What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Larch]

So, the social media executive order has been signed, and it is indeed aimed at lifting legal protections from social networks.

#BREAKING: President Trump signs executive order strip liability protection from companies that censure content: "Companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield."


Trump signs order targeting social media firms' legal protections

President Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at increasing the ability of the government to regulate social media platforms, a marked escalation of his lengthy feud with Silicon Valley over allegations of anti-conservative bias.

The brunt of Trump's focus has been on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that gives platforms legal immunity for content posted by third-party users while also giving them cover to make good-faith efforts to moderate their platforms.

Trump, joined by Attorney General William Barr, addressed reporters in the Oval Office Thursday afternoon before signing the executive order. Reporters were ushered out of the room before witnessing the signing and the White House said shortly thereafter that Trump had signed the order, the text of which has not yet been released by the administration.

The president claimed that the order would strip the liability protection from companies that censor content, have Barr work with states to develop regulations and ensure government funding does not go to companies that suppress free speech. The order also instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in "any deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce," Trump said.

"We're here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers it has faced in American history, frankly, and you know what's going on as well as anybody. It's not good," Trump told reporters.

He accused social media companies of having "unchecked power to censure, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter virtually any form of communication between private citizens or large public audiences." He also said that if he were able to shut Twitter down, he would.

Barr did not give details on what legislation focused on 230 could look like. Trump suggested that they could just "remove or totally change 230."

The White House first acknowledged vague plans for the executive order on Wednesday evening. Officials worked to finalize the details over the following day, as a draft version leaked out that closely lines up with Trump's description.

That order would direct an agency within the Commerce Department to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission to clarify the scope of Section 230, a proposition that has already drawn rebukes from Democratic members of the commission.

Another section of the order would encourage federal agencies to review their spending on social media advertising.

The central thesis of Trump's criticism of social media platforms - that they make content moderation decisions based on anti-conservative bias - has not been substantiated.

Several lawsuits claiming suppression of conservative viewpoints on social media platforms have been rejected by courts, including one brought by far-right activist Laura Loomer this week.

The order is likely to be challenged in court. When asked about that possibility Thursday, Trump asked "I guess it's going to be challenged in court, but what isn't?"

Fundamentally, Trump cannot rewrite Section 230 without Congress's help. Any efforts by agencies like the FCC to make determinations about how the law is applied would almost definitely be challenged and ultimately become a matter for a judge to decide.

Trump has yet to formally comment on efforts from some of his supporters in Congress to overhaul the 1996 law.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday both announced separately that they are working on legislation to strip Twitter of its liability protections.

The executive order follows a multiday feud between the president and Twitter. The social media giant applied a label to one of the president's tweets for the time on Tuesday.

The warning, urging users to "get the facts about mail-in ballots," was attached to two posts in which Trump railed against mail-in voting in California, claiming without evidence that the practice is full of fraud.

Trump pounced on the fact check, accusing the company of bias against conservatives.

Trump said Twitter was "stifling FREE SPEECH" and then threatened to "close" social media platforms in a series of posts on the platform.

Since then, Twitter has placed similar labels on hundreds of tweets from a variety of figures across the political spectrum.

The White House has considered taking action against social media companies for years, reportedly circulating an executive order last year titled "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship" that would let the FCC change how Section 230 is interpreted.

The order never materialized.

[The Brain]

Reporters were ushered out of the room before witnessing the signing and the White House said shortly thereafter that Trump had signed the order,

Strong leadership.

[Sheilbh]

Hunter Biden is off topic.  We were talking about lying about the meaning of words.

I don't think it's lying.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think it's lying.

I quote: "Let's also not ignore the racial history of this terminology, which has roots in slavery."

This is demonstrably untrue.  So either she really believes this and is an imbecile, or she is lying.

Some push back from the center from Slate:

https://slate.com/business/2020/05/human-capital-stock-kevin-hassett-coronavirus.html

[Sheilbh]

Oh okay yeah - I'd not seen that - that's nonsense.

Always keep the opportunism plausible.

[Admiral Yi]

You are the secular saint of Languish Shelf.

[Malthus]

The odd thing about the use of the phrase "human capital stock" is that an  economist wasn't using it properly.

The phrase is supposed to refer to the value of education and skills people have, not to the people themselves. "Our human capital stock is ready to get back to work" is a bit of a misstatement - human capital stock can't "get back to work", people possessing human capital can.

[crazy canuck]

The odd thing about the use of the phrase "human capital stock" is that an  economist wasn't using it properly.

