White House drafting executive order to

[Dark_Grey]

The social media giants were warned a year ago that legislation was coming if they didn't reign in their censorship. Being a tool of the "deep state", they continued to quietly cut out any one with dissenting opinions and now here we are: the limp-wristed techies of Silicon Valley are up against the might of the US Constitution.

Somehow, perhaps because we live in clown world, the story was twisted in to "Trump censoring free speech for all"?  Regulating social media benefits ALL of us - not just the silenced voices of "truthers". Bipartisanship has officially overtaken common sense. 

[aztek]

16 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Lets just remember... NOBODY has actually SEEN this alleged Executive Order. The newspapers have merely spoken with three White House staffers who have given their IMPRESSIONS of what the draft executive order MIGHT signify.

No actual text was harmed in the making of this story. 

yea, liberal media, as always LIED, that is exactly why  such EO is actually needed, apparently

[+Hammerclaw]

5 hours ago, toast said:

I`m confused because the article states otherwise:

If, as per your argumentation, its about speech being censored by social media outlets, why should the WH be involved into the matter? And, social media outlets can/do decide what they publish and what not. Furthermore, why should #45 be involved instead of, for example, Suckerbørg?

Why is no other major news outlet touting this purported document as some sort of nefarious plot? Why not even an honorable mention? Because it's more CNN crap. 

[+Hammerclaw]

5 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

A simple google search will tell you that they are the least factual new outlet. Their viewers are also the least informed.

Google? Yeah, I'm going to trust those guys. I was asking YOU. YOU made the statement now back it up with facts, not other people's opinions.

[toast]

10 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Why is no other major news outlet touting this purported document as some sort of nefarious plot? Why not even an honorable mention? Because it's more CNN crap. 

This answer might have been correct if my question had been different.

[toast]

5 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Their viewers are also the least informed.

Hill people, right? (just to expand my knowledge of the English language )

[toast]

59 minutes ago, aztek said:

yea, liberal media as always LIED, that is exactly why such EO is actually needed, apparently

If I understand you correctly you are in the opinion that it would be to the benefit of the US and its citizens when the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda White House would filter and select contents to be published by the media, right?

[+Hammerclaw]

35 minutes ago, toast said:

This answer might have been correct if my question had been different.

Questions based on lies aren't worth answering. They cheer when conservatives are hounded out of restaurants and other public places. They doc them and want to ostracize them from public forums. Maybe they'd like to sew big Cs to their garments and plaster them on conservative businesses and homes to identify them. One wonders what other fascist ideas these Nouveau American National Socialists will promote next.

[toast]

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Questions based on lies aren't worth answering. They cheer when conservatives are hounded out of restaurants and other public places. They doc them and want to ostracize them from public forums. Maybe they'd like to sew big Cs to their garments and plaster them on conservative businesses and homes to identify them. One wonders what other fascist ideas these Nouveau American National Socialists will promote next.

Why do you address your brainwashed paranoia to my attention?  I didnt stated anything in relation to the credibility of the article and its contents. My question to you was of pure general nature. Anyway, forget it.

[toast]

6 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

t's been a long standing joke that Nickelodeon and Hallmark has more viewers then CNN.

Its like an indirect IQ test of a whole nation.

['Walt' E. Kurtz]

Isn't this against the constitution... freedome of speach.

[Vorg]

13 minutes ago, Impedancer said:

Isn't this against the constitution... freedome of speach.

Actually, yes, I would suppose. But then again, If you are a member of their website and have an opposing political view that isn't against their "terms of service" and they censor you, that also might be against the constitution, but probably not seeing it is a privately owned company. However, the only downside I can see to that is most of these companies are on the stock market, so they are not truly privately owned anymore.

Edited August 12, 2019 by South Alabam

[RavenHawk]

10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah generally Americans arent for government censorship.

So you are saying that Progressives are not Americans?  But Progressives are for voluntary censorship of opposing ideas of the party they think shouldn’t be in power.

 

We have this thing called the constitution, you really should read it, 

Yeah you should at least read it at least before you shred it.  I love it when I see Progressives give the Constitution lip service and then turn around talk about needed restrictions to it.  Sometimes in the same breath.

 

that says that sort of thing isnt supposed to happen here.

“Supposed to” is the operative here.  There is nothing that stops the Constitution from being changed by politicians except for patriots.  Patriotism is another form of Toxic Masculinity.  That’s why the Progressives invented the term.  You have to find a way to make virtue a negative, then you can try to control it.  When Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, someone had asked him “what have you given us?”  That question as well as the answer has echoed as a dire warning ever since.  His reply was “A Republic, if you can keep it”. – “if you can keep it”...  Progressivism is making it difficult to keep it.

 

As you are implying, a private company is not the government and they can censor or discriminate against whoever they want.  If you are a Conservative Christian baker or photographer, then that’s a different story.  But when the collective acts like the propaganda arm of one party, drowning out other voices, then the government becomes an accomplice after the fact to censorship.  It may turn out that affirmative action really does have a legitimate function??  What a kicker, to apply the Fairness Doctrine to Progressive media outlets.

 

I don’t think the government should shut anything down but create an environment conducive to protecting different viewpoints.  For example, have a platform like google keep its Left-leaning search engine and then standup a Right-leaning version.  And let the free market determine the more popular version.  The Right-leaning will require much less “algorithmic oversight” as the Left-leaning will need.

[Imaginarynumber1]

2 hours ago, toast said:

Hill people, right? (just to expand my knowledge of the English language )

Mostly, yes. Fokkk news is a favorite or the hill person and their clan. On a clear night, you can hear them parroting Sean hannitys inane ramblings to one another.

[Imaginarynumber1]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Google? Yeah, I'm going to trust those guys. I was asking YOU. YOU made the statement now back it up with facts, not other people's opinions.

No. I'm not your search monkey. Look it up yourself. I have **** to do today other than spoon feed you commonly know and easily found information.  You lack of trust in a search engine is telling of your brainwashed paranoia. 

[+OverSword]

If these big tech/social media companies think they are going to inject themselves into our political system by controlling what content will or won't be shown then they need to be regulated into presenting a balanced point of view.  This is not unprecedented and was done to network television companies in the past.

Edited August 12, 2019 by OverSword

[RavenHawk]

6 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

I would recommend watching "The Brainwashing of my Dad" as well. It really hit me hard as it documented almost step for step what I've seen my grandfather slip into over the last 10 years.

Interesting premise.  With what I have read so far about the film, one can’t help but laugh.  So is this the story of a daughter that lost her father to Conservatism or is it really about a story of a father that became *woke* and lost his daughter to Progressivism?  People are becoming aware of what the Progressives are doing and that throws a monkey wrench into their agenda.  Progressives are taken aback.  Some of the descriptions I seen that this film accuses Conservatives of is really stuff right out of Alinsky.  Not very original.

[Robotic Jew]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

Interesting premise.  With what I have read so far about the film, one can’t help but laugh.  So is this the story of a daughter that lost her father to Conservatism or is it really about a story of a father that became *woke* and lost his daughter to Progressivism?  People are becoming aware of what the Progressives are doing and that throws a monkey wrench into their agenda.  Progressives are taken aback.  Some of the descriptions I seen that this film accuses Conservatives of is really stuff right out of Alinsky.  Not very original.

 

It does a good job of laying out how fox news spews nonsense and directs people towards being misinformed and more hateful. Of course, those who fall victim to it have the most trouble seeing it.....

[+Desertrat56]

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If these big tech/social media companies think they are going to inject themselves into our political system by controlling what content will or won't be shown then they need to be regulated into presenting a balanced point of view.  This is not unprecedented and was done to network television companies in the past.

Maybe instead of wasting money regulating things more we should spend it on educating more, teaching people common sense and critical thinking.

[+OverSword]

12 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Maybe instead of wasting money regulating things more we should spend it on educating more, teaching people common sense and critical thinking.

And you expect this from schools run by the federal government?  

[+Desertrat56]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And you expect this from schools run by the federal government?  

You expect regulation from the federal government of indsutries that own the people who run the government?     Just sayin'...

[ExpandMyMind]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Sigh. 

"...leaked-draft-trump-executive-order-censor-internet-denounced-dangerous..."

Except that it hasn't been leaked. All that has been leaked are some OPINIONS about the ALLEGED content of the EO, not the EO itself. 

A summary of the draft was leaked to CNN and the White House staff haven't denied its existence.

[ExpandMyMind]

7 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

I would recommend watching "The Brainwashing of my Dad" as well. It really hit me hard as it documented almost step for step what I've seen my grandfather slip into over the last 10 years.

This one is brilliant. It explains so much about US politics.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, toast said:

Its like an indirect IQ test of a whole nation.

Yeah, yours.

[rashore]

There was a second thread started, so I merged it with the first thread since there was commentary in both threads already. Sorry for any logistical hiccups folks.

Let's all make sure we keep our conversation here courteous and constructive please.