Online Censorship Executive Order

[Icarus_ 2 / 740]

Hi,

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

 

I dont think you can ban people for talking shit anymore

 

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Icarus_

[Guest Saizy]

@flyingjoe32 ban this one right here

[TheThirdReaper 291 / 0]

Did you read the full article?

[Icarus_ 2 / 740]

Just now, TheThirdReaper said:

Did you read the full article?

[Icarus_ 2 / 740]

Heres the juice:

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.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

 

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

 

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

 

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

 

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

 

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

 

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

 

Sec. 6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

 

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

 

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

 

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

 

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

 

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

 

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Icarus_

[Harakoni 729 / 12,354]

Right just read over the full legislative change and nowhere does it prohibit action on people "talking shit".

The full legislation, for people who actually want to know it's purpose, is to prevent large overaching bodies such as Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and other large sites from doing the following;
-Withholding income gain based on the users political opinions
-Manufacturing and tailoring of algorithms to present a bias in presented news (left classed people fed more left style news, vice versa)
-Performing blacklists, shadowbans, and account suspensions/removals for political opinion on an a company level. (People can still block other people)

This does not change legal guidelines or standings on other issues such as lewd, violent or harmful posts as well as filtering for children.

TL;DR -
You can't de-monitise or remove someone's account/posts for expressing a political opinion unless violating a limit of lewd, violent, or harmful concepts.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Harakoni
Minor mispellings

[im not inactive you are 888 / 16,340]

I would assume this is aimed more towards platforms like YouTube that don't "censor" Republican videos, but make them hard to find. An example is Steven Crowder, who would post his "Change my Mind" series & you wouldn't be able to find the original videos (though having millions of views) and you'd see the democratic-viewed "reactions" that people would post instead. 

[Icarus_ 2 / 740]

[flyingjoe32 887 / 14,692]

@Daystar it's ok i'm canadian i gotchu

[Eli 708 / 11,596]

i'm too fucking lazy to read it

 

Is this essentially saying twitter cant censor what the president is saying because its against their TOS/ negating TOS from sites like twitter and other media platforms that people consider to lean left when making decisions on removing certain posts. 

 

if that the case then i understand why their could be an outrage, at first i thought of this as very supportive. Then I thought of the implications of allowing certain hate speech on platforms that wouldn't normally allow it.

[Fertility 15 / 0]

On 6/1/2020 at 2:38 AM, Harakoni said:

You can't de-monitise or remove someone's account/posts for expressing a political opinion unless violating a limit of lewd, violent, or harmful concepts.

Edited June 1 by Harakoni

Hahaha no it doesn't.

He's revoking 47 US Code 230

This would make platforms (including GFL) civilly liable for every single thing posted on them.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

[Fertility 15 / 0]

@Harakoni What are you laughing at, are you a literal retard, go look up what Code 230 does, it would literally result in more censorship as websites would be liable to anything posted there.

 

You guys are literally having freedom of speech on the internet taken away and are celebrating it as combating censorship.

On 6/1/2020 at 10:50 AM, Eli said:

i'm too fucking lazy to read it

 

Then don't comment, no it won't prevent twitter from censoring Trump, it will make them civilly liable for every dumb fuck mistruth he tweets and will result in them censoring him more to avoid being culpable.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Fertility

[Harakoni 729 / 12,354]

14 hours ago, Fertility said:

@Harakoni What are you laughing at, are you a literal retard, go look up what Code 230 does, it would literally result in more censorship as websites would be liable to anything posted there.

No.

Your own referenced previous link here ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 ) disproves this, and i assume you've made the mistake of falling for the over-complex legal terminology.
This is not a removal of Code 230, but an amendment to the already existing Code 230.

I'll copy and paste the policy lines that you may have misinterpreted;

"(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;"
This spells out the United States most important internet policy for Freedom of Speech and Expression in regards to the Internet.

"(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;"
This policy explains that the user must be given the power to filter what content is displayed on their screen to avoid algorithm bias. I mentioned this prior with "Left Leaning people fed more Left news, Right leaning fed Right news". Unless the user dictates that this filtering is to take place, and instead the company or provider automatically filters based on bias or agenda - it violates Code 230.

