老川普签署行政令阻止网络审查

使用CN2/CN2GIA顶级线路，支持Shadowsocks/V2ray科学上网，支持支付宝付款，每月仅需 5 美元

## 加入品葱精选 Telegram Channel ##

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
[url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/][/url]
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B)  taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

品葱用户 北美carl 评论于 2020-05-29

美帝大外宣要来了吗

品葱用户 **润之的忏悔

北美carl** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

美帝大外宣要来了吗

]( “/article/item_id-395278#”)
让子弹飞一会，美帝体制的纠错机制还是不错的

品葱用户 freechina2018 评论于 2020-05-29

这新闻在墙内肯定会被歪曲成川普下令管控媒体限制言论自由，粉红又要狂欢了

品葱用户 **筱田君

freechina2018** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

这新闻在墙内肯定会被歪曲成川普下令管控媒体限制言论自由，粉红又要狂欢了

]( “/article/item_id-395285#”)
粉蛆什么不能狂欢，这些人俨然没救了，噢，是这些蛆

品葱用户 美帝出巡 评论于 2020-05-29

自由世界又勝利了
美國居然有網路言論審查 真的太扯了

品葱用户 流亡者之声 评论于 2020-05-29

川普的反应速度是真的快啊，前几天自己发推被黄标，马上直接开干等都不等。总加速师看到了要不要怕一下？

品葱用户 若名用户 评论于 2020-05-29

没想到总统用推特还有这种好处，美国人真是捡了大便宜了

品葱用户 **jiuqiupeng

流亡者之声** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

川普的反应速度是真的快啊，前几天自己发推被黄标，马上直接开干等都不等。总加速师看到了要不要怕一下？

]( “/article/item_id-395381#”)
twitter完全是作死。trump那种推要是标，那基本上全世界人所有推都得标了。

品葱用户 Raion 评论于 2020-05-29

川普好硬阿
二十二十二十二十

品葱用户 pcfun 评论于 2020-05-29

twitter活该，

品葱用户 **北美carl

freechina2018** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

这新闻在墙内肯定会被歪曲成川普下令管控媒体限制言论自由，粉红又要狂欢了

]( “/article/item_id-395285#”)
左派已经迫不及待了 正好再拿明尼苏达黑警事件攻击一波

品葱用户 **nmff

北美carl** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

左派已经迫不及待了 正好再拿明尼苏达黑警事件攻击一波

]( “/article/item_id-395420#”)
然而明州一直深蓝，还出了奥马尔那个反美索马里逼。。。

品葱用户 **北美carl

nmff** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

然而明州一直深蓝，还出了奥马尔那个反美索马里逼。。。

]( “/article/item_id-395425#”)
我纳闷这是怎么骂到川普头上的…… 州长和市长被自动无视了吗……

品葱用户 **nmff

北美carl** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

我纳闷这是怎么骂到川普头上的…… 州长和市长被自动无视了吗……

]( “/article/item_id-395426#”)
嘛，鉴于左媒连川普喝可乐喂鱼吃冰激凌两个球都能骂。。。这事儿骂川普不是很正常吗

品葱用户 ZetaFC 评论于 2020-05-29

这不好吧。又不是没有右派社交媒体，创建新的社交媒体公司的barrier近乎为零吧。左，中立，右派社交媒体一起在市场里竞争客户多好。他身为总统用他的影响力宣传几个他认为自由的社交媒体不是也行么。他的trump organization自己发行一个社交媒体不实也可以。对一个商品不满意就直接立法要求商家按照你的意思来还有这样专横的政府？

不过他做的这些事情从Civil Right Act of 1964都能找到先例，从那时候就开始各种干预私企了，他也不是第一个，就是于我个人的自由意识主义政治理念不合。

