4 ms·

If there's no link to the order (EOs being publicly available), then exactly what is the claim? The two things stated in the article about new rules around sect

If there's no link to the order (EOs being publicly available), then exactly what is the claim? The two things stated in the article about new rules around section 230, which does not match your original claim of > Trump signed an executive order to allow people to "silence and cancel" Twitter users after Twitter added a fact check to a single Tweet of his. Which 'people' did the EO allow to 'silence and cancel' Twitter users? Can you please explain yourself? Who was canceled? Can you name one person? Which person canceled them that was not allowed to before this EO? You've made quite the claim. Can you substantiate it?

delecti 5y ago
I'm not the person who made that claim, I'm just linking articles discussing what the claim was in reference to.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Ah sorry, then. Thanks for attempting to substantiate.
qkqk 5y ago
It made major headlines, I'm surprised you're so far out of the loop you never heard about it. The link to a Google search I provided for you makes it easy to find the EO: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
- iammisc 5y ago
  I did hear about that order, but it did nothing of the sort the commenter claimed it did. It did not allow 'people' to 'cancel' other people. It asked the DOJ to investigate any violations of section 230, and asked the FCC to rework its administrative rules regarding the law. It did not suspend anything. Did not create new law. That is editorial nonsense.
  - qkqk 5y ago
    If you'd heard about it, you wouldn't need someone else to find cites or links, I'm not that gullible. > Did not create new law Right, it had no effect, just more signalling from Trump. He sought to increase the legal responsibility of social media companies for what their users say, exposing them to lawsuits, in effect silencing and canceling users.

delecti 5y ago

I'm not the person who made that claim, I'm just linking articles discussing what the claim was in reference to.

iammisc 5y ago
Ah sorry, then. Thanks for attempting to substantiate.

qkqk 5y ago

It made major headlines, I'm surprised you're so far out of the loop you never heard about it. The link to a Google search I provided for you makes it easy to find the EO: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...

iammisc 5y ago
I did hear about that order, but it did nothing of the sort the commenter claimed it did. It did not allow 'people' to 'cancel' other people. It asked the DOJ to investigate any violations of section 230, and asked the FCC to rework its administrative rules regarding the law. It did not suspend anything. Did not create new law. That is editorial nonsense.
- qkqk 5y ago
  If you'd heard about it, you wouldn't need someone else to find cites or links, I'm not that gullible. > Did not create new law Right, it had no effect, just more signalling from Trump. He sought to increase the legal responsibility of social media companies for what their users say, exposing them to lawsuits, in effect silencing and canceling users.