Social Media Executive Order

Fox News today reported that the White House is circulating a draft Executive Order to police the social media platforms: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. In listening to the terms of the draft, they seem to be focusing on anti-competitive behavior, perhaps using the Justice or Commerce Departments to enforce any monopoly practices. It really sounds to me like it goes completely against the Republican approach to net neutrality. They're saying these platforms have grown too big (and they're including Amazon in the order, even though it isn't a social media platform).

They want to use the power of the federal government to reign in these internet companies, many of which are now among the most profitable businesses in the country. It sounds very much like a typical liberal Democrat approach to regulation, stifling big business rather than promoting it. The reason is not that the companies are profitable, but that they perceive some kind of political bias. Still, they set themselves up for this by defeating net neutrality, and giving unlimited power to ISPs. It sounds like it will be a hard rule to enforce, because they target Google, while don't mention Yahoo or Microsoft. Microsoft offers a search engine that competes against Google, and so far, it hasn't been targeted for political bias.

They're also trying to focus on anti-competitive behavior rather than content bias in an attempt to skirt first amendment issues. Still it will place traditional Republicans in a difficult place, because they are usually the party of big business. When the administration shut down net neutrality, they also moved any oversight of the internet from the FCC to the Commerce Department, so the FCC isn't mentioned in this executive order.

you say its a typical Liberal Democrat approach, but its coming from the Republican White House,, and a Republican congress. it seems to be typical of this administration to stifle perceived political bias.

sack said:

you say its a typical Liberal Democrat approach, but its coming from the Republican White House,, and a Republican congress. it seems to be typical of this administration to stifle perceived political bias.

Click to expand...

Actually Congress is not involved, and this kind of EO would bypass Congress. It sounds like this is coming from the ideological wing of the White House, which is more activist in nature than traditionally Republican. Had they read some history, they'd know that political bias is one of the freedoms we're allowed to have in this country. That goes for private citizens and employees of the government. But as I said, they're not pursuing this from a content basis, but rather financial. That makes it even more insidious.

Told you this was coming.

We on the right are not going to allow censorship to be outsourced.

Well put.

FreddyE1977 said:

Told you this was coming.

We on the right are not going to allow censorship to be outsourced.

Click to expand...

Who is "we?" Sounds like the deep state. The fact is there is no "censorship." And the approach being discussed has nothing that would counter any perceived censorship. What the government is suggesting is to examine any anti competitive behavior. They would see to break up companies like Google. Conservatives view that kind of thing as punishing companies for becoming successful.

Here is an article that covers the subject pretty well, and quotes part of the proposal.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/22/w...ewing-social-media-companies-is-not-official/

Interesting that a month ago, the government and certain groups were concerned that conservatives were being censored, blocked, or otherwise targeted by various social media sites. They were talking about an Executive Order of some sort, and Congress was scheduling hearings.

Now we find out that at least two politically motivated attacks in the last week were preceded by social media posts on Twitter and The Gab. In fact Twitter was warned about the posts, and chose not to delete them.

So here's a question: Should their social media posts have been removed or censored? Would it have been proper for Twitter to censor threats made by the pipe bomber or is that free speech?

TheBigA said:

So here's a question: Should their social media posts have been removed or censored? Would it have been proper for Twitter to censor threats made by the pipe bomber or is that free speech?

Click to expand...

Is social media in fact the new opinion page newspapers have hosted for more than a century. It would seem the same rules apply.

Threatening lives or inciting violence should not be considered free speech, regardless of which side it's from.

landtuna said:

Is social media in fact the new opinion page newspapers have hosted for more than a century. It would seem the same rules apply.

Click to expand...

I think it is, but the difference is that editors were able to decide which letters were published. Not the case today in social media.

anotherguy said:

Threatening lives or inciting violence should not be considered free speech, regardless of which side it's from.

Click to expand...

That makes sense, so what's the solution? How can you control things without being viewed as censoring someone?

When Alex Jones and others were banned by Facebook, they moved to The Gab. Now, as a result of the shooting in Pittsburgh, The Gab is under fire. Where can people go to freely express themselves?

TheBigA said:

I think it is, but the difference is that editors were able to decide which letters were published. Not the case today in social media.

Click to expand...

Many social sites have admins that review posts either before or after publication. I do understand the quantity of entries is much larger on social sites as opposed to newspapers but the theory is the same.

TheBigA said:

When Alex Jones and others were banned by Facebook, they moved to The Gab. Now, as a result of the shooting in Pittsburgh, The Gab is under fire. Where can people go to freely express themselves?

Click to expand...

Seems social sites have the identical problem as do broadcasters. They depend upon advertisers to fund their expenses and if those advertisers think the site is harming their brand by allowing certain kinds of discourse then the site can whither and die. Perhaps individual subscriptions by participants is the answer but then you would most likely have many fewer participants.

landtuna said:

Many social sites have admins that review posts either before or after publication. I do understand the quantity of entries is much larger on social sites as opposed to newspapers but the theory is the same.