Congress shall make no law ………不是Twitter shall make no law………

品葱用户 **北美carl

nmff** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

嘛，鉴于左媒连川普喝可乐喂鱼吃冰激凌两个球都能骂。。。这事儿骂川普不是很正常吗

]( “/article/item_id-395428#”)
想想也是 毕竟总统是拿来骂的

品葱用户 **北美carl

nmff** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

嘛，鉴于左媒连川普喝可乐喂鱼吃冰激凌两个球都能骂。。。这事儿骂川普不是很正常吗

]( “/article/item_id-395428#”)
喝可乐喂鱼吃冰激凌两个球
草死

品葱用户 **北美carl

ZetaFC** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

这不好吧。又不是没有右派社交媒体，创建新的社交媒体公司的barrier近乎为零吧。左，中立，右派社交…

]( “/article/item_id-395431#”)
那样社会不分裂的更厉害 自说自话

品葱用户 **ChingTW

ZetaFC** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

这不好吧。又不是没有右派社交媒体，创建新的社交媒体公司的barrier近乎为零吧。左，中立，右派社交…

]( “/article/item_id-395431#”)
作爲自由派，麻煩看看一下影片再來談川普的行政命令
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6C6_NVj964

品葱用户 **ZetaFC

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

作爲自由派，麻煩看看一下影片再來談川普的行政命令https://www.youtube.com/wa…

]( “/article/item_id-395441#”)

youtube是个service，不是right。虽然我个人很喜欢PragerU但是在这个问题上我不赞成他们。

品葱用户 hun 评论于 2020-05-30

我唯一能想到的，除了好好學習天天向上學英文外，就是

五毛五毛五毛五毛五毛五毛支那
共匪共匪共匪共匪共匪共匪支那
粉蛆粉蛆粉蛆粉蛆粉蛆粉蛆支那

品葱用户 **ChingTW

ZetaFC** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

youtube是个service，不是right。虽然我个人很喜欢PragerU但是在这个问题上我不…

]( “/article/item_id-395452#”)
不是你贊不贊成，這是legal argument！
這些所謂平台，全部受section 230條款保障。他們如果選擇認爲他們不是公衆平台，而是出版商即根據自己喜好選擇言論，那麼就不能躲在section 230條款裡受保護。
法理就是這麼簡單！你可以選擇做Publisher，也可以選擇做Public Forum，但不能選擇Both！

品葱用户 **hun

ZetaFC** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

youtube是个service，不是right。虽然我个人很喜欢PragerU但是在这个问题上我不…

]( “/article/item_id-395452#”)
我想川普的意思是，這些平臺已經成了人們生活的一部分，而這些平臺有太大的私權決定哪些人的留言會留哪些會刪，阻礙了人們言論自由，因此要求這些公司也遵從言論自由的憲章第一條。我贊成他們的……因爲如果那麽大的公司有權力控制人們哪些話能説哪些不能，那不是成了邪惡蜘蛛俠……偉大的力量沒有責任~

品葱用户 **elsaanna

nmff** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

然而明州一直深蓝，还出了奥马尔那个反美索马里逼。。。

]( “/article/item_id-395425#”)
明州深蓝又不代表明州警察群体深蓝

品葱用户 **渔民出海

elsaanna** 评论于 2020-05-29

[quote][/quote]

这事要是发在红州早就喷川普和红脖子了

就算发生在蓝州，那也是是红脖子的错，你这完美阐释了什么叫左派不粘锅

品葱用户 **elsaanna

渔民出海** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

这事要是发在红州早就喷川普和红脖子了就算发生在蓝州，那也是是红脖子的错，你这完美阐释了什么叫左派不粘…

]( “/article/item_id-395483#”)
蓝州就没有红脖子吗？美国又不是你国与主流人群价值观不一样就大肆攻伐。而警察群体红脖子密度高，川普鼓励种族歧视，也都是事实

品葱用户 **ZetaFC

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

不是你贊不贊成，這是legal argument！這些所謂平台，全部受section 230條款保障…

]( “/article/item_id-395466#”)
这就是个赞不赞成的事情。现在 Section 230 does not contain any requirements that moderation decisions be neutral.你们做这个只会给联邦政府更多管制言论的权力。谁来决定什么是“中立”，某个中央委员会么，民主党上台之后把这个的掌控权也掌握了的话你们要怎么办。现在最起码还有一个spectrum，全统一了之后你怎么保证结果是好的。另外这样的话4chan是不是要封了？因为是极右。品葱要是在美国品葱也给封了好不好，因为明显不是中立网站。

