Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 164 posts

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#91

Post by handelaar »

crazynick4 wrote: post #72
dragonwriter wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First stop blaming the Russians No, not going to stop blaming the guilty, including the Russians. > and then tell your parties to work for the country and for themselves. I've found that politicians in both major parties have the second part down pretty pat, so I’m more concerned with the first. > I think best would be if people stopped calling themselves "Republicans" or "Democrats" and stopped identifying with a…

It would be more accurate to say 'the Russian government and affiliated parties' (or just 'Russian government', if you're into the whole brevity thing). Most Russians don't care what happens with American politics. We don't blame 'the Arabs' for 9/11, right?

#notallrussians is an argument (like #notallmen) that contributes nothing to anyone because nobody has at any point said "literally all Russians". You're bringing nothing but noise.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#92

Post by handelaar »

1996 wrote: post #7

What about freedom of speech, or freedom of press? The government shall make no law? I guess the convenient exception made by the FCC for regulating content shown on TV (OMG nudity!! censor this!!) will prove useful as a precedent. Sad.

Sedition has been a crime in the United States for the last 220 years.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#93

Post by crazynick4 »

handelaar wrote: post #91
crazynick4 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be more accurate to say 'the Russian government and affiliated parties' (or just 'Russian government', if you're into the whole brevity thing). Most Russians don't care what happens with American politics. We don't blame 'the Arabs' for 9/11, right?

#notallrussians is an argument (like #notallmen) that contributes nothing to anyone because nobody has at any point said "literally all Russians". You're bringing nothing but noise.

You don't have to say it explicitly in order to carry the connotation across.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#94

Post by nimbius »

after returning to the United States as a citizen, I was detained briefly for visiting a trifecta of middle eastern countries. I'd informed them I was filming a cooking show for a broadcast network. I was asked for my social media accounts and passwords, and after confessing that I did not maintain any social media accounts I was kept for another 25 minutes for the same question by three different people.

"you really dont have a facebook?"

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#95

Post by crazynick4 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #80
crazynick4 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be more accurate to say 'the Russian government and affiliated parties' (or just 'Russian government', if you're into the whole brevity thing). Most Russians don't care what happens with American politics. We don't blame 'the Arabs' for 9/11, right?

> It would be more accurate to say 'the Russian government and affiliated parties' (or just 'Russian government', if you're into the whole brevity thing). I was taking, based on what seemed to me to be exquisitely clear contextual clues, “the Russians” in the post I was responding to as “the Russians to whom blame has widely been attached”, who, yes, are the Russian government and certain regime-linked business figur…

> “Stop blaming the Russians”, it seems to me, makes clear that the focus is those Russians who are currently being blamed

Yes, if you were to stop and think about it, this is the intended meaning. However, when people constantly hear 'The Russians' repeated over and over..

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#96

Post by sykhic »

sbov wrote: post #50
sykhic wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by my Facebook feed Americans are perfectly capable of vicious, polarized discourse without foreign influence. It's gotten quite bad in the U.S. Common political discourse has devolved into a back and forth of insults, hyperbolic accusations, and sometimes just plain insanity. I agree with you that this will probably be something that will last a while. If only we could get people to realize that believing so…

> How do you have a discussion with someone who believes the political equivalent of a flat Earth? How can you decide if someone is the political equivalent of a flat Earther unless you actually attempt to have a discussion with them? All I really see online is people trying to collect the most virtual points (retweets and likes) within their own echo chamber rather than actually discuss things with people.

The same way that I know the flat Earth position is insane.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#97

Post by slg »

atomi wrote: post #90
slg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>recognition that the status quo is people's preference...I'd argue in the scheme of things, it's not really that broken Continuing the status quo means the people in power stay in power. It therefore isn't surprising that the people in power prefer preserving the status quo. It also isn't surprising that the people who believe the system is broken and are most against the status quo are those that belong to historic…

As long as it isn't libel/slander or 'fighting words', we do allow it in the physical world. Shouting words at someone is not illegal.

We have to separate the words from the action of saying those words. The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. However, often the words themselves are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal. Using your example, imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7. The words themselves might not be a problem but it doesn't mean they can't be charged with any number of crimes from disturbing the peace to harassment. Social media bots can function in a similar way.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#98

Post by mikeash »

sbov wrote: post #50
sykhic wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by my Facebook feed Americans are perfectly capable of vicious, polarized discourse without foreign influence. It's gotten quite bad in the U.S. Common political discourse has devolved into a back and forth of insults, hyperbolic accusations, and sometimes just plain insanity. I agree with you that this will probably be something that will last a while. If only we could get people to realize that believing so…

> How do you have a discussion with someone who believes the political equivalent of a flat Earth? How can you decide if someone is the political equivalent of a flat Earther unless you actually attempt to have a discussion with them? All I really see online is people trying to collect the most virtual points (retweets and likes) within their own echo chamber rather than actually discuss things with people.

I don't need to have a discussion with the person sharing a photo of Nancy Pelosi "quoting" her as saying that a border will violate the rights of millions of illegal immigrants in order to know that this person's politics aren't connected to reality.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#99

Post by sykhic »

burlesona wrote: post #28
sykhic wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by my Facebook feed Americans are perfectly capable of vicious, polarized discourse without foreign influence. It's gotten quite bad in the U.S. Common political discourse has devolved into a back and forth of insults, hyperbolic accusations, and sometimes just plain insanity. I agree with you that this will probably be something that will last a while. If only we could get people to realize that believing so…

This problem can cut both ways. Ie. if one dismisses the other person as the political equivalent of a "flat earther," they're not questioning their own assumptions or seeking to understand why the other person could feel something so strongly. Having lived in both deeply red and deeply blue states in the US, I think most people aren't as crazy or as far apart as they think they are. But many of the people who have l…

Some ideas are so idiotic - like flat Earth belief - that one should not waste their time engaging with said ideas. There are people who deny that Sandy Hook happened. I see no need to understand such fools.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#100

Post by atomi »

slg wrote: post #97
atomi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it isn't libel/slander or 'fighting words', we do allow it in the physical world. Shouting words at someone is not illegal.

We have to separate the words from the action of saying those words. The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. However, often the words themselves are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal. Using your example, imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7. The words themselves might not be a prob…

> imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7

People protest all the time in similar ways.

Also, you can block people/bots on social media.

Post reply on HN