TWITTER JUMPS AT 1ST CHANCE TO STRESS TEST NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING CENSORSHIP

The White House • May 29, 2020

Check out this absurd email Twitter just sent us


Dear 1600 Daily subscribers,
 
We are forwarding you this email that the White House just received from Twitter. It’s so absurd, we just had to share it with you.
 
This morning, the White House Twitter account reposted text from a tweet sent by President Trump. A short time later, Twitter censored the tweet, claiming it violated Twitter Rules about “glorifying violence.”
 
That is completely false. As the President just explained again, his tweet was CONDEMING (sic) violence and pledging federal support to keep Minnesotans safe.
 
The email we just received, presumably sent by a different team within Twitter, admits that the very tweet they are censoring does not violate any Twitter Rules. 
 
Yet the tweet is still censored.
 
Twitter’s own staff just made this much clear: Twitter is a publisher with an editorial viewpoint, NOT a platform.
 
See the email below for yourself:

Privacy Policy | Contact the White House 
The White House · 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW · Washington, DC 20500 · USA · 202-456-1111

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER AIMED AT CENSORSHIP ONLINE.

The White House – May 28, 2020

BREAKING NEWS: President Trump Signs Order To Fight Online Censorship

Moments ago in the Oval Office, President Trump signed an Executive Order to fight online censorship by technology corporations, including social media platforms.
 
Tech bias is a major issue facing our democracy. It challenges the free exchange of ideas and public debate that protects our civil liberties. Every citizen—liberal, conservative, or otherwise—has a right to be heard and treated fairly online.

🎬 WATCH: President Trump announces executive action to fight online censorship
 
In the next few hours, you may hear a lot about this Executive Order. Leftwing media will claim it addresses a fake problem because tech bias doesn’t exist. Democrats in Congress will say the President is exceeding his authority. Some in the Beltway establishment will say the order doesn’t do that much in the first place.
 
All of these are lies. Here are a few of the key actions in President Trump’s order:Makes it U.S. policy that platforms who selectively edit, censor, or are not acting in “good faith” with regards to content will not receive the liability protection included in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
 Directs the Commerce Department to petition the FCC to make clarifying rules on Section 230 in line with U.S. policy
 Helps stop millions of taxpayer dollars from being wasted by federal agencies on advertising with biased social media platforms
 Ensures the Justice Department will review more than 16,000 complaints about politically motivated censorship that were collected by the White House in advance of a Social Media Summit held last year
 Mobilizes State Attorneys General—who have massive subpoena and consumer protection authorities—to ensure social media platforms are not engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices
 Acts as federal law and lists the many ways in which tech platforms act with bias against viewpoints they disagree with
 Massive corporations that treat millions of American citizens unfairly shouldn’t expect special privileges and protections under the law. With President Trump’s Executive Order today, our country is one step closer to having an honest, fair public debate.

Read President Trump’s Executive Order on censorship here.

MORE33 Examples of Twitter’s Anti-Conservative Bias

Photo of the Day

President Trump, joined by United States Attorney General William Barr, signed an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | May 28, 2020

Privacy Policy | Contact the White House 
The White House · 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW · Washington, DC 20500 · USA · 202-456-1111

MARK ZUCKERBERG TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS TUESDAY

Vegas Valley Sports Beat

 April 11, 2018Charles Ramos Jrcambridge analyticaelectionfacebooklas vegasnewspolicerussiasenate hearings,spionagesushitech eventtechnologytreasonzuckerberg

FOUNDER AND CURRENT FACEBOOK CEO IS SET TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE TODAY REGARDING CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA.

Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook made his first appearance before Congress Tuesday to testify about what he knows about personal information from over 87,000,000 Facebook users that was shared with Cambridge Analytica without the knowledge or permission of Facebooks users.

Before questioning Mr. Zuckerberg on Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Chairman, Chuck Grassley, (R-Iowa) said, “The [social media] industry needs to work with Congress to determine if and how we need to strengthen privacy standards to ensure transparency for billions of consumers. We can’t undo the damage that’s been done, but we can work together in setting new rules of the road for our data.”

Zuckerberg suspended Facebook’s association with two additional data firms this past weekend that have ties to Cambridge Analytica.

Zuckerberg reemphasized his regrets for Facebook’s lapses in securing data privacy thus setting the stage for what is sure to be an uncomfortable appearance before Congress for its CEO. Zuckerberg is the sole witness at a joint hearing before the combined Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees Tuesday and the House Commerce committee Wednesday.

Released ahead of an appearance before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Wednesday, Zuckerberg stated for the record, “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here,”

Mr. Zuckerberg spoke with lawmakers Monday, on the day before he was scheduled to testify before the combined Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees Tuesday and the House Commerce committee Wednesday. This comes amidst amid an uproar of public concerns about how Facebook handles the private information of its users.

Facebook found itself having been manipulated during the elections in 2016, with the Russians exerting covert influence for the purpose of spreading discord amongst American voters. Facebook then had to admit that many tens of millions of Facebook users’ information might have been misused by a consulting firm involved in the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. The resulting tumult which ensued has Mr. Zuckerberg and the senior staff at Facebook in panic mode.

Recently the social media giant announced a number of initiatives aimed at better securing their user’s information and to prevent any future misusage of the network. The latest of these initiatives will be an election research committee, which will reportedly seek to include independent researchers who shall work closely in conjunction with Facebook in helping them to root out any further weaknesses in its security measures.

They shall also assist Facebook in seeking to prevent any future attempts at any enemies foreign, or domestic that might seek to perform any other such form of propaganda based election manipulation on the world social media stage.

This type of event actually has a name, it’s called espionage in the vernacular of the U.S. Department of Justice. To any American who takes any part in or is a party to/of the practice of this form of espionage, it means that they are guilty of what is more commonly known in the vernacular of the U.S. Department of Justice as treason.

 There are already articles of law in place which govern this type of crime and that we have already covered in a previous article In Schenck v. United States249 U.S. 47 (1919), a case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed fliers to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a “clear and present danger” of succeeding, could be punished.

Nuff said. Thank you to USA TODAY and to the Washington Times for their contributions to this article.Image courtesy of Google and Yahoo News