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. 

PREVENTING ONLINE CENSORSHIP

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms "flagging" content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician's tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called "Site Integrity" has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans' speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for "human rights," hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China's mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China's propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today's digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230© of the Communications Decency Act (section 230©). 47 U.S.C. 230©. It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230© was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a "publisher" of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230© makes clear, the provision provides limited liability "protection" to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in "'Good Samaritan' blocking" of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a "forum for a true diversity of political discourse." 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph ©(2) expressly addresses protections from "civil liability" and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable "on account of" its decision in "good faith" to restrict access to content that it considers to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable." It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that -- far from acting in "good faith" to remove objectionable content -- instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph ©(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph ©(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230© properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs ©(1) and ©(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph ©(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph ©(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider's responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not "taken in good faith" within the meaning of subparagraph ©(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be "taken in good faith" if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider's terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech

It's an order to coordinate an effort to make new rules for the Federal Trade Commission so that the trade commission may in the future play a different role in arbitrating disputes between social media platforms, users, advertisers, and other players.  The rules were to include that platforms must explain their decisions, provide warnings before taking action, and adhere to their own terms of service.

The order does not say that federal departments must cease and desist from efforts to support the moderation of social media.

Did you read it?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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?

---

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?

Dude.
No executive order can tell any private corporation to do anything like that.  
All that stuff at the beginning is preamble, not orders.  EOs direct government agencies. Not you.  Not me. Not private corporations.
Have I overestimated your education level?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

More importantly, more on topic anyways, this EO did not tell any part of the government to stop contacting platforms or to stop trying to influence any website moderation decision.
Government workers were contacting platforms when they found posts they deemed to be dangerous disinfo going viral. There is nothing in your EO that acknowledges that or tells them to stop or tells them to be more careful about it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

See what I mean? You're trying to have a semantics debate about restrict or stop just to avoid losing an argument. You are a terrible at arguing in good faith. At least NYC is willing to stay consistent. Trump is a grifter. It's his belief. He attributes that intent to everything Trump does. The EO is just a political stunt. He didn't answer, but I'm going to assume he thinks Trump is aware of how agencies were working hand in hand with social media companies to censor Americans. Are you suggesting that is your belief or not (for the third time).

---

My *belief* is Trump didn't pay much attention to what ended up in his executive orders, and didn't think through what they would actually accomplish.

My *knowledge* is the executive order you cited did not mention if any agency was trying to correct or influence the moderation of any social media post. Which is the actual topic of this thread. If Trump tried to change his administration's policy of talking to social media moderators, if he was even aware of that policy, the order you cited has no evidence of that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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?

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.

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.

---

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)

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.

I highlighted all the [BLEEP] you ignored in green for you.

One more:
What was the issue date of the e.o. you're attempting to use as an excuse for Trump allowing this DHS censorship program his lackeys now condemn?

---

I doubt he was aware of that policy, which is my point. I posted the EO as a clear outward expression of HIS goals. Additionally, it was a frequent topic of public conversation. Trump said, "We’re asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to social media companies' illegal, shameful censorship of the American people." He also sued several of these companies. As soon as he got out of office, he created his own social media company promising not to restrict political points of view. There is more than enough evidence to believe that Trump outwardly expressed a desire that social media companies should not be regulating American speech.

I believe you can take it at face value, but I'm sure you will object, because you know his intent. It's always "facts" until those aren't useful. 

I believe he thought this problem was exclusively coming from social media bias and moved to address it. I think if he KNEW the extent of collusion between government agencies, this would be done differently. For example, the information available does not indicate that President Trump was aware of the coordination between the FBI, DHS, and social media companies regarding censorship. The House Judiciary Committee's report reveals that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly through its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), collaborated with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and the Center for Internet Security (CIS) to flag online speech by Trump and other Republicans for action by social media companies. This involved a "switchboard" process where reports of misinformation from state and local election officials were shared with social media platforms. However, there is no evidence in the report that Trump was informed about these activities.

