Leaked plans for Executive Order to allow FCC and FTC to further police social media

  • 57 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#1 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36465 posts) -

CNN

Excerpt

A draft executive order from the White House could put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of shaping how Facebook (FB), Twitter (TWTR) and other large tech companies curate what appears on their websites, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

The draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN, calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies. Politico first reported the existence of the draft.

If put into effect, the order would reflect a significant escalation by President Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an alleged but unproven systemic bias against conservatives by technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see fit.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the draft order, but referred CNN to Trump's remarks at a recent meeting with right-wing social media activists. During the meeting, Trump vowed to "explore all regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech."

According to the summary seen by CNN, the draft executive order currently carries the title "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship." It claims that the White House has received more than 15,000 anecdotal complaints of social media platforms censoring American political discourse, the summary indicates. The Trump administration, in the draft order, will offer to share the complaints it's received with the FTC.

In May, the White House launched a website inviting consumers to report complaints of alleged partisan bias by social media companies.

The FTC will also be asked to open a public complaint docket, according to the summary, and to work with the FCC to develop a report investigating how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways. Companies whose monthly user base accounts for one-eighth of the U.S. population or more could find themselves facing scrutiny, the summary said, including but not limited to Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest and Snapchat.

The Trump administration's proposal seeks to significantly narrow the protections afforded to companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the current law, internet companies are not liable for most of the content that their users or other third parties post on their platforms. Tech platforms also qualify for broad legal immunity when they take down objectionable content, at least when they are acting "in good faith."

And it gets worse for Net Neutrality. Ugh...

Avatar image for judaspete
#2 Posted by judaspete (3068 posts) -

I know Trump wants this bad, he's made that abundantly clear, but I'd be surprised if this gets past the draft stage. The federal government just does not have the authority to dictate what private companies have to allow on their platforms. If internet was still classified under Title II, they might, MIGHT have had some room to write up new legislation to reclassify social media as public forums. But under Title I, this is all unlikely to hold up in court.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#3 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166850 posts) -

Donnie dictator.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#4 Posted by Master_Live (19656 posts) -

Yeah, lets not do that.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#5 Posted by joebones5000 (2617 posts) -

What a dumpster fire this joke of an administration is. Wow.

Avatar image for zaryia
#6 Edited by Zaryia (9430 posts) -

Social engineering because GOP policies are widely unpopular. Nice.

You can expect more of this as the party continues to die, just like they have to cheat for votes (gerrymandering, voter supression) and rely on the EC entirely (PV is completely a goner for them).

Avatar image for horgen
#7 Posted by Horgen (120877 posts) -

I like how it is titled: "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship" when it is about increased censorship.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#8 Posted by mattbbpl (17343 posts) -

@zaryia: Allow me to introduce you to the Nationalist Conservative party.

Avatar image for zaryia
#9 Posted by Zaryia (9430 posts) -

The proposal envisions that the FTC would create a "public complaint docket" and would work with the FCC to develop a report on how tech firms curate their platforms and whether they do so in a neutral way,

And who is going to decide what is "neutral"?

And what about when "neutrality" flies in the face of facts?

Avatar image for warmblur
#10 Posted by warmblur (2758 posts) -

Everyday with this clown is just the worst.

Avatar image for n64dd
#11 Posted by N64DD (11968 posts) -

Facebook and these companies are unchecked. This is only good for Americans.

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
#12 Posted by X_CAPCOM_X (8647 posts) -

Guys, we have people defending censorship ITT

Avatar image for heirren
#13 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

Everyone should be for this. Im surprised to see people arent. Youtube is already censoring words, and ratings will be next. Its too easy to access the internet these days and say for example if you are a parent, are there things on youtube you might deem inappropriate for them? Havent terrorists groups recruited people through social media? This is basically forcing these tech companies to have more organized guidelines, and rightfully so. Next step is disclosure of how peoples info is being used.

Avatar image for n64dd
#14 Posted by N64DD (11968 posts) -

@heirren said:

Everyone should be for this. Im surprised to see people arent. Youtube is already censoring words, and ratings will be next. Its too easy to access the internet these days and say for example if you are a parent, are there things on youtube you might deem inappropriate for them? Havent terrorists groups recruited people through social media? This is basically forcing these tech companies to have more organized guidelines, and rightfully so. Next step is disclosure of how peoples info is being used.