The phrase is supposed to refer to the value of education and skills people have, not to the people themselves. "Our human capital stock is ready to get back to work" is a bit of a misstatement - human capital stock can't "get back to work", people possessing human capital can.

You just became one of the stupid people who just don't understand these things.  Sorry.

[Malthus]

The odd thing about the use of the phrase "human capital stock" is that an  economist wasn't using it properly.

The phrase is supposed to refer to the value of education and skills people have, not to the people themselves. "Our human capital stock is ready to get back to work" is a bit of a misstatement - human capital stock can't "get back to work", people possessing human capital can.

a

You just became one of the stupid people who just don't understand these things.  Sorry.

I guess so. 😄

It just struck me as a very odd turn of phrase - like someone using economic jargon they didn't really understand, or just flubbing it.

"Our people are ready to get back to work, their stock of human capital is still unsurpassed in the world despite the disruption caused by the virus" is maybe what he meant to say?

[DGuller]

If you watch the video, he started the sentence without having a clear plan of how it will end.  It happens when you don't just read the talking points.

"Our capital stock hasn't been destroyed.  Our human capital stock, uh, is, uh, ready to get back to work."

I imagine that if he were writing an essay, he would not come up with that sentence.  He wanted to make a point that human capital hasn't been permanently diminished, complementing his statement about capital stock not having been diminished, but it just so happened that he was talking and formulating his thoughts at the same time.  It happens, and some very smart people are less than ideal speakers because they have this habit. 

He tripped over his words, but he did it obviously, and it was still perfectly clear what he intended to convey but probably in a smoother way.  He didn't trip over his words enough for reasonable intelligent listeners to think they heard a Freudian slip.

[Admiral Yi]

"Our capital stock hasn't been destroyed.  Our human capital stock, uh, is, uh, ready to get back to work."

Now that I see the quote in some context, it undercuts some of the more reasonable (i.e. non-AOC) criticisms.

One, that he's using human capital stock to refer to the labor force, instead of the skills the labor force possesses.  I can see now that he's using the term to distinguish human capital from physical capital.

Two, that the second sentence means workers are eager to return to work, which they are not according to polls (due, at least in part, I would imagine to the bloody massive unemployment top-up).  Here he chose his words poorly, but I think a reasonable interpretation is that people still possess the skills they possessed before the pandemic and these skills can still be utilized.

[Zoupa]

A stock in trade of Fox and Syt's sisters is misconstruing, decontextualizing, editing, to turn an innocuous statement by a Democrat into a raging outrage provoking meme.  We ridicule those all the time here.  So now I'm learning that's all "fair game" and it all just boils down to which side you're on.  Symmetry.  We're outraged by their lies and make our own, just like them.

Equivalencies gone mad

They're not even in the same galaxy. It's "butheremails" again.

[grumbler]

I guess so. 😄

It just struck me as a very odd turn of phrase - like someone using economic jargon they didn't really understand, or just flubbing it.

"Our people are ready to get back to work, their stock of human capital is still unsurpassed in the world despite the disruption caused by the virus" is maybe what he meant to say?

If you actually watch the interview, he wasn't drawing that out of thin air.  He was describing the theory of a colleague who thought that the US would bounce back quickly because it still had its human capital stock, just like it did after WW2 when its material capital stock hadn't been destroyed like many other countries in the war.  It was foolish of him to expect his audience to understand a complex analogy, and his wording ended up being far too technical.  It was almost like he was an academic economist.

[Sheilbh]

I mean is an author of Dow 36,000, who's gone on to produce those Excel charts of covid deaths falling to 0 by mid-May really still an academic economist/credible expert? It seems like at this stage surely he's just part of the incredulity of grifters who currently occupty the White House.

[Malthus]

If you watch the video, he started the sentence without having a clear plan of how it will end.  It happens when you don't just read the talking points.

"Our capital stock hasn't been destroyed.  Our human capital stock, uh, is, uh, ready to get back to work."

I imagine that if he were writing an essay, he would not come up with that sentence.  He wanted to make a point that human capital hasn't been permanently diminished, complementing his statement about capital stock not having been diminished, but it just so happened that he was talking and formulating his thoughts at the same time.  It happens, and some very smart people are less than ideal speakers because they have this habit. 

He tripped over his words, but he did it obviously, and it was still perfectly clear what he intended to convey but probably in a smoother way.  He didn't trip over his words enough for reasonable intelligent listeners to think they heard a Freudian slip.

This seems reasonable. It's a malapropism, but in context it is pretty clear what he meant to say; just an awkward turn of phrase to make the parallel.