| Contact Us | CHT | Mobile | Wechat | Weibo | Search:
Welcome Visitors | 登录 | 免费注册 | 忘记了密码 | 社交账号注册或登录

Home

News

Forums

Realty

大温餐馆点评

Car

Education

Yellow Page

Travel
Search:  

 Global Announcement:  转载新闻请务必注明出处,这些媒体请不要转,谢谢   请不要上传第三方有版权的照片,请尊重版权,谢谢   批评商家需要注意  
 : XY | 湖里湖涂 | 顾晓军 | 白龙王许道长 | 吕洪来的个人空间 | 乱想 | 血流成河 | 静观云卷云舒 | 罗蓬特机器人 | 快乐的狮子 | 分享你的人生,寻找新的朋友 | 忽然听到一個墨西哥女仔唱。呐呐呐呐呐呢呐 | nessus | ACY Securities | 桃花岛 | 客观中立而实事求是,唯服理据而杜绝辱骂 | 朱朱的招聘 | 五木森林 | lxls | 国际货运海运(家具设备食品材料货品)
 : 请问谁知道哪里有卖理发的电动推子?   忽然有个疑问:战争时期,加拿大拿PR卡未入籍的永久居民会被强制服兵役吗?   这个银条   如何修改会员名?
 Jump to:
     发帖回帖获取加西镑, 兑换精彩礼物

移民生活北美论坛 Forum Index -> 温哥华不眠夜

看了一遍Trump的order



Reply to topic          |##| -> |=|        Post new topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Slowbro
()




Post Posted: 2020-5-28 22:12 Reply with quote
就是针对中国的

行政命令

防止在线审查的行政命令

 基础设施与技术

发布: 2020年5月28日

全部新闻

根据美国宪法和美利坚合众国法律赋予我的总统授权,现命令如下:

第 1。  政策。  言论自由是美国民主的基石。我们的开国元勋通过宪法第一修正案保护了这项神圣的权利。表达和辩论思想的自由是我们作为自由人民的所有权利的基础。

在一个长期以来崇尚言论自由的国家中,我们不能允许有限数量的在线平台来挑选美国人可能会访问并在互联网上传达的言论。这种做法从根本上说是非美国的和反民主的。当大型,强大的社交媒体公司审查他们不同意的意见时,它们就会行使危险的权力。它们不再充当被动公告板,应该被视为内容创建者并被视为内容创建者。

近年来,在线平台的增长提出了有关将第一修正案的理想应用于现代通信技术的重要问题。今天,许多美国人关注新闻,与亲朋好友保持联系,并通过社交媒体和其他在线平台分享对时事的看法。结果,这些平台在许多方面都相当于21世纪的公共广场。

Twitter,Facebook,Instagram和YouTube发挥着巨大的力量,即使不是史无前例的,也可以影响公共事件的解释。审查,删除或消失信息;并控制人们看到或看不到的东西。

作为总统,我已经明确表示了对在互联网上进行自由和公开辩论的承诺。在网上,这种辩论与我们的大学,市政厅和房屋中的辩论一样重要。这对维持我们的民主至关重要。

在线平台正在进行选择性的审查制度,这正在损害我们的国家话语权。除其他令人不安的行为外,成千上万的美国人报告说,在线平台“标记”内容为不当行为,即使该行为没有违反任何规定的服务条款;对公司政策进行未经通知的无法解释的更改,从而不利于某些观点;并删除内容和整个帐户,而不会发出警告,没有理由也没有追索权。

Twitter现在有选择地决定以明显反映政治偏见的方式在某些推文上贴上警告标签。据报道,Twitter似乎从来没有在另一个政客的推文上贴上这样的标签。就在上周,代表亚当·希夫(Adam Schiff)继续兜售久已久违的俄罗斯串通骗局,以误导他的追随者,而推特并未标记这些推文。毫不奇怪,其负责所谓“网站完整性”的官员在自己的推文中夸耀了他的政治偏见。

同时,在线平台正在援引不一致,不合理和毫无根据的理由来审查或限制美国人在国内的讲话,一些在线平台正在从中国等外国政府的侵略和虚假信息中获利并促进其传播。例如,一家美国公司为中国共产党创建了一个搜索引擎,该搜索引擎会将“人权”搜索列入黑名单,隐藏不利于中国共产党的数据,并跟踪确定适合监视的用户。它还在中国建立了研究合作伙伴关系,为中国军队带来直接利益。其他公司也接受了中国政府支付的广告,这些广告散布了有关中国大规模监禁宗教少数派,从而使这些侵犯人权成为可能。他们还扩大了中国在国外的宣传,包括允许中国政府官员使用其平台散布有关COVID-19大流行起源的错误信息,并破坏香港的民主抗议活动。

