/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Where lolis are free speech and Hitler did nothing wrong

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0.

US Election Thread

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

Be sure to visit /polarchive/ for file libraries and our companions at /hispol/ Remember to archive all links, and videos should be attached to posts or using a front end

Trump's EC against social media companies Anonymous 05/28/2020 (Thu) 16:07:09 Id: ceadc4 No. 399
If you want a summary of it: http://archive.vn/86bSH >Here’s Trump’s Executive Order. The gist of it is that it tries to strip social media platforms of protection under Section 230(c) when they “edit” content with labels like Twitter did to Trump’s tweets today. >Specifically, the Executive Order... >…stipulates that any removal or restriction of content outside the scope of being lewd, violent, or otherwise objectionable disqualifies the platform in question from protection under Section 230 (c)... >…directs all departments and agencies to apply section 230 (c) only according to that interpretation... >…directs the Commerce Department to file a petition with the FCC requesting that it come up with new rules as to what is considered “good faith” under Section 230 (c), especially when actions may be deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with terms of service... >…prohibits spending federal taxpayer dollars on advertising on “online platforms that violate free speech principles.”... >…directs the FTC to begin a federal review of unfair or deceptive practices by social media platforms... >…directs the Attorney General to do the same, in consultation with state attorneys general... >…directs the White House Office of Digital Strategy to collect publicly available information regarding “watch-lists of users based on their interaction with content or users” and “monitoring users based on their activity off the platform.”
>>399 > Trump's EC Damnit, meant his executive order.
>>399 so, jews are finally coming for section 230 protections. first net neutrality, now this. should be interesting to see how this plays out. either this is the trump admin trying to project a false sense of good faith in order to rally the support of his base (we are nearing election season) by issuing an EO that they know will likely fail against a judicial challenge, or we could actually be witnessing the beginning of the end of section 230 protections. >…stipulates that any removal or restriction of content outside the scope of being lewd, violent, or otherwise objectionable disqualifies the platform in question from protection under Section 230 (c)... >…directs all departments and agencies to apply section 230 (c) only according to that interpretation... soooo nothing really changes then. "objectionable" was always purposefully broad because it can be used to encompass just about anything and there is case law supporting a business's right to deny service to someone based on their political beliefs. so if a social media company finds something that is "objectionable" to them, then it seems like the law is on their side if they chose to remove it and ban the user; which is what has been going on anyway. I don't support it, just pointing it out. but with this rewriting, there will be additional criteria where sites can lose 230 protections, which I'm sure will again expand with the next rewrite. >…directs the Commerce Department to file a petition with the FCC requesting that it come up with new rules as to what is considered “good faith” under Section 230 (c), especially when actions may be deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with terms of service... should be interesting to see how the FCC redefines "good faith," and if they will expand the requirements that site operators would need to follow in order to maintain 230 protections. furthermore, with regards to terms of service, just change the terms of service to "you grant us the right to remove any of your content or ban your account for any reason that we like" or something to that effect. in that way, all of the platform provider's actions will be consistent with the terms of service. >…prohibits spending federal taxpayer dollars on advertising on “online platforms that violate free speech principles.”... well, that means that no platform will be able to accept taxpayer money, because every site from facebook to 8chan removes content and bans users for shit that is is legal under the 1st amendment. thats hilarious. >…directs the FTC to begin a federal review of unfair or deceptive practices by social media platforms... i recall the trump admin claiming that they were going to do something similar after trump got elected. I believe they even started a website where people could report that shit.... aaanndd nothing came of it. most people probably forgot about it. but now the FTC is going to basically do what they already did? wtf. another wonderful display of taxpayer's money being wasted. lets see if they can even argue that the fed gov even has the legal authority to enforce whatever enforcement measures they come up, after their review, if they even fully follow through on the review this time. >…directs the Attorney General to do the same, in consultation with state attorneys general... again, lets see what type of (if any) penalties they come up with and if they can successfully litigate their right to enforce. this should be funny >…directs the White House Office of Digital Strategy to collect publicly available information regarding “watch-lists of users based on their interaction with content or users” and “monitoring users based on their activity off the platform.” ....they were already doing this. zion dons track record has not been the greatest compared to what he campaigned on: >advocated for more isolationism and less US military intervention in foreign countries has expanded our presence in Syria, has failed to pull out of Afghanistan, has increased militray aid for pissrael, and he is now trying to fuck with the chinks not only in hong kong but also the south china sea. imagine if china told us we could not fish and drill for oil in the gulf mexico and that hawai'i deserved autonomy form the US. >advocated for expanded online speech and consumer protections. FCC repeals net neutrality under trump and he is only now issuing EOs to try and protect speech online, conveniently near election time. >he advocated for less reliance on foreign workers in america he has given corporations incentive to hire foreign workers by expanding the numerous work visa programs while supporting legislation such as the Farm Modernization Act that would provide amnesty for many illegal aliens. >advocated for lower taxes the opposite has happened for middle class families, many of whom are European Americas. >advocated for support of "free markets" under the trump admin, the NY fed reserve has been bailing out failing corporations and wall street financial firms, which is also being managed by a zionist jewish supremacist company that you all know of called Blackrock I could keep going, but most you are familiar with his failed promises. this jew loving nigger was nothing more than a fucking meme and I'm willing to bet that this EO will either be bullshit to make it look like he actually doing something for his simple minded base, or this is the beginning of the end for section 230 protections for websites.
>>403 >zion dons track record has not been the greatest compared to what he campaigned on >I could keep going, but most you are familiar with his failed promises. Why you mind sourcing all of what you're talking about?
(63.79 KB 631x189 kike.PNG)

