[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...