Я внимательно ознакомился с заявой трампеля и там скорее речь о пересмотре метода и техники защиты добросовестных социальных платформ, а не о отмене. Типа, следование духу закона.
www.whitehouse.gov
Там верно сказано, что основа для "наказания" это "редакторская" по факту деятельность. Абсолютно очевидно, что редактируют (ранжируют, редактируют в широких пределах) "издатели" и сми, а не "платформы" (форумы и смк).
Еще отчего то никто не заметил этого:
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.
Что логично!
Но и "обобществление" мордокниги есть, основанное на решении верховного суда) гы
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).
Хотя, имхо, это говно. Социальные медиа платформа для частников, а не юрлиц или чиновников и министерств. Пошли нахер оттуда и усе.
Я, разумеется, и против наказания классических "редакций", но их гнут давно и это норма типа
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House
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. P
Там верно сказано, что основа для "наказания" это "редакторская" по факту деятельность. Абсолютно очевидно, что редактируют (ранжируют, редактируют в широких пределах) "издатели" и сми, а не "платформы" (форумы и смк).
Еще отчего то никто не заметил этого:
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.
Что логично!
Но и "обобществление" мордокниги есть, основанное на решении верховного суда) гы
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).
Хотя, имхо, это говно. Социальные медиа платформа для частников, а не юрлиц или чиновников и министерств. Пошли нахер оттуда и усе.
Я, разумеется, и против наказания классических "редакций", но их гнут давно и это норма типа
