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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by cheaprentalyeti »

danShumway wrote: post #224
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.

Not only does it not seem to be a free speech issue to me, from my point of view this is basically the best-case scenario for avoiding censorship of contentious issues on dominant platforms like Facebook/Twitter. It's the obvious conclusion to arguments like, "the way to deal with bad speech is with more good speech." Twitter saw speech they disagreed with, and they fixed it with more speech. They haven't censored an…

And twitter doesn't do this with leftist speech that's wrong/inaccurate propaganda for the sake of propaganda, like (oh, for instance) today someone was posting a photoshopped picture of one of the recent reportedly abusive cops in a "Make America White Again" red hat.

So wave the bloody shirt, that's AOK, but say that vote by mail facilitates fraud, and you get a personalized "We Don't Think So!" message from twitter.

Twitter hosts outrage mobs that have the stated goals of getting people fired, and it has caused people I was following to quit the platform.

They simultaneously want to exercise editorial discresion while not being liable for for all the outrageous or outright wrong speech they do host.

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

#672

Post by hadtodoit »

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…

If companies are going to self-moderate their platforms then they should not receive any kind of legal protection from user-generated content. I wholly believe companies have every right to dictate what is on their platform but they cannot have it both ways. If you can afford to moderate content you disagree with, you can do so for illegal content as well.

If I own a store and someone injures themselves on the premises I am held liable for that. I did not force that person to enter the store but the benefits of having a store outweighed the risks. Why should internet companies receive special treatment? They should be 100% liable for what happens on their "premises" if they are going to take the risk of allowing user-generated content.

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

#673

Post by cryptonector »

nraynaud wrote: post #283

In a lot of European countries nazi speech is forbidden, and I would posit that it works: the police murders less minorities, the difference in earnings and life expectancy are narrower, and generally violent deaths are lower. Maybe it's time for the US to become a member of the international community, by adopting common codes.

Police shootings in the U.S. do not happen because Nazis get to speak in the U.S.

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

#674

Post by _jal »

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.

It must be utterly exhausting to believe the vast majority of other humans are conspiring against you.

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

#675

Post by Kephael »

Why doesn't Twitter "fact check" the fake photo of the MN Cop in discriminatory clothing that's been trending on Twitter all day?

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Make%20Whites%20Great%20Agai...

They are working as editors which does not provide them FCC section 230 protection.

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

#676

Post by centimeter »

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 the actual conservative pain point is that they (correctly) observe that freedom of association (i.e. businesses get to choose their customers) only seems to apply when it benefits progressives - contrast Google evicting milquetoast conservatives from Youtube with no legal repercussions versus that baker in Colorado getting sued a bunch of times for not wanting to bake gay, satanist, etc. themed cakes. There are plenty of examples along these lines.

In general, the last 50-60 years have seen private individuals and businesses stripped of their rights to turn away customers, in the US mostly under the guise of the CRA, FHA, etc. YouTube finds itself remarkably (and unsurprisingly) unrestrained by these kind of (progressive) laws.

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

#677

Post by qubex »

TrackerFF wrote: post #626
qubex wrote: post #22

I’m an outsider (not American, don’t live in America) so I’m almost not entitled to have an opinion on the matter, but it always strikes me as fairly odd when people of one persuasion or another rail against the ‘bias’ that they perceive against them in one circumstance or another (including media coverage). Of course people see bias against them. It’s classical confirmation bias: every time something goes their way,…

> so I’m almost not entitled to have an opinion on the matter I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you here. The US is such a prominent nation, that can make or break the economies other countries, depending on their political actions. I've seen a lot of this "It's US politics, so none of your business" writing when criticizing Trump - but fact is that most countries are not perfectly de-coupled from each others. The…

I most definitely do have an opinion on him, and a very negative one at that. However, I try to keep that as reserved as possible for a number of reasons, including:

- Manifesting my like or dislike of the man immediately places one side or the other of tribal warfare, and that is precisely what I’d like to see less of;

- In my experience Americans are extremely testy and sometimes downright hostile when foreigners express opinions about their governance (the whole foundational process, at least as it is taught today, was of a rejection of ties to the Old Wolrd and its old, flawed ways)... I’ve even had people berate me online for being a condescending neo-imperialistic foreigner meddling in their affairs ‘proving’ that the Democrats are traitors who sell out America’s interests to foreigners (because if foreigners prefer Democrats, it must be because they get something in return);

- I sometimes get somewhat annoyed at others when they bring up “pizza, pasta, mafia” caricatures of my own home country (Italy) so I always wonder how much of what I think I ‘know’ is simply stereotype.

For all these reasons, I prefer to be as impartial as I possibly can.

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

#678

Post by padseeker »

Am I the only one that sees the irony that

A) Twitter, a private company, was merely adding a warning to his tweet which doesn't restrict his speech at all, and has long been defended by conservatives that private companies restricting speech is not a violation of the first amendment

AND

B) Trump threatened to use the powers of government to stop someone from violating his speech that is not protected by the first amendment is ACTUALLY VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

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

#679

Post by nkkollaw »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #362
nkkollaw wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't think it can be see as a positive even if human beings are the ones to fact-check. Who is someone working for Facebook or anyone else to flag my messages because they think they're not factual? This is crazy.

If you think the fact checker is wrong, you're welcome to provide your view -- fact checking is better than censorship and absolutely needed on social media to hinder its use for control at the population level (Cambridge Analytica style control).

Thanks for your permission to provide my view.

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

#680

Post by thepangolino »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #668

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 di…

That would be hilarious to watch. Unfortunately we all know that’s not happening.
Post reply on HN