Which executive order, can you cite or link it please?

From https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=silence...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/28/trump-targets-social-media-w...

I can't find a link to the order itself though.

If there's no link to the order (EOs being publicly available), then exactly what is the claim? The two things stated in the article about new rules around section 230, which does not match your original claim of

> Trump signed an executive order to allow people to "silence and cancel" Twitter users after Twitter added a fact check to a single Tweet of his.

Which 'people' did the EO allow to 'silence and cancel' Twitter users? Can you please explain yourself? Who was canceled? Can you name one person? Which person canceled them that was not allowed to before this EO?

You've made quite the claim. Can you substantiate it?

It made major headlines, I'm surprised you're so far out of the loop you never heard about it. The link to a Google search I provided for you makes it easy to find the EO:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...

I did hear about that order, but it did nothing of the sort the commenter claimed it did. It did not allow 'people' to 'cancel' other people. It asked the DOJ to investigate any violations of section 230, and asked the FCC to rework its administrative rules regarding the law. It did not suspend anything. Did not create new law. That is editorial nonsense.

If you'd heard about it, you wouldn't need someone else to find cites or links, I'm not that gullible.

> Did not create new law

Right, it had no effect, just more signalling from Trump. He sought to increase the legal responsibility of social media companies for what their users say, exposing them to lawsuits, in effect silencing and canceling users.

I'm not the person who made that claim, I'm just linking articles discussing what the claim was in reference to.

Ah sorry, then. Thanks for attempting to substantiate.

The original comment said:

> Trump signed an executive order to allow people to "silence and cancel" Twitter users after Twitter added a fact check to a single Tweet of his.

Which people were allowed to silence and cancel others. The links you cite contain nothing of the sort. Rather they have to do with procedural rules around section 230.

The only actual link is the second one, from the governmental archives. Your first link is an image of Trump signing an EO against anti-semitism. Unless you're in favor of anti-semitism, I'd personally feel ashamed of posting such a thing and claiming it's bad. But... to each his own.

> My executive order calls for new regulations, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield. That’s a big deal. They have a shield; they can do what they want. They have a shield. They’re not going to have that shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. This authority resides in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. I think you know it pretty well. Most of you know it very well. I would think you know it quite well, right?

EDIT: for those who read this later, the original commenter in his zeal to paint me out to be some ignoramus, posted this image of trump signing a purported EO on censorship that was actually one meant to combat anti-semitism. What drove him to do this... I cannot say.

https://firstamendmentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2...

Trump sought to increase the legal responsibility of social media companies for what their users say, repealing protections under Section 230, thereby exposing them to lawsuits, which would in effect silence and cancel users.

The rules trump was asking the FCC to reconsider couldn't violate the actual written law. He was asking for administrative rules to change, and for DOJ to investigate any illegal activity under the existing law. Can you cite any user canceled under this policy?

You'd never even heard of the EO before today, so I understand why you're confused.

Nothing ever went into effect, it would have run afoul of the First Amendment, and it made demands US gov agencies that are statutorily outside presidential control. Trump didn't know this because...well he's a game show host. That's why I used the word "sought" (you can scroll up to find it).

Please act in good faith. I did hear about that EO, but it did not do anything along what the original commenter said. There is no EO to allow 'people' to 'silence and cancel' others. Such an EO does not exist. There is an EO asking for administrative reworking of section 230.

> Nothing ever went into effect, it would have run afoul of the First Amendment, and it made demands US gov agencies that are statutorily outside presidential control.

So you admit you're comparing a theoretical 'cancellation' that was successfully prevented by checks and balances to actual cancellations that had no checks or balances?

> That's why I used the word "sought"

Trump sought to increase the legal responsibility of social media companies for what their users say, which would in effect silence and cancel users. Coincidentally right after Twitter hurt his feelings.

That really happened, I had to link you to all of the information about it despite the fact that you "totally knew" about it...

I get that you are angry about the fact that I chose to draw a distinction between moderates and authoritarians. If you are offended by that idea that's unfortunate, but Trump's EO has literally no power and never did. It was just grandstanding like most of his presidency.