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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by kgin »

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 think it's even more concerning than that.

Threatening to shut down private companies -- not for limiting speech, not for refusing to distribute speech -- but for exercising their own right to free speech alongside the free speech of others (in this case the president).

There is no right to unchallenged or un-responded-to speech, regardless of how you interpret the right to free speech.

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

#662

Post by anthonypasq »

cryoshon wrote: post #474
dvtrn wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Media literacy and criticism classes in middle school?

critical thinking classes from kindergarten through the end of college. i have developed a loose curriculum for the latter half of that pipeline, but getting the education uniformly distributed throughout the public mind market is the hard part.

Im sorry, but what does a critical thinking class even mean?

If you aren't being taught critical thinking already in English, History, and Math then what are you being taught?

Isn't that the entire point of those classes?

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

#663

Post by calvinmorrison »

TrackerFF wrote: post #619
gameswithgo wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One can hate or like Biden, but he put it perfectly: This is a prostitution of the presidency. Nothing more, nothing less. Republicans are willing to look away, and let Trump run rampant, if it means that they'll get their part in return (judges, etc.) Trump, in turn, will say anything. He has no restrains, and knows this - he can say absolutely anything, and no-one within will do or say anything. Right now, the pres…

Dude you sound delusional

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

#664

Post by kgin »

m-p-3 wrote: post #600
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.

And if he decided to "close" Twitter, it would actually be a clear case of censorship from the government and a violation of free speech. Twitter is merely labelling a tweet as being factually incorrect, it's not hiding the content.

It would actually be the first action in this whole story that would truly fall under the definition of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

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

#665

Post by acomjean »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #565
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 wasn't going to post anything because of the direction HN seems to lean and because they get enraged about these sort of discussions. Hear me out and feel free to respond instead of shunning me out. The bigger issue is these platforms only get those free speech protections because they're platforms. The moment they start editing content like this, they become editors to a publishing platform, and they should be hel…

You can say whatever you want, however theses companies don't have to provide you a platform to do so.

Especially if they determine its not in their financial interest.

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

#666

Post by jdashg »

ethanbond wrote: post #609
Barrin92 wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Incitement isn't protected speak though. It's not unabridged, nor black and white.

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

#667

Post by [deleted] »

mamon wrote: post #620
mathdev wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In which alternative universe is Wikipedia objective? From my experience it is far-left, sometimes deliberately spreading fake news if it fits their narrative. This is especially visible in articles about politicians and historical events.

[deleted]

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

#668

Post by AzzieElbab »

It really isn't about fact checking. No social media company is in position to do so, especially when dealing with unknown. It is about blocking the message, which IMHO is the same thing as tired old deplatforming. I am not taking sides here, but would it not be fair to have every journalist and politician who keeps tweeting about the Russian collision marked for fact checking or banned now that "official" sources disagree?

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

#669

Post by anthonypasq »

barbacoa wrote: post #397
happytoexplain wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically true. Liberal or conservative, everybody I talk to who can communicate ideas without injecting vitriol into every word agrees that 90% of "censorship" of conservatives is just censorship of standard low-value hateful garbage, and that genre of speech, while committed on all sides, is highly overrepresented by conservatives, which makes life hard for the majority of conservatives who are rational.

PragerU has their content taken down and/or restricted on a regular basis from big tech platforms. Their videos express generic and cliche conservative ideas and values. While many people may not agree with what they say it is a far stretch to call it "low-value hateful garbage".

[flagged]

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

#670

Post by cryptonector »

cwperkins wrote: post #242

Its evident to me that our strategy to combat misinformation is not going great at the moment. I've been on Reddit for over 13 years and the site has gone through many changes. What if we changed our thinking from removing/flagging bad content to fostering rich discourse? I'll use r/politics for example, I currently do not think there is productive or rich discourse being had there. If you have had a different experi…

> What if we changed our thinking from removing/flagging bad content to fostering rich discourse?

"The answer to bad speech is more speech."

Brilliant people who have said this or some trivial variation thereof:

  - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis:
    https://prospect.org/culture/remedy-speech/
  - U.S. President Barack Obama
    https://www.answers.com/Q/Who_said_answer_bad_speech_with_more_speech
  - Penn Jillette
    https://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/why-the-solution-to-bad-speech-is-always-more-speech
  - Google CEO (then) Eric Schmidt
    https://www.news18.com/news/india/the-answer-to-bad-speech-is-more-speech-googles-eric-schmidt-598251.html
Lots of people who want to suppress speech they don't like then respond that this is not enough. E.g., https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/9sel59/cmv_th...
Post reply on HN