Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Protections For Social Media Platforms (axios.com) 466
President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday designed to limit the legal protections that shield social media companies from liability for the content users post on their platforms. Axios reports: "Currently, social media giants like Twitter received unprecedented viability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We are fed up with it. It is unfair, and it's been very unfair." The order comes after the president escalated his attacks against Big Tech in recent days -- specifically Twitter, which fact-checked him for the first time this week over an unsubstantiated claim that mail-in voting drives voter fraud.
The order focuses on a portion of the Communications Decency Act known as Section 230, which grants broad liability protections to tech platforms from civil suits when it comes to what users post, and would press regulators to create new rules aimed at pulling back that shield, Trump said at the White House Thursday. It also asks the Federal Trade Commission to report on acts of political bias collected by the White House, he added. Attorney General Bill Barr said that the administration is preparing legislation as well. The Trump administration has long mulled reining in Section 230, and the Justice Department convened a workshop earlier this year on the topic. Trump said he expects the executive order to draw a lawsuit.
The order focuses on a portion of the Communications Decency Act known as Section 230, which grants broad liability protections to tech platforms from civil suits when it comes to what users post, and would press regulators to create new rules aimed at pulling back that shield, Trump said at the White House Thursday. It also asks the Federal Trade Commission to report on acts of political bias collected by the White House, he added. Attorney General Bill Barr said that the administration is preparing legislation as well. The Trump administration has long mulled reining in Section 230, and the Justice Department convened a workshop earlier this year on the topic. Trump said he expects the executive order to draw a lawsuit.
You sure about that? (Score:5, Interesting)
unsubstantiated claim that mail-in voting drives voter fraud.
I wonder where he could have come to that conclusion. [nbcnewyork.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
“We Choose Truth Over Facts”
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That article points out what is already known, all methods of voting are subject to voter fraud, mail, standing in line, electronic.
The ONLY reason Trump and the GOP do not want mail in voting is because it makes it easier to vote, and more difficult for them to suppress those that want to vote.
Republicans make up roughly 32% of eligible voters; they know that, the true silent majority are liberals; you'll see that in November, regardless of how Americans end up having to vote.
Re:You sure about that? (Score:5, Funny)
The ONLY reason Trump and the GOP do not want mail in voting is because it makes it easier to vote, and more difficult for them to suppress those that want to vote
Trump and the GOP also want to harvest the organs of minorities for their rich corporate buddies. These marginalized voters cannot leave their homes in fear of being hunted down by monocle-wearing Republicans and the only way to stop Trump and the GOP is for their vote to be counted! If they cannot vote by mail, which is obviously the most secure way to guarantee election results, rich fatcats will be drinking 100 year old scotch on their yachts with the aid of a poor African American child's liver.
These are the hard facts.
Re: You sure about that? (Score:5, Funny)
You're not wrong. Voting is such a tiny influence on elections these days.
Re: (Score:3)
it is wholly detached from politics
No, it's not.
For instance, in the UK the 'non-partisan' Boundary Commission have been instructed by the very much political Government exactly how many constituencies it must have following the next change.
That required number is different to the required number from 3 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You sure about that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's irrelevant. Minor trivial case of voter fraud versus claims of massive election hacking if mail in ballots are used. There are cases of in-person voter fraud at the polls, and yet we still allow voting at the polls because such fraud is insignificantly small as well.
Re:You sure about that? (Score:5, Informative)
unsubstantiated claim that mail-in voting drives voter fraud.
I wonder where he could have come to that conclusion. [nbcnewyork.com]
Or maybe he was thinking about the only actual recent mail-in ballot election fraud attempt -- in North Carolina last year that almost succeeded [gq.com] (and many other sources). Oh wait, that was a Republican.
Re:You sure about that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Squabbling over which party did what is stupid because you're going to find plenty of corruption in both.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's an issue with the use of the infinitive and the specific instance.
Fraud has been carried out with mail-in voting, but mail-in voting does not "drive voter fraud".
A meteorite struck a field in my town, but meteorites do not strike this field in my town.
Re: (Score:3)
unsubstantiated claim that mail-in voting drives voter fraud.
I wonder where he could have come to that conclusion. [nbcnewyork.com]
I don't know about New York, but here in Oregon we have had 100% vote by mail for over 20 years with no significant issues.
