10
10
0
Oooooopppppps - Left off the answers. Got distracted and hit send prematurely: So, the answers to the REAL question would have been:
(1) No, I am NOT in support of an Executive Order to change the liability protections of social media, especially for executive leadership of such social media platforms.
(2) Yes, I am in TACID support of an Executive Order to change the liability protections of social media, especially for executive leadership of such social media platforms.
(3) Yes, I am in FULL support of an Executive Order to change the liability protections of social media, especially for executive leadership of such social media platforms.
(4) Unsure, if I do or don't support such an action, but there is another response to the implications of this complex question that needs to be discussed at much greater length and very publicly.
Sorry, I left off the polling question. Darn!!!
----------------------
We are on very thin ice now. In the past 24-hrs or so (for those who might be fact-checking the exact times), Twitter-verse has now moved from a presumable "free speech" platform to a "free speech only if you agree with the leadership that manages the platform!"
I am of two minds:
Mind (1) - Hammer the hell out of "Social Media Platforms like Twitter" and make them retrain their "ubiquitous platform status" as the definition of a "user experience platform", as taken from Techtopia (https://www.techopedia.com/definition/29304/user-experience-platform-uxp) that is defined as:
"A user experience platform (UXP) is the collective set of Web-based tools and technologies that interact with and are consumed by an end user. It is a solution platform that integrates all of the technologies that provide user interaction and interfacing capabilities or features."
If Twitter users are looking for an 'experience to exchange ideas' (some as 'opinions' - rational or not) then the free form of those expressions cannot be impeded by those running the platform.
So, lets take a look some definitions. "Social" as one online dictionary is defined as:
adjective
1. relating to society or its organization. E.g. "Alcoholism is recognized as a major social problem."
Some Similar words: community; community-based; collective; group; popular
Some Opposite words: individual
2. needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities. "We are social beings as well as individuals."
noun
1. an informal social gathering, especially one organized by the members of a particular club or group. "a church social"
"Media" as online in one online dictionary is defined as:
noun
1. a plural of medium.
2. (usually used with a plural verb) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, that reach or influence people widely: "The media are covering the speech tonight."
adjective
1. pertaining to or concerned with such means: a job in media research.
So, if Twitter is a "Social Media" platform it is by constructed definition:
"A place where multiple and varied interactions take place among a diverse range of participants that use such a platform to communicate the free exchange of ideas in a community-environment, leaving to it's members their understanding of exchanges of unrestricted interactions as part of the responsibility of accepting or rejecting for themselves whether or not to believe the ideas so posted free from the influence of the creators of those exchange platforms." Or, am I a little off in this "constructed definition"?
Mind (2) - Let it be! In other words, move to a different Social Media Platform where some bright person(s) have come together to create an alternate Twitter-like Twitter verse aka "community" that people will love more than Twitter that will respect all voices LEFT-CENTER-RIGHT!!! A platform that will have droves of Twitter-users flocking to it thus plummeting the value of Twitter to its investors. Let the market hammer Twitter.
The beauty of RP is that we agree to disagree and "censorship" seems to be kept well in check. I have noticed in my time on RP that there are some who want to censor what other people say and have tried, but others have not allowed it, at least so far!
As if people need reminding, but I will remind people anyway - the Founders placed the Freedom of Speech and Assembly 1st among our inalienable rights because "free and responsible speech" since time has begun has been to clarion call to action of those whose right to speak their mind are often the 1st target of those in power who don't want to be questioned and expect people to just "shut-up and do what you are told (by unspoken implication - because of what the ubiquitous "I" am telling you will hurt you and enhance the ubiquitous "me" and I only care about me so FU." crowd desires to impose.) Given such implied sentiments by those giving the implied "shut up and do what you are told" commandment, reminds me always of the kind of thugs that have plagued our world since time began. Thugs, whose insecurity is only enabled when others don't think critically about the unintended consequences of actions on both sides of a line drawn in the figurative sand!
As always, this top will draw a lot of heat, so get those magical shields ready for some fireworks as RP followers respond. There will be differing 'opinions' on the gravity of what an Executive Order on this issue will mean and those ideas need to be discussed openly and honestly with the media accepting responsibility for the same.
One cannot cause a problem then somehow say they have nothing to do with the results of a problem they created when challenged. This is the very definition of - hy·poc·ri·sy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense"!
So the REAL question is this:
Are you in support of an Executive Order that changes the liability protections of "social media platform managing leadership" when they are acting in a purely political manner to be the arbitrator of opinion on their platforms?
Frankly, I'd like to ask the partner question, which...:
Is the issuing of an Executive Order that changes the liability protections of "social media platform managing executive leadership" consistent with the overall intent and spirit of the 1st Amendment? Why? or Why not? {aka use case law or other documented example to justify your answer}
I believe both questions contribute to this discussion.
