'Tantamount to monopoly': Trump signs executive order to curb 'unchecked power' of social media gian

[mystery-ak]

'Tantamount to monopoly': Trump signs executive order to curb 'unchecked power' of social media giants
by Spencer Neale
 | May 28, 2020 04:31 PM



President Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies for the way they regulate content on their platforms.

Speaking from the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump accused Twitter and other social media giants of repressing free speech.

"What they're doing is tantamount to monopoly, you can say it's tantamount to taking over the airwaves," Trump said. "Can't let it happen. Otherwise, we're not going to have a Democracy, we're not going to have anything to do with a republic."

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tantamount-to-monopoly-trump-signs-executive-order-to-curb-unchecked-power-of-social-media-giants

[roamer_1]

I don't know where I am on this one...
Federal 'deciders' make me itch too.

[Night Hides Not]

What is preventing another entrepreneur from starting his/her own social media platform?

[roamer_1]

What is preventing another entrepreneur from starting his/her own social media platform?

That would be the best alternative, but similar to a mafioso consortium, They're locked out for a long time to come. It takes a very long time to take back the 'streets' as it were. Which is why I don't know where to stand on this.

The point at hand is broad protections for 'forums' against liability for content... providing it is an open forum, similar to a flea market - Providing the exchanges are lawful or beyond the property/event-holder's knowledge he is not liable for what people are selling.

But the minute there is an editorial stand, something like a thumb on the scale, swinging the influence in a direction, the forum is no longer an open square, but is now a publisher - Using editorial command to direct the place.

And those broad protections cease to apply

[Cyber Liberty]

The tech companies are taking advantage of their exemptions from laws governing publishers of content.  Since everybody decided President Tweety is evil, then it's imperative we let Zuck and the Twitter guy have their way with our discourse.  Because Trump.

[EdinVA]

The tech companies are taking advantage of their exemptions from laws governing publishers of content.  Since everybody decided President Tweety is evil, then it's imperative we let Zuck and the Twitter guy have their way with our discourse.  Because Trump.

All of the big companies are abusing the pubic trust, not just the tech companies...
The question is, what, if anything, can/should we do about it?

[skeeter]

The tech companies are taking advantage of their exemptions from laws governing publishers of content.  Since everybody decided President Tweety is evil, then it's imperative we let Zuck and the Twitter guy have their way with our discourse.  Because Trump.

Maybe it’d help if we pretend it’s W’s EO.

[Cyber Liberty]

All of the big companies are abusing the pubic trust, not just the tech companies...
The question is, what, if anything, can/should we do about it?

You start off by breaking up the media monopolies.  Nothing else can happen as long as the left is screaming in our ears.  Bookface, and now Twitter have bared themselves as players in the game now, and not simple curators.

[roamer_1]

You start off by breaking up the media monopolies.  Nothing else can happen as long as the left is screaming in our ears.  Bookface, and now Twitter have bared themselves as players in the game now, and not simple curators.

But it isn't a monopoly. more like a racket. consortium.

[Cyber Liberty]

But it isn't a monopoly. more like a racket. consortium.

Toe-MAY-toe, toe-MAH-toe...

Yes, exactly.  A racket.  A Guild.

[truth_seeker]

You start off by breaking up the media monopolies. 

The US has history of breaking up oil cos. banks, railroads, telecoms, etc.

The case for breaking up social tech cos. today, is just as strong as those previous cases.

Other aspect is "throttling," deplatforming, demonetizing, shadowbanning, etc.

Trump knows it, the owners Zuck and Dorsey know it too.

There are billionairres$ waiting invest, too.

[Free Vulcan]

This is a tough one because private companies are not bound by the 1st amendment, but they are large enough today to control the speech of everyone on their platform, to a degree that can influence votes and elections and the makeup of our govt.

While the Founders designed for limited govt and free speech, they also didn't envision private corps having control of it either.

[catfish1957]

This is a tough one because private companies are not bound by the 1st amendment, but they are large enough today to control the speech of everyone on their platform, to a degree that can influence votes and elections and the makeup of our govt.

While the Founders designed for limited govt and free speech, they also didn't envision private corps having control of it either.

I really don't know which way to sway on this one.  Government intervention is one thing, content  manipulation by a left leaning industry is another.  My biggest fear is what happens when you have a left leaning government in cahoots with the existing tech liberal ideology. Putting that into play in my estimation will result in  mass censorship. 

[roamer_1]

This is a tough one because private companies are not bound by the 1st amendment, but they are large enough today to control the speech of everyone on their platform, to a degree that can influence votes and elections and the makeup of our govt.

While the Founders designed for limited govt and free speech, they also didn't envision private corps having control of it either.

