[iammisc]

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?

[qkqk]

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).

[iammisc]

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?

[qkqk]

> 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...