In one instance, a local official flagged a tweet from Trump to CIS’ "misinformation" tipline, and this information was then forwarded to the EIP and CISA, and subsequently to Twitter, without informing the White House. “To be clear, this evidence shows an unelected executive branch official flagging a statement from the elected leader of the executive branch for removal from one of the world’s largest and most active public forums. CISA has not provided the Committee any evidence that it contacted the White House prior to making the referral to opine on the veracity of the claim in the tweet,” the report states. Do you really believe Trump would allow himself to be censored this way if he knew? Get out of here, man. 

The absence of direct communication to the White House, as indicated in the report, suggests that there might not have been explicit knowledge on the part of President Trump about these specific actions of censorship. I have now provided all of the information, and you have provided none.

---

I doubt he was aware of that policy, which is my point. I posted the EO as a clear outward expression of HIS goals. Additionally, it was a frequent topic of public conversation. Trump said, "We’re asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to social media companies' illegal, shameful censorship of the American people." He also sued several of these companies. As soon as he got out of office, he created his own social media company promising not to restrict political points of view. There is more than enough evidence to believe that Trump outwardly expressed a desire that social media companies should not be regulating American speech.

I believe you can take it at face value, but I'm sure you will object, because you know his intent. It's always "facts" until those aren't useful. 

I believe he thought this problem was exclusively coming from social media bias and moved to address it. I think if he KNEW the extent of collusion between government agencies, this would be done differently. For example, the information available does not indicate that President Trump was aware of the coordination between the FBI, DHS, and social media companies regarding censorship. The House Judiciary Committee's report reveals that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly through its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), collaborated with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and the Center for Internet Security (CIS) to flag online speech by Trump and other Republicans for action by social media companies. This involved a "switchboard" process where reports of misinformation from state and local election officials were shared with social media platforms. However, there is no evidence in the report that Trump was informed about these activities.

In one instance, a local official flagged a tweet from Trump to CIS’ "misinformation" tipline, and this information was then forwarded to the EIP and CISA, and subsequently to Twitter, without informing the White House. “To be clear, this evidence shows an unelected executive branch official flagging a statement from the elected leader of the executive branch for removal from one of the world’s largest and most active public forums. CISA has not provided the Committee any evidence that it contacted the White House prior to making the referral to opine on the veracity of the claim in the tweet,” the report states. Do you really believe Trump would allow himself to be censored this way if he knew? Get out of here, man. 

The absence of direct communication to the White House, as indicated in the report, suggests that there might not have been explicit knowledge on the part of President Trump about these specific actions of censorship. I have now provided all of the information, and you have provided none.

HAHAHAHA!

So you don't know [BLEEP] and that's why you didn't answer the questions. 

Got it.

Man you could have saved yourself a lot of talking in circles with nothing but opinion and speculation there and just said "IDK"

You don't even know which came first? The e.o. or the DHS mandate? "get out of here, man" LOL
Another feeble attempt to ridicule when you know nothing to support your squawking. 

BTW - I don't have an ounce of problem with social media censoring any blatant lies in election-related posts and ads. 
Censor every single piece of disinformation whether it's from Jimmy Carter, Donald Trump, or the Dalai Lama. 
I despise the propagation of lies that the American people have adopted as normalcy. It's disgusting. We should be demanding better. 

Trumps censorship schtick has never been anything more than him carving out a way to lie without liability. 
Same with the clown that tried to blow this thing up in the press.

---

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?

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.

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.

---

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)

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.

I highlighted all the [BLEEP] you ignored in green for you.

One more:
What was the issue date of the e.o. you're attempting to use as an excuse for Trump allowing this DHS censorship program his lackeys now condemn?

I doubt he was aware of that policy, which is my point. I posted the EO as a clear outward expression of HIS goals. Additionally, it was a frequent topic of public conversation. Trump said, "We’re asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to social media companies' illegal, shameful censorship of the American people." He also sued several of these companies. As soon as he got out of office, he created his own social media company promising not to restrict political points of view. There is more than enough evidence to believe that Trump outwardly expressed a desire that social media companies should not be regulating American speech.