品葱用户 **miule236236

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

不是你贊不贊成，這是legal argument！這些所謂平台，全部受section 230條款保障…

]( “/article/item_id-395466#”)
如果他們要篩選用戶的言論，就無權對他們篩選過的言論免責。

品葱用户 **yuta08

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

不是你贊不贊成，這是legal argument！這些所謂平台，全部受section 230條款保障…

]( “/article/item_id-395466#”)

非常簡明扼要的說明。幹的好！

中共一直在試圖控制牆內外所有媒體與言論，終於開始有人認真的要處理這塊了。要攪屎請在牆內攪，牆外請遵守自由世界的遊戲規則

品葱用户 **ZetaFC

hun** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

我想川普的意思是，這些平臺已經成了人們生活的一部分，而這些平臺有太大的私權決定哪些人的留言會留哪些會…

]( “/article/item_id-395471#”)

关键是这些大公司的权力不是绝对的。消费者一夜之间就可以换软件。facebook，twitter那么牛，instagram，snapchat，甚至tiktok抢了他们多大流量。对付谷歌也有duckduckgo

品葱用户 無紋水仙盆 评论于 2020-05-30

如果這些平台可以言論管制，那就表示他們也有能力管制網路犯罪、兒童色情這些東西
那如果以後警方抓到有人成功上傳兒童色情的影片或照片，那就表示這些平台也是兒童色情的共犯囉XD

品葱用户 **北美carl

ZetaFC** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

这就是个赞不赞成的事情。现在 Section 230 does not contain any re…

]( “/article/item_id-395485#”)
拿推特的审查制度又有谁来看着呢？ 最近推特有多恶心大家都有体会吧

品葱用户 **渔民出海

elsaanna** 评论于 2020-05-30

[quote][/quote]
对对对，蓝州的警察都是红脖子
权威如你不容置疑
一眼不合扣帽子这种粉红思维还是你比较强。

品葱用户 葱侠 评论于 2020-05-29

你们经常骂李光耀李显龙独裁，最起码李氏父子是用法律来解决自己的名誉问题，而不是像川普这样直接动用国家权力。

品葱用户 pintshong 评论于 2020-05-29

行政命令而已
法律位階在最底層，實際執行方式和效力有待商榷。

而且標題有誤導疑慮，這個命令無法阻止社群媒體審查言論，也並非以阻止作為目的。命令是要求社群媒體審查並標注後，必須負上審查責任。
不能貼個標籤然後說跟自己無關

品葱用户 **pintshong

葱侠** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

你们经常骂李光耀李显龙独裁，最起码李氏父子是用法律来解决自己的名誉问题，而不是像川普这样直接动用国家…

]( “/article/item_id-395497#”)
？？？？
行政命令就是法律的一種阿？？？你有什麼障礙

品葱用户 **ZetaFC

北美carl** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

拿推特的审查制度又有谁来看着呢？ 最近推特有多恶心大家都有体会吧

]( “/article/item_id-395494#”)

我根本不用twitter，因为我知道那是左派大本营。我就用它看看政要新闻而已。我自己只用reddit和discord来做英文政治讨论。但是这不会阻止我维护推特行使它正当权利的权利。

品葱用户 **北美carl

葱侠** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

你们经常骂李光耀李显龙独裁，最起码李氏父子是用法律来解决自己的名誉问题，而不是像川普这样直接动用国家…

]( “/article/item_id-395497#”)
川普能随心所欲动国家权力吗 开玩笑 民主党不吞了他

品葱用户 **ChingTW

ZetaFC** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

这就是个赞不赞成的事情。现在 Section 230 does not contain any re…

]( “/article/item_id-395485#”)
拜託你先看完整個行政命令，可以嗎？
這個行政命令不是告訴你要封哪個網站，什麼言論是中立，是要分辨那些行爲那些準則可以受section 230保障。
YouTube跟Twitter是可以繼續刪除它不喜歡的言論，刪除他不喜歡的用戶，只不過不能再躲在section230裡面而已。YouTube跟Twitter必須接受New York Post，CNN那樣的監管！
現在言論被審查的明明就是普通民眾。YouTube因爲不想得罪中國，去年從反送中開始一直黃標談論事件的YouTuber。但說地球是平的那堆影片卻好好的。
政治審查在YouTube，Facebook，Twitter特別嚴重。在美國偏向民主黨，在國際卻不敢得罪共產黨。玩雙重標準是不可能玩下去的，就這麼簡單。

