(11-09-2023, 11:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(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.

I asked you several questions in two posts responding to your own.

You've answered zero. 

Sorry it's so exhausting for you to defend own dubious position.

---

(11-09-2023, 09:15 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Ugh, you guys are so exhausting. So, let's just get this straight. Trump makes an EO telling social media companies to stop censoring American political views, then tells his three letter agencies to work with social media companies to censor American political views. This is what you're suggesting?

Trump made 97 political stunt throw-away executive orders so he could grand stand in the rose garden and blather a bunch of rhetoric.

Most of them were exactly as empty as "I'll make Mexico pay for the wall." 

You really trying to put actual weight on that one?