I believe you can take it at face value, but I'm sure you will object, because you know his intent. It's always "facts" until those aren't useful. 

I believe he thought this problem was exclusively coming from social media bias and moved to address it. I think if he KNEW the extent of collusion between government agencies, this would be done differently. For example, the information available does not indicate that President Trump was aware of the coordination between the FBI, DHS, and social media companies regarding censorship. The House Judiciary Committee's report reveals that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly through its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), collaborated with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and the Center for Internet Security (CIS) to flag online speech by Trump and other Republicans for action by social media companies. This involved a "switchboard" process where reports of misinformation from state and local election officials were shared with social media platforms. However, there is no evidence in the report that Trump was informed about these activities.

In one instance, a local official flagged a tweet from Trump to CIS’ "misinformation" tipline, and this information was then forwarded to the EIP and CISA, and subsequently to Twitter, without informing the White House. “To be clear, this evidence shows an unelected executive branch official flagging a statement from the elected leader of the executive branch for removal from one of the world’s largest and most active public forums. CISA has not provided the Committee any evidence that it contacted the White House prior to making the referral to opine on the veracity of the claim in the tweet,” the report states. Do you really believe Trump would allow himself to be censored this way if he knew? Get out of here, man. 

The absence of direct communication to the White House, as indicated in the report, suggests that there might not have been explicit knowledge on the part of President Trump about these specific actions of censorship. I have now provided all of the information, and you have provided none.

HAHAHAHA!

So you don't know [BLEEP] and that's why you didn't answer the questions. 

Got it.

Man you could have saved yourself a lot of talking in circles with nothing but opinion and speculation there and just said "IDK"

1. You don't even know which came first? The e.o. or the DHS mandate? "get out of here, man" LOL
Another feeble attempt to ridicule when you know nothing to support your squawking. 

BTW - I don't have an ounce of problem with social media censoring any blatant lies in election-related posts and ads. 
Censor every single piece of disinformation whether it's from Jimmy Carter, Donald Trump, or the Dalai Lama. 
I despise the propagation of lies that the American people have adopted as normalcy. It's disgusting. We should be demanding better. 

Trumps censorship schtick has never been anything more than him carving out a way to lie without liability. 
Same with the clown that tried to blow this thing up in the press.

First of all, I didn't realize you posted between me and Mikey. So, that wasn't a response to you, it was a response to him. Normally I check to make sure my post followed the one that preceded it, so I can go back and quote the other poster, but I guess I didn't check this time. My bad. Let me go back and address your post.

Before we begin, I would like you to link me the DHS mandate to which you are referring. Specifically, if you can, the order that outlines what the mandate entails.

---

I doubt he was aware of that policy, which is my point. I posted the EO as a clear outward expression of HIS goals. Additionally, it was a frequent topic of public conversation. Trump said, "We’re asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to social media companies' illegal, shameful censorship of the American people." He also sued several of these companies. As soon as he got out of office, he created his own social media company promising not to restrict political points of view. There is more than enough evidence to believe that Trump outwardly expressed a desire that social media companies should not be regulating American speech.

I believe you can take it at face value, but I'm sure you will object, because you know his intent. It's always "facts" until those aren't useful. 

I believe he thought this problem was exclusively coming from social media bias and moved to address it. I think if he KNEW the extent of collusion between government agencies, this would be done differently. For example, the information available does not indicate that President Trump was aware of the coordination between the FBI, DHS, and social media companies regarding censorship. The House Judiciary Committee's report reveals that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly through its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), collaborated with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and the Center for Internet Security (CIS) to flag online speech by Trump and other Republicans for action by social media companies. This involved a "switchboard" process where reports of misinformation from state and local election officials were shared with social media platforms. However, there is no evidence in the report that Trump was informed about these activities.

In one instance, a local official flagged a tweet from Trump to CIS’ "misinformation" tipline, and this information was then forwarded to the EIP and CISA, and subsequently to Twitter, without informing the White House. “To be clear, this evidence shows an unelected executive branch official flagging a statement from the elected leader of the executive branch for removal from one of the world’s largest and most active public forums. CISA has not provided the Committee any evidence that it contacted the White House prior to making the referral to opine on the veracity of the claim in the tweet,” the report states. Do you really believe Trump would allow himself to be censored this way if he knew? Get out of here, man. 

