no reason to expect otherwise outside of elections.
mhh__ 6y ago
It's a nice concept but I'm not sure it would work I don't doubt the US government could do that to an extent, but how much legal precedent is there for doing it? I find it very hard to believe that Twitter (and arguably many other companies in the sector, and possibly other tech companies too) wouldn't immediately lawyer up and challenge any thing like that. Not least because Twitter could start playing dirty too i.e. lobbying etc. Government decisions get challenged from inside the government (or own administration as seen from the migrant ban) let alone externally by legal teams with practically unlimited budgets (remember that the church of Scientology successfully "beat" the IRS)

sneak 6y ago

Here comes the real deal government-on-server censorship, not the fake stuff that they’re complaining about. Censorship platforms, even the “good guys” who only censor occasionally or predictably or “according to law” (or whatever), are all vulnerable to this. The state can threaten them with guns and imprisonment, ultimately, and they have no immediate recourse. The content comes down. Maybe it gets restored later, after the election or war is over. Maybe it doesn’t. Either way, it comes down today. Neither Jack nor Sundar are going to jail to protect your hosting account showing videos of war crimes. This is an inherent danger in all censorship platforms. Whether you like Jack or not, trusting him not to censor arbitrarily (while Twitter always has the technical capability) is not a reasonable choice for the society-wide message bus. This failure mode is inherent in these censorship-possible systems, and it must be addressed if we are to maintain publishing that cannot be suppressed by the state during emergencies. https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/ https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/

vkou 6y ago
If the state is threatening the operators of a platform with guns, because the supreme leader does not like the things said about him on it, whether or not that platform of choice is censoring arbitrarily has long stopped being the most pressing problem for speech.
- sneak 6y ago
  They never threaten with guns directly. It’s always “regulation”, which is code for “do what we tell you because if you don’t, then the men with guns will show up and shackle you”. The guns are implicit. The threat rarely needs to be so direct. Imagine what happens if Twitter continues to do the legal publishing things that Twitter does on twitter.com, and the state arbitrarily changes the liability protections of the CDA out from under them, and Twitter tells them to piss up a rope. Next, Twitter’s bank accounts will eventually get looted, and if they opt out of the traditional state-controlled no-burden-of-proof banking system[1] to continue operating and paying staff, you can bet your ass that their resulting shutdown will be at the point of a gun, because payments outside of that system are already illegal without a special license. That’s the only authority the state ultimately has: the claim to legitimately use violence to enforce the law: the law, as we are about to see, that can be changed arbitrarily by corrupt politician edict. (The last time I recall him doing so was by an EO that overturned decades-old published and written BATFE interpretations of existing federal law (and assurances related to same) regarding bump stocks. The lawsuit proceeds, but good luck to you while you rot in jail for years if you are in possession of a bump stock (which were legal for decades) in the interim.) [1]: https://sneak.berlin/20191119/your-money-isnt-yours/ https://sneak.berlin/20191119/your-money-isnt-yours/

seanwilson 6y ago

> The executive order would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to propose and clarify regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law largely exempting online platforms from legal liability for the material their users post. Such changes could expose tech companies to more lawsuits. > The order asks the FCC to examine whether actions related to the editing of content by social media companies should potentially lead to the platform forfeiting its protections under section 230. > It requires the agency to look at whether a social media platform uses deceptive policies to moderate content and if its policies are inconsistent with its terms of service. Is there any merit to this?

tasogare 6y ago

Very good. If the biais was in the other direction the leftists would by crying 24/7 about fascism and dictatorship. They are in power in the medias and corporations and they use that position to bully their political opponents, just like they did, more fiercely, in every country they got power (China, Vietnam, Korea, Russia, etc.) A least this time they don’t kill people directly.

acallaghan 6y ago
Except this "biais" as you call it is pointing out the facts? There are objective facts still in this world, it's right that they fact check any politician
TooManyhooks 6y ago
There are sites where the bias goes the other way. They just happen to be disused by most people because of that clear bias.
- loopz 6y ago
  If there's true fact-checking, there should be no bias in involved. You don't get to pick and choose facts.
netsharc 6y ago
2020... "The sky is green" "Actually, the sky is blue" "That is political bullying! You're abusing your powers! This is oppression!" My god, how insane we've gotten. Obviously I think I have my head screwed on right and can see right from wrong, but this belief about the self is also shared by Trump and every lunatic on Twitter and outside of it. I guess civilization will die due to the effect noted by Dunning-Kruger.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

