Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks The Internet Government Media

Trump's Plan To Regulate Social Media (forbes.com) 292

Esther Schindler writes: A 55-page proposal to make the FCC rewrite a law through administrative rulemaking would threaten small social sites and generate vast amounts of new business for trial lawyers. Expect some of the people who denounced net-neutrality regulations to cheer it on. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) would have the FCC rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Instead of protecting social platforms when they moderate users' posts -- what the law actually says -- here the FCC would transmogrify that 1996 statute to hold them liable for such offenses as the Twitter trending-topics lists that Trump called Monday 'Really ridiculous, illegal, and, of course, very unfair!,' reports Forbes.

After Twitter began fact-checking Trump's tweets in late May, Trump responded with an executive order calling for a rewrite of CDA 230's core provisions. They offer immunity from civil (not criminal) liability to providers and users of an "interactive computer service" -- as in, any that hosts your posts -- for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Translation: an online service can decide posts supporting Trump are against its rules, and you won't be able to sue over that.

"Instead of forcing online services to take a hands-off attitude, CDA 230 encourages them to moderate content," reports Forbes. "The NTIA proposes to limit their immunity to moderating pornographic, violent or harassing content. All other curation would be subject to a checklist of such measures as documentation of moderation rules and 'timely notice' to users found violating them. A site that 'vouches for, editorializes, recommends, or promotes' user posts -- see, for instance, Twitter trending topics -- would also become liability for them."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump's Plan To Regulate Social Media

Comments Filter:
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @07:49PM (#60341301)
    is what real, actual censorship looks like. Combine this with the 75,000 boots on the ground [cnn.com] in American states plus an unwillingness to accept election results and you've got yourself a dictatorship.

    Is there anyone who can still stand by this man and say they stand for freedom? It's time to call a spade a spade.
    • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @08:08PM (#60341355)
      As I posted earlier today, we voted this guy in. We asked for this. We deserve every single steaming piece of feces that he dumps on us. That's how our democracy works. We... asked... for.... it.

      He's not a dictator. He's our lawfully elected president. Until November at least. At that point, things might change, or maybe not. In either case, I'm not going to call him a wannabe dictator unless he a) loses the election and b) refuses to accept it and rallies his followers to overturn the election. If those two things happen, the supreme court will get involved and it could be extremely messy. It will be a truly existential crisis that could threaten the future of our country. Until then, he's the guy that we elected to be our leader and he's exercising the power that we, the people, willingly handed to him. He might be awful, but that's largely irrelevant here.
      • by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @08:25PM (#60341417)

        As I posted earlier today, we voted this guy in. We asked for this. We deserve every single steaming piece of feces that he dumps on us. That's how our democracy works. We... asked... for.... it.

        Well actually, less than half of us asked for this. That's how our broken democracy works.

        • Well actually, less than half of us asked for this

          25.67% of adults asked for this.

      • As I posted earlier today, we voted this guy in. We asked for this. We deserve every single steaming piece of feces that he dumps on us. That's how our democracy works. We... asked... for.... it.

        Deserve. It's an interesting word. Perhaps we only deserve the President in the same fashion a damaged young lady deserves her abusive boyfriend... which implies the answer is 'only as long as we're willing to stand for it'.

      • "We" did not (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @08:47PM (#60341515)
        only about 19% of the population wanted Trump to be president. He lost by 3 million votes. A quirk of our electoral system combined with heavy voter suppression (closed polls in blue districts leading to long wait times and a fight against mail in voting) put Trump in office. The millions of people who can't vote because of minor drug "offenses" helped too. Nixon made the right call there, politically

        And I haven't even started talking about Gerrymandering or how our Senate gives 46 times more voting power to somebody in Montana than somebody in California. Again, a minority dominates the lives and decisions of the majority.

        Trump & the GOP's ideas are not popular. When bad things happen people want help. They do not want tax cuts for the rich or bail outs. Medicare for All polls at 88% among Dems and at 50% among Republicans.

        The GOP & Trump win by manipulating systems, using wedge issues and using fear and bigotry to their advantage. This isn't me trolling, it's a statement of fact. It's how a minority of 19% can have total and complete control over the majority despite their ideas & policy being so unpopular.

