[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 43 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced as Dangerous, Unconstitutional Edict
"In practice, this executive order would mean that whichever political party is in power could dictate what speech is allowed on the Internet."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/11/leaked-draft-trump-executive-order-censor-internet-denounced-dangerous
Civil liberties groups are warning of a major threat to online freedoms and First Amendment rights if a leaked draft of a Trump administration edict—dubbed by critics as a "Censor the Internet" executive order that would give powerful federal agencies far-reaching powers to pick and choose which kind of Internet material is and is not acceptable—is allowed to go into effect.
According to CNN, which obtained a copy of the draft, the new rule "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."

While Politico was the first to report how the draft was being circulated by the White House, CNN notes that 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."

Following reporting on the leaked draft, free speech and online advocacy groups raised alarm about the troubling and far-reaching implications of the Trump plan if it was put into effect by executive decree.
>>
I guess this would be the next step after the net neutrality fiasco.
>>
And the Biden administration is gonna shut this place down in a heartbeat. ggwp team trump.
>>
>>444531
Finally I agree with Trump on something
>>
>>444534
And people still are deluded and think Trump isn't a fascist.
>>
>>444602
Have you read it?
No?
Let's read it together: It would impose regulations against censorship by social media companies.
Against companies doing censorship.
One more time: against censorship by companies.
Let's review: regulates companies against censoring users.
>>
>>444857
Sounds like he wants to prevent social media sites from removing fake news from their platforms in advance of the election next year.
>>
>>444869
Gotta give /pol/ and the russobots freeeeeeeeedom!
>>
>>444857
In other words it would force these websites to carry something they do not agree with against their will. Basically state controlled media. Great that's a whole lot better.
>>
>>444886
>In other words it would force these websites to carry something they do not agree with against their will

Good.
It would be pretty messed up if the mail companies could refuse to carry a letter I wrote simply because they disagree with the opinions written in the letter. In fact I would go as far as to say the content of my letter is not really any of their business they should just carry the letter to where the address is without reading it.
>>
>>444857
Jesus
>>
>>444888
Letters aren't broadcast media, your opinion is invalid.
>>
>>444888
Private web platforms aren't comparable to a state-run mails system at all. If this administration wants to set up some kind of publicly funded online messaging platform that would be completely different, and then you would be free to spread lies and misinformation without violating any community standards.
>>
>>444888
Mail is a private medium, usually the contents of mail is kept between the sender and receiver and I think it's actually illegal for carriers to open mail unless something illegal has been detected through screening. Mail is also a business and you paid for their service so they wouldn't have any right to refuse your mail anyway.

Messages and posts on Twitter and Facebook are public, there's no expectation of privacy on those platforms. Also you never paid for their service so your use their service is a privilege that they can revoke when you affect them personally. Like when your behavior and comments reflect poorly on them as a company.
>>
>>444881
This, more proof Trump is conspiring with the Russians again because he wants to force social media to carry their propaganda and have impunity to flood America with it..
A true enemy of America he is.
>>
Isn't this supposed to make companies lose all the protections they have as open platforms because they arguably act as publishers by removing your post about transgenderism being a mental illness and banning you which has happened to a psychologist before? It's clear that Twitter and Facebook and others are trying to have it both ways.
>>
>liberals calling Trump a fascist for not letting them censor opposition

Honk honk
>>
>>444968
Distilled truth.
>>
>>444968
>Remove foreign propaganda and outright lies
>Censorship
As expected of a fascist.
>>
>>444857
Liar
You clearly haven't read it
>>
>>444968
>free market anti-regulatory conservatives would like to force private companies to host things against their terms of service on their platforms
top honks
>>
>>444988
The article. As much as I'd like to see the draft, I'm referring to the article.
>>
>>445107
>private companies

honkhonk
>>
>>445107
any other industry:
>regulations kill businesses - let the market sort it out - reeee government fuck off
banned for posting nazi memes on twitter:
>government help
>>
>>445107
>But it's okay to force individuals to pay for single payer healthcare
Debates are so much easier when you can just invent your opponent's opinion for them, huh?
>>
>>445126
It seems as though you don't understand what bootlicking is. By your definition 90% of the functional world who agrees that Nazis and alt-right human garbage need be expelled from civilized society are considered bootlickers.
>>
>>445118
>banned for posting nazi memes on twitter:
>>government help
First, the vast vast VAST majority of banned users are not posting Nazi memes. So put away your strawman.
Second, it's not a matter of help. It's a matter of not giving these companies 47 USC 230 protections when they are obviously ceasing to be a platform and are instead a publisher exercising editorial control.
>>
>>445587
To clarify further, it's about negative control. Let's examine two publishers. Publisher A puts forward all eight users' content: orange, orange, purple, purple, orange, purple, purple, orange.
Publisher B has a terms of service that enables them to censor content based on some kind of terms of service; the result is only five user's content gets published: purple, purple, orange, purple, purple.
They both traditionally enjoy protection. But seeing as the output of publisher B is clearly pro-purple, are they really neutral? This draft is putting forward the principle that, no, publisher B is not a neutral platform and instructing Federal agencies to treat them accordingly.
>>
>>445593
>Publisher B has a terms of service that enables them to censor content
And they can go right on ahead doing that. In doing so, they can put themselves right along with all the other opinion sites that curate content to a specific view. But no more masquerading as a neutral publisher.
>>
>>445587
>are instead a publisher exercising editorial control.
Literally every single platform that exists exercises "editorial control" over what they delete from their service. 4chan exercises editorial control over what you can and can't post. If you had your way 4chan would be liable for ever piece of CP posted to /b/ and promptly cease to exist.
>>
>>445587
>First, the vast vast VAST majority of banned users are not posting Nazi memes. So put away your strawman.
Find me an example of shit being removed for pure politics reasons that doesn't violate terms of service and isn't arguably harassment etc.
>>
>>445107
>Mum boogyman
LOL
>>
>>445607
>4chan would be liable
Yeah, you clearly don't get how this law works.
/Because/ 4chan doesn't censor based on content of posts (but does, as you scarecrow, remove illegal activity), it enjoys certain 47 USC 230 protections.
Twitter, on the other hand, censors based on content. Its enjoyment of those protections would, if that draft goes forward, go bye-bye. Welcome to all kinds of civil action. First up: copyright violation. Next: defamation suits.
>>
>>445608
Seriously? You get one. I won't play your stupid game.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CysicpLWEAQXNCf.jpg
>>
>>445634
>Russians
>Censored information
Implying this isn't shopped like everything else they do.
>>
>>445634
>VAST majority of banned users are not posting Nazi means
>I fucking hate black people
>>
>>445637
I am shocked, shocked that you remain unconvinced.
>>445638
Not getting the point in spades.
>>
>>445640
You moved the goalposts in a really stupid direction and I only assume it's because you couldn't actually find an example of what I asked for
>>
>>445643
>moved the goalposts
From where to where?
>>
Liberals have been censoring tweeter and Facebook, and u tube for years so long Donnie could censor day and night for one hundred years and never catch up.
>>
>>445633
>/Because/ 4chan doesn't censor based on content of posts
Have you EVER fucking read the rules of 4chan?
>>
uhmmm sweetie

freedom to censor doesnt mean freedom from consequences...
>>
i mean, you libs should be glad that Trump is stopping social media companies from going full retard, he's doing it for their own protection, any time someone who just doesn't give a fuck could shoot up Twitter or YouTube hq (already happened but it was an incompetent woman lul)
>>
>>445669
>he's doing it for their own protection
there's a position open for you in the white house as king of bootlickers
>>
>>445671
I'm wearing the boots sweetie, you're licking them when I stomp them through your teeth
>>
>>445674
larping retard
>>
Reminder that the reason conservatives get banned is because they are running bot armies, or deserve it.

Remember their tears when Twitter deleted a bunch of bots anda vast majority of them followed Conservative people?
>>
FCC Rules
Bye bye porn
>>
This will require new legislation to actually happen. This will be enjoined in court at litigated for 10 years before anything went into effect.

Personally I'm rather sure we will have far more pressings problems by then
>>
>>445663
And you ever looked at /b/?
>>
>>444531
Please read the executive order itself. It will protect free speech.
>>
This is just the government trying to control something they have no control of.

The internet has been a runaway train for the last 40 years. It's the on true underworld. The government can try and do what they want but the technology exists to build an Internet on the internet (block chain).

Private industry will always be one step ahead of Government. This is why government rules by force because they have no real power.
>>
>>444857
so... the government seizing more power over the private sector is a good thing? What happened to Liberty and Freedom? Don't Tread On Me!, and all that shit? I thought Republicans were champions of the Free Market and Small Government?

Trump could, literally, spit in your mouth, and you would be overjoyed
>>
>>444888
exept that analogy makes no sense. the Post Office doesn't actually read your mail. They can't censor what they carry, because they have no idea what they are carrying.

except....

THEY DO CENSOR WHAT THEY CARRY!! you can't mail explosives, flammables, firearms, biological material (including living things), alcoholic drinks... a ton of shit. I am not sure if there is a ban on mailing cash... The post office bans stuff for a variety of reasons, not least of which is because that stuff is dangerous to mail.

Youtube has two jobs: be the #1 video hosting site, and MAKE MONEY. if a billion Neo-Nazi videos are uploaded, it might accomplish the first task... unless becoming flooded with poisonous hate causes its audience to flee. Also, advertisers are very sensitive to their customers, so they will not sell ads, if they are going to be seen on content that offends those customers. So, Youtube will take down those offensive videos. Is this censorship? Fuck you, Youtube doesn't care. it is not the job of of Youtube to carry EVERYTHING, only to carry whatever content allows it to 1) be the best video hosting site, and 2) make a shitload of money.

this is called "Capitalism". Welcome to America! you seem to be new here!
>>
>>445593
so, we have to give equal treatment to all opinions, then? I assume that's what you are getting at. Purple and Orange are competing ideas, right?

what if Orange is lying? what if the Orange opinion is a complete fabrication, designed to stur up division and anger.

What if Orange is incorrect? "2+2=4", says Purp. "no, 2+2=18", says Orange. who is helped by this clearly false, and useless info? or maybe Orange says "2+2=3.78, in certain circumstances, based on these principles." now, you have presented your audience with something that *sounds* true, but is really hard to figure out, so maybe it is true? But, it is actually not true. What is the value in confusing your audience?

Or even, what if there just aren't a lot of Orange voices? what if most people are Purple, while only a few are Orange? if we force an even representation, that gives the false impression that there are way more Oranges than there actually are. (one reason why Gay Rights Activists used to say that 10% of people are homosexual, when the number is probably a lot less, and almost impossible to nail down)

Or, what if this fictional magazine caters to Purple people? if the audience is Purple, and they like Purple, what is the value of forcing them to consume Orange?
>>
>>445633
but... 4chan DOES censor its content. possibly you have seen the words "moderator", "mods", "janitors", and "Ban Hammer" floating around and wondered what they meant?
>>
>>445661
define "censorship" for me
I have a feeling that you and I have different understandings of this word
>>
>>445840
Not the anon you're quoting but pretty sure a bunch of unrelated sites like historical channels and random musicians got shitcanned for absolutely no reason since yt's new algorithms. I would call random bans censorship.
>>
>>445840

hahaha. fucking shit. americans literally kill, arest and assassinate people based on the internet censure. and fucks on 4chan are dropping random shit at each other thinking that saying nigger is a freedom of speech.
>>
>>445813
So you'd be fine with Twitter locking all "bad" posts into a virtually unusable ghetto surrounded by spam and garbage?

And rules 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are enforced in /b/, some of which are "editorial decisions" on content.
>>
>>445901
>So you'd be fine with Twitter locking all "bad" posts into a virtually unusable ghetto surrounded by spam and garbage?

That is certainly better than just shadowbanning them.
>>
>>445903
Twitter only "shadowbans" you in the sense that they stop recommending your content, which they have an absolute right not to do.
>>
>>445906
>which they have an absolute right not to do

