Trump announces first 2024 Campaign Proposal. Internet Bill of Rights.

Im 100% in full support of this. Go for it Trump!

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday announced a series of aggressive and ambitious proposals to undo what he characterized as the suppression of free speech in the United States if he is elected president in 2024.

Trump, who lost his White House reelection bid in 2020, promised in a videotaped address that he would target government agencies and employees, universities and tech companies with a series of executive orders and policies aimed at their purported censorship of speech and ideas.

Among other things, Trump vowed to “ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as ‘mis-’ or ‘dis-information,’” including federal subsidies and student loan support for universities.

“The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed and it must happen immediately,”

“When I’m president, this whole rotten system of censorship and information control will be ripped out of the system at large. There won’t be anything left,” he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/15/trump-vows-free-speech-reform-of-government-universities-tech.html

What an idiot. What he is proposing is mass censorship.

I will buy all his NFT's.

@tjandmia: it's the opposite of mass censorship.. you daft? How is letting the federal government get involved with speech moderation "free speech". He wants it gone.

He knows that being a compulsive liar he needs a lot of freeze peach.

So he wants to bar academics from doing their jobs properly.

Imagine being so upset about having your lies called out by experts, you want to censor them.

@Maroxad: imagine being in support of the federal government colluding with tech platforms to censor things they don't like on the internet.

Wack.

I would argue that moderators at social media platforms should have the right to consult with experts at universities, when it comes to fact checking. To ensure they have the most accurate information possible.

Both Trump and DeSantis trying to stiffle academics is an INSTANT red flag.

But yeah... if you think this will stop fact checkers from consulting academics, you are SORELY mistaken. Even shoudl US experts be barred from providing ifnormation to Fact Checkers. There are still academics in nearly 200 other countries to consult for those fact checks.

@Maroxad: when the federal government is directly influencing what can and cannot be said online you have a major issue. I don't live in China and have no interest in the US following a CCP footprint.

Among other things, Trump vowed to “ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as ‘mis-’ or ‘dis-information,’” including federal subsidies and student loan support for universities.

I guess one of the biggest liars ever (Trump) would like this. Makes sense.

Hmmmm...

A fact checker consulting academics and experts to provide a fact check following a post does not restrict what anyone can say online.

If anything the way this is phrased , will only result in people being censored based on their profession. If I was a professor, I could risk my university losing its privileges, thus I losing my job, by providing accurate information after I am contacted by a fact checker.

Thankfully, I live in Sweden. Even if Trump would put forth this policy, fact checkers could still consult me and other foreign experts. This is nothing more than GOP culture warriors trying to stiffle the speech of experts... again. DeSantis and Trump seem to love this tactic.

Edit: All this will achieve is censoring academics and other experts. I am not even a lawyer and even I immediately found out about this loophole.

@sargentd: Not that I want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are in favor of letting liars obtain positions of power, and then allowing them to continue lying, and not suffer any sort of penalty or reprisal as a result of their lying.

Is that right?

If that summary above is correct, do you think the bulk of people have the critical thinking skills, education, and/or patience to spot the lies or double-check on their own?

If no, how do you expect this to work out in a positive manner?

So you don't like government oversight of the internet, but you like a government bill that tells us what is legally acceptable on the internet.

Yup that makes sense.

Rofl...

And it's not even like it was in a different thread or 1 year later post. Dude contradicts himself in his same thread 1 hour later after making it.

Freeze Peach for me but not for thee.

Yup, what he is proposing is mass censorship. What he calls the "left-wing censorship machine" is the actually RIGHT of private companies and individuals to exercise their right to free speech to disallow dangerous, hateful, or any other rhetoric on their platforms. He is proposing to censor that right. Don't pretend like you don't already know this shit. Republican crazies have been mega butthurt over private corporations exercising their rights to not let them spread their complete BS.

SargentD calling you daft for being objectively correct as it pertains to law is likely trolling and gas lighting.

Conservatives need to take their highschool civics classes all over again.

what about shadow banning?

1. block (a user) from a social media site or online forum without their knowledge, typically by making their posts and comments no longer visible to other users."in the future, moderators will be given the ability to shadow-ban users"

They can still speak, and others can still access what they say.

Free Speech doesnt guarantee that others have to forward your views to everyone else.

You are both daft

Your argument would be the same argument slave owners would have used. Its their right as a PRIVATE COMPANY, even though it completely ignores the rights of the actual individuals, THE PEOPLE. Not companies. In America we value the 1st amendment.

We need an internet Bill of Rights. This would be better for everyone. All we are asking for is open discourse and expression of ideas on the internet without the government interfering, without special interest groups interfering. Like it or not the internet has become the public square.

and in regard to the precious rights of your favorite multi billion dollar social media platforms "Private Companies".

Make them choose if they are a publisher or an open platform.

If they choose "publisher" then they are liable for everything posted. (have fun with that..) Moderate your little hearts out.

If they choose "open platform" speech should be untouched, unless it clearly is breaking the law (doxing, calls for physical violence, porn, ect..) Basically if what's being said isn't breaking laws... its fair game. That would be a true "Open Platform".

This "let these multi billion dollar companies have their cake and eat it too" mumbo jumbo has gotten tiresome..

They are either a publisher or they are not one.

REPEAL SECTION 230

this isn't crazy talk

this really is a popular idea you know :)

@sargentd: So what I'm seeing is trump wants to remove the first amendment and you're okay with that.

