Trump and social media

[Curious layman]

 

After Twitter put the fact checker on this tweet Trumps now accusing them of stifling free speech.

Quote

Mr Trump then accused Twitter of interfering in the US presidential election scheduled for 3 November 2020, saying the company was "completely stifling free speech, and I, as president, will not allow it to happen".

And

Quote

Mr Trump on Wednesday threatened to "strongly regulate" or even "close down" social media platforms.

Question: can he do this, should social media be worried? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52815552

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Curious layman

[dimreepr]

We'll regret it. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow but soon. And for the rest of our lifes.

[MigL]

Meanwhile his Press Secretary, and staunch defender, has vote by mail 12 times in the last 12 elections...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kayleigh-mcenany-vote-by-mail-record-comments-absentee/

I guess he's learned this from all his dictator friends that he idolizes.
The first step to becoming a despot, is control of the media.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/trump-is-set-to-announce-an-executive-order-against-social-media-companies/ar-BB14HYNa?ocid=msedgntp

[CharonY]

I cannot see a way where he can directly do that, I would think that it is in direct conflict with the first Amendment. That being said, there indirect ways which could achieve similar goals, such as de-legitimization of outlets, creating news monopolies and so on. Another route specifically for social media could make unattainable demands or to remove means of monetization. 

[iNow]

His mindless minions are also already attacking the platform like good little human bots and putting the safety and security of the company leadership in question. Jack Dorsey is gonna need a more expensive security detail now that he's focused the deranged on to a new target / enemy of the dear leader...

[Curious layman]

The draft resolution targeting social media. 

https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf

Edited May 28, 2020 by Curious layman

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

The draft resolution targeting social media. 

https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf

Is a website a democracy? SFN isn't, so why should anywhere else that is privately owned be?

[DrP]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is a website a democracy? SFN isn't, so why should anywhere else that is privately owned be?

I'm not sure about the UK at the moment either.  Johnson today blocked several questions from the press aimed at his scientific advisors and would not let them answer. There was also an article about how they (the conservative gov) are planning to pay newspapers such as the daily mail to print their lies/positive news stories about how well they are handling the crisis. I'm seeing daily lies from them.  Cummings last week altered blog entries from years back so he could claim foresight regarding the pandemic...  they lied about a nhs government staff member.  They lied continually in the run up to the election.... but people still voted for them...  I'm sure a lot of people, even though they are told about their blatant lies (it's not even half truths or propaganda some of it, just plain lies) will not see through it...  they jump to the govs defence with angry vigor. It's quite depressing.

 

[CharonY]

So apparently they are trying to remove liability protection. Which in the end could backfire- after all it would mean that the companies would then have an incentive to remove posts that may be construed as, say, call to violence.

But it is interesting to see what the US government is focusing on- twitter wars and keeping folks out of the country.

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, DrP said:

I'm not sure about the UK at the moment either.  Johnson today blocked several questions from the press aimed at his scientific advisors and would not let them answer. There was also an article about how they (the conservative gov) are planning to pay newspapers such as the daily mail to print their lies/positive news stories about how well they are handling the crisis. I'm seeing daily lies from them.  Cummings last week altered blog entries from years back so he could claim foresight regarding the pandemic...  they lied about a nhs government staff member.  They lied continually in the run up to the election.... but people still voted for them...  I'm sure a lot of people, even though they are told about their blatant lies (it's not even half truths or propaganda some of it, just plain lies) will not see through it...  they jump to the govs defence with angry vigor. It's quite depressing.

 

Boris does have a point there. It wouldn't be a good precedent for them to be involved in a mainly  political matter. They would lose their neutrality. The police have given their view and that's the most important. Plus we can make our own judgement. I don't think Cummings will be around by years end.

Edited May 29, 2020 by StringJunky

[DrP]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Boris does have a point there. It wouldn't be a good precedent for them to be involved in a mainly  political matter. They would lose their neutrality. The police have given their view and that's the most important. Plus we can make our own judgement. I don't think Cummings will be around by years end.

It's a social scientific question, directed at the scientists (the second questioner makes that clear)...  his claim that the question is political is dodging it. So what if there are political undertones anyway? It's a press conference with the prime minister and his scientific advisors.... what questions should they be asking? It's dictatorship over democracy and freedom of the press.

[StringJunky]

37 minutes ago, DrP said:

It's a social scientific question, directed at the scientists (the second questioner makes that clear)...  his claim that the question is political is dodging it. So what if there are political undertones anyway? It's a press conference with the prime minister and his scientific advisors.... what questions should they be asking? It's dictatorship over democracy and freedom of the press.

How do you know that they didn't ask him beforehand to keep them out of the politics? I'm sure we'll get to hear their view when they are no longer in their current jobs.

Edited May 29, 2020 by StringJunky

[DrP]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

How do you know that they didn't ask him beforehand to keep them out of the politics? 

It's a press conference with the prime minister and his advising scientists...

a. The questions were entirely valid from a social science angle.

b. It's a press conference with the Prime Minister! Why would you expect the questions not to be political?

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, DrP said:

It's a press conference with the prime minister and his advising scientists...

a. The questions were entirely valid from a social science angle.

b. It's a press conference with the Prime Minister! Why would you expect the questions not to be political?

Why would would you expect scientists to answer politically loaded questions... that was Boris's job? 

[John Cuthber]

"Is that the kind of example you want people to follow" is a question about epidemiology, not politics.
It's obvious that the scientists, like any sensible people, would say "No, it isn't".
That's got nothing to do with politics. There would have been no loss of "impartiality"  involved in answering it.

But Boris didn't let them answer because it made his friend look like an idiot.
 

[Jack Jectivus]

On 5/28/2020 at 6:35 AM, Curious layman said:

 

After Twitter put the fact checker on this tweet Trumps now accusing them of stifling free speech.

And

Question: can he do this, should social media be worried? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52815552

 

 

He can not and should not. I wouldn't like seeing my social media platform do something like this, but I fully endorse their freedom to do it. Even if he was stopping something bad, he'd be setting a dangerous precedent.