Statement by FCC Commissioner Starks on Section 230 Executive Order
fcc.gov
fcc.gov
i read it as a perfunctory CYA message after media inquiries.
IANAL and all that but how is this censorship, and how does it relate to 1A? Wouldn't a better name for it be "annotating"?
Clearly not written by POTUS himself.
// Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets. //
As far as executive orders go, this one strays pretty far from the legalese into just making a bunch of wild accusations.
And even if you disagree (perhaps you believe there was some form of Russian collusion, despite the Muller report) the accusations are certainly well within the bounds of mainstream debate. Nothing wild here.
This is subjective. “Wild” could mean out of the mainstream or false.
Vaccine effectiveness and the Earth being a sphere are within the bounds of mainstream debate. They contain sides that are wildly inaccurate.
Sometimes a mainstream debate levels wild accusations.
Their "get the facts" link is not deceptive. Suggesting that it's a pretext of silencing Trumps viewpoints is a wild accusation.
You glanced at a Node dependency of the particular gripe once, so your skin in the game under these rules of mainstream debate is sufficient to dox you and threaten you and your family with death based on job title alone. Am I understanding your position correctly? If so, are you perhaps molding your definition of mainstream debate to suit your political beliefs?
Bold of you to dismiss that aspect so out of hand when you advertise your employer on HN, as if it couldn’t happen to you.
No? Nothing? Not a clue? That’s not ringing any bells whatsoever? I read someone else’s comment?
k.
And for those who haven’t been paying all that much attention to the news, or aren’t familiar with Trump’s reference to “the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax”, that’s another blatant lie that needs fact-checking. So here it is:
“A bipartisan investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee has validated the January 2017 U.S. intelligence assessment describing Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election — including Russian efforts to help Donald Trump — describing it as accurate, thorough, and untainted by political bias.“
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/bipartisa...
I’m afraid that President Trump has lost the ability to tell facts from fantasy and is no longer capable of performing his duties as president.
Trump specifically uses the word “collusion” because neither investigation addressed it.
It’s a tactical strategy.
Mueller:
> In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]”…has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
This is Roy Cohn 101. When Trump says he didn’t do something, you can be quite certain that he did worse.
https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loan...
I really don't like Trump. He probably should be tried in Hague for what's happening at the border with caged children. He's a white nationalist destroying US institutions, and withdrawing the country from world leadership and handing it to China, a much worse outcome.
Still, you said he lies and should be fact checked for saying "the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax" - I just came here to say, that despite the consequences of the interference, where a US candidate gladly accepted Russian election manipulation, wanted Russia to investigate an US citizen, and weakened the world's oldest standing democracy... still wasn't collusion, as you sourced (twice).
There was a conspiracy, supported by both investigations. Whether the evidence rises to the level of implicating the president, wasn’t a conclusion left for Mueller, it was left for the Senate, which chose to ignore the evidence.
"Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts...
Now who's right, you or the Wall Street Journal? Who gets to decide that? What if HN said this is clear evidence you're wrong, so we're going to put a disclaimer on your post because you're wrong.
US citizens need to step up because the whiffs of fascism are getting stronger.
In the US alone the covid19 death count is currently at around 100k, with 1.7M reported cases brewing up.
If anything, the economic consequences are the trade-off of not getting an even larger death count, which is already quite high.
> If anything, the economic consequences are the trade-off of not getting an even larger death count, which is already quite high.
Right, which is why it's a good thing the economy was as good as it was. It's not like we could have chosen a worse economy and preparedness. The US has had money allocated to stockpile PPE for the past decade, and failed to do so every year since 2009, when we spent our PPE reserves. This wasn't a money problem.
(The best time: "so far")
Hehehe, that might actually be true :)
But I'm not sure that there is a fixed number plagues that we must endure, maybe they could have been averted :D (Whether at epicenter in China or in local communities around the world)
That is to say -- if there is a problem with not having prepared, it seems that the entire Western world was susceptible, not uniquely america
My point was that, it's not really a matter of picking the best time for a pandemic to hit. But rather about averting or minimizing pandemics :)
> It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions...
So Trump would have to argue that Twitter is using their power to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions.
I'm no lawyer, that seems like a stretch.. And this assumes an executive order can just change law without other legalative bodies.
The goal is to be seen as a strong president who doesn't take crap from nobody.
I think it's simply: "an action".
How and/or whether it actually affects Twitter is probably irrelevant.
Is this executive order 66?
This comes pretty close to it:
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/5/28/21265799/inspecto...