This is what happens when you have non-IT people having opinions. I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the rest of the people having melt downs over this.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#15 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166850 posts) -

@n64dd said:
@heirren said:

Everyone should be for this. Im surprised to see people arent. Youtube is already censoring words, and ratings will be next. Its too easy to access the internet these days and say for example if you are a parent, are there things on youtube you might deem inappropriate for them? Havent terrorists groups recruited people through social media? This is basically forcing these tech companies to have more organized guidelines, and rightfully so. Next step is disclosure of how peoples info is being used.

This is what happens when you have non-IT people having opinions. I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the rest of the people having melt downs over this.

Yes. Let's be a nanny state and let the government decide what's best for that. I'm SURE they will do the right thing. smh

Avatar image for heirren
#16 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@n64dd said:
@heirren said:

Everyone should be for this. Im surprised to see people arent. Youtube is already censoring words, and ratings will be next. Its too easy to access the internet these days and say for example if you are a parent, are there things on youtube you might deem inappropriate for them? Havent terrorists groups recruited people through social media? This is basically forcing these tech companies to have more organized guidelines, and rightfully so. Next step is disclosure of how peoples info is being used.

This is what happens when you have non-IT people having opinions. I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the rest of the people having melt downs over this.

Yes. Let's be a nanny state and let the government decide what's best for that. I'm SURE they will do the right thing. smh

You mean like liberal government?

...

That isnt what im saying. Im saying these big tech companies should follow guidlines just like every other business. Maybe there should be no rules in a parking garage. The internet is too easily accessed and abused i do think there should be more organization. Things should be more transparent.

You can have your opinion as long as it does not affect my opinion.

Avatar image for n64dd
#17 Posted by N64DD (11968 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@n64dd said:
@heirren said:

Everyone should be for this. Im surprised to see people arent. Youtube is already censoring words, and ratings will be next. Its too easy to access the internet these days and say for example if you are a parent, are there things on youtube you might deem inappropriate for them? Havent terrorists groups recruited people through social media? This is basically forcing these tech companies to have more organized guidelines, and rightfully so. Next step is disclosure of how peoples info is being used.

This is what happens when you have non-IT people having opinions. I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the rest of the people having melt downs over this.

Yes. Let's be a nanny state and let the government decide what's best for that. I'm SURE they will do the right thing. smh

Aren't you for government run healthcare? :X

Avatar image for joebones5000
#18 Edited by joebones5000 (2617 posts) -

@heirren said:

Everyone should be for this. Im surprised to see people arent. Youtube is already censoring words, and ratings will be next. Its too easy to access the internet these days and say for example if you are a parent, are there things on youtube you might deem inappropriate for them? Havent terrorists groups recruited people through social media? This is basically forcing these tech companies to have more organized guidelines, and rightfully so. Next step is disclosure of how peoples info is being used.

So people on Facebook do not have a right to free speech on that platform. Facebook, because of corporate person-hood that republicans fought so hard to give corporations, is exercising its free speech rights by disallowing anything it wants.

Maybe you need to understand that first amendment rights only protect from government censorship.

Avatar image for heirren
#19 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@joebones5000:

Facebook is a service. Just like a restaurant can require clothing or an orchestra might say please be quiet or you will be escorted out the door. Youve got it all wrong.

Lastly, since when is facebook exclusive to the USA, anyways.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#20 Posted by joebones5000 (2617 posts) -

@heirren said:

@joebones5000:

Facebook is a service. Just like a restaurant can require clothing or an orchestra might say please be quiet or you will be escorted out the door. Youve got it all wrong.

Lastly, since when is facebook exclusive to the USA, anyways.

A service provided by a U.S. corporation. No one claimed it was exclusive to USA. You have no free speech protections on facebook, like it or not.

Avatar image for heirren
#21 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@joebones5000:

Whats your point?

It should have to follow the same guidelines as any other medium. A kid cannot enter an R-rated film, for example. The potential for what is suitable and not suitable should have guidelines. Im not seeing the issue people are having.

Avatar image for horgen
#22 Posted by Horgen (120877 posts) -

@heirren: so fb must get moderators like gs do?

Avatar image for joebones5000
#23 Posted by joebones5000 (2617 posts) -

@heirren said:

@joebones5000:

Whats your point?