Click to expand...

But that's what has brought Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube under government scrutiny, because some feel those sites are unfairly targeting certain points of view. Of course everyone knows newspapers do that. But for some reason, it seems to be different for social media. That's why the government is considering some kind of regulation, while none exists for newspapers.

landtuna said:

Perhaps individual subscriptions by participants is the answer but then you would most likely have many fewer participants.

Click to expand...

You don't have to charge a fee. All you have to do is require membership. That's what this site does. That's what most sites do, and require members to follow certain terms of service. Alex Jones and others violated those terms and were banned. That's what brought about the discussion for regulation.

gr8oldies said:

Unless the ability to self-publish on these platforms goes away (Europe seems to want to move in that direction), what's on the platforms will never be able to be fully controlled by the companies or the government.

Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why foreign governments have discovered they can influence American elections by posting on social media platforms. When the platforms attempt to control improper use of their sites, they find themselves criticized by the president congress, or conservative media. So what's the solution? If the media (including social media) is to blame for promoting hate (at least that's what we're told), what should be done?

Hate has come right from the top and has been repeated by underlings. Criticism of sitting politicians has been an American right since the end of British domination. The current administration (and several others before now) have very thin skin and are not able to take the criticism and therefore want government control of all communications.

landtuna said:

The current administration (and several others before now) have very thin skin and are not able to take the criticism and therefore want government control of all communications.

Click to expand...

That's why the founding fathers made sure to place freedom of the press as the first amendment to the Constitution. Specifically to prevent the government from doing that. The executive order in my OP isn't aimed at controlling content, but controlling the companies. Very different thing.

But today we saw an alternative social media site, not one of the majors, being placed in the spotlight. This was a site that accepted people who had been kicked off Facebook. Now they're finding out that being a platform for user generated content isn't the panacea it was meant to be.

Maybe what we're seeing is that the media is simply a reflection of the people it targets. If the media is the enemy, what does that make the people who use it?

TheBigA said:

The executive order in my OP isn't aimed at controlling content, but controlling the companies. Very different thing.

Click to expand...

The end result is identical.

TheBigA said:

Maybe what we're seeing is that the media is simply a reflection of the people it targets. If the media is the enemy, what does that make the people who use it?

Click to expand...

That's probably true. Trump followers already watch Fox News because FN broadcasts what they want to hear. I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't have many followers subscribing to the NY Times.

But lumping that across the entire range of media seems incorrect. There are some outlets which present both (or many) sides of an issue/story.

landtuna said:

But lumping that across the entire range of media seems incorrect. There are some outlets which present both (or many) sides of an issue/story.

Click to expand...

That may be, but the subject of this thread is social media, and its role in current events. Mainstream media, those that use established platforms such as TV, radio, or newspaper, have some editorial controls in place, and are owned by public companies. So they're responsible for content. Social media sites are merely platforms, usually without moderators or editors, and content is user-generated. The issue is whether or not the platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) should be held responsible for the content. I'd suggest if that happens, their business will be far more expensive to operate, and therefore far less profitable than it is now. And then how will those content decisions be made.

TheBigA said:

I think it is, but the difference is that editors were able to decide which letters were published. Not the case today in social media.



That makes sense, so what's the solution? How can you control things without being viewed as censoring someone?

When Alex Jones and others were banned by Facebook, they moved to The Gab. Now, as a result of the shooting in Pittsburgh, The Gab is under fire. Where can people go to freely express themselves?

Click to expand...

At what point does gab's leaders have to go to congress over this

Gab is an ad-free social network dedicated to preserving individual liberty, the freedom of speech, and the free flow of information on the internet. A free and open internet is essential to the future of a free world. Freedom is creative. It produces. It generates. From freedom flows truth, beauty, wisdom, and growth.



Censorship and closed systems are ultimately about two things: destruction and control. Censorship does not create value, it annihilates it. It corrals human thought into the direction of its choosing. It attempts to bend the global consciousness to its will. This has always historically been the case. Censorship is nothing new.


The difference is we don't have to stand by and watch it happen. We don't have to watch the free and open internet be manipulated by 4-5 smug elites in Silicon Valley.

The internet belongs to We The People. Period.

Together we can preserve something incredible for generations to come. A human achievement so great it challenges the status quo and power of the global elite: the fundamental human right of expression.



There is none more powerful in this world than the storytellers. No amount of money, human resources, or time can stop them or their ideas. The goal of censorship is to silence the storytellers, the truth seekers, the contrarians, the artists, those who question the status quo. We cannot stand by and watch this continue to happen.

This will not be an overnight battle. It will likely be a 5-10 year digital, cultural, and information war. We can and will win. We've built an incredible community of amazing people who share our values and cherish liberty. That is why we will continue to win. Join us and help keep the internet great for generations to come.


Click to expand...

I remember Gab's leaders made a statement that claims they are for freedom and free speech. But back in August when the Alex Jones Boycotts were happening I thought at some point that Gab's leaders will become a target of a boycott threat just like facebook and twitter though.