Trump Wants To Regulate Google

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

..marry his ex and make even MORE.......

Not a bad idea.  Just looked her up and she's not bad looking with her 35.6 billion dollar settlement.  I love my wife but a teacher's salary won't get me that private jet.

[Gene Frenkle]

It's amazing how quickly conservatives turn from free market to regulation when it suits their interests.

 

[GG]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

It's amazing how quickly conservatives turn from free market to regulation when it suits their interests.

 

It's amazing how liberals don't understand what free market means.  

[Hedge]

Jack crawls back into the ring.

 

 

What got censored:

 

 

Per Twitter:

 

 

——————————-

 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Hedge

[Tiberius]

So what does Trump’s silly executive order do? It’s just there to excite his base? Did they feel it move watching him bluster and act boss? 

 

Probably 

[Deranged Rhino]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AZachParkinson/status/1266187699603623938

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

December was so six months ago...

 

[Gene Frenkle]

When the looting starts, the shooting starts?

 

Now there's a presidentially responsible response...

[Buffalo_Gal]

9 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

When the looting starts, the shooting starts?

 

Now there's a presidentially responsible response...

Ever heard of a Mayor? A Governor? Who do you think should have tear gassed the ***** out of those looters? The President!?!?

Now, Trump may have to step in, but that lovely little 38-year-old Mayor should have put on his big-boy panties and gotten this under control asap (cops abandoning a police station... AYFKM!?). When he didn't Tim Walz should have had the national guard and state police out yesterday. You do not pacify the mob, that never ends well for those being er, mobbed.

Long hot summer of '68, anyone? I hope not, but if Soros is gonna pay for civil unrest, it would not shock me.  The Mayor and Governor responses will be interesting, to say the least.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

And no, that is not to "compare" the two on level of "violence," that is to point out how selective Twitter is in enforcement of their "policies"

Twitter does not want any part of this:
 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[Prickly Pete]

There are countless examples of Twitter posts calling for violence. 

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

When the looting starts, the shooting starts?

 

Now there's a presidentially responsible response...

 

You're gonna lose, Gene.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Exclusive: Cruz calls for criminal investigation of Twitter
 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), in a letter Friday to the Justice and Treasury departments, is calling for a criminal investigation of Twitter over allegations the company is violating U.S. sanctions against Iran.
 

</snip>

The letter
 

Attorney General Barr and Secretary Mnuchin,
 

I write to urge you to open an investigation into Twitter, Inc. (Twitter) for possible criminal violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq.) and sanctionable activities prohibited by Executive Order 13876(E.O. 13876).    
 

On February 6, 2020, Isent a letter (see attached) to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey informing him that Twitter and its principals face criminal liability and sanctions exposure for providing social media accounts to Iranian persons designated as Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) pursuant to E.O. 13876. You were copied on that letter, as were President Trump and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Anderson.
 

</snip>

[Magox]

The more I think of this EO, the more I dislike it.  It's a Pandora's box and ultimately would lead to a worse platform.   Jack really screwed the pooch with this and I don't see how he gets out of this.  He should make an about face but the left would crucify him.   

 

The pressure certainly is on though because he is considering other solutions

 

 

 

Hmmm, maybe that could work in regards to the content that is fact checked.  MAYBE.

 

But that still doesn't solve the issue of what gets fact checked.   That's how the media's bias used to operate before the age of "resistance journalism".  Where reporters would pretend to be objective but the way they showed their bias was the stories they decided to cover.

 

Same thing here, there would have to be some sort of even proportionality to what is fact checked.  Because if left to their own devices they will fact check righties at least 75/25 to leftists.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Doc]

Repeal it.

[Gene Frenkle]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

Repeal it.

 

Possibly. This would have a big impact on how we use the web and our ability to innovate, however. Careful what you wish for. 

[Taro T]

15 minutes ago, Doc said:

Repeal it.

 

Disagree.  If you repeal it you give the Net Neutrality acolytes the cause they need to eventually succeed.

 

Clarify the distinctions on what sort of editorial activities distinguish a platform from a publisher & then let those entities decide which side of the line they want to operate.  They'll walk back to essentially where they were back in '16 or they'll get sued into oblivion.  They're choice but the internet then remains open.

[Buffalo_Gal]

25 minutes ago, Doc said:

Repeal it.

I do not want them to repeal it. I simply want to the companies using it to honor the law.

 

[GG]

25 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I do not want them to repeal it. I simply want to the companies using it to honor the law.

 

 

That's the rub, the law as currently written is outdated and doesn't really apply.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

That's the rub, the law as currently written is outdated and doesn't really apply.

I can understand this argument. But is it "outdated" because the socials are not obeying it? (In which case... obey the damn law) Or it is outdated because it no longer makes sense?