Special Note: I have also posted this in "Humor", because some will think all of this very silly by those one both sides spun up about this issue. But, is this a silly subject or a subject with such weight they if we as a nation ignore it, it will actually destroy the very fabric of the framer's intent?
COL Mikel J. Burroughs; COL Lee Flemming; LCdr (Rabbah) Rona Matlow; Maj Marty Hogan; SMSGT Gerald "Doc" Thomas; SCPO Morris Ramsey; Lt Col Charlie Brown; LTC (Join to see); Maj William W. 'Bill' Price; LTC Stephen C.; LTC Stephen F.; COL Lee Flemming; Capt Dwayne Conyers; CMSgt (Join to see); SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth; LTC Jason Mackay; MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi; MSgt Paul Connors (Publishing); SFC James J Palmer IV (JP4); SSG Carlos Madden
(1) No, I am NOT in support of an Executive Order to change the liability protections of social media, especially for executive leadership of such social media platforms.
(2) Yes, I am in TACID support of an Executive Order to change the liability protections of social media, especially for executive leadership of such social media platforms.
(3) Yes, I am in FULL support of an Executive Order to change the liability protections of social media, especially for executive leadership of such social media platforms.
(4) Unsure, if I do or don't support such an action, but there is another response to the implications of this complex question that needs to be discussed at much greater length and very publicly.
Sorry, I left off the polling question. Darn!!!
----------------------
We are on very thin ice now. In the past 24-hrs or so (for those who might be fact-checking the exact times), Twitter-verse has now moved from a presumable "free speech" platform to a "free speech only if you agree with the leadership that manages the platform!"
I am of two minds:
Mind (1) - Hammer the hell out of "Social Media Platforms like Twitter" and make them retrain their "ubiquitous platform status" as the definition of a "user experience platform", as taken from Techtopia (https://www.techopedia.com/definition/29304/user-experience-platform-uxp) that is defined as:
"A user experience platform (UXP) is the collective set of Web-based tools and technologies that interact with and are consumed by an end user. It is a solution platform that integrates all of the technologies that provide user interaction and interfacing capabilities or features."
If Twitter users are looking for an 'experience to exchange ideas' (some as 'opinions' - rational or not) then the free form of those expressions cannot be impeded by those running the platform.
So, lets take a look some definitions. "Social" as one online dictionary is defined as:
adjective
1. relating to society or its organization. E.g. "Alcoholism is recognized as a major social problem."
Some Similar words: community; community-based; collective; group; popular
Some Opposite words: individual
2. needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities. "We are social beings as well as individuals."
noun
1. an informal social gathering, especially one organized by the members of a particular club or group. "a church social"
"Media" as online in one online dictionary is defined as:
noun
1. a plural of medium.
2. (usually used with a plural verb) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, that reach or influence people widely: "The media are covering the speech tonight."
adjective
1. pertaining to or concerned with such means: a job in media research.
So, if Twitter is a "Social Media" platform it is by constructed definition:
"A place where multiple and varied interactions take place among a diverse range of participants that use such a platform to communicate the free exchange of ideas in a community-environment, leaving to it's members their understanding of exchanges of unrestricted interactions as part of the responsibility of accepting or rejecting for themselves whether or not to believe the ideas so posted free from the influence of the creators of those exchange platforms." Or, am I a little off in this "constructed definition"?
Mind (2) - Let it be! In other words, move to a different Social Media Platform where some bright person(s) have come together to create an alternate Twitter-like Twitter verse aka "community" that people will love more than Twitter that will respect all voices LEFT-CENTER-RIGHT!!! A platform that will have droves of Twitter-users flocking to it thus plummeting the value of Twitter to its investors. Let the market hammer Twitter.
The beauty of RP is that we agree to disagree and "censorship" seems to be kept well in check. I have noticed in my time on RP that there are some who want to censor what other people say and have tried, but others have not allowed it, at least so far!
As if people need reminding, but I will remind people anyway - the Founders placed the Freedom of Speech and Assembly 1st among our inalienable rights because "free and responsible speech" since time has begun has been to clarion call to action of those whose right to speak their mind are often the 1st target of those in power who don't want to be questioned and expect people to just "shut-up and do what you are told (by unspoken implication - because of what the ubiquitous "I" am telling you will hurt you and enhance the ubiquitous "me" and I only care about me so FU." crowd desires to impose.) Given such implied sentiments by those giving the implied "shut up and do what you are told" commandment, reminds me always of the kind of thugs that have plagued our world since time began. Thugs, whose insecurity is only enabled when others don't think critically about the unintended consequences of actions on both sides of a line drawn in the figurative sand!
As always, this top will draw a lot of heat, so get those magical shields ready for some fireworks as RP followers respond. There will be differing 'opinions' on the gravity of what an Executive Order on this issue will mean and those ideas need to be discussed openly and honestly with the media accepting responsibility for the same.
One cannot cause a problem then somehow say they have nothing to do with the results of a problem they created when challenged. This is the very definition of - hy·poc·ri·sy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense"!
So the REAL question is this:
Are you in support of an Executive Order that changes the liability protections of "social media platform managing leadership" when they are acting in a purely political manner to be the arbitrator of opinion on their platforms?
Frankly, I'd like to ask the partner question, which...:
Is the issuing of an Executive Order that changes the liability protections of "social media platform managing executive leadership" consistent with the overall intent and spirit of the 1st Amendment? Why? or Why not? {aka use case law or other documented example to justify your answer}
I believe both questions contribute to this discussion.
Special Note: I have also posted this in "Humor", because some will think all of this very silly by those one both sides spun up about this issue. But, is this a silly subject or a subject with such weight they if we as a nation ignore it, it will actually destroy the very fabric of the framer's intent?
COL Mikel J. Burroughs; COL Lee Flemming; LCdr (Rabbah) Rona Matlow; Maj Marty Hogan; SMSGT Gerald "Doc" Thomas; SCPO Morris Ramsey; Lt Col Charlie Brown; LTC (Join to see); Maj William W. 'Bill' Price; LTC Stephen C.; LTC Stephen F.; COL Lee Flemming; Capt Dwayne Conyers; CMSgt (Join to see); SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth; LTC Jason Mackay; MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi; MSgt Paul Connors (Publishing); SFC James J Palmer IV (JP4); SSG Carlos Madden
Social Media
Broadcast Media
Freedom of Speech
Political Correctness
Edited 4 y ago
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 13
8
8
0
Another question to consider is, how does this or the government position in opposition to itself and it's previous arguments regarding "net-neutrality."
Also, even if I thought this was a good idea, the appropriate avenue is not Executive Order, but Congressional Action.
Also, even if I thought this was a good idea, the appropriate avenue is not Executive Order, but Congressional Action.
(8)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
Cpl (Join to see) - Same could be said about Congressional action towards the petroleum industry, the coal industry, the health insurance industry. Lobbying the career politicians is not limited to tech giant's.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
What does that have to do with the current, or posted issue, Ed? Can we please stay on topic instead of finding another topic to deflect. Indecently, #TermLimits would address those issues as well.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
PO1 Robert Payne - it won't force Congress to act, the EO would be declared unconstitutional by the courts. I just find it hard to believe that butt-hurt member of the right are proposing socialist solutions.
(2)
(0)
CSM Thomas Ray
I think the key word here is net neutrality and it is obviously biased toward the left, and this is what the EO is about. The problem is it seems that people take what ever is said on platforms as the truth.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
First, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that applies to private business. Twitter is a private business, with rules that each user must agree to before using the service. If you don't like the rules, stay off Twitter.
Second, Twitter is not censoring anything. They merely posted a warning that the content of the following 'tweet' may not be accurate. Perfectly within their right to do so. Don't like the warning label, then don't spread misinformation. Or, better yet, stay off Twitter.
Third, the President does not have the authority to change the law by executive order. That is the act of a Tyrant, not a President.
Second, Twitter is not censoring anything. They merely posted a warning that the content of the following 'tweet' may not be accurate. Perfectly within their right to do so. Don't like the warning label, then don't spread misinformation. Or, better yet, stay off Twitter.
Third, the President does not have the authority to change the law by executive order. That is the act of a Tyrant, not a President.
(7)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
SGT Edward Wilcox - We agree to disagree.
If one expects a tabloid e.g. National Enquirer to have any level of ethics they'd be delusional! One the other hand the NY Times, Atlanta Herald, etc. filled with trained media types have both a moral and ethical obligation to get their "facts" rights before ever going to print! Sadly, some do not, and the damage is done, often beyond repair to those impacted.
In the case of Bernstein and Woodward in Nixon, if you read the behind the scenes media accounts of the editorial control board, the news types knew it had to be RIGHT or be DEAD as it were.
I agree with all who have stated that any changes to protections NEED to come through Congress, our we start down a road that we may not be return from. No one person, this POTUS or future ones should have such power unchecked.
I have not found a so called FACT CHECKER site yet that really provides balanced fact checking in a manner I'd prefer. You can read some bias, even marginally, into the use of the words that make up the language of the "so called" checked facts.
If one expects a tabloid e.g. National Enquirer to have any level of ethics they'd be delusional! One the other hand the NY Times, Atlanta Herald, etc. filled with trained media types have both a moral and ethical obligation to get their "facts" rights before ever going to print! Sadly, some do not, and the damage is done, often beyond repair to those impacted.
In the case of Bernstein and Woodward in Nixon, if you read the behind the scenes media accounts of the editorial control board, the news types knew it had to be RIGHT or be DEAD as it were.
I agree with all who have stated that any changes to protections NEED to come through Congress, our we start down a road that we may not be return from. No one person, this POTUS or future ones should have such power unchecked.
I have not found a so called FACT CHECKER site yet that really provides balanced fact checking in a manner I'd prefer. You can read some bias, even marginally, into the use of the words that make up the language of the "so called" checked facts.
(1)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
SGT Edward Wilcox - Here is a song for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU0P_TCHtMM.
I am child of an era that questioned many things. Some signs are important and needed, but others signs are just in the way and often direct people to places and behaviors that are not intended, creating worse situations because of the sign someone thought was needed and actually was only needed by those unwilling to think for themselves!!!
The Founders, knew this republic would not long survive, if the electorate was little more than hogs being fattened for the slaughter, by the ever constricting noose of rules applied to some but not to all!!!
I am child of an era that questioned many things. Some signs are important and needed, but others signs are just in the way and often direct people to places and behaviors that are not intended, creating worse situations because of the sign someone thought was needed and actually was only needed by those unwilling to think for themselves!!!
The Founders, knew this republic would not long survive, if the electorate was little more than hogs being fattened for the slaughter, by the ever constricting noose of rules applied to some but not to all!!!
(1)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
CPO Nate S. - Your point about the newspapers having ethics was the same point I was trying to make. They are not required by law to print corrections or retractions, but have an ethical obligation to print the correct information.
One can fact check a post on social media without using a fact checking website. However, the ones I have used are completely unbiased.
One can fact check a post on social media without using a fact checking website. However, the ones I have used are completely unbiased.
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SGT Edward Wilcox - I think that it hilarious that the anti-socialist conservatives are proposing a socialist solution to being upset that someone is calling out Trump's lies.
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
When a MEDIUM takes control of the MESSAGE, it changes itself irrevocably. A medium is merely a conduit and deserves liability protections because it is separated from the (sometimes hostile, racist, or terrorist) messages. If Twitter takes on the role of arbiter of truth, it becomes a public censor. I say public rather than private, and that part is certainly debatable. I think when a medium becomes in widespread use by the public at large, the messages become public messages, not private ones. So when Twitter controls content, or the message itself, it has stepped into the public sphere and has taken upon itself a new role, in deciding for us all what speech is acceptable and what may not be uttered in public.
(6)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Col Joseph Lenertz - Twitter and Facebook are not the public square or public forum. Instead, it is more like an open mike night at a local club. Sure, anyone can sign up to use the club's microphone and stage, but if they start doing something that the club management doesn't like, the mike can be turned off and they can be kicked out.
What you are proposing is taking the property away from the owner and saying that it now belongs to the government. We'll regulate it and you don't have any say over what is communicated on your own property.
What you are proposing is taking the property away from the owner and saying that it now belongs to the government. We'll regulate it and you don't have any say over what is communicated on your own property.
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Capt Gregory Prickett - No, I am not proposing taking their property or profits. They keep the medium, they keep the advertising, they keep the profits. And if we ALL thought that we could speak without being censored, I might even get a twitter account. Their pool would grow, and so would their profits. I am saying it is the new public square. The ideas and conversations shouldn't be controlled by a huge tech company just as they shouldn't be controlled by the government. But our laws have not caught up to that reality, and that is a shame.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Col Joseph Lenertz - Oh. You just want to control their speech on their own platform. So can we make Hobby Lobby give up the right to refuse to provide birth control to their employees now?
And can I hold an atheist gathering in your living room, against your will?
When you don't let someone use their property freely, you are involved in a "taking" of that property. It's socialism.
And can I hold an atheist gathering in your living room, against your will?
When you don't let someone use their property freely, you are involved in a "taking" of that property. It's socialism.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz - I respect your right to remain public.
However, you neglected to answer. Why doesn’t the President, or anyone who disagrees with what Twitter has done, simply ignore what Twitter has done?
Twitter isn’t controlling what the President posted. They attached their opinion/fact check with a follow on link to more information. If the President and anyone who disagrees with Twitters actions are well-informed citizenry, shouldn’t it just be ignored?
However, you neglected to answer. Why doesn’t the President, or anyone who disagrees with what Twitter has done, simply ignore what Twitter has done?
Twitter isn’t controlling what the President posted. They attached their opinion/fact check with a follow on link to more information. If the President and anyone who disagrees with Twitters actions are well-informed citizenry, shouldn’t it just be ignored?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google