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

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#601

Post by paulryanrogers »

mathdev wrote: post #571
VBprogrammer wrote: post #101

Can this even be considered a free speech issue? They aren't deleting his tweet, only displaying it alongside a fact check. Of course you can try to call into question the impartiality of the fact check but that is a long way from not deciding not to show the content.

A fact check would be fine if it led to objective analyses of some sort, or even Wikipedia. But when I clicked it, it displayed some highly partisan sources, including a CNN article with its usual "Trump bad" vitriol. Maybe it was an algorithm's fault, but it didn't work at all.

Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable?

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#602

Post by gameswithgo »

mathdev wrote: post #571
VBprogrammer wrote: post #101

Can this even be considered a free speech issue? They aren't deleting his tweet, only displaying it alongside a fact check. Of course you can try to call into question the impartiality of the fact check but that is a long way from not deciding not to show the content.

A fact check would be fine if it led to objective analyses of some sort, or even Wikipedia. But when I clicked it, it displayed some highly partisan sources, including a CNN article with its usual "Trump bad" vitriol. Maybe it was an algorithm's fault, but it didn't work at all.

How do you objectively report on trump without it painting him in a bad light?

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#603

Post by a0zU »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #192
throwanem wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should that be clear? Judging them by their actions rather than their words, it's quite plain that "free speech extremists" are no such thing, except inasmuch as it applies to them. They demand to be free to say whatever they like, and they demand everyone else be required to listen while they do it.

They ARE free to say whatever they like; their problem is that they then have to face the consequences. I mean I can say whatever I want on this platform as well, but if I cross a line my posts will be hidden and eventually my account blocked. And that is fair, it's what I agreed to, and not only that but it's morally just. The free speech extremists confuse freedom of speech with protection from consequences. Intere…

I mean by that logic you could say that China has free speech but anyone who speaks out against the government just has to 'face the consequences' of being put in prison.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#604

Post by chlodwig »

colinmhayes wrote: post #563
chlodwig wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not at all a solved problem. Fact-checking has the ancient "who watches the watchers" problem. Who facts checks the fact-checkers? And more broadly, censoring harassing tweets has the problem that a lot of activism looks a lot like harassment, and censoring "conspiracy theories" looks a lot like powerful people censoring those speaking truth to power. For anyone who believes that Twitter should be in the busine…

I would fact check 4 only if it was posted by Trump or someone with a similar level of authority and following. As far as I can tell that's the only one that is provably false.

What's incredible is that #4 itself was a fact-check by none-other-than the World Health Organization, back on March 29th -- https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898

Now in fairness this was before airborne transmission was as well established [1]. The Tweet came 45 minutes before the LA Times article documenting airborne transmission at a choir practice. But still -- it is unforgivable that they said, "Fact: COVID19 is NOT airborne" rather than saying, "We don't know."

And it really shows the dangers with Youtube's policy of banning coronavirus related videos that contradict World Health Organization advice -- there is no magic pixie dust that makes the WHO an infallible authority, and like any bureaucracy, they are subject to increasing rot and incompetence over time.

[1] Actually, to be more specific, it seems this whole "airborne" versus "droplet" transmission distinction that the WHO was adhering to is a false dichotomy and that it is much more of a messy gradient than sharp distinction.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#605

Post by kitd »

0x5002 wrote: post #94
Traster wrote: post #36

I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway: There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-re…

I have struggled with both points of the argument for a while now. In general, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment that this would be a glaring overreach on the side of the feds. It's also apparent that social networks have a tendency to cater massively to one side of the increasingly divided political spectrum, as proven with experiments like Gab. I've always liked the idea of having a Twitter clone that base…

FWIW, the BBC World Service podcast "The Compass" [1] has an excellent series on free speech by the veteran BBC journalist Robin Lustig. I highly recommend it. He covers tech companies, universities, blasphemy laws, etc.

[1] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035w97h/episodes/downloads

For me, free speech is fundamentally about trying to rectify the injustice of an imbalance of power between those in authority and the ordinary citizen. During the Enlightenment, the authorities were monarchs, but even before that, the origins of free speech can be seen in the Reformation, the authorities being the established Church and the battles being eg the right to a Bible in your own language or the right to worship without priests.

In modern times, authorities can be just straightforward, well, authoritarian. Global leaders & business people who tweet or post on FB carry an authority ex officio that make their proclamations much more acceptable to the neutral reader. That in itself is a dangerous situation and Twitter or FB absolutely need to take control. If these companies want us to take them seriously as champions of free speech, they have to play their role to help restore that balance of power, by being far more stringent about fact-checking the tweets of those global leaders than they would be for ordinary posters.

Those right-wingers who love to proclaim themselves champions of free speech are really objecting to the Tyranny of the Majority. That is not an authority that requires a rebalance of power. It is just an established opinion.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#606

Post by Reelin »

qubex wrote: post #85
ceejayoz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would he defend your right to say it in his living room , though? (Let's also not lose sight of the fact that Trump hasn't even had his tweets deleted or censored in any fashion. Just a note added underneath.)

Clearly broadcast and social media are a new occurrence that needs to be factored into the discussion somehow, and if you were to argue that applying Enlightenment political theory to the current situation is an anachronism, I would tend to agree. I’d also like to see social media and search engines legislated as utilities... but I’m in the EU so my opinion scarcely matters, to be perfectly honest.

> I’m in the EU so my opinion scarcely matters, to be perfectly honest

That's not really true (I say this as an American). Sure, the US government is highly unlikely to change their policies based on what people living in the EU think. That doesn't mean the EU can't legislate such things within their own borders though. There's no technological reason a search engine or social media platform couldn't be based in the EU; for example, Qwant exists (https://www.qwant.com).

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#607

Post by gameswithgo »

jjuel wrote: post #27

It is crazy to see how well he knows his base and how to get them to rally close to an election. Making them think everything is a liberal bias against them, and if they don't vote for his big government agenda they will receive a big government agenda. This is just one more way for him to get his base to believe everything he says versus people who actually prove what he says is a lie. He wants state run media and s…

It isn't that he has a special insight into his base, he is just willing to abandon any sense of truth or decency to flame it. That is what is remarkable about him.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#609

Post by ethanbond »

Barrin92 wrote: post #592
falcolas wrote: post #54

Free speech is not just an American constitutional right; many countries throughout the world consider free speech to be a human right. So, yeah, many of us get a bit worked up when people are kicked off platforms, because they are being silenced, sometimes to the point of being shut out of the modern internet entirely (when their rights to a DNS address are comprehensively removed). Hate speech and lies are terrible…

>Free speech is not just an American constitutional right; many countries throughout the world consider free speech to be a human right. Although virtually none do so in unrestricted fashion. Hate speech, racism, genocide denial and so on aren't protected by free-speech in the overwhelming amount of legislations even in countries with a liberal tradition, and just like any other right free speech is subject to limita…

Just to be absolutely clear, the United States is one (yes, unique) case that does protect all of the types of speech you listed here.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#610

Post by tootie »

0x5002 wrote: post #94
Traster wrote: post #36

I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway: There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-re…

I have struggled with both points of the argument for a while now. In general, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment that this would be a glaring overreach on the side of the feds. It's also apparent that social networks have a tendency to cater massively to one side of the increasingly divided political spectrum, as proven with experiments like Gab. I've always liked the idea of having a Twitter clone that base…

Even if you take the most libertarian view of free speech, the proper recourse would be to sue and let the courts decide and/or work with Congress on explicit legislation on the responsibilities of content hosters. Declaring that he would use his executive authority to punish a private company for personal injury is dangerously authoritarian in my view.
Post reply on HN