Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 22

[blutoski]

Won't they have to, if the EO does overturn the legal protections of platforms and makes them as responsible for content as publishers? If that becomes the case then platforms will have to drop any user who strays into any remarks that could get them sued. Trump's got a very extensive history of making offensive and libellous remarks on Twitter, and now threats of violence. As a direct consequence of the idiot getting what he wants he'd lose his account almost immediately.

All the EO does is expose moderation 'in bad faith' to legal action - so if they delete Trump's account, but not other accounts of other politicians, there's a risk it will be seen as political activity rather than neutral moderation, and that's what they can be sued for.

 

[blutoski]

Wait a minute. What false posts about Obamacare?

Specifically that Americans switching to Obamacare could keep their GP. If the Fact Checking moderation had been in place at the time, it's likely there would have been a "get the facts on obamacare" link.

But it's an unfair comparison because that was years ago, before the current fact checking policy was launched.

Policy disputes are hardly the same as accusing a commentator of murder. Obama never said or did anything comparable to what Trump does every morning.

I agree, but it doesn't matter what I think. I also don't think corporations are people, but here we are.

The EO gives judges discretion to decide what is (protected) moderation in good faith, vs (unprotected) moderation as political action. Conservatives have been looking for an angle for years, in no small part because they're disproportionately impacted by fact checking (they're more full of ****). This gives them fresh leverage against social media moderation policies.

 

[newyorkguy]

Wait a minute. What false posts about Obamacare? Policy disputes are hardly the same as accusing a commentator of murder. Obama never said or did anything comparable to what Trump does every morning.

I'm not seeing any equivalence either, not between trump and Obama or trump and anyone else, not even Tricky Dick Nixon. This is what the trump supporters/apologists don't seem to see. This guy is in a whole new category by himself. No president has ever acted remotely the way this whackjob acts. At least not in anyone's living memory.

 

[The Don]

Wait a minute. What false posts about Obamacare?

"You can keep your doctor"

Policy disputes are hardly the same as accusing a commentator of murder. Obama never said or did anything comparable to what Trump does every morning.

The GOP equates outright lying and calls to violence to be exactly the same as a false generalisation (which was largely caused by factors outside the control of the ACA).

Of course I'm pretty sure that the Obama administration would have been perfectly happy with a fact check on that one but the GOP sees facts as being leftist partisan lies and would instead want counterfactual GOP lies instead,

 

[wareyin]

I'm not seeing any equivalence either, not between trump and Obama or trump and anyone else, not even Tricky Dick Nixon. This is what the trump supporters/apologists don't seem to see. This guy is in a whole new category by himself. No president has ever acted remotely the way this whackjob acts. At least not in anyone's living memory.

Well, if you add up every bad deed, every lie, every mistake by every President ever, then Trump is only about an order of magnitude or 2 above that. So meh, they're all the same. [/conservative Trump defender]

 

[slyjoe]

Specifically that Americans switching to Obamacare could keep their GP. If the Fact Checking moderation had been in place at the time, it's likely there would have been a "get the facts on obamacare" link.

But it's an unfair comparison because that was years ago, before the current fact checking policy was launched.




I agree, but it doesn't matter what I think. I also don't think corporations are people, but here we are.

The EO gives judges discretion to decide what is (protected) moderation in good faith, vs (unprotected) moderation as political action. Conservatives have been looking for an angle for years, in no small part because they're disproportionately impacted by fact checking (they're more full of ****). This gives them fresh leverage against social media moderation policies.

Since when do EOs give judges discretion about anything?

 

[BobTheCoward]

"You can keep your doctor"

I always disagrees with people saying it is a lie.

It is a general statement. It doesn't have to apply to every single person to be true. A small portion did lose their doctor, and only a portion of that was actually caused by the ACA.

 

[blutoski]

Since when do EOs give judges discretion about anything?

By getting the FCC to issue a clarification for legal interpretation ongoing. Judges currently pretty much need to reject all suits seeking damages for platform moderation activity. This EO is asking FCC to say that only 'in good faith' moderation is protected.

So, judges will have some discretion they didn't have before in that they can allow some cases to proceed if they think the platform's moderation was not in good faith. (ie politically motivated)

We'll have to see if the FCC goes ahead as directed, but I can't imagine they'd object.

 

[slyjoe]

By getting the FCC to issue a clarification for legal interpretation ongoing. Judges currently pretty much need to reject all suits seeking damages for platform moderation activity. This EO is asking FCC to say that only 'in good faith' moderation is protected.

So, judges will have some discretion they didn't have before in that they can allow some cases to proceed if they think the platform's moderation was not in good faith. (ie politically motivated)

We'll have to see if the FCC goes ahead as directed, but I can't imagine they'd object.

Judges have all the discretion they need. The executive branch does not grant or give anything to the judiciary branch.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I always disagrees with people saying it is a lie.

It is a general statement. It doesn't have to apply to every single person to be true. A small portion did lose their doctor, and only a portion of that was actually caused by the ACA.

I love the idiots who imagine they can keep their doctors under the current or previous systems. You have X insurance, you get a doctor from X's list of participating doctors. Or just don't have insurance. Freedom! to bankrupt yourself.

"But I've always been going to Dr Folksy, he birthed me as a babby!" "That's nice, but Dr Folksy doesn't accept Aetna. You can see Dr Modern or you can pay eight thousand dollars for an office visit to Dr Folksy's tarpaper shack, you ignorant rube. And we're not covering tetanus shots, I can hear your jaw clicking."

 

[The Don]

I always disagrees with people saying it is a lie.

It is a general statement. It doesn't have to apply to every single person to be true. A small portion did lose their doctor, and only a portion of that was actually caused by the ACA.