作为一个国家,我们必须在当今所有美国人都可以而且应该有发言权的数字通信环境中,培养和保护各种观点。我们必须从在线平台寻求透明度和问责制,并鼓励采用标准和工具来保护和维护美国话语和言论自由的完整性和开放性。
 


Last edited by Slowbro on 2020-5-29 09:23; edited 1 time in total
|
View user's profile Send private message Topics User photo gallery  
Raphael—温西Point Gray顶级公寓,仅需5%定金,2024即可入住!
Slowbro
()




Post Posted: 2020-5-28 22:12 Reply with quote
链接在此恭候




www.whitehouse.gov/pre...ensorship/
 
| Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Topics User photo gallery  
房地产私募基金—平均年化高于7%的收益!
Slowbro
()



Post Posted: 2020-5-28 22:14 Reply with quote
是一个支持言论自由,防止共产党渗透。


2020_05_28_21.42.38.jpg

 
| Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Topics User photo gallery  
温哥华柯正x医生抗衰老医学美容诊所:让您更年轻更美丽!
Slowbro
()



Post Posted: 2020-5-28 22:15 Reply with quote
White House Logo SHARE
EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY

Issued on: May 28, 2020

menuALL NEWS
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. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

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.

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).

(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

White House Logo
The White House
LIVE
JOBS
GET INVOLVED
COPYRIGHT POLICY
PRIVACY POLICY
 
| Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Topics User photo gallery  
请关注北美中文网每周电器促销,优惠多多!
Slowbro
()



Post Posted: 2020-5-28 23:13 Reply with quote
白宫徽标

 分享

行政命令

防止在线审查的行政命令

 基础设施与技术

发布: 2020年5月28日

全部新闻

根据美国宪法和美利坚合众国法律赋予我的总统授权,现命令如下:

第 1。  政策。  言论自由是美国民主的基石。我们的开国元勋通过宪法第一修正案保护了这项神圣的权利。表达和辩论思想的自由是我们作为自由人民的所有权利的基础。

在一个长期以来崇尚言论自由的国家中,我们不能允许有限数量的在线平台来挑选美国人可能会访问并在互联网上传达的言论。这种做法从根本上说是非美国的和反民主的。当大型,强大的社交媒体公司审查他们不同意的意见时,它们就会行使危险的权力。它们不再充当被动公告板,应该被视为内容创建者并被视为内容创建者。

近年来,在线平台的增长提出了有关将第一修正案的理想应用于现代通信技术的重要问题。今天,许多美国人关注新闻,与亲朋好友保持联系,并通过社交媒体和其他在线平台分享对时事的看法。结果,这些平台在许多方面都相当于21世纪的公共广场。

Twitter,Facebook,Instagram和YouTube发挥着巨大的力量,即使不是史无前例的,也可以影响公共事件的解释。审查,删除或消失信息;并控制人们看到或看不到的东西。

作为总统,我已经明确表示了对在互联网上进行自由和公开辩论的承诺。在网上,这种辩论与我们的大学,市政厅和房屋中的辩论一样重要。这对维持我们的民主至关重要。

在线平台正在进行选择性的审查制度,这正在损害我们的国家话语权。除其他令人不安的行为外,成千上万的美国人报告说,在线平台“标记”内容为不当行为,即使该行为没有违反任何规定的服务条款;对公司政策进行未经通知的无法解释的更改,从而不利于某些观点;并删除内容和整个帐户,而不会发出警告,没有理由也没有追索权。

Twitter现在有选择地决定以明显反映政治偏见的方式在某些推文上贴上警告标签。据报道,Twitter似乎从来没有在另一个政客的推文上贴上这样的标签。就在上周,代表亚当·希夫(Adam Schiff)继续兜售久已久违的俄罗斯串通骗局,以误导他的追随者,而推特并未标记这些推文。毫不奇怪,其负责所谓“网站完整性”的官员在自己的推文中夸耀了他的政治偏见。