> The order asks the FCC to examine whether actions related to the editing of content by social media companies should potentially lead to the platform forfeiting its protections under section 230. Honestly, that part seems very reasonable. If a platform curates or modifies content or promotes it beyond what some system thinks the specific user might like, then yes, the platform should be responsible for that content. The real question would be, should the platform become responsible for all ontent, or just the content it curates / modifies / promotes? My opinion is that this should work on a per-content basis, where the platform only becomes legally responsible for a unit of content once it associates itself with it by promoting, modifying, etc. this content. Whether it is realistic to enforce it this way is, of course, another question.

zpeti 6y ago
That's a really interesting suggestion I haven't seen before. It makes sense from a completely non legal perspective. If you're halfway between a platform and a publisher, as I believe all these platforms are, then a could compromise on how to solve this massive issue could be that modified, curated, fact checked content (by CNN not an independent fact checker) is what they are responsible for in terms of being a publisher.
- dTal 6y ago
  With power comes responsibility. If you have the ability to censor/moderate/otherwise modify content, but choose not to do so, then you are tacitly responsible for that content. You can see the problem if Twitter allows politician A to accuse politician B of eating babies, but getting all high and mighty about politician B doing the same to A.
  - zpeti 6y ago
    That's not how the law works. If you don't touch it, even if you have the ability to do it, you remain a PLATFORM not a PUBLISHER. Any platform has the ability to modify anything on it. Does that make them tacitly responsible for all the content on it? No, that is just silly, and that's the way the law looks at it too.

zpeti 6y ago

I guess this was inevitable in the end, it must have come to this, but I just find what twitter did so silly. At least if they'd have used some sort of impartial looking fact checker, or an independent panel, or something, as facebook is doing, perhaps they would have prolonged this for longer. But calling CNN a fact checker on the president is so inherently stupid, it's asking for trouble. And of course CNN couldn't get their facts right either, so they are blatantly just representing the other side and not "facts". Twitter really could have done a better job here.

dmarchand90 6y ago
I love that they started to fact check the president, but the very stupid choice to use CNN basically means that shot themselves in the foot...
- bzb3 6y ago
  It was a pure act of arrogance. They might have a plan, but they probably don't. A mistake like this will cost them.
- Rapzid 6y ago
  Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet. Besides, all news outlets post a bunch of BS under the cover of "analysis", "opinion", and "op-ed" pieces. Those are all carefully crafted to engage a target audience. NYT does it. WAPO does it. CNN. They are all running outrage factories just producing slightly different flavors..
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    > Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet. That's the point, me thinks
arrrg 6y ago
In democratic societies media is the fact checker. That’s how it’s supposed to be. Linking to related media resources makes total sense.

pr_nik 6y ago

The gameplan might be to build a direct connection between the vast financial resources of the republican party and their ability to influence online audiences. This has already worked quite well with the Super PACs which amount to unlimited anonymous donations to parties or candidates. This was declared legal based on the 1st amendment in 2010. The same goal could be pursued here: cite 1st amendment and rule by decree that fact-checking violates 1st amendment principles, fight it out up to the supreme court (which is firmly in republican hands) and then write it into law for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, sue social media providers for ridiculous sums if they provide fact-checking prior to the election. Technically, you still have a democracy, albeit one that is no longer united in its perception of reality.

deathgrips 6y ago
The 1st amendment isn't the issue here. The issue is Facebook pretending to be a publisher when it is in fact much more like a newspaper editor. You don't get to run a private company with unparalleled influence over US politics and not play by the rules of other media companies.
- vkou 6y ago
  Actually, the issue is that his primary campaign strategy consists of saying completely unsubstantiated bullshit, and that the introduction of any kind of fact checking would fly in it's face. What rules do newspaper editors have to play by, exactly? Most of the major outlets are 24/7 propaganda machines. Calling any particular politician out on lying is hardly controversial for them, depending on who the politician in question is.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    I don't buy this. If Clinton had won, she would have went after Facebook with tough regulations over Russians using that platform to influence the election. Both parties see Twitter and Facebook as a problem because they change the power landscape. If you want to know what rules newspapers follow, ask a journalist about their laws and ethics rules and ask a lawyer about publisher rules. I can't give legal advice.

puranjay 6y ago

What's stopping another company - or Twitter itself - moving somewhere outside the US jurisdiction? I can't imagine it would be easy to regulate a service that isn't really location dependent.

