| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Cyber | |
| Trump crafts executive order on social media, weighs commission to probe bias amid Twitter fight | |
| 2020-05-28 | |
| |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #21 Short TWTR? Long before, long today. If Trump were able to get the social media giants to not censor anything outside of incitement to riot or facilitate felonies, TWTR's revenues and profits would go up. I'm tired of far left CEO's using these companies as their piggy bank to subsidize Democratic candidates at shareholder expense. If they're political organizations, none of their expenses should be tax deductible. Let them pay taxes on revenues taken in. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2020-05-28 22:49 |
| #20 Short TWTR? |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-28 21:59 |
| #19 Nothing will come out of this. Grandstanding, nothing else. I'm inclined to agree. Until an enforcement action ensues, it's a little premature to celebrate. When Twitter gets hit with a $1b fine or Jack Doherty is forced out, then I'll be impressed. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2020-05-28 21:58 |
| #18 Nothing will come out of this. Grandstanding, nothing else. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2020-05-28 21:14 |
| #17 As much as we hate the bovine egesta from the likes of Twitter, Farcebook, etc., I don't think Trump's gonna win this battle. Perhaps all this will spur some enterprising person to come up with his/her own platform/company. I understand there are some out there (Gab, Patreon), but I don't know much about them. The big social media players aren't escaping regulation any more than Verizon, Comcast and AT&T can escape regulation. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2020-05-28 20:29 |
| #16 Rantburg is a private platform, too. You want a Biden administration to regulate it? Forcing Fred to keep troll comments online (free speech, you know) or adorn articles with his fantastic bylines? Rantburg is not a dominant market player. Big players have to play by rules that others don't. MSFT was targeted for antitrust enforcement, but not AAPL or Commodore or Atari. There's a reason for that. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2020-05-28 20:28 |
| #15 Of course fact checks can be (and often are) biased or simply sloppily researched. But that's not a reason for the government to step on the 1-A rights of the platform company/person. I have been (needlessly) lectured on that fact about the 1-A (well known by me). The 1-A is about YOUR rights the GOVERNMENT must not violate. It only regulates what the government can (or rather can't) do. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2020-05-28 19:26 |
| #14 I should have written many (m)any.... |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-28 19:22 |
| #13 So, who "fact-checks" the MSM? When The New York Times has to cough up an insincere apology for fake news (2-3 years ago), then what can one say? You don't hear many retractions from these MSM pukes, either. |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-28 19:21 |
| #12 I frequently find fact checks to be somewhat ... slanted. Or they pick out a couple of words, ridicule them, and determine the rest of the piece is non-factual. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2020-05-28 19:18 |
| #11 Seems to me Rantburg is a platform. |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-28 19:16 |
| #10 So Rantburg is a publisher (liable) and Twitter or Facebook are platforms (not liable)? If Trump wants to change that, Twitter and Facebook would become liable for what is posted. This means they would actually be forced to censor what people post. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2020-05-28 19:14 |
| #9 As much as we hate the bovine egesta from the likes of Twitter, Farcebook, etc., I don't think Trump's gonna win this battle. Perhaps all this will spur some enterprising person to come up with his/her own platform/company. I understand there are some out there (Gab, Patreon), but I don't know much about them. |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-28 19:11 |
| #8 First, let's kill all the lawyers :-) |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2020-05-28 19:11 |
| #7 BUT - that's the American legal difference between a Publisher (Liable) and Platform (Not) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2020-05-28 19:00 |
| #6 Yes you do and you should. That is the point. If Twitter wants to "fact check" Trump (or anybody else) that's their right. It's THEIR platform. And if Twitter wants to kick Trump off (or anybody else), that's their right, too. You don't have 1A rights on a private platform. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2020-05-28 18:52 |
| #5 Platforms don't censor opinions, and neither do we, EC, but active threats to murder Citizens is not censoring viewpoints, it's a solicitation to a Federal crime There are plenty of opinions I've found objectionable, as others may have found mine at times. It remains as should theirs. I DO ridicule, frequently, and as MY opinion |
| Posted by: Frank G 2020-05-28 18:32 |
| #4 Rantburg is a private platform, too. You want a Biden administration to regulate it? Forcing Fred to keep troll comments online (free speech, you know) or adorn articles with his fantastic bylines? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2020-05-28 18:14 |
| #3 And isn't Farcebook or Google a DARPA production? |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-05-28 18:09 |
| #2 This won't go anywhere. If you don't like the platform of a private company, chose another platform. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2020-05-28 17:54 |
| #1 Overton Window moved in preparation. If Twitter/Facebook/Google stop playing stupid censorship games, no executive order will need to be issued. The ball is in their court. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2020-05-28 16:09 |