"(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material;"
Allows optional blocking systems to still be designed and implemented for content filtering inappropriate to children. (18+ filters, etc)

See additionally this section;
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
"(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
This over complex statement means that any company or an overarching body (eg Google, Twitter, YouTube) is independent of the users using their platforms to make use of it for opinions. 
The companies do not take responsibility for what is said on a forum/website/video/tweet. 

This overall only applies to actions outside of a site's ToS. However; Company's ToS will be amended in order to not violate section 2 of Policies around policing, blocking, and filtering of speech.
 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Harakoni
Minor mispellings

[Eli 708 / 11,596]

14 hours ago, Fertility said:

@Harakoni What are you laughing at, are you a literal retard, go look up what Code 230 does, it would literally result in more censorship as websites would be liable to anything posted there.

 

You guys are literally having freedom of speech on the internet taken away and are celebrating it as combating censorship.

Then don't comment, no it won't prevent twitter from censoring Trump, it will make them civilly liable for every dumb fuck mistruth he tweets and will result in them censoring him more to avoid being culpable.

hey, you don't have to be a fucking asshole. Instead of being a miserable cunt, have honest nice open discussions with people about politics.

[Dragoon 385 / 10,460]

The ironic part is that Harakoni isn't even from the United States, so it doesn't even affect him. He's going out of this way to explain it for people who either... A: Don't get it  |  B: Are too lazy to read the EO. 

@Fertility It would be much appreciated by everyone here if you could please be respectful.

Edited June 8, 2020 by DragoonMCL

[Astro 451 / 10,622]

poor president got his feelings hurt on twitter boohoo

 

i will say poop on line all i want and nobody can stop me

[Guest Saizy]

3 minutes ago, Astro said:

poor president got his feelings hurt on twitter boohoo

 

i will say poop on line all i want and nobody can stop me

Whether or not he did, this is a step in the right direction to be honest. If anything, this gives us more internet rights if I’m reading it all correctly

[JGuary55 707 / 14,712]

Ban the retarded president from social media, please and thank you,

Its stupid that he got his baby back bitch feelings hurt and now he wants to do this. Completely dumb, what they should do is make a law saying presidents need to shut tf up and do there job  

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by JGuary551

[Fertility 15 / 0]

11 hours ago, Harakoni said:

This is not a removal of Code 230, but an amendment to the already existing Code 230.

 

11 hours ago, Harakoni said:

This spells out the United States most important internet policy for Freedom of Speech and Expression in regards to the Internet.

Ah yes because regulation results in a more competitive market of course.

11 hours ago, Harakoni said:

This policy explains that the user must be given the power to filter what content is displayed on their screen to avoid algorithm bias.

They have that power? No one is forcing you to look at anything right now.

11 hours ago, Harakoni said:

Unless the user dictates that this filtering is to take place, and instead the company or provider automatically filters based on bias or agenda - it violates Code 230.

No it doesn't because that's a policy of the United States not the actual set in stone law.

11 hours ago, Harakoni said:

This over complex statement means that any company or an overarching body (eg Google, Twitter, YouTube) is independent of the users using their platforms to make use of it for opinions. 
The companies do not take responsibility for what is said on a forum/website/video/tweet. 

Which is exactly why it shouldn't be removed.

11 hours ago, Harakoni said:

However; Company's ToS will be amended in order to not violate section 2 of Policies around policing, blocking, and filtering of speech

No it won't be, it will require companies to moderate more.

10 hours ago, Eli said:

hey, you don't have to be a fucking asshole. Instead of being a miserable cunt, have honest nice open discussions with people about politics.

Weird I thought you were in favour of free speech, are you perhaps suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to express certain messages on GFL?

10 hours ago, DragoonMCL said:

The ironic part is that Harakoni isn't even from the United States, so it doesn't even affect him. He's going out of this way to explain it for people who either... A: Don't get it  |  B: Are too lazy to read the EO. 

Millions of sites are hosted in the US, it will affect him/

 

9 hours ago, Saizy said:

If anything, this gives us more internet rights if I’m reading it all correctly

Your reading comprehension is poor as fuck if you think giving websites immunity from what their users post is anti-freedom.

 

[Guest Saizy]

dude that was kinda mean i am gonna cry, how dare u say that to me on my favorite gaming forum ;(