• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Social Media Executive Order

T

TheBigA

The president has an executive order about social media:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-at-twitter-and-facebook-draft-idUSKBN2340MW

In it, he directs the FCC to review moderation procedures at social media outlets.

The problem is that when Republicans took charge, they removed oversight of the internet from the FCC.

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/14/fccs-republican-majority-kills-net-neutrality/

There are some who feel by eliminating net neutrality, the FCC created the current situation:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fcc-net-neutrality-rollback-what-it-means-for-you/
 
"You are hereby ordered to feed every one of my tweets to every Twitter, Facebook and Instagram user, and all content from Breitbart, regardless of how the user has set their personal settings"
 
It's interesting to read this article from the conservative group The Heritage Foundation, describing the role of the FCC and the internet:

https://www.askheritage.org/does-the-fcc-have-the-power-to-regulate-the-internet

At the time, they were opposing net neutrality, proposed by the Obama administration. They viewed it as a "regulatory over-reach," and said the FCC was not empowered to regulate anything. That was the role of Congress. Using their definitions, the president's executive order is an attempt by the executive branch to bypass both the Congress and the courts to force its will on a private business. I can't imagine how real conservatives will be able to reconcile the president's order with the concept of limited government.
 
TheBigA said:
The president has an executive order about social media:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-at-twitter-and-facebook-draft-idUSKBN2340MW

In it, he directs the FCC to review moderation procedures at social media outlets.

The problem is that when Republicans took charge, they removed oversight of the internet from the FCC.

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/14/fccs-republican-majority-kills-net-neutrality/

There are some who feel by eliminating net neutrality, the FCC created the current situation:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fcc-net-neutrality-rollback-what-it-means-for-you/
Click to expand...

We had this discussion before in past year though and we said something similar on the lines of congressional debates will shut this argument down. and now its been rehashed again.


https://www.radiodiscussions.com/sh...nd-FTC-police-alleged-social-media-censorship

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media-executive-order-fcc-ftc/index.html
 
RadioPatrol said:
We had this discussion before in past year though and we said something similar on the lines of congressional debates will shut this argument down. and now its been rehashed again.
Click to expand...

The key thing to know is that the FCC and FTC do not report to the president. He can't order them to do things.

Legal experts say that if the FCC removes liability protections from social media companies, those companies will be even more justified to remove objectionable material and ban controversial posters, notably the president. Removing liability protection could make Twitter liable for the president's tweets about Joe Scarborough.
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-twitter-theres-always-germany-idUSKBN2342CM

Apparently there's an opinion out there by Social Media investor analysts that Twitter could relocate top management and their offices to Germany if the President executive order is passed by Congress.

Wait the President can't just kick out Twitter management without due process though. That's equivalent to President Duterte in the Philippines shutting down a TV/Radio and Internet broadcasting network in that country. It needs Congress for debates though.
 
[That's something Trump sincerely wishes he could do




QUOTE=RadioPatrol;6322315]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-twitter-theres-always-germany-idUSKBN2342CM

Apparently there's an opinion out there by Social Media investor analysts that Twitter could relocate top management and their offices to Germany if the President executive order is passed by Congress.

Wait the President can't just kick out Twitter management without due process though. That's equivalent to President Duterte in the Philippines shutting down a TV/Radio and Internet broadcasting network in that country. It needs Congress for debates though.[/QUOTE]
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-laws-on-social-media-companies-idUSKBN2343F9

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he is directing Attorney General William Barr to work with states to enforce their own laws against what he described as deceptive business practices by social media companies.

The president, speaking to reporters at the White House, also said that an executive order against such companies would remove a liability shield that they currently enjoy as he slammed them for alleged editorial bias.
Click to expand...

Where is this going though now that the president has ordered the AG over the Social media issue and states are getting included in the mix too. But wait that means if the President wants to enforce his executive order, Governor Newsom and the California State legislature would have to negotiate with the president and the national congress given that Facebook inc, reddit and snapchat and Twitter's main offices are in California though.
 
If the president is going to turn this over to the FCC (which still will need some Congressional approval), then Twitter needs to consider the way the FCC deals with radio. The FCC has a complaint division. When the FCC gets complaints, they respond. That's how Twitter should deal with the president. They're never going to win the battle of the content of his posts. That's an endless game of whack a mole. They should be counting the complaints those posts receive. I would imagine there is no other account that generates as many comments and complaints as his.

Using the radio industry example, there were lots of radio hosts who said worse things than Howard Stern. But none who got more complaints. The squeaky door gets the grease. They need to address which accounts receive the most complaints. They're the accounts that make the platform a bad place for their customers. Otherwise someone will always bring up "Hey what about them? You didn't ban them? Why ban me and not them?" Easy answer: You got more complaints. Let the people be the judge, not your employees.

The only other approach, and this isn't our of the question, is to ban all politics across the board.
 
It's interesting that Facebook reacted differently to the president's post about shooting. Mark Zuckerberg explained why:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/tech/facebook-explains-not-flagging-trump/index.html

This is why the president's one-size-fits-all approach to social media is misguided and won't work. Each platform is its own business, it's own company, and therefore has its own rules and procedures. This is democracy in action. He views it as "silicon valley," but those who work there don't view it that monolithically. So the president is mad at Twitter, and reacts with some executive action. But that kind of big government deep state approach is completely misplaced.
 
I think that Twitter should use a fact check on all politicians running for major public offices and not just pick and choose whether it is president or governor etc.
 
TheBigA said:
I can't imagine how real conservatives will be able to reconcile the president's order with the concept of limited government.
Click to expand...

My experience is that both sides (and all the others out there, too) want government intervention when it suits or supports their goals, and oppose it when it doesn’t.
 
Wow. So much for "small/limited government".

All that conveniently went by the wayside a few years ago. The thing to remember is this; It may not look like on paper the president has any leg to stand on. But bear in mind how many federal judicial appointments were made under this Senate, the backbone of the Senate Majority Leader, who the AG is and the precarious tipping scale of the Supreme Court. As well as previous threats the president has made to CNN, AT&T, Amazon and NBC/Comcast.

But Twitter right now is under a blitz of bot attacks (far right/left, using different messages, but identical templates) trying to egg on young people to riot, as they have since last week. InfoWars appears to be participating indirectly via a heavily retweeted GIFed video with their watermark.

Something very ugly is happening in real time as we speak and we shouldn't ignore it. Because everything right now is being tested to it's breaking point. Deliberately.
 
I agree. Something VERY ugly is happening. We are in or very near all-out cyber war with more than one of our enemies, and these tactics are proving very effective against us.
 
Social media is showing its uglier side. And it's not the first time that has happened.

bulwnkl said:
I agree. Something VERY ugly is happening. We are in or very near all-out cyber war with more than one of our enemies, and these tactics are proving very effective against us.
Click to expand...

That's because our enemies know that we are polarized and Americans too often now believe only what they want to believe, instead of actual facts.
 
boombox4 said:
Social media is showing its uglier side. And it's not the first time that has happened.



That's because our enemies know that we are polarized and Americans too often now believe only what they want to believe, instead of actual facts.
Click to expand...

I agree about social media. As to the other, our enemies have been actively working to further the polarization for a while now. We’ll destroy ourselves from within with surprisingly little direct support or intervention, and they know that (they’re watching it now). It is certainly true that people tend rather strongly to seek information or claims that support their preferred view. People also tend pretty strongly to believe what they see and what they hear. I think the people on this board ought to know that better than most. I can’t help but observe, though, that in most every trial court the dispute and argument is about the facts, not about the law.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom