Trump Order Confronts Big Tech Bias

Posted: June 11, 2020 by oldbrew in censorship, government, Legal, media, News

.
.
Social media getting its wings clipped? Lawyers should do well out of it.

PA Pundits - International

By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

President Trump finally issued an Executive Order targeting viewpoint discrimination by Big Tech social media companies. The Order grows out of Trump’s summit on this thorny issue last July. Topping the list of targets are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Google, but there are many other possibilities.

This form of discrimination is very much uncharted legal territory. The chosen central concept for Big Tech wrongdoing is “censorship”, as the EO is titled “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship”. This choice in itself is a strategic legal decision.

The Order is basically a hunting license for federal agencies. There are two distinct parts. The first is basically laying out a number of legal arguments. If you are not familiar with the legal issues this may seem like empty rhetoric, but it is actually the opposite. The lawyers who wrote this order are preparing to…

View original post 750 more words

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    Where does that leave Wikipedia, with its obvious climate biases?

  2. tallbloke says:

    The bias in the social media owners and media is getting out of hand. Reportage of the events of the last week in the UK are a case in point.

    Here’s a reaction from the SDP

    https://sdp.org.uk/sdptalk/black-lives-matter-how-should-we-respond/

  3. Gamecock says:

    The correct action is for Congress to specify what content platforms may edit. Child porn, soliciting crime, whatever. Any other editing makes them a publisher, not a platform, subject to the laws applied to publishers. Principally, liability for content.

    Action by Trump is wrong, but it is forced by Congress’ failure to amend Section 230. Big Tech exploits the law’s lack of specificity.

  4. stpaulchuck says:

    monopoly laws need to be brought to bear. The individual perps incorrectly say they do not have a monopoly position in their market because you can go elsewhere. Except the elsewhere is another member of the cabal.

    It was adjudicated a long time ago that a oligopoly formed in a specific market can be defined as a monopoly if they collude, even if only by chance. A half dozen outlets control some 95% of the exposure of your postings and if they act in concert to censor certain opinions or writers then they have breached the monopoly laws. IMAO, this is where they should be attacked.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Once they started restricting or suppressing lawful opinions they didn’t approve of, they became publishers so cooked their own goose.

  6. Brett Keane says:

    Progress?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s