Thoughts on Trump's executive order titled "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship"? - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website -! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Thoughts on Trump's executive order titled "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship"?
in United States

By GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 127 Pts edited August 2019
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV


  • Essentially he would be censoring media outlets to protect against censorship from media outlets
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • The government should neither perform censorship nor fight against censorship. The government and freedom of speech should be completely separated from each other. Let private individuals decide what they can or cannot say.
  • Essentially, I believe this legislation would be struck down pretty early in its current form. I also believe it is a nonissue that Trump will use as a campaign issue to try and agitate or drive his base to ensure support. The proposed pathway to achieving it is also flawed on the concept. If he really wants to censor social media companies, it would be more effective to write new legislation to try and achieve this. As the article states, however, "There’s little in the way of evidence that this type of bias exists." So even if they managed to pass a new executive order without challenge from Congress, it will achieve nothing. Just a major pandering moment to try and garner support. 
  • #Trump2020 Any questions?
  • @MayCaesar Neutrality in the face of censorship is tyranny.
  • Publishers have legal requirements which platforms do not. Platforms have begun to act as publishers and thus should lose their legal exemptions or return to acting as neutral platforms.
  • @JoshBailey "There’s little in the way of evidence that this type of bias exists."

    Search on google "google bias" then search on duckduckgo "google bias". That should be telling enough, but there certainly is academic evidence for it, e.g. (1,2). Moreover, often the rules themselves have an in-built bias (e.g. no misgendering).


  • I ask those who think rhere is no bias in google to consider the case of a Christian based group who mission is to help veterans with PTSD.  They have helped 1000"s.  Yet when the tried to advertise through google and the ad was rejected with the explaination that the word Christian is not allowed.  Now the groub wasn't using the advertisement to preach but only explain what type of group they are so people who come to them know that are informed and can choose somewhere else to go if they don't buy into christan beliefs. 

    So would you say that based on this is google showing a bias?
  • @all4actt It's even worse than that, while the keyword "Christian" wasn't allowed, the keyword "Muslim" was allowed.
  • @GeoLibCogScientist

    Legislation that limits the action of large sites or social networking, to regulate sites like face-book and left-wing bias sounds as far as the bill is concerned ( I do not like trump) to be able to be used in reverse.

    It could effect anyone deemed as bias.

    Considering however that it's aimed at company's, the company's could be witheld from doing anything on the site that is considered biased and basically just clean up the rest of the problems on the site.

    Rather than looking through reports , that are charecterized by left wing Democrats, Facebook could focus on other aspects of the site.

    The bill is targeting extremists, people who don't want social exchange to take place outside of government intervention or regulation.

    Since the bill applies to bias and people are biased, in the sense people define bias  the only anyone misuse of the bill is that everyone is going to have a new buzzword.

    However, that may be a good possible form of leverage.

    Social media networks are designed for and to promote social media.

    Facebook has specific intentions like any other industry.

    Socially, the two ideologies that define left-wing politics and right-hand conservatives are at odds and are always going to be.

    The division exists because good and evil are naturally opposed.

    The entire reason the country is expieriencing such social backlash is because people have reached a limit to what they are going to allow.

    You can not have two social conflicting ways of life, that mutually respect each other for obvious reasons,. They both intend to do away with the other.

    If the bill gets passed it's going to turn up the heat another couple of degrees.

    Since matters in the U.S.  are obviously beyond the point of discussion,the only thing to do is to legislate and define criminal activity.

    Since Trumps plans  aremore neferious than aimed at helping, the language of the document is going to unevenly divide in some way.

    If I'm wrong let the Lord God Jesus The Christ correct me.

    However, the nature of social interactions today is tumultuous.

    Everyone's running into extremes.Cant say this or that.

    The reason people are censored is not because saying anything can kill someone but because what you say has the potential to piss off a maniac.

    Everyone should be able to handle social interactions where they disagree.

    Recognizing people become angry during discussions that involve conflicting information, and intending to limit what people talk about because people are prone to violence during heated discussion is the fallacy of why the government intervenes with how people are to socially interact.

    If people could handle social interactions, they can't it reflects the lack immaturity  and barbarity of others.

    To suggest a person is prone to violence and to attempt to silence someone and criminalize the behaviour of a speaker because of the violence that is expressed by other people only shows that the government's retarted.

    It would be better to instead of having the news, Facebook, the internet, etc to simply do away with media outlets and social networking.

    The cons of having such things outweigh any idea that they are even helpful to society's epidemic.

    Jesus is Lord.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch