(11-09-2023, 10:25 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: DUH! That's something that should be unspoken at this point. You're not clever or competent for pointing out how an executive order works. Technically, it's a clarification to his agencies on how to interpret to law with regard to social media protection, right? The goal is what, though, Mikey? What's the goal? Take one more step. Please.

Here, let me help you: That order intended to restrict the circumstances under which social media companies could claim immunity from liability for content moderation decisions, potentially leading to a stricter regulatory approach. Why? To change social media behavior. I should not have to explain that to you. It's a waste of my time, and everyone else's on this board. Take one more step. Always. Take one more step. It's unreal how bad you are at thinking, even if it's just an attempt to win an argument.

Now that I've wasted 5 minutes of my time catching you up on basic deduction, answer the question I posed to you and stop deflecting.

P.S. Stop trying to be smug. That works for NYC, but you're bad at it. Maybe if you can figure out what we're talking about without me having to break it into baby steps, you can try your hand at it again.

That's not "telling them to stop."
 
That's "someday soon it might be easier for users to sue you." The users could sue potentially for their content being removed, or, importantly, for competing content being promoted, even unintentionally.  So a platform might have to moderate *more.* Not because the President wants them to, because his opinion *does not count* for this, but because the *users who choose to sue in court* want the platform to do so.

I'm not trying to be smug.  I'm not trying to win any adulation either.  I'm just trying to have an educated conversation.

---