***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[junglejim]

The difference is that in public forums you can discuss conspiracy theories, false information, or anything else.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the theory of a flat earth is complete and utter nonsense.

Should Twitter be able to remove all posts that suggest the earth is flat?

That is a viewpoint or content based restriction on speech. And since Facebook and Twitter are so massive, the argument is that they are more like traditional public forums where you should be able to have the strongest first amendment protections.

Apparently twitter has been adding fact checkers, censoring posts, etc. There is a valid argument that is an unconstitutional restriction on speech considering how massive the platform is.

I mean Facebook is/has been doing the same thing, but to democrats and anti-trump posts but most of what you are saying makes sense. I suppose I still don't understand the liability part. If this makes it so these public forums can be personally sued, then how would that make it more free? Or at least this appears to be the argument Ted Cruz is making.

 

[IATT]

when you gotta resort to flat earth BS to find a way to let racism and other stupidity slide

next it will be some anti-vaxxer mess

 

[dwalk31]

I mean Facebook is/has been doing the same thing, but to democrats and anti-trump posts but most of what you are saying makes sense. I suppose I still don't understand the liability part. If this makes it so these public forums can be personally sued, then how would that make it more free? Or at least this appears to be the argument Ted Cruz is making.

If they can be held liable they will be slower to restrict posts. Thus, it will be more free. At least that's how I think it would follow.

 

[junglejim]

If they can be held liable they will be slower to restrict posts. Thus, it will be more free. At least that's how I think it would follow.

Wouldn't it be the inverse though? If they were held liable for misinformation, slander, libel, etc wouldn't they be more apt to act quickly and remove the posts so they don't face lawsuits?

 

[junglejim]

when you gotta resort to flat earth BS to find a way to let racism and other stupidity slide

next it will be some anti-vaxxer mess

I thought for sure these were fake, but holy ****, this man is really an anti-vaxxer

 

[dwalk31]

Wouldn't it be the inverse though? If they were held liable for misinformation, slander, libel, etc wouldn't they be more apt to act quickly and remove the posts so they don't face lawsuits?

If you read the Executive Order it is about censorship.

Here it is:

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. P

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[Christian Pulisic]

Happy to see there's a very large contingent of Republicans who are refusing to vote for Donald Trump in November. They've had enough.

Allegedly.

 

[JPS]

If you read the Executive Order it is about censorship.

Here it is:

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. P

www.whitehouse.gov

they want government watch dog monitoring users and creating lists...

 

[dwalk31]

they want government watch dog monitoring users and creating lists...

Is that in the order?

 

[JPS]

yes

Is that in the order?

 

[NickFolarin]

Again, why are y'all entertaining a guy that trolls and has never posted in any other thread on NT ever!

 

[dwalk31]

yes

This is a comment on the draft order.

If you read the actual order that I posted it explains it in more detail. And it is about monitoring differential treatment of users. Not the users. If that makes sense.

 

[JPS]

This is a comment on the draft order.

If you read the actual order that I posted it explains it in more detail. And it is about monitoring differential treatment of users. Not the users. If that makes sense.

Ah ok. Yea I get the nuance.

 

[dacomeup]

Wouldn't it be the inverse though? If they were held liable for misinformation, slander, libel, etc wouldn't they be more apt to act quickly and remove the posts so they don't face lawsuits?

Yes, you’re right. That seems to be the legal argument here.

This would encourage censorship for people who use dangerous rhetoric like Trump. It would also pretty much end social media as we know it. Trump also doesn’t have power to unilaterally strike 230. He’s just posturing, picking this battle in the middle of a global pandemic.

 

[junglejim]

Yes, you’re right. That seems to be the legal argument here.

This would encourage censorship for people who use dangerous rhetoric like Trump. It would also pretty much end social media as we know it. Trump also doesn’t have power to unilaterally strike 230. He’s just posturing, picking this battle in the middle of a global pandemic.

I mean, he is obviously trying to switch the conversation from 100K dead, a 20% unemployment rate, disastrous economic data, record deficits, and these protests.

 

[junglejim]

This is a comment on the draft order.

If you read the actual order that I posted it explains it in more detail. And it is about monitoring differential treatment of users. Not the users. If that makes sense.

I get the censorship part, but what Cruz is arguing about baffles me.



Like I dont even see how these two are comparable. He is basically stating that Twitter and Facebook are going to have to filter everything that potentially subjects them to a lawsuit like the NYT does. I don't see how that makes things more free.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[dwalk31]

I get the censorship part, but what Cruz is arguing about baffles me.



Like I dont even see how these two are comparable. He is basically stating that Twitter and Facebook are going to have to filter everything that potentially subjects them to a lawsuit like the NYT does. I don't see how that makes things more free.

The underlying argument is the same.

The argument is that those platforms should not be able to censor. The 230 stuff is posturing hinting that if they continue to censor, then they will get sued--and then the companies would need to argue they are different than say the NYT and more like a public forum.

Which gets it back to the same spot of avoiding censorship.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[junglejim]

The underlying argument is the same.

The argument is that those platforms should not be able to censor. The 230 stuff is posturing hinting that if they continue to censor, then they will get sued--and then the companies would need to argue they are different than say the NYT and more like a public forum.

Which gets it back to the same spot of avoiding censorship.

Ahhh gotcha

 

[RustyShackleford]

I have voiced my concern for the problematic nature of some of Trump’s tweets.

This particular tweet re: looting certainly falls into that category.

I stand by the fact that he can and should do better with his tweets. And it appears it has been censored by Twitter.

Such courage

 

[whywesteppin]

That executive order is a masterclass in gaslighting.

The regulation of social media is problematic. One way to approach it is not from the lens of censorship but as a question of how to promote content. All these platforms (google, facebook, twitter, etc.) have algorithms to choose the content they deem most relevant. When I look up the news, it makes sense that NYT or WaPo shows up before your grandma's blog.

Including factors in these algorithms that judge legitimacy, authority, popularity, etc. makes sense. The problem is that political affiliation has become heavily confounded with being a **** or not. How to navigate these issues is tricky.

It's also worth noting that these same algorithms heavily promote anything Trump tweets. He has heavily benefited from the algorithms Twitter employs, and would disappear if they weren't actively curating and editorializing what content shows up the most.

Twitter could implement an easy work-around. You should be able to choose whether you get the completely unfiltered version of Twitter, full of bots, spam, and conspiracy nuts, or you opt-in for an "editorialized" version of Twitter, which would give them full authority to censor (this latter version is essentially what NT is, and it could be implemented while still maintaining transparency, such as Twitter hiding Trump's bigoted posts but still allowing you to view them if you choose, which is what they also do for any Tweets that may be found offensive).

 

[Belgium]

 

[Belgium]

You’d think Republicans would be against big government seeking to control social media companies’ free speech

 

[junglejim]

You’d think Republicans would be against big government seeking to control social media companies’ free speech

Libertarians everywhere have been mighty silent the last 4 years. Seems like they are pretty cool with record spending and deficits and government overreach as long as its a republican doing it