Yes, but that is actually tangential to the point.
The operational law protects various fora from suit. They are protected as 'town squares'.
If they are not functioning as such (because they ARE censoring), then they are otherwise classified as publishers and are made open to suit.

So while it is about free speech, it ain't really about free speech.

[catfish1957]

Yes, but that is actually tangential to the point.
The operational law protects various fora from suit. They are protected as 'town squares'.
If they are not functioning as such (because they ARE censoring), then they are otherwise classified as publishers and are made open to suit.

So while it is about free speech, it ain't really about free speech.

If you look at least half of all our postings, we are a SJW's nightmare.  Watch what happens and what starts constituing "hate speech".
Relinqushing control of that rein to the government will only accelerate that via statutes and regulations.  The more I think about it, the more I am leaning for the government to butt out. 

[Chosen Daughter]

If you look at least half of all our postings, we are a SJW's nightmare.  Watch what happens and what starts constituing "hate speech".
Relinqushing control of that rein to the government will only accelerate that via statutes and regulations.  The more I think about it, the more I am leaning for the government to butt out.

I think your right.

More government interference is not a good idea.  Trump has been tweeting for years.  Who cares if they put a fact check.  They have said that does not mean what was written is wrong, just that people should check it themselves.  Does not stop anyone from tweeting.

Well, its too late.  He already put the EO in place.  We are moving in a police state where government is in control of everything.

This is real censorship by the government.:

Senate rejects FISA amendment to block government from spying on citizens' Internet history

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/13/senate-rejects-fisa-amendment-block-government-spy/

We should be more worried about this. 

[LMAO]

I think your right.

More government interference is not a good idea.  Trump has been tweeting for years.  Who cares if they put a fact check.  They have said that does not mean what was written is wrong, just that people should check it themselves.  Does not stop anyone from tweeting.

Well, its too late.  He already put the EO in place.  We are moving in a police state where government is in control of everything.

This is real censorship by the government.:

Senate rejects FISA amendment to block government from spying on citizens' Internet history

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/13/senate-rejects-fisa-amendment-block-government-spy/

We should be more worried about this.

@Chosen Daughter

My instinct is  towards less, not more, government intervention.

[roamer_1]

@Chosen Daughter

My instinct is  towards less, not more, government intervention.

Me too. But this is less... This is about removing protections in the law that currently protect social media platforms from suit.

[bilo]

@Chosen Daughter

My instinct is  towards less, not more, government intervention.

Lifting protections from liability is not govt. control of speech. A couple million dollar law suits going against facebook and twitter will cause them to rethink their position. Once the lawyers are successful the flood gates will open.

Liberals are quick to virtue signal with other peoples money, when they start risking their personal fortunes they start rethinking.

[catfish1957]

Me too. But this is less... This is about removing protections in the law that currently protect social media platforms from suit.

I know where you are going with this , but political winds change.  What might seem like an advantage now of free speech, might boomarang on us later.  Can you imagine a despot like Warren flooding a barrage of EO's and laws in a manner to muzzle conservatives permanently?

[Free Vulcan]

Lifting protections from liability is not govt. control of speech. A couple million dollar law suits going against facebook and twitter will cause them to rethink their position. Once the lawyers are successful the flood gates will open.

Liberals are quick to virtue signal with other peoples money, when they start risking their personal fortunes they start rethinking.

I agree. If they are going to control content and editorialize to a particular bent that's inconsistent with their stated policy, then they shouldn't have protection from private suits.

They want free speech, but want to deny it to someone else. They should at least be able to be called on the carpet by other private entities also wanting their free speech.

[truth_seeker]

Me too. But this is less... This is about removing protections in the law that currently protect social media platforms from suit.

And it is ALSO about the break up of monopolies, which has ample precedents.

[roamer_1]

I know where you are going with this , but political winds change.  What might seem like an advantage now of free speech, might boomarang on us later.  Can you imagine a despot like Warren flooding a barrage of EO's and laws in a manner to muzzle conservatives permanently?

Oh that's right - I am not for the EO. I have been a constant critic of his governance by EO, so I am entirely with you on that. But as a matter of law, it is removing protections that essentially create a preference.

And yeah... Unintended consequences... I know... Something that could come to effect us right here on TBR... It's a monkey knot. One that I would rather have a far seeing Conservative administer.

And I am already on the record saying he will lose on this one btw.

[roamer_1]

And it is ALSO about the break up of monopolies, which has ample precedents.

Nope. Not monopoly... Racketeering in a weird way, but not a monopoly.

[aligncare]

Are they really privately owned if they’re listed on the stock exchange? And if they are publicly traded aren’t there rules and regulations that come into play?

The financial realm is completely out of my wheelhouse, so could use some input here.