同时,在线平台正在援引不一致,不合理和毫无根据的理由来审查或限制美国人在国内的讲话,一些在线平台正在从中国等外国政府的侵略和虚假信息中获利并促进其传播。例如,一家美国公司为中国共产党创建了一个搜索引擎,该搜索引擎会将“人权”搜索列入黑名单,隐藏不利于中国共产党的数据,并跟踪确定适合监视的用户。它还在中国建立了研究合作伙伴关系,为中国军队带来直接利益。其他公司也接受了中国政府支付的广告,这些广告散布了有关中国大规模监禁宗教少数派,从而使这些侵犯人权成为可能。他们还扩大了中国在国外的宣传,包括允许中国政府官员使用其平台散布有关COVID-19大流行起源的错误信息,并破坏香港的民主抗议活动。

作为一个国家,我们必须在当今所有美国人都可以而且应该有发言权的数字通信环境中,培养和保护各种观点。我们必须从在线平台寻求透明度和问责制,并鼓励采用标准和工具来保护和维护美国话语和言论自由的完整性和开放性。

秒。2。  防范网络审查。(a)美国的政策是建立明确的规则,以促进互联网上的自由和公开辩论。管辖该辩论的基本规则中最突出的是免责条款,由《通信道德法》(第230(c)条)确立。47 USC 230(c)。美国的政策是,应澄清这种豁免的范围:豁免不应超出其文字和目的,以保护那些声称为用户提供自由和公开言论论坛的人,但实际上可以使用他们通过一种重要的沟通手段进行欺骗或借口行动的权力,通过审查某些观点来扼杀自由和公开的辩论。

第230(c)节旨在解决早期法院的判决,该判决认为,如果在线平台限制访问其他人发布的某些内容,则它将成为其网站上出于侵权之类目的发布的所有内容的“发布者”诽谤。正如第230(c)节的标题所表明的那样,该条款向从事“良好撒玛利亚人”阻止有害内容的交互式计算机服务(例如在线平台)的提供者提供了有限责任“保护”。特别是,国会试图为试图保护未成年人免受有害内容侵害的在线平台提供保护,并旨在确保不阻止此类提供者取走有害材料。该规定的目的还在于进一步增强大会的明确愿景,即互联网是“真正实现政治话语多样性的论坛”。47 USC 230(a)(3)。考虑到这些目的,应解释法规所提供的有限保护。

特别是,(c)(2)项明确规定了对“民事责任”的保护,并规定交互式计算机服务提供商不得“基于”其“诚实”的决定限制其对内容访问的责任。认为“淫秽,le亵,淫荡,淫秽,肮脏,过度暴力,骚扰或其他令人反感”。美国的政策是确保在法律允许的最大范围内,不歪曲此规定,以为在线平台提供责任保护,而这些平台绝不是“真诚地”采取行动删除令人反感的内容,而是以欺骗或暗示性的行动(通常违反其规定的服务条款)来扼杀他们不同意的观点。第230条的目的不是要让少数公司成长为控制我们国家话语权的重要渠道的巨人,其幌子是促进公开讨论的论坛,然后在这些庞然大物利用其权力审查内容和保持沉默时提供全面的豁免权。他们不喜欢的观点。当交互式计算机服务提供商删除或限制对内容的访问并且其行为不符合(c)(2)(A)项的标准时,它将从事编辑行为。美国的政策是,此类提供者应适当地失去(c)(2)(A)项的有限责任盾,并像非在线提供者的任何传统编辑和发行者一样承担责任。然后为这些庞然大物提供全面的免疫力,使它们能够检查自己不喜欢的内容并使其沉默。当交互式计算机服务提供商删除或限制对内容的访问并且其行为不符合(c)(2)(A)项的标准时,它将从事编辑行为。美国的政策是,此类提供者应适当地失去(c)(2)(A)项的有限责任盾,并像非在线提供者的任何传统编辑和发行者一样承担责任。然后为这些庞然大物提供全面的免疫力,使它们能够检查自己不喜欢的内容并使其沉默。当交互式计算机服务提供商删除或限制对内容的访问并且其行为不符合(c)(2)(A)项的标准时,它将从事编辑行为。美国的政策是,此类提供者应适当地失去(c)(2)(A)项的有限责任盾,并像非在线提供者的任何传统编辑和发行者一样承担责任。它从事编辑行为。美国的政策是,此类提供者应适当地失去(c)(2)(A)项的有限责任盾,并像非在线提供者的任何传统编辑和发行者一样承担责任。它从事编辑行为。美国的政策是,此类提供者应适当地失去(c)(2)(A)项的有限责任盾,并像非在线提供者的任何传统编辑和发行者一样承担责任。

(b)为了推进本节(a)所述的政策,所有执行部门和机构应确保其对第230(c)条的适用正确反映了本节的狭义目的,并在这方面采取了所有适当的措施。此外,在此命令发出之日起60天内,商务部长(秘书)应与美国总检察长协商,并通过美国国家电信和信息管理局(NTIA)采取行动,向联邦政府提出制定规则的请愿书。通讯委员会(FCC)要求FCC迅速提出法规以澄清:

(i)第230条(c)(1)项和(c)(2)项之间的交互作用,特别是为了阐明和确定交互式计算机服务提供者在何种情况下以某种方式限制了对内容的访问(c)(2)(A)项特别保护的人也可能无法根据(c)(1)项要求保护,该条仅声明提供者不应被视为制作第三方的发布者或说话者提供的内容,并不解决提供者对其自己的编辑决定的责任;

(ii)在第230条第(c)(2)(A)项的含义下,没有“真诚地”采取限制获取或获得材料的行为的条件,特别是是否可以“采取行动”诚信”,如果他们是:

(A)具有欺骗性,暗示性或与提供者的服务条款不符;要么

(B)在没有提供足够的通知,合理的解释或有意义的发言机会后采取的;和

(iii)NTIA缔结的任何其他拟议法规可能都适合于推进本节(a)所述的政策。

秒。3。  从限制言论自由的在线平台融资中保护联邦纳税人美元。(a)每个执行部门和代理商(代理商)的负责人应审查其代理商在在线平台上进行广告和营销的联邦支出。此类审查应包括花费的金额,获得联邦资金的在线平台以及可用来限制其收到广告资金的法定机构。

(b)在该命令发出之日起30天内,每个机构的负责人应将其调查结果报告给管理和预算局局长。

(c)司法部应审查本节(b)小节所述的报告中确定的每个在线平台所施加的基于观点的言论限制,并评估是否由于观点歧视而使任何在线平台成为政府言论的有问题工具,欺骗消费者或其他不良行为。

秒。4。  联邦对不正当或欺骗行为或惯例的审查。(a)美国的政策是,像Twitter和Facebook这样的大型在线平台作为当今促进言论和思想自由交流的重要手段,不应限制受保护的言论。最高法院指出,社交媒体网站作为现代的公共广场,“可以为私人公民提供最强大的机制,使他或她的声音被听到。”  Packingham诉北卡罗来纳州,137 S. Ct。1730,1737(2017)。通过这些渠道进行交流对于有意义地参与美国民主,包括向民选领导人提出请愿,都变得至关重要。这些站点为公众提供了一个重要的论坛,让其他人可以自由表达和辩论。  比照。PruneYard Shopping Center诉Robins案,447 US 74,85-89(1980)。

(b)2019年5月,白宫启动了技术偏见报告工具,使美国人能够报告在线审查事件。在短短几周内,白宫就收到超过16,000项有关在线平台审查或基于用户政治观点对用户采取行动的投诉。白宫会将收到的此类投诉提交给司法部和联邦贸易委员会(FTC)。

(c)FTC应当根据美国法典第15章第45条,考虑采取适当行动并与适用法律一致,禁止在商业中或影响商业的不公平或欺骗性行为或惯例。这种不公平或欺骗性的行为或做法可能包括第230条所涵盖的实体的行为,这些行为以与那些实体关于这些行为的公开表示不符的方式限制了言论。

(d)对于大型社交平台,包括社交媒体平台Twitter,这是一个可供公众讨论的广阔平台,FTC还应根据其法律授权,考虑投诉是否指控违反法律的行为牵涉到第4条规定的政策( a)此命令。联邦贸易委员会应考虑制定一份描述此类投诉的报告,并根据适用法律向公众公开该报告。

秒。5。  国家对不公平或欺骗性行为或惯例以及反歧视法律的审查。(a)总检察长应建立一个工作组,以处理可能会禁止在线平台从事不公平或欺骗性行为或做法的国家法规。工作组还应制定示范立法,供现行法规不能保护美国人免受这种不公平和欺骗性行为和习俗的国家的立法机关审议。工作组应酌情并根据适用法律邀请州总检察长进行讨论和咨询。