品葱用户 **北美carl

ZetaFC** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

我根本不用twitter，因为我知道那是左派大本营。我就用它看看政要新闻而已。我自己只用reddit…

]( “/article/item_id-395503#”)
嗯 我觉得如果有争议的话 这命令也不会被执行 毕竟总统干什么都要被限制的

品葱用户 **葱侠

pintshong** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

？？？？行政命令就是法律的一種阿？？？你有什麼障礙

]( “/article/item_id-395502#”)
法律需要国会立法，由法院审判，如果行政命令就是法律那中国这种权大于法以权代法的国家都算法治，这岂不荒谬。

品葱用户 **ChingTW

ZetaFC** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

我根本不用twitter，因为我知道那是左派大本营。我就用它看看政要新闻而已。我自己只用reddit…

]( “/article/item_id-395503#”)
OMG！Reddit才叫左派大本營好嗎？連川普的話題都被封了。
有興趣聽Reddit的來看這條影片：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3nafnWsgH0 （Reddit Is Collapsing, Power Users Exposed, Political Bias And Manipulation Are Destroying Big Tech）

品葱用户 **nmff

北美carl** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

喝可乐喂鱼吃冰激凌两个球草死

]( “/article/item_id-395434#”)
这可是都发生过的。尤其是那个喂鱼–说什么你川直接撒食物要撑死日本锦鲤，其实你川是跟着安倍倒的鱼食。左媒把安倍倒鱼食的镜头剪掉，只拍你川，显得是你川无礼。
鱼：吃饱了我就不吃了，你们人类觉得我是傻逼吗？

品葱用户 **ZetaFC

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

拜託你先看完整個行政命令，可以嗎？這個行政命令不是告訴你要封哪個網站，什麼言論是中立，是要分辨那些行…

]( “/article/item_id-395505#”)

对不起，私有企业就是可以这么干。Section 230里没有任何地方说明了审核机制必须是中立的。它的作用恰恰就是为了让platform可以自由地发布和删减内容而不受责任。
这是section 230作者之一Ron Wyden说的：

Section 230 is not about neutrality. Period. Full stop. 230 is all about letting private companies make their own decisions to leave up some content and take other content down.

You can have a liberal platform; you can have conservative platforms. And the way this is going to come about is not through government but through the marketplace, citizens making choices, people choosing to invest. This is not about neutrality. It’s never been about the republisher.

In the law that I wrote with Congressman Cox, in its language, we were creating what would be called interactive computer services, which would mean making sure more public voices were heard.

There’s a lot of nonsense out there about what this stuff is all about.

品葱用户 **ZetaFC

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

OMG！Reddit才叫左派大本營好嗎？連川普的話題都被封了。有興趣聽Reddit的來看這條影片：h…

]( “/article/item_id-395510#”)

你知道subreddit怎么运作的吗？哈？reddit左派右派都有封闭的圈子，还有像r/politics这样的大圈子。reddit自己就是就是个论坛的自由市场，它运营地也很好