quantummkv 6y ago
It would be very easy for the US in this case. Twitter's entire revenue stream is ad based. All the US has to do is to sanction any US company that is doing business with Twitter. Once the ad money dries up, Twitter would be as good as dead.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- puranjay 6y ago
  Has something like this ever happened in the past? Wouldn't a friendlier political regime just reverse the sanctions?
  - quantummkv 6y ago
    It might reverse the sanctions, but that would be too late for twitter.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
IT Companies have limited features to outside the EU countless times, search engines even locally censor search results here in some cases; I can imagine twitter might just do the same and offer a slightly different user experience inside the USA for legal reasons. --- EDIT: Of course they could also attempt to separate this fact-checking from their platform, for example by having another company build browser-extensions and endorse these extensions in some way. How far they could go with this is beyond my understanding of the legal system of the USA, but I imagine it should be doable to some extent.
- 6y ago

ilaksh 6y ago

> The draft order also states that the White House Office of Digital Strategy will re-establish a tool to help citizens report cases of online censorship. > Called the White House Tech Bias Reporting Tool, it will collect complaints of online censorship and submit them to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). > It requires the FTC to then “consider taking action”, look into whether complaints violate the law, develop a report describing such complaints and make the report publicly available.

lazyjones 6y ago

IANAL, but this seems reasonable and similar to what e.g. Germany is already practising: if you assume responsibility of your users' content by verifying/correcting it, you are held liable. For example, portals that collect user reviews and check whether they are complete and correct: https://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=2820 https://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id... (German).

grumple 6y ago
It’s not reasonable in context, which is as a temper tantrum resulting from having a fact check posted alongside Trump’s blatant lies. The content wasn’t edited and taking responsibility for the speech of others is absurd.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>resulting from having a fact check posted Except for the Fact 1. It was on opinion not a statement of fact that needed fact checking 2. Twitter supports directly an opposing opinion 3. The "Fact Check" organizations linked are provably bias and are not fact check organizations 4. The links went to opposing opinion pieces not a statement of fact
  - grumple 6y ago
    Let's take a look at the tweets in question: > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way! This composed two tweets. It's from an authority figure (granted, one known to be extremely untrustworthy). There are many statements of "fact", or what any reasonable reader would take as assertions of fact. Sentence one: > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. This is clearly a statement of fact. It's asserting (and context is important here, because Trump has repeatedly said mail in voting is rife with fraud) that mail-in voting is rife with fraud. Even a charitable interpretation would have to see this as intended to degrade trust in our voting system (to what end?) and discourage voting. If I say "The sun will rise tomorrow", it's a statement of fact, even though it's about the future. > Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. Again, this is a statement of fact. There is no qualifying clause to make this opinion, such as "I believe", or "I think". > The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. Another statement of fact, this one clearly about the present. > That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. Statement of fact. > This will be a Rigged Election. Again, a statement of fact. That's five lies in 6 sentences. Now let's look at the Fact Check link - it goes here: https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384 https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384 This is a feed leading to many articles from many sources about the matter in question.

jonnypotty 6y ago

Fight America, please.

nojito 6y ago

Very clever. This has nothing to do with the twitter tagging of his tweet that everyone is talking about. The tagging incident just accelerated the idea that social media shouldn’t enjoy the cost benefits from being classified as a publisher or a platform depending on how much it costs to answer a legal question poised to them. This has nothing to do with free speech, so I completely expect the conversation to go completely off the rails.

cft 6y ago

Section 230 should stay but the definition of re-publisher vs publisher should be narrowed down. The law should be written such that if you go beyond removing spam and illegal content, and especially if you are editorializing user-submitted content, you are are a publisher, rather than a re-publisher. This will put large platforms in a situation where they will have to chose whether they maintain neutrality. Each platform can then pick whether to be a publisher or a re-publisher.

originalvichy 6y ago

Imagine being a part of a party that has been pushing for the destruction of net neutrality, and complain that specific services on the internet are censoring the internet. Deciding what traffic to allow on the networks is OK but services shouldn’t be allowed to police things on their own platform.

