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...
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.
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).
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:
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.
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. Does that make him part of the Moderate Left or the Authoritarian Left?
"Truth Social hasn’t officially launched. But users could access a test version of the platform"
> if you run AGPL code on a home server for personal use and someone hacks in
No one hacked in [1]
"we could find no evidence that someone illegally broke into the website [...] the site was simply deployed live early as a test, and without proper configuration [...] people merely used the site legitimately to register accounts and use its features"
And the reply in the other direction mentions Hunter Biden. I don't understand why! (We're still pretending we don't know that people are insinuating Snopes has a liberal bias right?)
If Trump makes a huge number of false statements during his tenure as the president he's going to get the attention of fact-checking sites...
Huh, the article where they say "Trump did not explicitly tell people to 'storm' or 'breach' or 'break into' the Capitol" and instead “peacefully and patriotically” march does't fit the mold of "pure, unadulterated bias."
That is false, and I linked to a new, different article, not a "retconned" one. They didn't change their stance, they criticize those that do, and reference a medical journal article from 1.5 years ago as evidence.
As you said, you agree with the evidence they cite...
> I'm making no claims as to whether or not Snopes omits references
Good, they clearly do not omit references, thanks for not challenging that!
Snopes has debunked hundreds of liberal falsehoods. Same thing as your grandma fallacy, er, example right? Those falsehoods the liberals said about Trump are actually true?