Talk Radio -- when it's our turn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn’t (conservative) TALK RADIO be regulated the same way, for the same reasons. Radio stations have a monopoly on the few available AM or FM radio frequencies and so alternative voice and free speech is stifled. Limbaugh and the rest should be forced to ALLOW MORE LIBERAL VIEWPOINTS. Amazing the conservatives are enabling all the anti-freedom ant-free market principles that socialists were previously known for. Mao and Stalin would be mesmerized.
What’s stopping Trump from starting his own website instead of FORCING his way onto Twitter and dictating their terms of service? Try to apply logic in a consistent and fair manner. If Trump can derive a right to Twitter, liberals can and will/(and as a counter, probably should) derive a right to call into and be heard on talk shows unimpeded.
Conservatives must allow more liberal callers on talk radio, and stop hanging up on them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nobody is forcing liberal voices off the air. Its just only so much "Orange Man Bad" before even liberals start to tune out.
Just watch for "fairness doctrine" to come back. Though this time the roles will be reversed and it will be Democrats opposing it and Republicans supporting it. Neither side can handle real liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Talk Radio -- when it's our turn. (Score:5, Informative)
The fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987.
Fox News didn't exist until 1996.
Re:Talk Radio -- when it's our turn. (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, the "fairness doctrine" was a ploy to ensure that only two parties could be heard at election time. Minority viewpoints were excluded. It was repealed when they decided they didn't need that crutch. Plurality rules voting (mistakenly called majority rules) sufficed to ensure that only the two major parties had a chance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing the conservatives are enabling all the anti-freedom
What's so amazing? Conservatives have always been anti-freedom. From obscenity laws mostly passed on the behest of conservatives, to resistance to the Bill of Rights - conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history.
Re:Talk Radio -- when it's our turn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing the conservatives are enabling all the anti-freedom
What's so amazing? Conservatives have always been anti-freedom.
What's anti-freedom about this? If you want to edit and censor the content on your platform you can't very well then turn around and claim you are not responsible for anything on that platform. The minute you edit it, it's your content.
The way things were, was that these social media sites want to both edit the content and claim it's not theirs.
Re: (Score:3)
What's anti-freedom about this?
Holding open platforms responsible for all of the users' content will simply mean their death. And you _already_ can sue platforms if their editorial changes rise to the level of slander.
If you want to edit and censor the content on your platform you can't very well then turn around and claim you are not responsible for anything on that platform. The minute you edit it, it's your content.
Then open platforms should also be allowed to sue their users. Your post cost the platform a lawsuit that took 7 figures to defend? Well, it's time for you to lose your house and be indebted for the rest of your life.
Re:Talk Radio -- when it's our turn. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's anti-freedom about this?
Holding open platforms responsible for all of the users' content will simply mean their death.
Well, that's not the only option - they can stay alive by not editing their user's content.
And you _already_ can sue platforms if their editorial changes rise to the level of slander.
Who's talking about suing the platforms? We're talking about taking away their shield of "That's not our content" if they want to continue moderating like crazy. No one is proposing to take away their protections if they don't moderate the content.
If you want to edit and censor the content on your platform you can't very well then turn around and claim you are not responsible for anything on that platform. The minute you edit it, it's your content.
Then open platforms should also be allowed to sue their users.
They are allowed to sue. Nothing is stopping them. These are some of the largest companies on the net, they have the resources so you should ask yourself why they feel threatened by people who tell journalists "learn to code".
Honestly, there wouldn't have been any blowback if they had moderated fairly, but when even the centrists start thinking that they are going too far ....
Re:Talk Radio -- when it's our turn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's not the only option - they can stay alive by not editing their user's content.
None of Trump's content was edited. Twitter simply provided additional information. Why are you against free speech?
Who's talking about suing the platforms? We're talking about taking away their shield of "That's not our content" if they want to continue moderating like crazy. No one is proposing to take away their protections if they don't moderate the content.
And what's the difference? Why should platforms be deprived of their free speech? Freedom of association has been confirmed multiple times.
They are allowed to sue. Nothing is stopping them. These are some of the largest companies on the net, they have the resources so you should ask yourself why they feel threatened by people who tell journalists "learn to code".
Because these people are actually working for a tyrant who wants to stifle the free speech that is politically incorrect (i.e. tells the truth). Duh.
Re: Talk Radio -- when it's our turn. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The minute you edit it, it's your content.
If you/they edit the actual user-supplied content, definitely. In this case, Twitter appended a link to -- let's be honest here -- the actual facts (aka: the truth). Seems like a gray area. The original post is presented unaltered in its entirety with a footnote added by Twitter.