        One last thing, I do not support violent revolution. I've seen China & Russia's examples and how they ended in dictatorship. Yes, we need to vote him out, but then we need voter reform. Universal Vote By Mail, Automatic Voter Registration, Publicly run polls and Ranked Choice Voting. Democracy works, we just haven't tried it yet.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 )

        As I posted earlier today, we voted this guy in. We asked for this. We deserve every single steaming piece of feces that he dumps on us. That's how our democracy works. We... asked... for.... it.

        Not exactly. *The people* asked for the boring pantsuit lady, square feet of unoccupied rural land asked for the Derpmaster General here. Now the people did allow the system that allowed the possibility of this happening to remain in place, but it's quite a stretch to say that this means the people asked for this and voted this guy in. Always remember that he got the 2nd most human votes.

        I'm not going to call him a wannabe dictator unless he a) loses the election and b) refuses to accept it and rallies his followers to overturn the election

        He's a wannabe dictator right now, at that point he'll be a potential dictator.

      • This proposal isn't a great idea, but Biden's plan even worse. He wants to repeal 230 completely and make sites liable for anything their users post. Trump's proposal is an improvement over that, in that it just requires sites to follow a bit of due process and pre-notification of moderation rules in order to continue to be shielded from liability.

      • Until then, he's the guy that we elected to be our leader and he's exercising the power that we, the people, willingly handed to him.

        Except for all of the laws he's broken. But with a personal attack dog for an AG and Mitch "We don't need no stinking evidence" McConnell running the Senate he doesn't have to care about that.

      • We need ranked choice voting and to end the electoral college, just a simple majority, 50%+1 vote, will do for president. With a simple majority we'd never see another Republican. With ranked choice, we'd never see another Democrat.
      • "He's not a dictator YET" just fixed that for you as he's doing or planning to do all the things authoritarian dictators do.
    • is what real, actual censorship looks like.

      From the article: "The NTIA proposes to limit their immunity to moderating pornographic, violent or harassing content. All other curation would be subject to a checklist of such measures as documentation of moderation rules and “timely notice” to users found violating them. "

      How exactly is this "real, actual censorship"?

      • Your questioning the State is violence. You will be reeducated, citizen.

        In other news, that set of "limits" is so broad you could drive Trump's ego through it.

      • How exactly is this "real, actual censorship"?

        Once you make a deny list, you're done with that argument. Censorship is of course already well enshrined in law.

        Now you are just altering the list based on things you like or not. Winnie the Pooh would be proud.

        • How exactly is this "real, actual censorship"?

          Once you make a deny list, you're done with that argument. Censorship is of course already well enshrined in law.

          Now you are just altering the list based on things you like or not. Winnie the Pooh would be proud.

          It sounds like you haven't read the proposal and have no idea what's in it

    • by Frank Burly ( 4247955 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @08:28PM (#60341427)

      It is worth noting that in Portland, the people charged with misdemeanors like refusing to obey a lawful command are released on condition that they cease protesting--this is also a form of censorship. The Trump administration put his former lawyer back in jail for working to publish his book https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com] , tried to keep his niece from publishing her book, and tried to ban the sale of Bolton's book. Now he is trying to rewrite Section 230 by executive decree.

      The Trump administration is easily the most hostile to free speech in my lifetime, yet the public discussion on Slashdot and elsewhere is about "cancel culture." But "cancel culture" is the flip side of free association. Twitter cancels white supremacists and Qtards, and restricts the accounts of people who spread misinformation about an ongoing public health emergency. Parlor allows all that speech, but will ban you for making fun of Devin Nunes or posting pictures of poop. You get to decide who you associate with.

      The notion your decision not to use Twitter or Parlor is just as bad for civic discourse as government banning books is absurd, but that is where Trump defenders find themselves. No wonder they want to talk about something else.

      • The Trump administration put his former lawyer back in jail for working to publish his book https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]

        Cohen got in trouble for violating the terms of his release:
        "Michael Cohen caught at NYC restaurant — and it could land him back in prison"
        https://nypost.com/2020/07/03/... [nypost.com]

        • That was my initial reaction as well, but:

          “I make the finding that the purpose of transferring Mr. Cohen from furlough and home confinement to jail is retaliatory,” the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said in court. “And it’s retaliatory because of his desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish a book and to discuss anything about the book or anything else he wants on social media and with others.”