Yes

I like things like the " Bill of Rights" That ensure average people have freedoms/protections.

"government bill that tells us what is legally acceptable on the internet."

its ensuring the average persons freedom of expression on the internet. But if you want to word it like an asshole go ahead I wont stop you.

im sorry but if that's what you got out of this... i don't even know what to say to you lmao

@sargentd: Corporations are people, my friend. Want to change this? I'll help you lead the charge.

good commentary on this topic if anyone is interested

i dont believe you.

Bake the fucking cake bigot

Oh yea I'm the asshole for pointing out exactly the truth. My mistake what was I thinking.

Guys its hard to keep up.

I'm like the only Trumper here talking to 10 -12 Biden fan girls at once on these forums lol.

I'm about to head out to a Christmas party. Ill be back later to read all of your riveting thoughts and ideas on this topic of discussion.

"you say your against government censoring speech but support the constitution / 1st amendment and that's a government document!!"

Is that really your argument?? lmao...

@sargentd: You don't believe what? That corporations are people? It's a legal precedent, there's no believing it or not - it just is until it's changed.

Imagine thinking a federal bill of rights isn't an exact example of government oversight. rofl.

Quick reminder that you have more freedom on some internet platforms now than you would under the American first amendment rights as they exist now. A "internet bill of rights" removes that concept, while making no difference to website that already comply.

You don't really know much about law.

Tech trade groups petition SCOTUS on Texas social media law - POLITICO

NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association — which both represent Facebook, Google and Twitter —are appealinga 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsruling in Septemberthat upheld H.B. 20, a Texas law probiting large platforms from “censoring” viewpoints. The groups say the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-based laws that restrict websites’ editorial choices, according to a copy of the petition first reported by POLITICO.

You have no first amendment rights with regards to private entities. Man, the simplest shit throws you guys off. lol

Who here is a biden fan?

Sadly that is a legal precedent. We may not agree on a lot politically (we do however agree a lot more as far as video games are concerned). But I think all 3 of us can agree that corporate personhood should NOT be a thing and should be undone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Hush, troll.

I'm actually for it in some ways, against it in other words. There needs to be some standards and we need to protect free speech on the internet more. The one thing I like about this site is that the mods actually respect free speech somewhat. On the other hand, there are those who go out by posting porn and pics of dicks and so on who deserve to get banned. GS wasn't always so pro free speech. You go back 10 or 15 years and this place would ban people for minor things.

I use reddit sometimes, they ban you for the smallest perceived slights. I commented on one person's weight loss pics. I said great job, still got a long way to go, but fantastic so far, can really tell the difference. Anyways, I got banned for that comment lol...talk about snowflakes. These dumb sites need to be held to account and anyone who restricts speech to that extent need to be banned themselves and held to account.

@zaryia: He's sooooo close to some introspection.

Is this supposed to be a gotcha? Banning federal money being used to classify speech is consistent with the government NOT influencing what can and cannot he said.

If federal funds ARE used to classify what is/isn't misinformation, wouldn't you say that's the government influencing what can and cannot be said online?

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/please-read-code-of-conduct-for-political-gamers-b-33381063/

#6 - Disruptive Posting / Spam

Spam: Includes but not limited to: promoting personal sites, making comments which have no discussion value (such as "first" or “bump"), quote pyramids or empty quoting, battle threads, "chat" threads, and creating threads with little to no text where off-site content is linked or embedded.

IMPORTANT: DO NOT post in, or reply to spam topics. Doing so will likely cause your account to get caught by our spam prevention software and could result in your account being terminated. If you find spam in the forums, report it to a moderator.

Surveys: Our community does not visit the forums to be solicited or sold to. Any and all solicitations/invitations to participate in surveys, or other forms of research for future public, or personal publication will result in moderation.

Blatant Poor Language/Grammar: We expect people to communicate with something approximating the English language. We understand that no one is perfect and we're not asking you to be. We simply expect your post to be legible.

NecroPosting / Bumping: Do not post in old threads in an effort to get more replies, or reply to older threads that have dropped off (also known as “Bumping”). If you need help understanding what we classify as “NecroPosting” please check our FAQ.

No Discussion Value: Please don't make comments that lack content. Phrases such as "this", "lol", and "I came here to say this" are not witty, original, or funny, and do not add anything to the discussion. While we allow off-topic discussion, be mindful that this is first and foremost a video game forum. Members who take advantage of off-topic to repeatedly post inane, nonsensical or meaningless threads are at risk of moderation.

@appariti0n: Nope, it's censoring rebuttals, which are a form of speech themselves.

Glad you agree with me.

@zaryia: If your position is that you often make posts that add little to no discussion value, in violation of the forum rules, then yes. I agree completely.

What does that have to do with anything?

We were talking about whether or not federal money should be used to classify speech or not.

@appariti0n: It has to do with the post you quoted, lol.

Interesting, so now you think "free speech" = breaking the forum rules laid out by a private company?

Lol, that imbecile will say literally anything to try to get people to vote for him.

@appariti0n: I think you've lost the train of thought. Look at the post again, it doesn't mention or reference forum rules at all.

Given the context, you could probably remove the word "forum" and you'd arrive at the correct place.

@lundy86_4: My post that he quoted didn't reference any other platform rules, either. It was focused entirely on the proposed government action.