How is this really any different than sites, like Instagram, shading or otherwise highlighting posts that may contain "sensitive" or potentially objectionable, but not in violation of the TOS, content requiring the user to click
Its been tried (Score:2)
The name escapes me but it was supposed to be syndicated liberal programming but it failed pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative versions of twitter have been tried too and failed, that's why you guys are trying to hijack twitter. It's only fair the same be applied to talk radio. I guess it will happen when a democrat is president -- remember, you guys enabled it.
Re: (Score:3)
Terrible analogy, TV and Radio stations were never protected by section 230 in the first place. And for your analogy to make a modicum of sense the station, not the shows, would have to have alternating viewpoints. Or would you be OK with forcing Rachel Maddow and Chris Cuomo to platform Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Radio stations have a monopoly on the few available AM or FM radio frequencies and so alternative voice and free speech is stifled. Limbaugh and the rest should be forced to ALLOW MORE LIBERAL VIEWPOINTS.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't radio stations, conservative or otherwise, already accountable for the content of their programming?
The problem with FB and the like is not that it is impossible to start your own version, but that by now they have a virtual monopoly on listeners. It's a bit like being banned from the town square, and told: "you're free to set up your soapbox way out in that empty field over there, where no one will hear you". No, you don't have the right to an audience, but when a
Re: (Score:3)
Correct me if I am wrong
No problem; you're wrong.
The problem with FB and the like is not that it is impossible to start your own version, but that by now they have a virtual monopoly on listeners. It's a bit like being banned from the town square, and told: "you're free to set up your soapbox way out in that empty field over there, where no one will hear you".
Yeah, all the people you could ever want to talk to are on Usenet, I mean ICQ, I mean AIM, I mean Yahoo / MSN Messenger, I mean Myspace, I mean Orkut, I mean Facebook.
Facebook is terrified of falling to the next thing and sooner or later they will, just like everyone before them.
Much as I dislike Trump and his public emanations of hot air, he does have a point.
Trump would not have a point if you stuck his head in an oversized pencil sharpener, which sounds like a pretty good idea, now that I think about it.
Social media are no longer neutral.
They never really were, and they never ever were required
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we can apply a force back when YOU want to force twitter to host Trump. You seem to have forgotten that part. It's only fair, don't go crying when you want to force people to do things for you too. Twitter is under no obligation to be forced to bend to Trump or be he his slave. Trump should make his own website, plenty of suitable domains are available.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Americans were against being ruled by Kings, but it looks like I was wrong there.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently Trump can force Twitter to bend to his will. He has signed an executive order to limit their legal protections.
I thought Americans were against being ruled by Kings, but it looks like I was wrong there.
This is fake news. He signed an EO to do a review.
Re: (Score:2)
plenty of suitable domains are available...
Sadly, idiot.com is already taken.
People who lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't like being pointed out that they do.
Well, that explains things. Trump gets pointed out a *lot* -- like 15 times a day for the past 3 years -- no wonder he's so cranky. :-)
Re:People who lie (Score:5, Insightful)
The ONLY reason Trump and the GOP do not want mail in voting is because it makes it easier to vote, and more difficult for them to suppress those that want to vote.
Republicans make up roughly 32% of eligible voters; they know that, the true silent majority are liberals; you'll see that in November, regardless of how Americans end up having to vote.
Re: (Score:3)
https://theintercept.com/2020/... [theintercept.com]
Why is it that it is only Republicans that try and do this? Oh yeah, because they know they are going to get slaughtered.
Can we do away with executive orders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you might like this particular order, it doesn't have any real staying power, as has been shown by all of Obama's executive orders that Trump was able to undo with as little effort as was required to create them.
Re: (Score:3)
The republicans made a huge deal of it during the Clinton era but nothing happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we just do away with executive orders?
Literally, no. You would have to do away with the authority of the presidency to get rid of EOs because they are just written versions of orders from the president.
Re:Can we do away with executive orders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we just do away with executive orders?
Literally, no. You would have to do away with the authority of the presidency to get rid of EOs because they are just written versions of orders from the president.
The root of the problem is that we've given far too much power to the executive. Congress delegates way too much, which makes the executive, and therefore the president, far too powerful. The problem is that both parties think this is good when their guy is sitting behind the Resolute desk, and bad when the other team's guy is sitting there, so there's never enough political will to change it.
