(11-09-2023, 03:25 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(11-09-2023, 02:57 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Considering the evidence is just coming out over the last couple of years the FBI has been working with social media companies to enforce censorship, it would seem from this EO that Trump was unawares, would it not? 

Don't take my unwillingness to let you slide on another lazy attempt at reasoning for anything other than contempt for your "intellectualism." Here's an executive order from Trump demanding social media companies stop censoring Americans. I mean, I know everything he does is a grift, but the whole idea behind Truth social was a platform that doesn't censor political ideals. I know this is going to conflict with your notion that there is no bureaucracy unaccountable to the American people, so I'm expecting you'll double down somehow. Well, let's see it. 

So - the DHS was given an order to curb propaganda/disinformation on SM platforms during Trump's presidency and your argument is that he didn't know? 

You suggest he was unaware of the DHS mandate? Was it hidden from him? Did it receive executive approval or not? If it was (presumably) executively approved, that means he either knew it or signed off on something he didn't realize he didn't want.

What is the scenario you are suggesting took place?
How did something his lackeys now whine about get approved under his very nose?

(11-09-2023, 03:42 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(11-09-2023, 03:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I have no problem with this as an idea, but the problem is always the same: How do you police it and keep it free from political bias. Misinformation and disinformation have always been a thing. However, it happens on the left just as much as it happens on the right, yet these two sides do not have the same accountability. The left routinely uses their platforms to manipulate the masses, which is textbook disinformation. Here's a few examples of headlines that are verifiable untrue about Trump:

• CNN's Chris Cilizza accused Trump of lying about wiretapping at Trump Tower, yet there were confirmed wiretaps involving Trump Tower associates.
  
• NBC News falsely reported that Trump had wiretapped his lawyer Michael Cohen, which they later had to retract.
  
• Time magazine reported that Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office on his first day, which was incorrect.
  
• The media narrative on Russian collusion was proven to be unfounded with the release of the Mueller report, which found no evidence of collusion (this is a huge one).
  
• Newsweek published a headline suggesting there was "Scientific Proof That Trump’s Hands are Too Small to Hold a Water Bottle Like a Normal Adult," which was not supported by any scientific evidence.
  

I mean, that's just few. I could fill up a whole thread if I wanted to be specific. These are just the ones that are inarguable. If I included the ones that are debatable, either because people are blindly partisan or because people think Trump just got lucky, I'd be here all week. I'm not trying to do that. I just want to know how you set up boundaries on misinformation and disinformation. Who gets to determine it. It's well known that our fact checkers are biased and partisan. How are you going to make this work in a way that doesn't disenfranchise a group? 

We can't even hold our media accountable, and you want to hold individuals accountable? We can't even hold our corporations accountable, and you want our corporations to hold us accountable? We can't even hold our government accountable, and you want our government to hold corporations accountable?

Of course the line between policing propaganda and censorship is a fine line.
Age old conundrum. 

Anecdotal information about times it didn't go the way of your political interests are of virtually zero value here.
You'd need a mountain of data to show any clear unfairness trend. You don't have it. 

Lastly - is your answer to just give up and let our social media be a cesspool on foreign influence and special interest meddling? 

I'm certainly not suggesting that DHS use a bunch of college researchers and students to be some permanent solution to the problem. But I'm also not gonna be OK with just letting the rotting wound fester.

(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 your 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? (e.o. that you cited)

Quote:Lucky2Last



Which questions have I missed? I will never avoid answering a question. I don't ever care if I'm wrong about something, so if I don't get back to you, it was lost or forgotten. To your point, you're on about intent again.