(b)根据适用法律,本命令第4(b)节中描述的投诉将与工作组共享。工作组还应收集有关以下方面的公开信息:

(i)根据他们选择关注的其他用户或他们与其他用户的互动来加强对用户的审查;

(ii)基于政治立场或观点的显示来压制内容或用户的算法;

(iii)当与中国共产党或其他反民主协会或政府有关联的账户实施的差异政策允许其他不当行为;

(iv)依赖第三方实体,包括承包商,媒体组织和个人,带有偏向于审核内容的迹象;和

(v)与具有类似观点的其他用户相比,限制具有特定观点的用户在平台上赚钱的能力的行为。

秒。6。  立法。司法部长将制定一项联邦立法提案,以促进该命令的政策目标。

秒。7。  定义。就此命令而言,术语“在线平台”是指允许用户创建和共享内容或参与社交网络的任何网站或应用程序,或任何常规搜索引擎。

秒。8。  一般规定。(a)此命令中的任何内容均不得解释为损害或以其他方式影响:

(i)法律授予执行部门或机构或其负责人的权力;要么

(ii)管理和预算局局长与预算,行政或立法提案有关的职能。

(b)该命令应根据适用法律并在获得拨款的前提下执行。

(c)该命令无意于也不会创造任何权利或利益,无论是实质性的还是程序性的,任何一方均可对美国,其部门,机关或实体,其高级职员,雇员在法律上或衡平法下执行,代理商或任何其他人。



白宫

生活

职位

参与其中

版权政策

隐私政策

 

 

 
 
(1)
| Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Topics User photo gallery  
Richmond Signature 马自达精选车型利率0%, 再加$特别折扣!
Slowbro
()



Post Posted: 2020-5-29 09:25 Reply with quote
工作组还应收集有关以下方面的公开信息:

(i)根据他们选择关注的其他用户或他们与其他用户的互动来加强对用户的审查;

(ii)基于政治立场或观点的显示来压制内容或用户的算法;

(iii)当与中国共产党或其他反民主协会或政府有关联的账户实施的差异政策允许其他不当行为;

(iv)依赖第三方实体,包括承包商,媒体组织和个人,带有偏向于审核内容的迹象;和

(v)与具有类似观点的其他用户相比,限制具有特定观点的用户在平台上赚钱的能力的行为。
 
| Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Topics User photo gallery  
振龙电器—名牌家电专营店,品种齐全,价格最优!
呱唧呱唧
()



Post Posted: 2020-5-29 10:47 Reply with quote
一看见老长的条文就心烦
 
| Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Topics User photo gallery  
1818 Alberni—温哥华市中心54套臻罕尊贵海景豪邸,每层仅三户,现正热售!
 
Reply to topic     |##| -> |=|     移民生活北美论坛 Forum Index -> 温哥华不眠夜 All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1


注:
  • 以上论坛所有发言仅代表发帖者个人观点, 并不代表本站观点或立场, 加西网对此不负任何责任。
  • 投资理财及买房卖房版面的帖子不构成投资建议。投资有风险,责任请自负
  • 对二手买卖中的虚假信息,买卖中的纠纷等均与本站无关。
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum
    You cannot attach files in this forum
    You can download files in this forum

    Jump to: 

    Slowbro, Slowbro, Slowbro, Slowbro, Slowbro, Slowbro, 呱唧呱唧
    潜力帖子 精华帖子 热门帖子
    加国计划要在三年内赶走50万非临时居民
    多房暴负:温市豪华公寓跌得惨
    突发:小杜拟新法房东公开租金历史
    又掷"王炸" 特鲁多今天宣布大撒钱
    多房暴负:房价要向2017年看齐了
    分析:贷款利率今春下降将连降数年
    终于体会到近视了
    不小心用电话打了长时间长途
    每月2千退休金 大温老人仍活不起
    再去chief peak
    厉害!加国这家中餐馆宣布不收小费
    小红书上好多温哥华的樱花照片
    现在想骂谁就骂谁!
    北京交警接到紧急求助:手指头被砸...
    台北的厕所
    同号雷达钞
    今天包粽子 兼和粉红吵架
    热烈恭贺钱币小站新任版主四季豆同学
    北温换硬币活动取消
    加拿大唯一无国籍的硬币
    每周版主推荐,美女精选(二七二)
    美国印第安人1元卷今日发货
    每周版主推荐,美女精选(二七一)
    电视剧繁花观后感之阿宝到底喜欢哪...
    每周版主推荐,美女精选(二七零)
    2024 雪中即景
    每周版主推荐,美女精选(二六九)
    每周版主推荐,美女精选(二六八)
    每周版主推荐,美女精选(二六七)
    每周版主推荐,美女精选(二六六)
    中国没有恐袭
    BC省长宣布:BC将实行永久夏令时 但...
    卧槽 太贵了
    你们回国有很安全的感觉吗
    除了中国,还有第二个国家买火车票...
    请问为啥Tylor Swift这么火啊?
    有人今天不做大餐吗
    挖坟的ID大聚会
    啊呀,猪队友又惹祸了:刘梦颖亲自...
    台湾故宫国宝,法理上的所有权
    国移啊国移
    华人社会的民主真衰,由王局被禁5年...
    各位有没有想过把房子卖了搬到便宜...
    什么原因中国的航班不飞温哥华了?
    有人买大童话的那个北京烤鸭了吗?...