Re:Can we do away with executive orders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. The two party system is inherent in "plurality rules" voting. Change it to actual "majority rules" by some method such as Instant Runoff Voting and the power of the parties will start to decline. (I really favor Condorcet, but Instant Runoff is easier to explain.)
That said, I'm not sure that would suffice. Lobbying has so corrupted the government that it might well be necessary to replace the voting system with a lottery or some such. And combine that with rules with TEETH against accepting any fav
Don't like it? Leave. (Score:4, Funny)
if Trump doesn't like the way Twitter does things he can always go start up his own social media site, complete with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the blackjack(he doesn't do well with casinos). He'll just keep the social media company and the hookers, er, uh, pagent contestants.
Re: (Score:2)
If twitter wants to be a publisher and not a platform they can start right now. You can't want it both ways at the same time.
Re:Don't like it? Leave. (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't censor Trump's tweet. They didn't modify Trump's tweet or any way prevent people from seeing Trump's tweet. The only thing they did was add additional content on the page. Are you saying that a private company has to choose between being legally responsible for user content or lose all control over displaying additional content on the same page as that user content?
Re:Don't like it? Leave. (Score:5, Insightful)
They added an opinion to fact check an opinion.
Do they do this to Pelosi, Biden, Schiff?
Its pushing on the scale of politics.
Its unacceptable.
Re:Don't like it? Leave. (Score:5, Insightful)
They added an opinion to fact check an opinion.
Do they do this to Pelosi, Biden, Schiff?
Its pushing on the scale of politics.
Its unacceptable.
Do Pelosi, Biden, or Shiff promote easily refuted bat-shit crazy conspiracy theories as if it were factual?
Trump is transitioning our culture to where lying and hypocrisy are normal.
Hopeless and stupid gambit (Score:5, Insightful)
Social media bias lawsuits keep failing in court:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com]
And more to the point, Twitter didn't limit anyone's speech here, they plainly just ADDED speech, which is protected. If anything, this makes comment deletion less likely but comment editorializing MORE likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hopeless and stupid gambit (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me where they added words into Trumps speech that changed or altered what he posted. Tip: they didn't. They put a link at the bottom of his tweet that is clearly not part of what he wrote
Re: (Score:2)
And everything Twitter posts in their official capacity as Twitter could probably also be considered 'opinion'. Your weird deflection doesn't make it any less true that the speech is protected. It isn't defamatory, dangerous or any sort of speech that would fail any sort of free-speech test you could put it up to.
Honestly, this doesn't change the status quo at all. The first moment someone reports a tweet as somehow problematic such that Twitter wouldn't be protected for leaving it up, we'll see a chain of
Platforms should only concern themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
with illegal acts and give up on 'fact-checking' their users...like the internet used to be.
When did Ma Bell ever interrupt a phone call to tell someone to stop using the F word or inform the parties on the call that it didn't "approve" of their opinions.
Unless it is illegal (fraud, sex offenses, etc), it's not any of Twitter, Facebook, etc business to control the information that people pass back and forth...that would be FASCISM, something our 1st Amendment is designed to protect against. I don't CARE that they are Private Companies. It doesn't matter. Like the phone company they have set themselves up to be a PUBLIC use service. If they don't like 'bad' opinions, they should get out of the business.
If you are forced to have a REFEREE for public communication...YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH. You have TYRANNY.
Remember when internet companies just wanted to be the BEST for their USERS?
Re: (Score:2)
If you are forced to have a REFEREE for public communication...YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH. You have TYRANNY.
Indeed. But nobody FORCES Trump to use Twitter. He's free to use any other means of communication.
I might even agree with regulation if Twitter were a complete communication monopoly, but it's not even close. It's on the same level as, say, Fox Noose. Should it also be regulated?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When did Ma Bell ever interrupt a phone call to tell someone to stop using the F word or inform the parties on the call that it didn't "approve" of their opinions.
Right, since Twitter works exactly like Ma Bell, where said opinions are expressed to one other person. It's almost like they are completely different, where a statement on Twitter gets broadcast to thousands if not millions of other people. Weird...
Re: (Score:3)
Platforms can do whatever the fuck they want WITH THEIR OWN PLATFORM.
Where do you stand on net neutrality?
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A bit out of touch, ain't ya?
Trump rigged the election? (Score:2, Insightful)
Could it be that Trump bribed the electoral college so that his losing vote was overturned by a tiny number of his supporters? I don't know, but people are talking...
