Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship - the White House | Federal Trade Commission | Censorship

submitted by [deleted] from scribd.com

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The title is a lie and is part of the pro censorship propaganda campaign being pushed by the big media companies.

Censorship is not banned, all that has happened is the media companies who chose to censor can now be sued when they libel people.

[–]Nemacolin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

The President's priorities seem very odd when there are so many other issues he ought to be addressing.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Show how this has taken away from something else he would have been working on.

You can do more than one thing at a time. And this is extremely important at a time when the media companies are working overtime to manipulate the next election.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why would I want to do something just because you demand it of me?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh, excuse me. How unreasonable of me to ask for some kind of basis for your logically inaccurate claims. I didn't mean for you to feel as though you should try and support your argument, as it was intended as a rhetorical request. No one is under the delusion that you are doing anything other than making a political attack with no basis other than your hurt butt. Please continue being a partisan hack. Tell us how evil and racist Trump supporters are. That never gets old.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Have a swell day!

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, you to!

[–]Tigerbitecrazy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I completely agree. The media is spinning this as a fight with Twitter but it's clearly a censorship issue.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

    Wow. Your argument really changed my mind.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      So you are writing to me why exactly?

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I sort of suppose that is true. I bet you do.

        [–]Tigerbitecrazy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        You're like the drunk guy at the bar who wants to fight everyone. Just sit down and shut if you don't have anything pertinent to add the the conversation.

        [–]nolocus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I've been looking all over for the E.O., thanks for posting. This will finally address/clarify 'online platforms“flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service.' If it goes as written, the Federal Gov. could pull add revenue from violators. And the 16,000 complaints to the White House Tech Bias Reporting tool last year will be reviewed by the FTC and DOJ for possible action. The USAG shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes. Sounds good, check in after ~90 days.