    最新新闻 热门新闻 热评新闻
    阿根廷总统“电锯式改革”,要再裁7万政府雇员(图)
    币圈大佬SBF“世纪审判”终落幕:重判25年监禁(图)
    恐怖:女子逛商场 走着走着被巨坑吞噬…(图)
    深度调查:那些借了变相高利贷的人
    疑汪小菲宣布求婚成功:我的老婆来自台北(图)
    大学毕业,上岸还是选择了做保洁...(图)
    偷渡客领现金福利:纳税人像奴隶,我是来占领美国(图)
    延迟刊发2023年度业绩!碧桂园:停牌不产生实质影响(图)
    与中国硬刚 菲律宾总统表态:反制!(图)
    俄罗斯战争野心或不止乌克兰 北欧亟需新安全战略
    刚刚在联合国 俄罗斯使用了否决权 中国弃权(图)
    法记者:中国实施最严格的措施打击“网络成瘾”
    俄方:已证实恐袭嫌犯收大量资金加密货币来自乌(图)
    “要同中国开展对话 不要自说自话”(图)
    白宫国安会发言人:曾警告俄罗斯可能发生恐袭
    想进入美国名校 SAT成绩是关键!
    她天生没四肢 却舌头打字肩膀做饭
    华妇洛杉矶唐人街遭劫 浑身是血
    连体双胞胎姐妹之一结婚,丈夫是
    房产不是在爆雷 就是在爆雷的路上…
    王小帅新片参柏林影展被勒令撤片
    考古团队根据遗骨复原了帝王容貌
    举报安全问题后离奇死亡 亲属发声
    牵牵抱抱按大腿 马克龙与他太亲密
    12匹狼跨过结冰黄河 拍下壮观一幕
    长期打这种针避孕 脑膜瘤风险增5倍
    哈佛大学图书馆移除"人皮书"封面
    组团游说美国会采取行动 加大限制
    移民局新服务 新入籍时可同步申请
    华裔偷割亡兄耳朵案 叔侄对簿公堂
    厉害!加国这家中餐馆宣布不收小费
    又掷"王炸" 特鲁多今天宣布大撒钱
    每月2千退休金 大温老人仍活不起
    交税!北温污水处理厂超预算30多亿
    台曝首例小林制药受害者:70岁妇人吃两月患肾病
    这起诉讼或改变加国经纪收的佣金
    加国GDP增长超过预期加元节节攀升
    小心!列治文频发公然抢钱包事件
    这家农场这周六再次免费送农产品
    习刚见完美企大老板 国安部就抡起大棒(图)
    “订婚强奸案”彩礼纠纷宣判:女方已退还彩礼...(图)
    又一功劳 这纪录印度孟买超越北京
    想进入美国名校 SAT成绩是关键!
    禁止使用!微信公告:马上卸载!抖音最新公告(图)
    中国黑帮垄断美国非法大麻市场 疑与官方有关(图)

    更多方式阅读论坛:

    Android: 加西网
    [下载]

    Android: 温哥华论坛
    [下载]

    PDA版本: 论坛

    加西网微信

    加西网微博


    Powered by phpBB 2.0.8
    Terms & Conditions    Privacy Policy    Political ADs    Activities Agreement    Contact Us    Sitemap    

    加西网为北美中文网传媒集团旗下网站

    Page Generation: 0.0741 Seconds and 8 DB Queries in 0.0035 Seconds