Trump threatens to 'strongly regulate' or 'close down' social media platforms after Twitter fact check

submitted by hugehassle from usatoday.com

all 42 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Canbot 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

He seriously needs to write some executive orders regulating them at least to the degree that media publications are regulated. He should also put in regulations that expose how much censorship is going on.

Let them operate how they want, but don't let them hide it. No buisness is allowed to perpetrate fraud the way these companies do with covert manipulation.

[–]Drewski 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is a bad idea, government regulation of social media will only backfire and result in smaller platforms being restricted and censored. The whole platform vs publisher angle is a red herring. A website should be able to moderate (as Saidit does) or even outright manipulate and censor (as with YouTube and Twitter) on it's own, private platform. I don't agree with censorship, which is why I don't use most of these big social media monopolies and encourage others to leave as well. Giving the government the authority to police private websites (even if it's ostensibly for the right reasons) is not the solution.

[–]Canbot 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

You are responding to a caricature of what you think the argument is and not to what I said. These websites should not be allowed to covertly censor people. That is completely different than not being allowed to censor. One is honest gatekeeping and maintenance, the other is fraud. What the social media giants are doing now is social manipulation through fraud. There is also no reason why they should have the special privileged of a platform when they are publishers. It is not a "red herring" it is an extremely important legal distinction and it should be done right. That you don't care doesn't matter. They currently have the ability to slander, defame, libel, and lie and claim immunity. That is fucking nuts. No one should have that kind of power.

[–]Drewski 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If I understand the distinction that you're making, you think that the government should force social media companies to be transparent and stop engaging in manipulation. While I agree that this behavior is bad, I still disagree that the government should step in to enforce it. Giving them this power will inevitably abused against smaller websites and social media platforms. I don't consider the right to have the government not interfere with the way a website governs itself a special privilege or power.

I think we both agree that the tech monopolies are bad for open discourse and communication, but differ in that government intervention is the right way to fix it. I return to my original point; get your friends and family on open platforms that support free speech, don't expect the government to step in and fix the broken ones.

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Giving them this power will inevitably abused against smaller websites and social media platforms.

This is a completely baseless accusation. That is like saying we shouldn't have any laws because the laws will be abused. It is nonsense. Of course laws can be abused, but it is absurd to argue that this means we shouldn't have the laws to begin with.

I don't consider the right to have the government not interfere with the way a website governs itself a special privilege or power.

You don't think special exemptions from current laws is a special privilege? I think you might be special. Of course it is. And if you were honest about it you wouldn't be rewording it so deceptively. You clearly gave up on trying to have an honest conversation and went on to bullshiting.

I agree that creating alternative platforms is the ideal goal, but that doesn't change anything. We already have laws against fraud, slander, libel, etc. We need to start holding these companies responsible.

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

I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws, only that laws should protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of government whenever possible. Laws applying to speech are especially dangerous, because they can be used and interpreted arbitrarily to control conversations that the powers that be find unacceptable. Luckily, the United States has many laws protecting speech, even speech that many people find distasteful or hateful. If you look at places like China, India, or even Europe and the UK, hate speech laws are being used to stifle and intimidate people that the authority doesn't agree with. You may think this is off topic, but I believe laws used to regulate private websites and platforms would inevitably be used to the same effect. Even if you trust the people in power now (I sure don't), what about the next set of officials and legislators?

What exemptions do platforms have from current laws? If you provide some examples, maybe I could respond. Just because we don't share the same viewpoint, doesn't mean I'm not trying to have an honest conversation. If you disagree with the way I've worded something, why not address that directly, instead of saying that I'm special or a bullshitter?

Laws against slander, libel, etc apply to the person who is making a statement, not the website or platform on which it is posted. If platforms are held responsible for everything said by their users, do you really think that is conductive to free speech and open communication? Or might instead it be used to stifle dissenting opinions and statements that go against the overreaching narrative?

[–]jamesK_3rd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well i absolutely hope he tries and i absolutely hope everyone finally puts limitations on these executive actions.

They'd be fawning all over of it were Obama trying to regulate the Internet. Trump, for being a NYC Democrat, drives the DNC and other socialists democrats to rabidly froth at the mouth when he says the sky is blue and they clearly know it's a pale pastel

Ultimately what Trump is proposing is bad, but most administrative executive actions are garbage. Congress should be legislating, not the president. The U.S. isn't Europe, yet anyway..

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

Couldn't have said it better!

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That's right Drewski. We are just willing victims if we keep using these platforms. However, monopoly prevention laws should be enforced strictly.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

However, monopoly prevention laws should be enforced strictly.

This is what actually needs to happen. Monopoly prevention and antitrust regulation at most. Giving any president or person ultimate say of what content is acceptable on any platform is a dangerous idea, you might be comfortable when the system works for you but it will screw you over hard when someone you don't like gets the power and starts acting against your interests!

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Lol, THEY ARE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. This is setting a precedent. Find alternatives and build them, like saidit, don't have big daddy government sign treasonous laws to help government censor more easily. Two edged sword.

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

yea... I'll be happily surprised if this doesn't actually hurt the small guys like saidit instead of the so-called targets who have tons of lawyers and lobbyists to protect themselves with. Sounds like the beginning of the internet crackdown to me.

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

Saidit censors just the obvious things like CP and incitement of violence towards other people..So, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

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

but anything can be construed as political censorship by a bored lawyer... and the suit doesn't need to be won to kill the site

its not like this didn't happen plenty of times before congress introduced the bill that gave web sites immunity.. just look at all the people on reddit who think getting voted down is "censorship".