It should have to follow the same guidelines as any other medium. A kid cannot enter an R-rated film, for example. The potential for what is suitable and not suitable should have guidelines. Im not seeing the issue people are having.

The point is that there is first amendment protection from only the government. Dictating what a private (non-government) entity must allow is a violation of its first amendment rights.

Don't like it? Get 2/3 of the states to amend the 1st amendment. Good luck!

Avatar image for heirren
#24 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@joebones5000:

Im sorry what?

Guidelines do not infinge upon that. Its already happening on Youtube, btw.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#25 Edited by Vaasman (13800 posts) -

@heirren said:

@joebones5000:

Im sorry what?

Guidelines do not infinge upon that. Its already happening on Youtube, btw.

Youtube is regulating based on advertiser demands, they are not being mandated by the government. You can still post nearly all of the same content you used to, they just cut out a lot of monetization and algorithms telling you to watch horrible shit.

Also, The issue is that because it's an executive order Trump would get to decide through his FTC/FCC sycophants what is worthy of regulation. There is no balanced representation that would be going into this, no external unbiased source, this wouldn't even give the option to improve self-regulation like the government did with movies and games.

Avatar image for heirren
#26 Edited by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@Vaasman:

Do you not think youtube, facebook, and instagram should follow some sort of ratings guidelines?

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#27 Posted by comp_atkins (35796 posts) -

lol.. it's pretty fucking weird that the white house set up a website where people can complain about fb and twitter...

what a bonkers country we're living in these days...

Avatar image for Vaasman
#28 Posted by Vaasman (13800 posts) -

@heirren said:

@Vaasman:

Do you not think youtube, facebook, and instagram should follow some sort of ratings guidelines?

Not really. These sites already have those kinds of regulators to stifle or block off genuinely objectionable content, and also, parents should be watching after and approving content for their kids.

Regardless, this wouldn't even give them the chance for that, because the government would just be telling them what's staying and what's going with no options internally.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#29 Posted by MirkoS77 (14354 posts) -

Yea, good luck with that.

Avatar image for heirren
#30 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@Vaasman:

In a perfect world i agree with you. However, platforms such as facebook have become a platform for scumbags as well. Dont talk to stangers. I just think in the real world, these tech groups should be held more liable.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#31 Edited by LJS9502_basic (166850 posts) -

@n64dd said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@n64dd said:

This is what happens when you have non-IT people having opinions. I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the rest of the people having melt downs over this.

Yes. Let's be a nanny state and let the government decide what's best for that. I'm SURE they will do the right thing. smh

Aren't you for government run healthcare? :X

Not the same thing.

Avatar image for zaryia
#32 Edited by Zaryia (9430 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:
@n64dd said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@n64dd said:

This is what happens when you have non-IT people having opinions. I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the rest of the people having melt downs over this.

Yes. Let's be a nanny state and let the government decide what's best for that. I'm SURE they will do the right thing. smh

Aren't you for government run healthcare? :X

Not the same thing.

Access to healthcare is totally the same thing as the incels being upset that they got banned for saying racist/sexist things on Facebook/Twitter!

Rofl idiots.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#33 Posted by Jacanuk (18711 posts) -

@nintendoboy16: And the problem is?

Social media is the cause of so much shit and allowing them to police themselves is stupid, so good that the government goes in. It´s about time and it will be interesting to see if the companies dare go to court over it.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#34 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36465 posts) -
@X_CAPCOM_X said:

Guys, we have people defending censorship ITT

Yep...

Avatar image for n64dd
#35 Posted by N64DD (11968 posts) -

@zaryia said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@n64dd said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@n64dd said:

This is what happens when you have non-IT people having opinions. I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the rest of the people having melt downs over this.

Yes. Let's be a nanny state and let the government decide what's best for that. I'm SURE they will do the right thing. smh

Aren't you for government run healthcare? :X

Not the same thing.

Access to healthcare is totally the same thing as the incels being upset that they got banned for saying racist/sexist things on Facebook/Twitter!

Rofl idiots.

Can you respond to something without name calling?

Avatar image for zaryia
#36 Posted by Zaryia (9430 posts) -
@n64dd said:
@zaryia said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Can you respond to something without name calling?

Sure thing friend,

Access to healthcare is totally the same thing as the extreme right being upset that they got banned for saying racist/sexist things on Facebook/Twitter!

