Looking forward to congress wasting time to create legislation to protect trump's lying on twitter, instead of such unimportant stuff as pandemic relief, economic recovery, and jobs...
How is Trump’s legion of little minions defending this? This 1 of the most pathetic things I’ve seen from a President. MAGA clowns, make sense out of all this crying from the idiotic orange for me
First thoughts on the section 230 executive order: https://reason.com/2020/05/28/first-thoughts-on-the-section-230-executive-order/ excerpt: For all the passion it has unleashed, President Trump's executive order on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is pretty modest in impact. It doesn't do anything to undermine the part of section 230 that protects social media from liability for the things that its users say. That's paragraph (1) of section 230(b), and the order practically ignores it. Instead, the order is all about paragraph (2), which protects platforms from liability when they remove or restrict certain content: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of … any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." This makes some sense in terms of the President's grievance. He isn't objecting to Twitter's willingness to give a platform to people he disagrees with. He objects to Twitter's decision to cordon off his speech with a fact-check warning, as well as all the other occasions on which Twitter and other social media platforms have taken action against conservative speech. So it makes sense for him to focus on the provision that seems to immunize biased and pretextual decisions to downgrade viewpoints unpopular in the Valley. *** That's it. The order calls on social media platforms to explain their speech suppression policies and then to apply them honestly. It asks them to provide notice, a fair hearing, and an explanation to users who think they've been treated unfairly or worse by particular moderators. I've had many conversations with participants in the debate over the risks arising from social media's sudden control of what ordinary Americans (or Brazilians or Germans) can say to their friends and neighbors about the issues of the day. That is a remarkable and troubling development for those of us who hoped the internet would bring a flowering of views free from the intermediation of traditional sources. But you don't have to be a conservative to worry about how this unprecedented power could be abused. In another context, I have offered a rule of thumb for evaluating new technology: You don't really know how evil a technology can be until the engineers who depend on it for employment begin to fear for their jobs. Today, social media's power is treated by the companies themselves as a modest side benefit of their astounding rise to riches; they can stamp out views they hate as a side gig while tending to the real business of extending their reach and revenue. But every one of us should wonder, "How they will use that power when the ride ends and their jobs are at risk?" And, more to the point, "How will we discover what they've done?" Such questions explain why even those who don't lean to the right think that the companies' control of our discourse needs more scrutiny. There are no easy ways to discipline the power of Big Tech in a country that has a first amendment, but the answer most observers offer is more transparency. We need, in short, to know more about when and how and why the big platforms decide to suppress our speech. This executive order is a good first step toward finding out.
Trump knows he's losing the battle as more and more entities stop spreading his lies and disinformation...this was from late last year: https://www.mediamatters.org/donald...vement-debunking-trump-misinformation-twitter Study: Major media outlets show improvement at debunking Trump misinformation on Twitter News outlets grappling with passive misinformation in headlines, social media Media critics argue that news outlets err by passing along Trump’s misinformation in headlines and social media posts without fact-checking him. In order to assess the scope of the problem, Media Matters reviewed the roughly 2,000 tweets about Trump comments sent by 32 Twitter feeds controlled by major news outlets between July 14 and August 3. We recorded whether the tweets referenced a remark that was false or misleading according to The Washington Post’s Fact Checker database and, if so, whether the tweet disputed the misinformation. We compared the results to a study we released earlier this year covering the output of the same Twitter feeds from January 26 through February 15. Key Takeaways: Of the roughly 2,000 tweets we reviewed, 653 tweets (33%) referenced a false or misleading statement: 50% of the time, the outlets’ Twitter accounts disputed the misinformation. This is an improvement from our first study, when they did so only 35% of the time. Outlets amplified false or misleading Trump claims without disputing them 325 times over the three weeks of the new study. On average, outlets amplified false or misleading claims without disputing them 15 times a day -- a decline of 21% from our first study, when they promoted Trump misinformation an average of 19 times per day. 22 of the 32 news outlet Twitter feeds we reviewed improved at disputing Trump’s misinformation in tweets compared to the first study. The extent to which outlets’ Twitter feeds passively spread Trump’s misinformation depended on where Trump made his comments. For example: 60% of Trump’s falsehoods were disputed when the misinformation came during an interview. 41% of Trump’s falsehoods were disputed when the misinformation came during a press gaggle. @TheHill produced the most passive misinformation of any feed we reviewed, accounting for nearly half -- 48% -- of the total tweets that pushed Trump’s misinformation without disputing it during this study, up from 43% of the total in the first study. (More at the link above)
