Skip to comments.Trump signs social media executive order
Posted on 05/31/2020 2:01:19 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
President Trump signs executive order regarding social media.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Facebook, I never knew ye...
But I wonder about the volumes of info that Google and others have on me?
Now start arresting move on.org and answer.org and Antifa and whatnot leadership
Can anyone give us the short version of what this will accomplish?
Stops social media platforms from censoring content.
I am not happy about this. Let the market control the media.
This now gives the next president the opportunity to shut down voices like Rush.
This was not today, it was two days ago.
he’s not shutting down .... he’s opening up ....
Got 18 minutes?
Zuckerberg is the market. You can’t speak of markets in a monopolistic situation.
Not if you cut him off and limit his access.
Facebook is not forever, neither is Twitter or any other social media platform.
Let the market control, not the government.
In political campaigns while the use of Social Electronic Formats are useful in presenting political positions. Relying solely on using those venues is a mistake because of their SEF content limitations and media bias .
Consideration of the use of reprinted material including handouts and flyers such as of articles in FR and the planning of area saturation distribution known as blitzing in the targeted area is essential of one wants to win.
DO IT LIKE THIS
Get News about corruption spiked by MSM
Presented and sourced in Free Republic. com/
An all sides news collecting site by volunteers
with no ads or fees which uses donations
below just a sample Punch up link for
Burisma Paid Joe Biden $900,000 for Lobbying Ukrainian MP
Ukraine News Agency ^ |KYIV. Oct 9 (Interfax-Ukraine) Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraines Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. payment for consultative services,;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3785536/posts
Obama gave Pearson Publishing $350 million to create Commoncore text and Pearson gave Obama a $65 million dollar book deal in return. Investment Watch ^ | 12/8/19 |The Obamas $60m book deal has broken all records. From James Patterson to JK Rowling and Pope John Paul II, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3805839/posts
Chelsea Clinton is worth big bucks Heres how she managed to make all that money Fox News ^ | 1/12/2020 | Tammy Bruce Posted on 1/12/2020, 3:33:01 PM New York Post reported back in 2015 an estimated net worth of $15 million Barrons, revealed that Chelsea Clinton has now reaped $9 million in a corporate board position. In 2011, her mother was still secretary of state, she was appointed to IAC/, an Internet investment company. receives an annual $50,000 retainer and $250,000 worth of IAC stock , according to Barrons .Politico reported she is rewarded with $600,000 a year doing occasional fluffy feature stories.. Vanity Fair found, after she parted ways with NBC News in 2014, she ended up making $26,724 per minute .http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3807636/posts
“I am not happy about this. Let the market control the media.”
The social media has a monopoly, right up to the Nov. 2020 election. No market will be able to correct for that; meanwhile all the social media (twitter/facebook/utube, etc.) will censor, suppress, eliminate as much conservative opinion on their sites as possible, to sway the election. So much for your market forces. Be realistic.
So cut out their legal exemptions, stop government transfer payments to users that fund those systems via usage-based ad rates. I'm ok with that.
And when they censor content anyway, what will the consequences be? There would have to be an immediate and severe consequence that all would see as directly related.
No citations or ponderous notes.
Have you read the laws? The dispute is about whether an organization is a publisher, or a platform supporting content distribution. If they censor and edit according to a bias or political viewpoint, they are then considered to be a publisher and are then liable for lawsuits. As simply a content distributor (like telephone companies supplying a platform for communications free of censoring), they have protections provided by government.
Twitter broke the rules, and are now considered a publisher open to lawsuits because of their interference as a content distributor. The market is controlling the media; President Trump's action reaffirms this.
How did the breakdown of Ma Bellwork out? They are stronger than ever.
Look at the big picture.
Let the market place decide.
DeGoogle your life to the extent possible. Some decent resources here:
I did what I could almost 3 years ago after the James Damore incident.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c).
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency's Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.Utterly unconstitutional and based on unconstitutional and invalid federal law, all of which has no constitutional authority Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the feds to regulate private individual or private company behavior, ESPECIALLY speech.
Instead of curtailing the already massively unconstitutional federal government and acts, Trump is unwittingly expanding such unconstitutional power of the feds into an even greater totalitarian power.
This is not the road to making America great again. This is the road to destroying America and the road to ruin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.