Hey don't start branching into other topics now. You asked me whether or not I would prefer twitter to just have a ghetto like /b/ and my answer was "if compared to the current system being implemented then yes absolutely". I think a twitter version of /b/ would be bring about a new golden age of chan culture.
>>
>>445835
if youtube wants to avoid more violence they will stop censoring, freedom to censor doesnt mean freedom from consequences and the "free market" isn't going to do anything about that
>>
I don't think you liberal faggots really understand the severity of the situation here and just what people are willing to do to stop you from dictating what is broadcasted in the public square. Censorship is violence whether its done by the state or a corporation and people will defend themselves against that violence, either regulation succeeds or direct action does.
>>
>>445913
>Censorship is violence whether its done by the state or a corporation
The supermarket throwing you out because you're shouting about niggers is "censorship" but it isn't violence since you don't have a right to shout about niggers in a supermarket.
>>
>>445831
So now you're a filthy capitalist? Have you any integrity?
>>
>>445838
>so, we have to give equal treatment to all opinions, then?
If you're going to be a neutral publisher claiming 47 USC 230 protections, yes.
>>
>>445838
>your audience
If you have "an audience," you're curating content and not a 47 USC 230 protected publisher.
>forcing them to consume
No one is being forced to consume an opinion blog with a comment section. And no opinion blog with a comment section is claiming 47 USC 230 protections of which I am aware.
>>
>>445901
>So you'd be fine with Twitter locking all "bad" posts into a virtually unusable ghetto surrounded by spam and garbage?
Or quarantine warnings like /r/the_donald? Sure.
>>
>>445952
That's not what 47 USC 230 says at all.
>>
>>445953
>If you have "an audience," you're curating content and not a 47 USC 230 protected publisher.
>47 USC 230 protected publisher.
This is completely braindead. 230 doesn't mention publishers at ALL. There are literally no conditions on whether sites receive 230 protection because the full text says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Who provided the shitposts on your timeline? You did. The fact that Twitter decided to delete 99% of them for shits of giggles does nothing to affect its liability under the law, because it's still an interactive computer service, and you still provided the shitposts.

>And no opinion blog with a comment section is claiming 47 USC 230 protections of which I am aware.
Literally every single opinion blog - and website - on earth has 47 USC 230 protection whether it wants it or not. Stormfront has it. Revleft has it. 4chan has it. Gmail has it.
>>
>>444857
You mean censoring companies.
Not allowing people to represent themselves with their private property as they see fit.
You are a complete fucking moron. You have been manipulated into carrying water for a major political party (for free) and are absolutely mindless in this pursuit.
You're such a hypnotized little lickspittle that you can't even fathom the kind of overeach you're bending over and begging your tv daddy for.
>>
>>445912
screenshotted for the FBI you stinky skinnyfat terrorist piece of shit I bet you have bitchtits
>>
>>445638
>>445917
> you don't have a right to shout about niggers in a supermarket.
Godwin's Corollary: Any discussion, regardless of topic, will eventually be blamed on black people.
>>
>>446150
You forgot the part where its actually the Black person's fault.
>>
>>445964
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Pretty sure it does. And that's the interpretation that the draft executive order would advance.
>>
>>445966
>230 doesn't mention publishers at ALL
(c)(1) is literally titled "TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER"
Do you really think you can just lie and not be found out?
>>
>>446040
>carrying water for a major political party
Yes yes. Orange man bad. We've heard it.
>>
>>446251
you really need to read that again, this law places no obligation on websites to be neutral, in fact it states they can't be held liable for censorship of obscene content done in good faith
>>
>>446265
And, once more, specifically spelling out that requirement which is otherwise inferred is there purpose of the draft.
>>
>>444888
You should've went with a food analogy bro
>>
>>444857
>against censorship by companies.
Sure sounds like he wants to control what sites are posting. Fighting censorship with...censorship. Makes sense.
>>
>>446401
>control what sites are posting
Yeah, see, you stumbled right into the middle of the problem. The sites aren't supposed to be posting anything, but instead publishing their users' posts.
It's that they're curating and censoring their users' content in order to backdoor into taking positions themselves which is the bloody problem.
>>
>>445633
Damn, I didn't know MLP and furry images were illegal content.
>>
>>446401
they're not posting, they're stopping others from posting. try again.
>>
>>446408
>The sites aren't supposed to be posting anything
And they're not.
>>
>>446251
>Do you really think you can just lie and not be found out?
Good job finding a nit, in an exception that explicitly says that legally, the computer service provider is NOT the publisher or speaker.
>>
>>446637
So Trump wants the white supremacist posts allowed? Okay.
>>
>>446740
Are you at all familiar with the principles on which the United States of America were founded?
>>
>>446742
What does that have to do with the policies of private corporations?
>>
>>445912
>if Westerners wants to avoid more trucks of peace they will stop being Islamophobic
>>
>>446744
BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, BIGOT!
>>
>>444923
> conspiring with Russians
No. Conspiring with Israel.
>>
>>444546
Biden isn't gonna change anything



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.