>>405 nice try shill. if you're really that stupid then you a) should lurk and b) look the shit up yourself. im not here to explain everything about the world to you. but by all means, try and shill for something that (((mark zuckerberg))) supports, good luck with that. you hasbara niggers have been posting some real low effort shit since 8chan went down
>>407 >look the shit up yourself So, as far as anyone is concerned, you're entire argument is, "Dude, just trust me"? >im not here to explain everything about the world to you So, you're derailing any potential discussion the thread may have with a shitpost. Doesn't that violate the one rule this board has?
>>411 >"Dude, just trust me"? ahhh so you're a shill. stay mad faggot >So, you're derailing any potential discussion the thread may have with a shitpost. shill 100%. thanks for stopping by faggot hahaha
How about actually provide some sources next time rather than chimp out?
(1.68 MB 988x1450 CIArises.png)

Sometimes I daydream about social media platforms being put in their place where they aren't allowed to push shitty agendas. If your platform has a large enough voice, it should be forced to adhere to free speech principles. Saying that, Net Neutrality was repealed under Trump so honestly fuck him. This could be a good thing, but it seems he only tried doing something against it when he got fucked. However, in CurrentYear+5, anything that tries to push to defend free speech should be endorsed as its been getting slowly eroded throughout the Western world.
>>416 From what I remember about "net neutrality" (Had a couple images explaining it, but the file name was changed so I have to sift through several thousand images to find it), it was everything but what it was advertised as and basically gave the Feds near complete control over what websites were even allowed to exist. That's part of the reason why I asked the other guy to source his shit.
>>399 I've been posting about this thing all day and this was the biggest fucking #MAGA since Day 1. I knew it would be a big deal and somebody called it earlier this week too on a thread I saw. This thread was borne on the wrong side of the bed and I'm here to straighten you fuckers out. Shut the Fuck Up until you can MAGA Properly and Let's Get this Party Started We've got a Lot of Big Tech to Fry this Summer and if you're not seeing this thing correctly then your head is Too Far Up Your Ass
Thoughts?
>>403 This guy has no idea what he's talking about Lol "Case law" [Is clearly not a lawyer] Mostly just people trying to shit on what's been a fucking AWESOME day and a huge start to Big Tech's massive downfall, the destruction of their abusive monopolies, and Well, Trump Pulled the Plug On the Swamp Today [so there's that] Congrats Patriots, Yes there will be big wins for many and bullshit will no longer be tolerated So Fuck You, Baltimore!!!


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply