Trump's Executive Order Against Social Media

Reality didn't go the way you wanted it to, so you want the Nanny State to step in and make your views more popular, through any means necessary. I gotcha. I'll stick with preferring private property rights, limited government, and actual free speech.

Fake, whiny victim narratives are bad public policy.

 

It's only since Trump has been in power that the facts have had a political orientation.

A large part of his staff spends a lot of time explaining / clarifying / denying the bs he tells.

Even the most fanatical Trumpsters know that Trump can't do anything about Twitter and this is just another one of his stupid tantrums.

And despite that, you still support him...

 

Only time will tell. Hopefully some form of Free Speech Media like Gab, Minds, and Bitchute will survive.

I also support governments of nations like Russia punishing Leftist Totalitarians.

 

I'm not rooting for anyone. I'm suggesting people take some silly things less seriously.

 

You don't support private companies deciding what they will and will not publish (thus, you hate free speech), but you are okay with the government punishing people for their speech (thus, even more hatred of free speech). Wild guess here, but you voted for Trump, didn't you?

I'm glad the Constitution protects us from actual totalitarianism like this.

 

Exactly.

This "Executive Order" WON'T change a thing.

Trump Can't Really Do Anything about Twitter.

And, for anybody who thinks that he can, here is a very well-written piece that completely destroys any argument that Trump could "regulate Twitter".

It was written last year, when Trump had proposed a similar EO but backed off.

This still applies (perfectly) to today's EO:

The President can’t merely issue an order to agencies to figure out some way to make a statute go away.

Conclusion

I’ve mused about some additional fairly arcane theories, such as trying to somehow use forbearance to eliminate Section 230. But none of them work, and I am not going to write even more thousands of words on even more tenuous and outlandish theories. That’s why I assumed everything possible to assume in favor of FCC regulatory authority here. And even making the most favorable assumptions possible, “you can’t get there from here.”

https://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/could-the-fcc-regulate-social-media-under-section-230-no/

 

Or, more likely, they don't have enough air time to get them all on.... Or, most likely, they suck on air....

Joe went from being a Trump supporter to a Trump hater... all in @ 18 months...

Not a record awakening, but not the slowest to come around either...

 

What’s wrong with getting news from twitter? I follow most of my favorite journalists.

 

Fortunately, I am a nobody in politics. I can not win or lose anything.

Only time will tell who wins.

 

MSNBC fears real conservatives like Ted Cruz, who would tear Mad Cow apart in a debate.

 

Ummmm. Not even close

 

Nobody “censored” Donald Trump...NOBODY

FFS

 

Of course he would... his daddy had JFK killed...

Scary dude, that Fu Man Ted....

I believe Rachel would more than hold her own, unless it comes down to Dr. Seuss quotes...

 

It's truly amazing how those extra links have Conserva-Morphed into censoring the President.....

So much bullshit, such little time...

 

You’re so wrong. Mad Cow is truly loony. But you get a like for making me laugh.

 

They didn't censor him, and they would have been legally justified if they had. It is their private property. They can have rules and enforce them. They can outright remove his posts if they want, just as I could remove a campaign sign from my yard if I didn't want it there.

 

Not only that. In addition, the term censorship involves the government preventing free speech. Private companies not publishing content they don't like is not censorship. If it were, maybe I could sue Science Magazine because they don't want to publish my manuscripts. I don't think I would get very far.

 

Yep. Anyone on this forum claiming that it is "censorship" to not publish something is free to prove their convictions by letting me put whatever I want in their sig. And remember, no commentary . . . like fact checking, because that's wrong too!

 

You were called out on making an absurd comparison. You then proceeded to avoid discussing it.

But yea, I'm the one not offering anything.

 

Something already has come of it. Many of his supporters agree with him. He has managed to convince many people (millions?) who call themselves conservatives that it is a good thing for the president to attack the first amendment.

That’s a big deal, and he has accomplished it in one tweet.

 

More than that. Against the constitution.

 

Just remember the adage about arguing with idiots. Don't waste your time with people willing to throw out any lie or smear just to protect a degenerate orange dotard.
They know they're lying, you know they're lying, but if they can get you to wallow in their distractions, they win. It's only going to get worse as their desperation grows.

 

Great tip... I'll assume that's NOT Confucious, with the orange dotard part...

I've been on here long enough to mostly know who's who as well...

 

Twitter put their thumb on the political scale. Those who need their information chewed and spoon fed to them should have no problem with Twit becoming competition for CNN, MSNBC, etc.

 

Money talks, it’s the way our system has worked intermittently Since inception and we’re in an economic-elite dominated period.

Trump can do nada without their support, and he doesn’t have it.