FCC Chair Says Agency Will Take Public Comment on Trump Social Media Petition (reuters.com) 46
The Federal Communications Commission will take public comment for 45 days on a petition filed by the Trump administration seeking new transparency rules in how social media companies moderate content, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said on Monday. From a report: Pai rejected calls from Democrats that he summarily dismiss the petition without public comment. The decision came after President Donald Trump directed the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to file the petition after Twitter Inc in May warned readers to fact-check his posts about unsubstantiated claims of fraud in mail-in voting. Pai has said previously he does not see a role for the FCC to regulate websites like Twitter, Facebook or Alphabet's Google, but said on Monday the FCC "should welcome vigorous debate -- not foreclose it. The American people deserve to have a say, and we will give them that chance." FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, a Democrat, wrote on Twitter that Congress, not the FCC, should act. "Perhaps when comments are in we can package up the whole docket and send it over to Congress-where this debate belongs," Starks wrote.
Comments from actual people this time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they can actually manage to get comments from real people this time around, unlike the net neutrality boondoggle.
Of course I'm afraid it'll just be another round of bots commenting again.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe they can actually manage to get comments from real people this time around, unlike the net neutrality boondoggle.
Of course I'm afraid it'll just be another round of bots commenting again.
(moderating so anonymous)
It's not surprising that people would give false names on the ECFS filings comments. Doesn't make them bots.
Commenting requires your name and address and the page says your information will be publicly disclosed.
These days crazies will show up at your door.
Re:Comments from actual people this time? (Score:5, Informative)
True Censorship (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now this is the true censorship that the GOP complains about. How about that baker in Colorado?
I thought we agreed never to talk about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Now this is the true censorship that the GOP complains about. How about that baker in Colorado?
You can't compel a work of art, this was established case law long before the cake, people just got all worked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you can legally compel a work of art, think the artful bullshit associated with fraud. What the FCC should become involved with is targeted advertising. It is no longer a broadcast advertisement, that the broadcaster can avoid responsibility for lies, it is targeted fraud and that corporation that targeted the fraud should be subject to wire fraud laws and should be required to prove the accuracy of all targeted advertisements otherwise is really has crossed over into wire fraud, directed false adv
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you can legally compel a work of art, think the artful bullshit associated with fraud
No you cannot, an object of art such as a painting can of course be returned to it's rightful owner or be compensated but you cannot get a court order for someone to paint you a painting, write you a piece of music or bake you a special cake.
Re: (Score:2)
To give some background art=speech so first amendment applies, courts cannot get involved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What he didn't do was order quarantines of people arriving/returning from nations hit hard by Covid. For example his supposed ban on travel from China didn't ban Americans coming from there, and didn't require any quarantines. Literally thousands of US nationals came back from China and just went home.
The other thing he didn't do was take it seriously. He downplayed the severity of the situation, and his followers took his lead.
He also listened to only the favorable news from the WHO, which is dependent on
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, by the time he ordered the quarantine COVID was already circulating in the US. An effective border closing would have slowed things down by perhaps a month, no more.
Still, he should have been willing to use the test that had already been developed rather than rolling our own. He should have told people that this was a serious problem, and needed to be dealt with seriously. He should have supported quarantines where the disease was known to be circulating. He should have supported face masks (n
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll bite....
Its because he did not take the threat seriously and chose - quite willingly to sow doubt instead of using his pulpit as the President of the United States to at least encourage as many people as possible to take the best precautions we know about (distancing, masks, etc...). He instead chose to start by pretending it would just go away without leading (key word there LEADING) folks down the path that at least gave the best chance of minimizing it. Instead of doing his #1 job - making su
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
the narrative at the beginning from the media was that COVID wasn't a big deal https://tinyurl.com/y2vrwxkw [tinyurl.com] . Only after Trump agreed that there shouldn't be hysteria did they change their tune.
Why do people try to make everything about Trump? Look, I know you worship the ground he walks upon, that's fine, but most people just don't care about him.
The media didn't change their story because of him The media started out reporting COVID just like they do every other disease on another continent: "scary but won't affect us here". When it became clear that it was spreading outside of Asia, then the media started being more realistic about the dangers. Note that NONE OF THIS WAS BECAUSE OF TRUMP.
No Brainer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who could be against that?
Social Media corps.
Re: (Score:2)
The social media corps absolutely should release vetted aggregate transparency data about who they ban, how they limit, and why and the precise rules they use. Who could be against that?
The people who get banned, because it would go against their persecution narrative when the companies show they were removed for legitimate reasons.
Re: (Score:1)
> when the companies show they were removed for legitimate reasons.
I welcome that scrutiny. I was banned from /r/twoxchromosomes for asking "what is the other side of the story". Clearly well deserved.
Not complete bans, but I've had posts removed from Reddit with facts AND supporting links. I'm not talking down votes, which are expected any time you inject logic, but actual removal of posts. And I'm sure only moderators can do that. These posts were all pre-BLM / COVID-19 days.