品葱用户 **假行僧

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

OMG！Reddit才叫左派大本營好嗎？連川普的話題都被封了。有興趣聽Reddit的來看這條影片：h…

]( “/article/item_id-395510#”)
说得对，腾讯投了Reddit…

品葱用户 沉默的火安静地烧 评论于 2020-05-30

用户起诉网站干预自己的表达权利
和
川普用行政命令禁止网站政治审查

这是两回事吧？（尽管川普同时是一个用户，但与PragerU的权力是不对等的）

品葱用户 DeadpoolTNT 评论于 2020-05-30

发觉有关推特审查的楼内，有个五毛蹦哒得很欢，大家注意一下，还伪装成奥地利经济学派，真有点搞笑

品葱用户 **ChingTW

ZetaFC** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

对不起，私有企业就是可以这么干。Section 230里没有任何地方说明了审核机制必须是中立的。它的…

]( “/article/item_id-395519#”)
不認同。因爲這些平台已經成長爲一個國際的大眾平台，影響力已經不是一間私人公司。而且成長的時候並沒有任何便向性的政策。當你成爲一個大眾都使用的平台後，再加入偏向性的準則完全不利於Public debate，甚至選擇性地發放資訊就是對社會說謊。
如果認爲自己是偏向性的，可以！類似MSNBC，CNN你偏民主黨OK，FOX你偏共和黨也OK，但別躲在section 230的保護就可以。

品葱用户 美帝出巡 评论于 2020-05-29

1996 年通過的「通訊端正法」第 230 條規定，互動式電腦服務的提供者或使用者，就非出於己的資訊內容，不應被視為出版人及發表人，是被稱為「善良撒馬利亞人條款」的免責規範。

既然Twitter能審查發表言論 那就不能獲得230條款的免責權 
想有免責權 就不是出版商 不能控制使用者言論

品葱用户 **ZetaFC

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

不認同。因爲這些平台已經成長爲一個國際的大眾平台，影響力已經不是一間私人公司。而且成長的時候並沒有任…

]( “/article/item_id-395534#”)

section 230本身的意图就不是neutrality。是因为没有这个以前有一个有审核机制的平台因为出现了色情内容而被判有罪，而一个没有任何审核机制的平台出现色情内容被判无罪。section 230就是为了保护有偏见的平台的。因为如果没有section 230的话，所有的平台为了摆脱liability都会取消自己所有的审核，导致有更多的色情，恐怖，极端的言论出现在论坛上。

另外你真的相信一个government comittee能没有偏见的决定什么叫中立？

品葱用户 **DeadpoolTNT

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

不認同。因爲這些平台已經成長爲一個國際的大眾平台，影響力已經不是一間私人公司。而且成長的時候並沒有任…

]( “/article/item_id-395534#”)
他把政府的行政执法和经济调控干预混为一谈，拿古老的自由主义经济学教条硬套在这件言论审查事件上面，笑死人

品葱用户 acehow 评论于 2020-05-30

支持。谷歌推特脸书这些大公司已经是事实上垄断了互联网社交和媒体平台，就应该遵守美国宪法规定的言论自由。哪怕你是ai控评删评的也不行！ 科技公司审查控制言论，那和共产党又有啥区别。

品葱用户 ChingTW 评论于 2020-05-29

section 230本身的意图就不是neutrality。是因为没有这个以前有一个有审核机制的平台…

如果YouTube一開始就說全世界說我就是舔共，我就是喜歡人民幣，任何批評中國的影片我們一律黃標不給收入，甚者刪除頻道。那YouTube能成爲全球的平台嗎？

我不相信！

請注意YouTube的立意就是「YOU」（你），是以內容創造者爲核心，不是觀衆，不是廣告商，更不是Google本身。現在Google實施的審查內容，令You can’t be You。創作者因爲審查不能忠於自己的原創。

我的argument很簡單。無論是YouTube還是Twitter，之所以有今天的規模很大程度上得益於是本身言論的開放及Section 230的保護。而成爲全球規模的大眾平台擠掉競爭對手後，卻實施偏見性的言論審查絕對是違反美國憲法的第一修正案保障言論自由。重點是偏見性的審查完全無益與大眾辯論及公衆獲取信息，這些對於民主社會絕對是傷害。

230條款並不能超越憲法，所以當這些大平台刪除它不喜歡的言論的時候，絕對不能獲得230條款的保護。

品葱用户 **ZetaFC

ChingTW** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

如果YouTube一開始就說全世界說我就是舔共，我就是喜歡人民幣，任何批評中國的影片我們一律黃標不給…

]( “/article/item_id-395556#”)

section 230就是为了保护平台选择性删除言论的权利。youtube如果失去了它之前的开放的言论氛围的话他的用户也会转移到其他的平台。像现在很多conservative频道不是都开podcast。我本人也关注了很多conservative频道来摆脱推荐制度的bias。这些conservative频道还在youtube上发视频就证明了即使被歧视，他们在youtube上的流量还是很客观的 。我们应该做的是宣传其他更中立的平台，给青少年普及如何客观思考和整合信息的方法，以至于不被平台的bias扭曲了自己的看法，而不是一刀切似的来约束私有公司的运营。

