Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Trump's internet censorship executive order, line by line

President Donald Trump is constantly threatening tech companies with huge consequences and not following through. That includes social media sites, which he both obsessively uses and relentlessly berates for alleged “anti-Trump bias.” But this week, he went beyond the usual trash talk, issuing an executive order governing how websites can moderate content.

The order follows a feud with Twitter after it fact-checked one of Trump’s tweets, but it’s been brewing since at least 2019 when a social media “bias” rule was rumored but never revealed. An unfinished draft of the order leaked on Wednesday, full of nonsensical demands and pointless blustering, with many dismissing the rule as simply illegal.

But the final order released yesterday is significantly different from that draft — and a good deal more troubling. It’s still a tangle of vaguely coherent bad rules, legally baffling demands, and pure posturing. But it’s easier to see the shape of Trump’s goal: a censorship bill that potentially covers almost any part of the web.

The order includes some concrete (if highly shaky) policy proposals, for example:

Websites of any size should lose all Section 230 protections if they don’t follow their terms of service or provide sufficient notice when removing content

The Attorney General should judge whether any websites receiving advertising money from the government are “problematic vehicles for government speech” because of “viewpoint discrimination”

The Federal Trade Commission should investigate websites for deceptive advertising based on their terms of service

It also includes a lot of vague implications that are never substantiated and may be unintentional:

The Federal Communications Commission can write laws and send them to Congress now

Large social media companies are subject to the same rules as the government

Facebook should host porn

But that only scratches the surface of this ludicrously expansive mess.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6May 30, 2020 2:33 PM

Gasp!

by Anonymousreply 1May 29, 2020 11:42 PM

internet companies have reaped a fortune from the immunity of sec 230.

by Anonymousreply 2May 29, 2020 11:52 PM

r2 the whole internet has. It's necessary for free speech, Trumper.

by Anonymousreply 3May 30, 2020 2:33 AM

Can no one kill the virus, Trump. He will be the death of our democracy.

by Anonymousreply 4May 30, 2020 5:30 AM

Since Trump only lies, he should not be allowed to post on the internet.

by Anonymousreply 5May 30, 2020 5:32 AM

The leader of a country should never be allowed to post on the internet the way Trump does. Sure, have a professionally curated website of some description that tells you what's on round the White House, or where the President can occasionally write anodyne "thoughts and prayers" stuff before addressing a tragedy in person.

But the way Trump uses Twitter, to post new ideas and "policies", not to mention personal abuse, is done specifically to avoid accountability. As someone on here noted when he told a press conference he had nothing to say about Minneapolis, he's just waiting to talk about it on Twitter where he won't have to face questions. That should be illegal: as should the stomping out of press briefings because he didn't like the question. What is he, Naomi Wolf?

POTUS, of all people, has all the freedom of speech in the world. He has thousands of avenues for having his voice heard above the throng. Making it illegal for him to speak/write without facing questions from the press and public would be depriving him of nothing, except the capacity to lie and defame unchecked.

by Anonymousreply 6May 30, 2020 2:33 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!