GnarlyWhale 6y ago

This period of Trump benefiting off unfettered, direct access to the public, and Twitter benefiting off of greater clout through hosting the president is most definitely coming to a conclusion.

sudhirj 6y ago

In scenario 1, this is a Sabre rattling move, where Trump is hoping that the social media companies will allow his nonsense against the threat of more legal headaches from section 230 complaints and violations. This might happen. In scenario 2, this backfires phenomenally against the very bullshit that Trump is trying to protect - the goal of section 230 seems to be enforcement of terms of service, and the first action of companies trying to enforce their terms against hate speech and lies will be to block Trump and his entire cohort. Seems like a risky play, threatening someone with legal action if they don’t destroy you hoping that the threat will get them to stop destroying you. This might also just the universe conspiring against Trump - he’s plugging OAN and Fox is slowly inching away from him, choosing to break on mask wearing. His Twitter soapbox now carries a bullshit warning on the stuff he says, his other platforms will follow, now that precedent has been set. The Democrats have chosen a nominee white enough to appeal to Trump supporters but black enough to have Obama in his corner. A black man was murdered by a MAGA cop, causing riots and police overreaction. There might not be an avalanche yet, but this is the scene where there’s a slight rumbling sound and everybody looks up at the mountain.

syshum 6y ago
Personally I hope twitter does ban Trump, but not for the same reasons I suspect you do. Not because I believe he has violated a nebulous and subjective "hate speech" policy, not be cause I believe "Trump lies" and all Democrats are pure virtue and sunshine (which is largely the opinion of the twitterverse) No I hope they do, because Trump will select another platform, and that Platform will see a HUGE boost and hopefully start to crack the foundation of the Silicon Valley social media oligopoly I want to see a return to Open Protocols, and Federated Communications, not 4 or 5 companies controlling most human communications

w_t_payne 6y ago

On the face of it this seems to be a dangerous step towards the industry being coopted by the lunatic conspiratorial fringes and forced to spread their dangerous nonsense against our will. Not a game I'd be happy to play.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

apatters 6y ago

Why does the federal government miss the ball Every. Single. Time? Twitter censoring conservatives wouldn't be a big deal if Twitter had more competitors. America keeps on saying it's committed to free and open markets. Why doesn't it make one here? Break up Twitter. Or make them open up their protocols. Or whatever. I don't care. Just promote competition. Enough of these quasi-fascist state regulated oligopolies run and reaped by 1-3 companies while the rest of us stand in the bread lines. It's not the American way, not the democratic way, not the capitalist way, and I'm sick of it.

loopz 6y ago
Isn't this what the free market is supposed to deliver? Now you want a marginalized gov under fire to save you?
- apatters 6y ago
  There's nothing marginalized about the American government, it's the biggest and most powerful government in the world and it has an unfathomably huge budget. I haven't seen a free market in America in decades. Free markets can be destroyed by governments or by megacorps, but most often they're destroyed by a collaboration between the two. Put two and two together and resist.
mhh__ 6y ago
> Twitter censoring conservatives wouldn't be a big deal if Twitter had more competitors How much evidence of this in practice is there (I mean evidence of systemic bias throughout the site beyond what could reasonably be expected with millions and millions of tweets etc.)? The fact the Donald Trump himself tweeted this [1] recently and it's still up, suggests they aren't exactly thorough. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-retweets-video-saying-only-good-democrat-is-dead-democrat/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-ret...

tinus_hn 6y ago

Do people really not see through this transparent attempt at distraction?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cletus 6y ago

So I would guess that Twitter is internally torn apart on this. I imagine the rank-and-file for the most part despise Trump but as a business Twitter (and its shareholders) are more than happy to be the Propaganda Wing of the Republican Party. So I imagine an effort to distance themselves from the outright lies of the commander-in-chief was token resistance to this role, probably aimed at mollifying the collective consciences of the employees. But it's doomed and they've fallen into a trap. Here's how this is going to go: There is simply no line in the sand you can draw between objective truth and objective lies. What's more, even if you can, propagated lies exist because people want to believe them and they see any effort to disabuse them of their provably false views (eg vaccines cause autism) as biased actors trying to hide the "truth". Human nature can be ugly at times. The take on Section 230 is actually an interesting one and I imagine that's going all the way to the Supreme Court if the administration pushes on this. Like you can remove objectionable or illegal content from your platform (in fact you're required to by law) and still maintain safe harbor but where does that end? If you're Google you don't want Youtube filled up with a bunch of racist crap. It's bad for your brand. That content may fall under free speech (from a S230 perspective) and if you decide to remove it for the health of the platform and/or the value of your brand, does safe harbor still apply? Whatever the case, this administration needs to lose in the next election. Badly. The attack on societal norms and institutitotions is unprecedented and reprehensible and I so would like Trump, McConnell, Ivanka, Jared, Pompeo, Barr and a whole bunch of others to end up in prison after all this is over. This is what scares me the most: in the Watergate era even Republicans found Nixon's behaviour beyond the pale. I am utterly convinced that if that happened today there'd be a strict party-line vote as the President's party would happily look the other way. Look no further than the administration's so far successful efforts to block Congressional oversight. At no time in history did any administration think it was totally above the law. Make no mistake: that's what they're doing. Worse, no administration so blatantly engaging in obstruction would've continued to have ~40% of the population support it no matter what. Thanks to decades of gerrymandering in state Houses and voter suppression that 40% almost controls the election by itself as higher-population states are essentially disenfranchises in the modern electoral system. For the record, I'm against the popular vote deciding the presidential election but that's a whole other topic. How anyone who can call themselves "Christian" and support this president and his policies is utterly beyond me.