Maybe someone should investigate. After all, what's Trump got to hide?
See? This innuendo and information corruption is so easy. Well, obviously it must be easy if Donald Trump can master it.
Re: (Score:2)
Roy Cohn taught Trump nothing. (Score:2)
While taking his money hand over fist.
Wait until Trump sees handcuffs; then all the good stuff comes out; the names and crimes he'll confess to and put on other people will be endless.
doesn't this cause the opposite effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
By removing their shield from liability, won't this force social media giants to *more* aggressively censor
their platforms so they aren't held liable for third party content?
Re: (Score:2)
He wants that (Score:5, Informative)
No-one will be allowed to moderate, on pain of being a "publisher" of libel, and responsible for everything they post.
In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. found that as Prodigy had taken an editorial role (ie, did moderation) with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and legally responsible for libel committed by customers (Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org])
Mr Trump would like no moderation, so that his statements could not be subject to moderation or, IMHO, even criticism
Re: (Score:3)
confused (Score:2)
Re: confused (Score:3)
Thats because its an authoritarian move and both Communist and Fascist governments are authoritarian governments.
He's only making this worse (Score:2)
If tech companies become liable for what users post, they are just going to add MORE fact checking and/or delete posts like the ones he makes. Then Trump is going to cry 'free speech' failing to remember that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom FROM the government, not BY the government. Government can't infringe on speech, but private citizens and corporations sure can.
Re: (Score:2)
Such speed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump gets corrected on Tuesday and signs an executive order on Thursday.
Imagine if he had reacted to the coronavirus this fast.
So it begins (Score:2)
Begun, the Clown Wars has.
So all Twitter had to do (Score:4, Insightful)
was fact check one of his COVID tweets and he would have taken action against COVID the next day.
Holly fuck the US has a man child at the helm.
Not simple (Score:2)
The question of to what extent social media sites are responsible for content that people post, is not at all simple. Most people want some level of control, but the limits are not at all easy to agree on.
False information? Hate speech? Pornography? Copy-write content? National security information?
I think people need to shout less and think more about what works
He's exactly right... (Score:2)
If they leave it unmodified they should be fully protected.
Now... if your browser or some other utility, that the viewer chooses, fact checks for your or otherwise modifies the content another user posted... that doesn't break anything as far as how we use the internet as it removes dubious ability of fact checking from the platforms.
It's the same deal as ISPs also providing media content... its a to
Trump (Score:2, Insightful)
What a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
If you just say, "he is the dumbest person in the world," without mentioning a single name, everyone knows who you are talking about. In fact, a huge Trump supporter that I work with let one slip the other day about someone when he said it was kind of nice that person, "talked in complete sentences." Without mentioning a single name, I knew exactly who doesn't. LOL, if you google "world's dumbest person," Trump is in the block of pictures that come up above the search results.
If I was Biden, I would just ru
Joe Biden calls for revoking Section 230 Entirely (Score:5, Informative)
For everyone complaining about Trump, Biden wants it gone entirely:
From a January Interview [nytimes.com]:
Biden: I’ve never been a fan of Facebook, as you probably know. I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan. I think he’s a real problem. I think ——
CW: Can you elaborate?
Biden: No, I can. He knows better. And you know, from my perspective, I’ve been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which you’re not exempt. [The Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can. The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.
CW: That’s a pretty foundational laws of the modern internet.
Biden: That’s right. Exactly right. And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy. You guys still have editors. I’m sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.
Trump's approach, even if selfishly motivated, is actually the correct one - you're free to keep your section 230 protections if you don't censor or alter content.
Why "Draw a lawsuit?" (Score:3)
Trump said he expects the executive order to draw a lawsuit.
That doesn't make sense... The CDA Section 230 provides liability protection in the law itself, which cannot be overruled by an executive order. You should never hear from a judge: "Well, the law says X, but the president's executive order says Y (which there is nothing in the law to support), so we will ignore the law."
The companies targeted could just ignore the executive order... No action needed to be taken: they don't have to sue. If anyone tries to sue them get the case dismissed pretty quickly just like it would if the executive order did not exist citing the CDA Section.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, nothing like the Obama Spying on Americans ... No, not just trump but others as well. That isn't authoritarian at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the slide towards authoritarianism, once subtle, has been under way for decades now. Perhaps it's been a steady slide from the beginning. Accelerated in recent years, beginning with Reagan. And it's not something solely owned by one party or ideology. It's a trap nearly everyone with opinions, including me, falls into it seems.