品葱用户 **荣耀归于上帝

jiuqiupeng** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

twitter完全是作死。trump那种推要是标，那基本上全世界人所有推都得标了。

]( “/article/item_id-395384#”)
首先是川普的影响力很大，其次是 twitter 认为川普经常乱说话，以及看川普不顺眼，所以才标黄标。要是普通人造谣，造成的影响不大，twitter 应该不会搭理。

品葱用户 Hibblin 评论于 2020-05-30

川普这个政令是在约束平台么？我看不是，是你平台既然审查言论，那么你就得对平台上的言论负责，而不是你一边审查言论一边表示不对平台上的言论负责。川普就是加速推特言论审查，哪来的约束呢？但是你审查随你，你要审查你就得负责，别TM只使用权力而不承担责任。大科技公司为所欲为，既然你不保护别人的言论自由，凭什么要法律保障你的自由，这个行政令就是把模糊空间排除了，但是反而是在实行这条法律真正价值，而不是被利用。

品葱用户 **pintshong

葱侠** 评论于 2020-05-29

[

法律需要国会立法，由法院审判，如果行政命令就是法律那中国这种权大于法以权代法的国家都算法治，这岂不荒…

]( “/article/item_id-395509#”)

Are you kidding me?你系咧講鯊小！
不是阿！你都翻牆了，Google 啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊！
Google很難嗎？
我直接貼給你算了，你去找看得懂的。
就你的法律基本常識，我跟你解釋到你懂天都要黑了。
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1&q=%E6%B3%95%E5%BE%8B%E4%BD%8D%E9%9A%8E%E9%A0%86%E5%BA%8F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUy766rdjpAhXMw4sBHQItBckQ1QIwBnoECAwQAg&cshid=1590730707696&biw=412&bih=723

品葱用户 **pintshong

葱侠** 评论于 2020-05-29

法律不需要法院審判！去！goo！gle！
快去！

品葱用户 香蕉南波灣 评论于 2020-05-29

支持支持，能的話順便把YOUTUBE上黃標的問題也處理一下

品葱用户 大葱夹饼 评论于 2020-05-30

油管黄标、限制反共节目，推特随意删账号。社交媒体已经能控制整个社会的言论。
特朗普认为这是错误的。

特朗普这一步促进平台的二次革命。现在的网络平台相当于过去的广场。必须保证言论自由。
油管上有个  天空探照灯  讲得比较清楚。

特老头子厉害！ 支持支持支持！

品葱用户 **KimmyGray

nmff** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

然而明州一直深蓝，还出了奥马尔那个反美索马里逼。。。

]( “/article/item_id-395425#”)
明州深蓝，更说明白左是假仁假义，嘴上一套，心里还是歧视得不要不要的。

品葱用户 **nmff

KimmyGray** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

明州深蓝，更说明白左是假仁假义，嘴上一套，心里还是歧视得不要不要的。

]( “/article/item_id-395657#”)
那是自然的。拜登直接说了不投民主党的老黑不是老黑，直接开除黑籍。黑叔叔现在都明白了–民主党心里根本没有他们的福祉，要的只是他们的选票。民主党辜负了美国黑人对他们几十年如一日的信任。现在清醒的黑人越来越多了。

品葱用户 sayyidoswald 评论于 2020-05-30

这事用EO来搞就是乱来吗，你随便一个EO就能作为一个Act的补充条款甚至进一步解释，那还要立法做什么？特别是这个EO的section 2很可能是违宪的，过两天被法官给停了，然后一路上诉，浪费大量的税金。