The absence of direct communication to the White House, as indicated in the report, suggests that there might not have been explicit knowledge on the part of President Trump about these specific actions of censorship. I have now provided all of the information, and you have provided none.

What was the tweet?
Was it a lie, or not?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/132...09441?s=20

Here's the tweet. It was definitely not true. Like most things Trump, his post was hyperbolic and, therefore, inaccurate. However, my point is that it was done without his knowledge coming from his own agencies, which is why I referenced it. His agencies definitely did things without his knowledge.

---

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/132...09441?s=20

Here's the tweet. It was definitely not true. Like most things Trump, his post was hyperbolic and, therefore, inaccurate. However, my point is that it was done without his knowledge coming from his own agencies, which is why I referenced it. His agencies definitely did things without his knowledge.

OK.  You agree that the tweet was a lie.  Not clear if Twitter took the federal workers' advice and demoted it or blocked it or whatever.  Probably they did.  But your issue is that folks on the federal government payroll passed along a message of "hey, this is false" to Twitter, without mentioning the report to Trump.  Now they probably didn't need to do that.  Twitter staff were probably going to get to it on their own.  But was it bad?  These government workers had no orders from Trump about talking to Twitter or not.  They probably didn't even have a direct line of communication to Trump.  But you say all of this would be OK if they just told Trump what they were doing?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

OK, let's try this again. Trump was clearly frustrated being censored by Twitter, right? So, he made an EO that he thought would curb their censoring of him. He sued them. He constantly spoke about it in public. IF Trump knew that the DHS was the one flagging his tweets, do you think he would have stopped it? Yes or no?

---

OK, let's try this again. Trump was clearly frustrated being censored by Twitter, right? So, he made an EO that he thought would curb their censoring of him. He sued them. He constantly spoke about it in public. IF Trump knew that the DHS was the one flagging his tweets, do you think he would have stopped it? Yes or no?

I think he would have made another angry tweet about it, and he would have been unable to give a clear, lawful order regarding the behavior. So he would have tried, and failed, to stop it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I highlighted all the [BLEEP] you ignored in green for you.

One more:
What was the issue date of the e.o. you're attempting to use as an excuse for Trump allowing this DHS censorship program his lackeys now condemn?

HAHAHAHA!

So you don't know [BLEEP] and that's why you didn't answer the questions. 

Got it.

Man you could have saved yourself a lot of talking in circles with nothing but opinion and speculation there and just said "IDK"

1. You don't even know which came first? The e.o. or the DHS mandate? "get out of here, man" LOL
Another feeble attempt to ridicule when you know nothing to support your squawking. 

BTW - I don't have an ounce of problem with social media censoring any blatant lies in election-related posts and ads. 
Censor every single piece of disinformation whether it's from Jimmy Carter, Donald Trump, or the Dalai Lama. 
I despise the propagation of lies that the American people have adopted as normalcy. It's disgusting. We should be demanding better. 

Trumps censorship schtick has never been anything more than him carving out a way to lie without liability. 
Same with the clown that tried to blow this thing up in the press.

First of all, I didn't realize you posted between me and Mikey. So, that wasn't a response to you, it was a response to him. Normally I check to make sure my post followed the one that preceded it, so I can go back and quote the other poster, but I guess I didn't check this time. My bad. Let me go back and address your post.

Before we begin, I would like you to link me the DHS mandate to which you are referring. Specifically, if you can, the order that outlines what the mandate entails.

It is the entire topic of the thread. 
The one Jim Jordan is whining about in the article from the original post.  
You want me to research it for you?  
LOL
no

---

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/132...09441?s=20

Here's the tweet. It was definitely not true. Like most things Trump, his post was hyperbolic and, therefore, inaccurate. However, my point is that it was done without his knowledge coming from his own agencies, which is why I referenced it. His agencies definitely did things without his knowledge.

... which speaks volumes to his ineptitude.

---