Then there are BLM/COV
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIKT the COVID mortality rate among the general population is 5% or less. There are selected subpopulations with a higher fatality rate, such as those with obvious symptoms. Or the elderly. Or the diabetic. Or those with lung problems. Or the overweight. Or those with type A blood. Or... well, there are lots of higher risk subpopulations.
Remember, most cases appear to be asymptomatic. You can't rely on antibody tests for population exposure, because the antibodies often disappear rapidly, or are n
Re: No Brainer (Score:2)
It's not even close to 5% because you don't calculate mortality rate as deaths over confirmed cases. You said it yourself, there are asymptomatic / unconfirmed cases
Re: No Brainer (Score:4, Informative)
In other parts of the world, specifically Russia, they don't do COVID-19 testing for elderly people who die of respiratory illness, they just say it's pneumonia. They want to keep the numbers low (just like you know who).
So the actual mortality rate is not well established. Quibbling over the exact value is not very useful. It's dangerous, it seems that you can get it more then once, and there is emerging evedence that it can cause long term problems even for those who recover. It must be taken very seriously no matter what the mortality rate is.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there's no good evidence that you can get it more than once. This, of course, doesn't mean that you can't, it means we don't know. The cases that were originally thought to be second cases have been reevaluated to "probably not". A couple of them to, "Nope, not this one.".
The problem here is that the only good test for a live COVID virus is to try to grow it. This requires a biological containment lab level 3...and there aren't very many of them. And it's expensive and slow. So they use an R
Re: (Score:2)
> So the actual mortality rate is not well established.
In the United States, due to federal money, authorities are encouraged to report deaths as COVID-19. So rates are highly skewed towards more deaths.
In other countries, due to saving face, authorities are encouraged not to report deaths as COVID-19. So rates are highly skewed towards less deaths.
> and there is emerging evedence that it can cause long term problems even for those who recover.
It's been a 30 year debate whether drinking wine or eati
Re: (Score:2)
I welcome that scrutiny. I was banned from /r/twoxchromosomes for asking "what is the other side of the story". Clearly well deserved.
People go to /r/twoxchromosomes for support, not for discussions of who is right.
Re: (Score:2)
I like that idea in principle but let's be real, all that would happen when it showed no bias is that the RWNJs would claim the data is false/doctored.
Just like when it was said over and over show us the birth certificate and we'll shut up about Obama and then when he did, they moved the goal posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No Brainer (Score:2)
Why stop at social media, that stuff's garbage anyway.
Also apply that policy to every IRC channel, Slack and Discord server, open source project and mailing list, because these are all clearly more important to society than Facebook is.
Oh, and call in radio programs too because far more important information is disseminated via Rush Limbaugh alone than all of Twitter, so the government should obviously be involved with his call screening policies.
Yup, when you get booted from an IRC chan or subreddit, write
Re: No Brainer (Score:2)
I'm against it. Let me explain:
I'm against them doing the job of the police for them and getting the higher privileges that come with that job. They should not have the right to even ban anyone. (I said let me explain:)
The *police* should to that job, walk that beat, and a court should decide who to ban!
And *law enforcement* should release vetted aggregate transparency data about who they ban, how they limit, and why and the precise rules (laws!) they use.
Yes, at a certain point services should be common ca
Socia media is entertainment. Leave it alone! (Score:1)
If the government wants its own voice, let them use their own website. Don't let them force their shit into facebook, google, et al.
Link to Comment Area at FCC (Score:2)
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin... [fcc.gov]
Spread the word, but not to any bots.
Re: (Score:3)
The link above doesn't take you to the comment section. Use this link to get there;
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/searc... [fcc.gov]
Look for filing CG RM-11862
Re: Link to Comment Area at FCC (Score:2)
*ba-dum TISS*
Kid, do you really believe "spreading the word" is any different than commandeering bots?
Flesh they are. Bots they still are.
So fucking stupid (Score:2)
if you don't like the service because you can't spew shit all day long after you agreed to their terms and they removed your drivel because that service thought you broke their terms don't fucking use the service and move on to one that will allow you to spew shit. But mmmmmmah righiiiights!
Re: So fucking stupid (Score:2)
Yeah, because you can totally just switch to one of the thousands of other equal-in-every-way choices!
Oh, wait, you can't, in actual practice, and that is the point, you dumb fuck!
Also, it is fucked-up that a service provider's head is on the line for something that clearly *somebody else* did, or let's be honest, merely said, and that is the other actual point!
The cops should do their fucking jobs, by walking the digital beat too, instead of making a business do their damn job for them! Nothing more evil t
... to ignore it. (Score:2)
How do people still believe in petitions?
All they have to do, is look at it, and go "No.". A petition has no power whatsoever. Full slacktivism.
Why don't you get a real religion, would you?
I'm all for it. (Score:2)
Considering Twitter outright lied in front of Congress about not shadowbanning people (while the recent attack clearly showed admin tools with shadowban prominently available) I think transparency here would be quite welcome.