品葱用户 KimmyGray 评论于 2020-05-30

赵立坚在twitter上说：病毒来自美国，是美军在武汉军运会期间带来的。twitter怎么没有审查？

审查本身不是不可以，例如删除一些黄色暴力的内容，但是不能有政治立场和倾向性。一旦有倾向性，哪怕剪掉1%的保守派极端言论，久而久之，舆论导向就会被控制。深红的被黄标、删帖、封号，深蓝的再极端造谣都没人管，于是每一个内容创作者，都会自我审查。原来的极右被封杀，极左变成中左，中左变成中间，中间变成右派，右派变成极右，极右又被封杀。一批一批，循环往复，舆论越来越左，逐渐脱离民意。

大陆的网络审查也是从反色情、反暴力、反谣言开始的，最后整个中文圈都充满了官方的谣言。2014年快播被取缔，然后就变本加厉，对微信、知乎、豆瓣、抖音等平台进行大面积清洗、删贴、封号。YouTube、Twitter、Facebook、Google 如果再不约束，很快就变成大陆的宣传机器。去年的NBA事件、南方公园事件、VOA断播事件、YouTube黄标事件，都表明大陆的言论审查已经扩散到了美国。

很多白左，打着“正义”的旗号，做见不得人的事情。明州警察虐杀老黑就是一个例子。明州是一个深蓝州，即便在2016年希拉里都赢了1.5%。但是警察系统里很多人，骨子里歧视黑人，类似事件不要太多，只是没被拍到，盖牌了而已。要知道，主流媒体都是左派，如果不是铁证如山，很容易被掩盖掉。警察是政府雇员，在一个深蓝州，几十年左派执政，警察体系左倾是必然的。参与虐杀的有4个警察，说明在左倾的警察队伍中，歧视、虐待黑人是普遍现象。

民主党表面上大谈民主、自由、平等，暗地里和世界上的专制政府勾兑。奥巴马时期，叙利亚内战久拖不决，川普几个月就搞定了。其实伊斯兰国受到沙特资助，这个恐怖组织控制油田卖石油，幕后的受益者正是华尔街。为什么2011年有“占领华尔街运动”？因为民众已经忍无可忍，2016年川普当选说明民心变了，宁愿让一个政治素人来执政。2020年拜登必输无疑，如果此后左派还不思变革，妄图通过操纵媒体、控制言论，来影响选民，2024年依旧是共和党执政。

一个社会不能只有一种声音，垄断必然产生专制和腐败。当80%的主流媒体被左派控制，91.7%的视频内容来自YouTube，87.4%的搜索来自Google，60%的社交来自Facebook，民众应该警醒。拆分垄断企业已经迫在眉睫了。

品葱用户 **aos

nmff** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

那是自然的。拜登直接说了不投民主党的老黑不是老黑，直接开除黑籍。黑叔叔现在都明白了–民主党心里根本…

]( “/article/item_id-395658#”)
民主党可是一直是玩族裔政治的高手，只不过从它们建立到19世纪末对标的是南方白人选民的利益，而进入二十世纪后对标的是少数族裔的利益。幸亏川普上台把联邦提高所有州的最低工资到15美元的提案给否了，不然又得有一批底层黑人和白人得失业，也可能导致一些中小型企业破产。

品葱用户 **nmff

aos** 评论于 2020-05-30

[

民主党可是一直是玩族裔政治的高手，只不过从它们建立到19世纪末对标的是南方白人选民的利益，而进入二十…

]( “/article/item_id-395698#”)
是的。大家都选择性遗忘了KKK是民主党人了。
美国黑人在奥巴马八年处境急剧恶化，实际上就是因为民主党的政策–非法移民的大举入侵使得从事低端行业的黑人被抢了饭碗，制造业外移，城市中心的荒芜化，医疗和社保的高昂代价，一切都是将黑人推入更加悲惨的境遇。美国黑人男性的自杀率在奥巴马八年不断攀升，家庭和社区急速解体。黑人已经愤怒了。

品葱用户 **ZetaFC

北美carl** 评论于 2020-05-30

~已删除~

点击品葱原文参与讨论

最简单好用的 VPS,没有之一，注册立得 100 美金