psych-W 6y ago

Seems like we're relying now upon the same "bureaucracy" that was detested when someone got what he wanted. Now someone very delusional is butthurt. Good thing twitter can basically do whatever they want - it's a private company, first amendment rights are not in question here. If crazies want to eat their fish tank cleaner, but twitter wouldn't let them post selfies promoting this stupidity, then stupid people need to learn how to create their own company and isolate from reality a little longer like maybe a few more generations. I bet that'll work well...

alpacaillama 6y ago

I hope they look into whether social media platforms can use safe harbour (Section 230) stuff or not. Personally I don’t think so. Since they do act as publishers. I know HN will focus on the Trump part but I am more interested in hearing about what you think of section 230, safe harbour, social media as publishers.

loopz 6y ago
I've not much love for administrators' love for banning posts and users for unquantifiable reasons. This from 30 years of experience on the matter. One gets to see all kinds of variations, and there's absolutely nothing new here in core powergames and surrounding mechanics. However, such social media platforms can either exist in any form protected by freedom of speech, or they cannot exist at all. This as no moderation is illegal and frowned upon, purported to sway public opinion with false data. The thing is, the power games are inseparable from the mechanics, no matter how well-intentioned on either "side". The inevitable outcome is separation of users, which happens again, and again. What we will see coming is the Great Divide, caused by social media technologies, powered by tribal human nature and selfishness.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>The working group will also monitor or create watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or other users What the hell does this mean? As it sounds like they're arbitrarily creating a list of people they'll actively target for enforcement of state laws.

archagon 6y ago

If we accept corporations as people, I wish some of the ones with actual power had the backbone and gall to do a bit of civil disobedience, instead of rolling over at the first sign of trouble. Twitter should double down and add a fact-check sticker to every single Trump lie, past and current — to hell with lawsuits and the FCC. Otherwise, we'll "maybe parts of this sound reasonable" our way straight into an authoritarian, thought-shaping, Republican-ruled dictatorship. Surely, even the people who scoffed at this idea a few years ago can see this future taking shape. I am aghast that there's any support of this in the once-countercultural Silicon Valley. It's abhorrent and shameful, and it makes me fear that maybe the gravity well is already too large to escape.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

netcan 6y ago

It's so depressing how low the bar is, for regulatory frameworks. Maybe it's totally co-opted by industry incumbents, and serves as a moat against competition. Maybe it's about electoral politics. IE, the problem is stifling of specific voices supportive of Trump... or the opposite. We can't even hope that it will be designed logically to serve a principle or goal. I'm not saying regulation (or better legislation) isn't necessary. Twitter set out to be the "public square" and succeeded. It's a privately controlled public square. This is a problem for democracy. It's no joke either. Twitter & Facebook can and have been the launch point for elections, revolutions, coups and such. "It's their site, they can do what they want" is not, IMO, reasonable. On a related point "platform monopolies," are a well established problem, and we've even had some court ruling to that effect. Courts are narrow though. Legislation is the only way to establish principles. This should be a "step back and think big picture" situation. Establish principles that guarantee freedoms, media diversity or whatever the goals are. Instead, the debate will be dictated by electoral considerations... on both the pro and con side. I doubt they're even thinking past the immediate election.

ENOTTY 6y ago

Here is a link to a purported draft of the EO: https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-...

loopz 6y ago
Rich coming from leadership that is implementing new tricks of deception and manipulation on an ongoing basis.