'Tantamount to monopoly': Trump signs executive order to curb 'unchecked power' of social media giants

Washington Examiner ^ | May 28, 2020 | Spencer Neale

[kevcol]

Cavuto interview.

[Celerity]

President Trump just gave us “business in a box”.

If someone designs a social media platform.. he will go.

[aimhigh]

Whatever platform Trump decided to use would become instantly famous and widely used. Perhaps he could use FreeRepublic.

[DoughtyOne]

Yeah, what he said! Trump

[DoughtyOne]

Works for me...

[DoughtyOne]

Gonna need a bigger boat...

LOL, would bring a lot of traffic.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Twitter will become a case study in business school

I have noticed one thing about President Trump. He gives people a warning before he acts. Twitter executives should not be surprised over today’s Executive Order.

Smart people choose which battles to fight and which ones to walk away. Someone in their organization thought they were more powerful the the President of the United States. They have more ego then they have brains.

Today’s Executive Order is not one that was just written yesterday. It has been in the work for months (if not years) so you can be sure all the legal areas have been covered.

Is it wrong of me to get a bit of satisfaction to see the value of their stock go down, even for a short time?

[Dr. Sivana]

Whatever platform Trump decided to use would become instantly famous and widely used. Perhaps he could use FreeRepublic.

Would he get zotted, if necessary?

[Dr. Sivana]

Perhaps he could use FreeRepublic.

Can we tease him for being a newbie?

[wildcard_redneck]

”Can we tease him for being a newbie?

And then have an uptight mod block him from posting for an indeterminate amount to time for bad language and name-calling?

[Crucial]

I’ve always thought section 230 was always
On shaky legal ground. They essentially bar speech between people. Here they violate the First Amendment in the most basic terms.

[Lurkinanloomin]

we’re not going to have anything to do with a republic.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We haven’t had a Republic since Usurpation Day when both parties abrogated the Constitution.
Obama is not a natural born citizen.

[SmokingJoe]

Oh puleeze.
First of all FR is not a social media platform with billions of users. It's a conservative web site. You need to go the front page and read what FR is about before you even start posting here.
Second, FR does NOT gather or sell information about anybody to anyone.
Third, Google, Facebook YouTube etc gather information about everything and anything you do and sell that data to anyone anywhere. Google alone is making close to $10 Billion in net profits every single quarter, all of it from selling data about you.
FR on the other hand doesn't even take advertisements. It's entirely funded by contributions from members
Huge difference.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Here they violate the First Amendment in the most basic terms.

1st Amendment only says that the government may not restrict free speech.

It says nothing about a private party restricting free speech because that's none of the government's business.

[SmokingJoe]

Nope.
Because outside of the paid trolls and left wing activists who lurk here, almost all Freepers strongly back President Trump.

[wildcard_redneck]

Lighten up, I was posting in jest.

[SmokingJoe]

While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.”
That would apply directly to Twitter Facebook Google YouTube.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.”
That would apply directly to Twitter Facebook Google YouTube.

Thanks for the info.

Yep. It would be the same thing as if Verizon was listening into our conversations, then cut off our service because it didn't like what we were discussing on the phone.

[StolarStorm]

He’s probably read this thread already. I do know he has people here.

[jimmygrace]

While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.”
That would apply directly to Twitter Facebook Google YouTube.

You are absolutely correct. Consider this case, where an individual’s freedom of expression is censored by a corporation, and the corporation is arguing that this censorship is it’s own freedom of expression. I think the Bill of Rights would side with the individual on this one.