    • by robp ( 64931 )

      FWIW, I see it as something more like the opposite of censorship--a way to ensure that insightful/informative/interesting/funny conversations happen less often, because the absence of effective moderation lets trolls and spammers overrun the forums where those discussions used to happen. See also, what happened to Usenet.

      (Yes, I wrote that post. Thanks for the opportunity to dust off this account!)

    • Combine this with the 75,000 boots on the ground [cnn.com] in American states

      Had you read the article you linked you would know there aren't 75,000 boots on the ground in American states.

      And if you read the actual NTIA petition for rulemaking you might find it interesting.
      https://www.ntia.gov/files/nti... [ntia.gov]

      I think it's a pretty interesting description of the regulatory history, the rationale for new rules, and the proposed new rules.

    • Deserves a favorable mod, and thanks for a good start to the conversation. I'm actually looking for the paradox here. Trump's abuse of social media seems to be the strongest evidence that it needs to be regulated in some ways, though he just wants to regulate it to make the abuse worse.

  • by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @07:55PM (#60341313)

    "You cannot arbitrarily censor your users if you provide an open platform" is not censorship. It's the opposite of that. Fuck corporate feelings.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @04:31AM (#60342381) Homepage Journal

      Rather than become 8chan I imagine Twitter would just put up the smallest possible barrier to avoid being legally defined as an "open platform".

      The irony is that supposedly free-speech loving platforms like Gab are closed (you can't browse without being registered) and love to censor (they banned porn years ago).

  • by n3r0.m4dski11z ( 447312 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @07:58PM (#60341327) Homepage Journal

    So if they are liable for promoting tweets, wouldn't they immediately kick trump because he is one massive liability? Wouldn't they be more likely to censor tonnes of content? trump is an internet troll and he harasses people daily.

  • Or in other words, it should only protect the individual from the collective. For example, to protect individuals from companies, or states from the federal government. When legal immunity protects the collective from the individual, it's tyranny.

    • by robp ( 64931 )

      There have been proposals to revise CDA 230 that would keep civil immunity for smaller sites. The NTIA site has no such carveout, as all three of the experts I consulted pointed out to me.

    • I would point out that the individual vs collective/company and small guy vs. large guy are not the same thing. See, Peter Theil and Gawker.

  • It's interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @08:03PM (#60341335)

    The party which claims to represent freedom, the party which regularly touts how free people are in this country, is the same party who routinely goes out of its way to suppress those freedoms. It's almost as if they're taking their cue from fascism.

    • So you're suggesting that if this policy takes effect, when the other party gains power it will immediately act to revert the powers and definitely not use them to their advantage?
    • So what you're saying is, that requiring sites to follow a bit of due process and pre-notification of moderation rules in order to continue to be shielded from liability is fascism, but somehow completely repealing 230 and subjecting sites to complete liability (Biden's stated proposal) isn't?

      This isn't a great plan, it's not the plan I would want, but it's still way better than Biden's goal to get rid of all liability protection.

    • Which party? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 )

      The party which claims to represent freedom, the party which regularly touts how free people are in this country, is the same party who routinely goes out of its way to suppress those freedoms

      The really interesting thing is - I can't tell which party you are writing about here.

      FOSTA-SESTA passed nearly unanimously, remember?

      If you are looking to choose a "side" that protects free speech - well that ship has long sailed.

  • Hong Kong (Score:4, Informative)

    by RJFerret ( 1279530 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @08:10PM (#60341365)

    What's the quote about not standing for them, now nobody left to stand for me?

    We've got federal troops attacking politicians and citizens in our cities, which the leaders of don't want there, and soon we might not be able to even talk about it.

    • https://twitter.com/stillgray/... [twitter.com]

      Apparently the guy who threw an explosive at the federal courthouse in Portland has been identified in a review of the vest his grandma bought for him to riot in. You couldn't make this up.