Avatar image for heirren
#37 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

Social media shouldnt just be policed it should be eliminated.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#38 Posted by Vaasman (13800 posts) -

@heirren said:

Social media shouldnt just be policed it should be eliminated.

Calm down Kim.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#39 Posted by Jacanuk (18711 posts) -
@heirren said:

Social media shouldnt just be policed it should be eliminated.

I do agree that social media is a problem but free speech should be key which is why if it does not get declared a public utility , i would 100% agree it should be made illegal.

Avatar image for heirren
#40 Edited by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@Jacanuk:

Free speech. With regards to what? The platform should be held liable for any form of hate crime stemming from this "free speech". Its a different age and im not saying no to free speech but when people feel like their privacy has been infringed upon(is that the 4th?) they should have every right to defend themselves.

Its a platform for cyber crime.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#41 Posted by Jacanuk (18711 posts) -
@heirren said:

@Jacanuk:

Free speech. With regards to what? The platform should be held liable for any form of hate crime stemming from this "free speech". Its a different age and im not saying no to free speech but when people feel like their privacy has been infringed upon(is that the 4th?) they should have every right to defend themselves.

Its a platform for cyber crime.

What do you mean in regards to what? Free speech is free speech, not like in Europe, Canada or in some circles in America, where speech is only free if it complies with the increasing number of rules set by the far-left.

And Hate crimes? are you talking about certain words who have been deemed "bad"? Also, privacy has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is being allowed to speak your mind.

Which is why Social media should be declared a public utility since free speech of course only applies to government etc. Like here on Gamespot there is no free speech at private venues

Avatar image for heirren
#42 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@Jacanuk:

Lol i was try to communicate what i want to say but its proving difficult.

Free speech is free speech. However, you have people that manipulate the youth on platforms like facebook. You have people spreading nonsense as fact to those not in the know, which can provoke the youth to, for example, join in on their agenda.

I know this is coming across as a rant maybe but there are all these weird new types of ways that kids bully other kids or strange cults that use social media. Wasnt there something about terrorists groups recruiting younger kids through social media? So this manipulative type of free speech should go unregulated? Its psychological attacks on people, disguised as free speech. Now, this is only an example. For someone like myself itd just be a fart in the wind, but the tech companies should be held liable for things that may stem from things stirred up on social media.

Its a cancer to society, as are these sad journalists with such angular reporting, you can hardly call it news, so thats free speech? Or is it spreading propaganda?

Avatar image for zaryia
#43 Posted by Zaryia (9430 posts) -
@Vaasman said:
@heirren said:

Social media shouldnt just be policed it should be eliminated.

Calm down Kim.

Lmao.

Avatar image for heirren
#44 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@zaryia said:
@Vaasman said:
@heirren said:

Social media shouldnt just be policed it should be eliminated.

Calm down Kim.

Lmao.

Whos kim? Wow that fell flat.

If yall like social media thats fine, but just dont be hypocrites when yall start whining about "fake news"/extreme left/right news. Same bs.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#45 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166850 posts) -

@heirren said:
@zaryia said:
@Vaasman said:
@heirren said:

Social media shouldnt just be policed it should be eliminated.

Calm down Kim.

Lmao.

Whos kim? Wow that fell flat.

If yall like social media thats fine, but just dont be hypocrites when yall start whining about "fake news"/extreme left/right news. Same bs.

Psstt….North Korea.

Avatar image for heirren
#46 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic:

What are the laws on free speech, there?

Zzzzzz.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#47 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166850 posts) -

@heirren said:

@LJS9502_basic:

What are the laws on free speech, there?

Zzzzzz.

You ASKED who Kim was. Duh

Avatar image for heirren
#48 Posted by Heirren (2199 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic:

Hence a joke which fell flat.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#49 Posted by Sevenizz (4013 posts) -

About time. With every conservative pundit being demonetized and silenced, you’d think the Democrats were getting unpaid advertising to promote them for 2020. If you thought Russian interference was a problem, how are you not concerned when almost the entire mainstream media is trying to influence you? Scary times.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#50 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166850 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

About time. With every conservative pundit being demonetized and silenced, you’d think the Democrats were getting unpaid advertising to promote them for 2020. If you thought Russian interference was a problem, how are you not concerned when almost the entire mainstream media is trying to influence you? Scary times.

No conservative pundits are being silenced and we don't want our government policing thoughts and ideas. You can keep that in Canada.