Re: Either You're a Conduit or a Publisher (Score:2)
You are either stupid or willfully ignorant.
See what I did there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't mess with his Fake News! He want everyone to hear his Fake New first and straight from his orifice.
What he posted/tweeted is still there, Twitter simply appended a link to the tweet [twitter.com] saying:
! Get the facts about mail-in ballots
Don't know why he's upset, unless he doesn't want people to get the facts. Can't imagine why he (and the GOP) wouldn't want that. I mean, facts help make an informed voter/populace -- oh, wait.
Re: Fake News (Score:4, Insightful)
And what, pray tell, were Trump's citations?
Answer: There weren't any!
Re: (Score:3)
I already commented on that. There are a very tiny number of cases of actual voter fraud, and this was one of them involving a city council election. The number of cases of voter fraud are so rare compared to the number of actual voters in national elections that it's statistically irrelevant. Trump is not talking about a few rare cases, Trump is claiming that voter fraud by mail in ballot will be so massive as to give Democrats the win, which is clearly untrue.
Note that vote by mail is used commonly in
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter should ban him now. Oh my god would that be hilarious! Thereâ(TM)s nothing he could do about it heâ(TM)s not already doing.
Re: Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter should ban him now.
If Twitter bans Trump, then he might actually win the elections.
Re: Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
If Twitter bans Trump, then he might actually win the elections.
What does or doesn't happen on Twitter will have no impact to the election. The people who will be influenced by the ban are already die-hard Trump supporters. Anyone on the edge of this probably would see just see the resulting temper tantrum and continue to be unconvinced that he is presidential material.
Nothing has changed since 2016 (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that Trump is the worst thing that has ever happened to America and to the world in the last 3/4 of a century --- I'm a scientist and an academic, so that opinion probably wouldn't surprise anyone at all.
And yet, I'm pretty sure that Trump is going to WIN the 2020 elections, notwithstanding the mountain of enemies and his own incompetence arrayed against him. The reason is clear: nothing has changed since 2016 in respect of what got him elected. Don't forget that almost nobody understood why he was elected back then, and they won't understand why this time either.
It's actually very simple. Middle America holds a vast reservoir of disenfranchised people, not only living in poverty but wholly unrepresented by any party. It doesn't matter how they vote, because regardless of good-sounding campaign manifestos, both major parties benefit only the rich, the powerful, the corporations, the establishment. Those disenfranchised people have tried playing both sides of this game, time and again, but their vote never changes anything for the better. They offer no tribute in campaign contributions, and so after their votes are cast, the people are once again swept under the carpet and into the gutter.
And so, there is only one path left open to them: to break America, and hope that out of the pieces emerges something more democratic than what is currently a 1-party state ruled by the Establishment Party. Of course, Trump didn't give them anything he promised either, but that doesn't matter to them because his wrecking ball is working very well, and THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE . They have no other way out of their situation --- the 1-party state has to be broken.
Has anything changed since 2016? The only new thing is COVID-19, but that mess just highlights that the wrecking ball for which they voted is indeed devastating the establishment quite effectively, as the virus isn't sparing the rich and powerful. And the disenfranchised in Middle America still have nothing to lose. It's 2016 all over again.
If you don't understand the above logic, then you're not part of the demographic that brought Trump into power, and so it is very likely that once again you will not foresee Trump winning the election. Middle America is invisible to everyone who thinks that they live in a democracy which has everyone covered.
Re: Fake News (Score:3)
Re: Fake News (Score:4, Informative)
99% of Tweets are reactions to Trump's tweets and complaining about Trump.
Re: Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter should ban him now...
It's not just a matter of 'should' - banning Trump might become an absolute legal necessity.
If Twitter becomes liable for the posts of its users, then they could be held legally responsible for the consequences of Trump's tweets. Any thinking person HAS to realize that Trump's vindictive, defamatory, misleading tweets would make him by far Twitter's greatest liability. They'd have no choice but to suspend his account.
I REALLY hope this comes back to bite Trump in the ass.
Re: Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty of Democrats will be banned too.
And eventually "Social Media" will disappear as the burden of policing content overwhelms any company.
That is a good thing. Social media is the worst thing that's happened to civil discourse in our society.
Re: (Score:3)
Social media is the worst thing that's happened to civil discourse in our society.
Is Slashdot social media?
Re: Fake News (Score:5, Funny)
No, we're all introverts. This is more like anti-social media.