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Spoken like a lifelong Democrat ;)

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Exactly. It's always been between the strict constructionists and latitudinarian constructionists. The former don't really exist anymore inside US Corp. the latter are known for spitting on the constitution.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly.

The only thing the left and the right have in common in America is that they both want the state involved in everything and they both want a tight grip on what you see, hear and think.

[–]Jesus 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Psyop article. Twitter is a private corporation as are ALL of these Social media companies. They have terms of services. They can ban whoever they want.

Stop fighting the corp. and hop on and create a new decentralized platform.

Calling for freespeech on their crap property is basically preaching communism. It's their crap property so create alternatives and don't LET THEM BUY YOU OFF.

[–]Zahn 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I think this is a good idea to create balanced information. IF the platform has reached a certain size, ie...Facebook, Twitter etc. The problem is that with their overreaching bias, they are wrongfully influencing normies with their disinformation campaigns to affect national sentiment.

The precedent here is: back when railroad barons ruled the west, many towns popped up that were on the railroad corporations property. These barons weren't always very fair in their dealings with employees and the public. Inevitably the people that lived in these towns became very vocal about mistreatment. Whereupon, the corporation booted and banned them from their towns.

A court ruling on the case determined that once a town reached a certain size, even though it was owned by a corporation, was at that point considered public domain. And that constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, could not be abrogated. The parallel here with Twitter is very similar.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well said. I agree with the idea of there being a certain size cutoff. Basically another form of anti-trust (anti-monopoly) laws.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I never used Twitter much. I've spent more time on Saidit this week than I've spent on Twitter or Reddit in the past two years. That is the solution, just choose who and what gets your attention. The free market can have a cleansing effect here if you consciously participate in the free market but as long as you voluntarily hand over your data to these monopolies, it undermines your leverage. Having big brother step in to advocate for you here is no solution!

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

/u/magnora7 Has some amazing write-ups that were always a fresh air to read on the cespool that is reddit. Our attention is our most valuable asset. Whether that be attending to your own health, atending to others in need or becoming aware and taking notice of the truth. Either an objective truth in nature or one that is shunned for its truth or a concious subjective truth based on intuition or faith in goodness.

I believe it is better being broad-minded than openminded. The latter can often create a paradoxical belief system if not questioned.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well said. Our attention is our most valuable asset.

We need to be wise about how we spend that attention.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You said it pretty well too! You and Jesus are totally restoring my faith in humanity right now ahaha

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Haha that's great, thank you.

If you want to read more of my writing, I have other articles archived at www.reddit.com/r/magnora7

I need to get that archive moved over to saidit, now that I think of it! Anyway, enjoy.

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

Its not going to happen for the masses who seldom venture beyond that which is familiar. They will stay within the fenced confines of these massive manipulated platforms. These people are the mobs which vote and can make democracy dangerous. They're at the mercy of continual sentiment and consensus forming psyops that will impact whether you and I can live our lives free of spirit crushing totalitarianism.

Yeah, over time we can make our own circle jerk mostly uncensored platforms filled with our own confirmation bias, yet we're a minority of "more free" thinkers. The majority are going to stay on Twitter etc. These however, are the people that need to be reached and influenced the most by alternate viewpoints.

You can say "go our own way" at great peril to our future. But in truth, not only should we maintain a orange/pink pilled presence on these battleground platforms, but we should actively support bringing them under regulatory fairness if the option presents itself.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

"fact check"

"Do you really want corporations to police what true and isn't true?" - guess who said it

https://youtu.be/DZCBRHOg3PQ?t=545

Someone says: "Ok, dude"

Twitter: Banned, we must take a strong stance against harrasment.

Someone: Dox, assault or put those teenagers in a shredder head first.

Twitter: ..see. We need to look at the context. Could mean a lot of things. https://youtu.be/DZCBRHOg3PQ?t=1004

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

Problem reaction solution.

[–]bald-janitor 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Based

[–]useaglassdammit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

man baby has tantrum over twitter calling out his lies

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Don't over exert yourself with a low effort post.

[–]useaglassdammit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

the truth isnt low effort. low effort is believing the shit he spews.

[–]Zahn 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Low effort being an "opinion" as a post. Politicos politick, this is by definition how they are and how the world works. It would be more correct to extend your statement to 99% of politicians.

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

What we really need is for anti-trust legislation to actually be enforced.

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

There's no doubt these companies are monopolies that manipulate public opinion and are too dangerous to be allowed to continue with their manipulation. I think that the strongest message to those monopolies would be to ditch them the same way we ditched reddit.

Though they can still deplatform what they don't like, as has happened before, which brings back to square one and how they should be stripped off any immunity as publishers.

[–]3moreshots 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

what a fit over fact checking him. surprised it took this long to fact check him

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[removed]

    [–]iraelmossadreddit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    they might give alaska to china lol i think the chinese already own all the real estate in canada

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

    Not all of Canada, just Vancouver and some of Southern Ontario

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

    How convenient to do this right before some woman goes on Facebook and blames the Democrats for the police shootings. She even admits to conspiratorial thinking (nothing wrong with that though IMHO).

    The timing couldn't be more convenient. Loosen the lockdown.

    Murder some guy.

    Create protests.

    Create looters.

    Announce "they have machine guns..." On a public St Paul dispatch that is conveniently posted all over Facebook.

    People. They're done with the Coco flu, and now they're coming for your 2nd amendment rights."