  • by zenlessyank ( 748553 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @10:28PM (#60341789)

    The only solution is the 2 opposing sides to go to war. In the process hopefully both sides will mostly die and the rest of us real moderates can take our country back from these assholes.

    I don't give 2 shits about democrats nor republicans. They are both diseased from their own selfish idealism's and have lost the will for the pursuit of peace and unity.

    When I was a kid in school back in the '70s, I always wondered how in the bloody hell a maniac like Mousillini or Hitler could rise to power with the blessing of the population.

    Now it is clear as glass.

    In God We Do Not Trust.

    • If two sides go to war, power doesn't devolve to the moderates who stay home. One side or the other wins and imposes their ideal world.

      • Maybe you should try to think outside the box. A smart moderate would wait out the major bloodshed then finish off the scragglers from both sides.

        We win.

        • Yes, that is what happened with the 1/3 of moderates that sat things out when the American Revolution happened, the French Revolution happened, the US Civil War happened, the Russian Revolution happened, Mao took over China, etc.

          Name one time that ever played out.

  • It's generous of them to suggest he has a plan. A thought bubble at most.
  • by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @03:28AM (#60342275)

    No, not that millenial sort of entitled... but entitled to say "I told you so" to all the Obama supporters.

    During the Obama years I repeatedly warned Obama supporters, including here on Slashdot, that they should not be so giddy, or for that matter even supportive of, his creating law out of thin air with his "pen and phone". I warned that every time he did it he was setting a precedent that some future president they might hate would be able to drive a truck through. As a Constitutionalist, I oppose this stuff no matter whether Obama did it or Trump does it - the only laws that are actual laws in the US are those passed by a two-chamber legislature and signed into effect by an executive. I was ignored or even attacked for my warnings.

    I have another warning for you guys who ignored my previous warnings: very recently the Supreme Court blocked Trump from undoing DACA - they admitted he had every legal right to do it, but they claimed he did not do it the right way - a complaint they never had when Obama implemented DACA the wrong way in the first place. Lots of Democrats were thrilled by this, but you seem to have missed a lesson Trump and his team drew: they have realized they can implement all sorts of pen-and-phone Obama-style illegal policies and lock them in place so that the Supreme Court's own DACA ruling will box it in and prevent a future Democrat president from undoing them.

    Someday people will learn that playing outside the rules goes both ways. Both parties used to understand that and therefore both sides used to avoid some of this badness when each had power, knowing the other side could do the same when power switched. In the fall of 2008 Obama boldly yelled to his supporters that they were only days away from "fundamentally transforming" the United States...

    Incidentally, and related to the social media story, Mark Zuckerberg has been referred to the DoJ for prosecution for lying under oath to congress the last time he testified there - the same charge Democrats were thrilled to see applied to Roger Stone (who along with his innocent deaf wife were subjected to a live-on-CNN pre-dawn arrest raid). This would not be a good time for Zuck to keep suppressing Trump's base, given that they're still demanding proof of balanced law enforcement from the DoJ they caught spying on Trump and chasing down his friends, family members, and supporters. What better way for DoJ to redeem itself a bit than by a pre-dawn raid with over a dozen armed and armored FBI guys...and as a bonus nobody in DC likes Zuck, unlike Hillary and her pals who are the other obvious candidates for balanced scales...

    We all, as a country, need to turn back to the Constitution. Our founders struggled mightily and over a long time to write it, while being informed by a study of what had failed in history. Once you separate one party from the rule book, it's only a matter of time before other parties feel foolish for following the rules, and then things become unpredictable and inconsistent and then people begin to feel that their only chance for resolution is violence... either everybody plays by the rules or there are eventually no rules, which only serves the powerful and ruthless.

    • "I told you so" to all the Obama supporters.

      Did you also tell so to Bush supporters, Regan supporters, Carter supporters, Nixon supporters, Johnson supporters, Eisenhower supporters, Trumen supporters, Roosevelt supporters, and I'm getting bored of listing presidents who used their executive orders "pen and paper" more than Obama but there's a few more on the list.

      If you feel entitled to say something completely irrelevant then that is probably your own lack of understanding of history.

The more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain.

Working...