For once, I agree with you - but the GOP machine and President Trump does not.

I'm sure Obama would have been fine with a fact check (!) which explains exactly what you said. Unfortunately the GOP would have seen this kind of explanation as a leftist lie and instead would have wanted to have the fact check link to some right wing propaganda about death panels or other nonsense.

 

[blutoski]

Judges have all the discretion they need. The executive branch does not grant or give anything to the judiciary branch.

The executive branch directs the regulator in question, is the point.

So, today, a state can't prosecute FB for moderation, due to the current 230 interpretation by the regulator.

If the FCC actions the EO and issues a clarification that excludes moderation in bad faith, judges will be able to choose to allow some cases to proceed.

So, OK, maybe we're quibbling about semantics? Should I have said something more like, "It gives judges an option they didn't have before."

 

[BobTheCoward]

For once, I agree with you - but the GOP machine and President Trump does not.

I'm sure Obama would have been fine with a fact check (!) which explains exactly what you said. Unfortunately the GOP would have seen this kind of explanation as a leftist lie and instead would have wanted to have the fact check link to some right wing propaganda about death panels or other nonsense.

I'm also raging against fact checkers I normally agree with who labeled it lie of the year.

 

[slyjoe]

The executive branch directs the regulator in question, is the point.

So, today, a state can't prosecute FB for moderation, due to the current 230 interpretation by the regulator.

If the FCC actions the EO and issues a clarification that excludes moderation in bad faith, judges will be able to choose to allow some cases to proceed.

So, OK, maybe we're quibbling about semantics? Should I have said something more like, "It gives judges an option they didn't have before."

"Prosecute" and "state" are interesting words to use. We are talking civil lawsuits, correct?

I don't know enough about how these types of suits work. I was under the impression that if party A sues party B, judges always had an option to let the case proceed to make a point. Anyway, not that big a deal. Personally I don't think this will amount to much. Twitter has already banned most political ads.

I would think any judge would be hesitant to step into a case with the government telling a private firm they can't publish something.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/letamericavote/status/1266044606845616130?s=20

More proof @realDonaldTrump is lying about voting by mail being insecure or fraudulent: not only does he vote by mail himself, he has encouraged his supporters to do so.

If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for all Americans.

Video embedded in tweet.

 

[Bob001]

For once, I agree with you - but the GOP machine and President Trump does not.

I'm sure Obama would have been fine with a fact check (!) which explains exactly what you said. Unfortunately the GOP would have seen this kind of explanation as a leftist lie and instead would have wanted to have the fact check link to some right wing propaganda about death panels or other nonsense.

I would also observe that what Obama said during the campaign was aspirational. He also promised a public option. The ACA was what came out of Congress after a couple years of intense debate and Republican obstruction. And in many cases the people who "liked their plan" actually had pseudo-insurance plans that wouldn't cover anything if they really got sick. None of it is the same as Trump's blatant lies.

 

[Ladewig]

Yes, I've seen Zuckerberg's quote attributed to "paedophile Mark Zubkerberg".

Personallly, I would have gone with “murderous pedophile Mark Zubkerberg.” Or, working on the in-for-a-penny theory, “pedophile and cannibal.”

ETA
Or is “pedophile and noted goat-*****” worse.

 

[Horatius]

The purpose of this EO is to give the federal government arbitrary power to decide which complaints can go ahead because they were in bad faith, because they were judged to be political speech instead of just ordinary business operations. Political speech will not be shielded.

My (amateur) interpretation of the EO is that they are not looking to eliminate a platform's 230 protection entirely, but rather, they want to carve out a special space for moderation activity that is not 'in good faith'. Which I interpret to mean 'bad for conservatives specifically.'

As Guybrush Threepwood mentioned, the GOP still wants to keep porn off the platforms.

The problem is, less than a day after posting the EO, Trump and his cronies are already expanding the scope of their attack. Did you miss this from earlier?

Trump Tweets

“Regulate Twitter if they are going to start regulating free speech.”
@JudgeJeanine @foxandfriends
Well, as they have just proven conclusively, that’s what they are doing. Repeal Section 230!!!

Emphasis added. Repealing Section 230 would affect every online platform, and leave them open to virtually any attack.

Your whole argument is based on Trump actually understanding the legal subtleties that distinguish interpreting a regulation, amending a regulation, writing a new regulation, repealing a regulation, or repealing a law.

He doesn't actually understand any of that.

You need to stop looking at this situation from the point of view of someone who understands what he's talking about. The only point of view that matters is that of the cranky manbaby who wants to hurt the people who won't give him everything he wants. He doesn't give two ***** about anything else. He'll burn down the whole damn country to hurt them, if that's what it will take.

Trump Tweeted

CHINA!

If I were Twitter, I'd start fact checking every post he makes, including stupid ones like this.

"Click here to learn more about China!" with a link to Wikipedia, or the Chinese Embassy to the US, or something.

 

[timhau]

I'm also raging against fact checkers I normally agree with who labeled it lie of the year.

It may have been, but they didn't play even double-A ball back then.

 

[newyorkguy]

...Twitter has already banned most political ads.

And trump and his sycophants like brad parscale, spin this by claiming:

President Trump's reelection campaign managers said social media companies "have it in" for the president and that was among the reasons the campaign quit buying Twitter ads. Washington Times

Look what he said last October when Twitter announced the decision to stop selling political ads:

Brad Parscale, the campaign manager of President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election team, was livid at the decision, calling the ban a ‘very dumb decision’ that would anger Twitter’s shareholders while also ‘silencing conservatives.’ Tampa Bay Times article

You can't do business with people like this. They just lie about everything.