Trump signs social media executive order

submitted by Tarrock from youtube.com

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

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

It's about time. This is common sense legislation that is only challenged because some people like the oppressive shit when it is done by their side.

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

Can you explain to me how this is "common sense"? It sounds oppressive and restrictive. Internet sites would be liable for what users post, so they'd basically have to shutdown all interactive features.

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

That's the wrong way to frame it. They would only be responsible for the content they chose to leave up. And why shouldn't they be?

They have been getting away with publishing whatever the fuck they want, including calls to violence, libel and other illegal things and claiming it was just a user. Then they refuse to take it down when reported. Why are newspapers and broadcasters not allowed to do that? Do you think we should get rid of the laws that prevent that kind of propaganda altogether? Why should online publishers get special treatment?

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Just give individuals the power to sue them for malpractice.

[–]DrStrangelove 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

After a quick read, that's basically what the EO does. Sites that editorialize/censor/ban user generated content will no longer be afforded the liability protection offered under section 230 of the communications decency act, and can be sued for libel/defamation. To retain immunity, sites may not censor protected speech.

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

And I think this would suffice for now until they start relying only on shadow ban algos.

[–]LarrySwinger2Voluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

How would shadowbans protect them? The ones I'm familiar with can be detected simply by logging out and seeing if your post is still visible.

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

They are harder to prove than outright bans and censorship, plus, companies can resort to blaming buggy algos if sued.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They would have to provide the algo for review during trial to prove that. If the algo is purposefully written for censorship it would be revealed.

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You'd need a warrant for that...This is how sjw censorship started in the first place. They started with disappearing videos, comments, posts, making them quarantined, cordoned, unsearchable and so on and on...As time passed, and they've gotten almost zero pushback from the lawmakers, they got more and more brazen where now they stand fully behind their totalitarian decisions.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You dont need a warrant, it's called discovery and is part of every lawsuit. If they want to use the algo as an excuse in court they have to prove it was the algo and the prosecution has the right to analyze it.

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

How does one prove a disappeared post without the access to a database and the servers...It's a complex issue. If you have thousands of lines of code responsible for keeping full functionality of comments for all users across the board, that's thousands of coggss in a machine that need inspecting to determine what actually happened. And, i'm sure with bigger socials, it's millions of lines.

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

You prove it by having multiple computers with different accounts show that it does not come up when they look at the post.

If the defense wants to claim that it is a software issue and not intentional it is on them to prove it.

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

Saidit has about 1.1 million lines of code, for example, using 8 different programming languages. So yeah...

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To retain immunity, sites may not censor protected speech.

This is the key phrase.

Honestly I don't think it's that huge of a change, it's just codifying what's already in place: Websites that are "publishers" can get sued for libel/defamation, and websites that are just black boxes of information without reviewing the truth content of the information are immune.

Saidit is firmly in the latter category, so I think we're fine. (As long as the law isn't over-reaching and full of nasty loopholes, which is very possible)

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

This sounds bad.... doesn't this position any social media site up for getting sued? I mean... pretty much anything can be construed as political these days. I worry about the small guys who don't have lawyers like the googles and the twits.

Mehh... I'm up too late and need to get some sleep.. and look into this more tomorrow.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes it seems some sites retain immunity if they don't "delete protected speech" or something like that. But I wonder exactly what this means.

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

This man does seem to be trying his damnedest to protect his republic.

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

I can't tell if he is protecting the citizen's republic, or if he's merely consolidating federal power. I sincerely hope it is the former.

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

I think he's looking out for himself More than anything, and it just so happens that his agenda and the countries agenda both align.

I mean he could've declassified all the FISA nonsense that protect both red and blue politicians, as well as comey, flynn, Clinton, etc etc.

He could've vetoed any of the crazy bills he signed, including the ones he said he would never sign again that he subsequently signed again. Or the 2 trillion monstrosity that he signed recently, or the 3 trillion one that's being proposed.

I've no doubt he might be pissed off enough to release a bunch of these FISA docs before his re-election campaign starts though..

Ultimately, a convention of states is what i fear is the only thing that will reign in the government spending, political power, federal military and police powers such as civil asset forfeiture, but honestly it's becoming increasingly apparent that neither side cares to listen to each other any longer and we have far fewer things that holds us together, even important ones such as a common language have been eroded away.

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

This is not even 50% satisfying, especially for FOSS activism. They should open source their code so that we can watch it together and you can do it without failing to protect your secret recipe. User should know the ingredients of medicine they eat.