that's not what it implies. whether this is my fault for poor summarizing it, or if it's a misunderstanding, you're partially misreading it.

the first one the "all immunities" are immunities certifying good faith against liabilities for hosting criminal content. it doesn't make them liable for posting liberal s***, it makes them liable for hosting criminal content and not following sec. 230 laws which require full neutrality. publishers are already liable for content, it's why you can sue the NYT for libel but not twitter. but if twitter editorializes, then technically you could, as they wouldn't be a platform. this grey area was long debated in courts even before the EO. the latter part of this the "deceptive...etc" is requiring services to transparently disclose their ToS publicly. it's not about users on the platform.

the second one is not about monitoring users! this is very important and maybe this is my bad for mis-writing it. It is about monitoring bias by the PLATFORM. This does not mean promoting conservative voices - the EO does not mention anything like that. it simply says that a platform can't call itself neutral but also pick to promote some content over others - an example being YT's trending list, which claims to be "trending" but is picked by staffers.

This will definitely have far-reaching effects which I am sure will not be solely positive nor solely negative, but it is veyr important to note that NONE of thiseffects actual users themselves, nor - technically - actual companies; the way its written, it's solely about procedural enforcement of existing ToS, similar to procedural enforcement of DMCA.

Yes. Now where does it say they'll be dictating what you can and can't say? Monitoring complaints of bias, stripping a site of protections if the site doesn't abide by its own TOS, etc =/= state censorship

Thanks for explaining bro

It's very hard to say. On paper, most of this stuff is not inherently bad - in fact, some of it (some), seems pretty ideal - i.e. fuill disclosure of how algorithms work and enforcement of transparency in ToS, which has been a longstanding issue for decades online.

It's definitely legal, regardless of what places like the ACLU will try to argue; it's basically just ordering existing agencies to enfroce pre-existing laws and court decision precedents. It's not as big of a new precedent as people think; it doesn't seize nor reclassify private companies, instead, it basically regulates certain protections, the same way under Obama there were EOs which said the EPA had to regulate whether infrastructure companies could retain protections if they didn't follow environmental laws (this very quickly got ignored so keep that in mind lol, no one gave a s*** about it). It outlines procedural means rather than direct private intervention, which makes me assume someone else wrote this rather than trump and he's been sitting on it for awhile.

What it really comes down to is how it's enforced; this will depend on the administration solely. This is may there may be room to worry; Barr has a very s***ty record, which continues to get s***ter. Future administrations with this power is a somewhat scary thought, but if used correctly, it could actually be something decent. Of course, this is the US government though, so...yeah. That said, I wouldn't worry much about independent sites; this is almost certainly targeted at a select few conglomerates.

Sounds illegal af

No problem, just want to clear things up. This is one of those legal things where caveats are extremely important. Hope that helps a bit.

I’m still tweeting f*** Trump

Trump a real snowflake for this

damn he sure seems triggered

i think you're misunderstanding the law, this would theoretically actually give you even more freedom to say that type of s*** on social media, nothing on the law is about users, it's only about platform restrictions

S/o op for all his/her hard work

its actually the opposite

Bill action 4:
-the ATTORNEY GENERAL will establish a "working ground" to enforce state statutes for free speech online
-attorney general will also consider and prosecute platforms who:
--"monitor or create watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or users"
---"monitor users based on their activity off the platform" (NOTE: this means monetization sites like Patreon which monitor off-platform activity are f***ed)

@krishna_bound I'm trying to parse through this and the implications. Why would Patreon be f***ed? Maybe I'm wrong but Patreon doesn't actually monitor you, right? You create the account, people can donate to you on a monthly basis at their discretion, Patreon is just the hosting platform, like Ebay is to the goods they sell.

Also the "monitor or create watch-lists" part, do you think this is more in the "No IP-tracking/IP-Banning; No doxxing pools; No sites like thefappening, etc" or is this waaaay in a different direction?

Honestly can’t tell if this is strengthening freedom of speech on the internet or monitoring it in the name of freedom of speech

One thing I can say for sure is that the government is intervening directly into the moderation of speech on the internet

So nothing inportant

Absolutely nothing will come of this. Maybe one day, but not now

So, the implication is that sites can no longer hold people accountable for behavior committed off-site; ToS can no longer extend beyond anything except on-site activity. The reason why Patreon is screwed is because its part of Patreon's policy that you can be banned because of off-site conduct. A lot of right-wingers and e-celeb youtubers have been banned from Patreon for this reason. Whether or not its justified is a different story, but their behavior for having done so will almost certainly be immediately targeted. That said, this isn't targeted at Patreon (likely), they'll just be in the cross-fire for that reason.
This is almost certainty aimed at targeting two types of things:
A) social media websites cross-terminating users for conduct (i.e. Alex Jones), or coordinated algorithmic suppression (such as when people got banned/shadowbanned for tweeting Learn to Code to journalists)
B) Almost certainly middle-men payment processors who aid social media and have banned right wing (and a few leftist ones too, to be fair) pundits like Gavin McInnes for off-site behavior unassociated with the usage of the platform. People like McInnes and Candance Ownes bring the RNC more publicity than actual politicians too - it's in the interest of the GOP to make sure these types of people can not only use websites, but make money off of them.

The monitor/create watch-lists is implying watch-lists in the sense of keeping lists of users to shadowban/deboost, or blacklisting people from websites pre-emptively. I could be wrong here, but it doesn't seem to imply anything about tracking from a technical standpoint (i.e. cookies, ads, user data), just tracking in the sense of targeting users or giving special moderation to specific groups of users.

This is not happening. This is Government Censorship. Twitter can do whatever the hell they want, they’re a private company,

crine

hurt privileged people at it again

OP is proof you can be well informed and post all the info and Niggas will ignore you ITT to get they two cents out.

He done laid out how this isn't censoring users or anything and how this works and people still just ignoring him.

Glad that this executive order is dead on arrival. Supreme Court will throw this s*** out within seconds. Everything about this screams unconstitutional

I can’t wait to sue twitter for seeing p*** on my timeline