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

721–730 of 1001 posts

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

#721

Post by mullingitover »

centimeter wrote: post #676
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…

[flagged]

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

#722

Post by voxl »

Bombthecat wrote: post #707
m-p-3 wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But isn't that what all the tweets under the tweet from president probably do? They correct him? What would be the difference? The difference would be one is a company, the other a real person. No need for the company to get involved. People who ignore the correctios and other tweets will ignore the company anyway.

What are you trying to argue? That the company shouldn't bother because the factual information might be present below Trump?

Surely you understand that the company posting a fact checker is a more credible source, and that there are plenty of twitter users who, even if they disagree with Trump, may not be aware of the facts.

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

#723

Post by briefcomment »

prox wrote: post #703
kgin wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because that would be the territory of authoritarian kings, the ideological reason the US was founded. Trump sees himself king, not president.

Can you read his mind? If not, how can you tell the difference between a tyrant and a troll (and even a savvy negotiator)? One way is to see what actually happens. My bet is that no social media company will be shut down because of this.

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

#724

Post by nkassis »

tathougies wrote: post #687
m-p-3 wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Twitter is merely labelling a tweet as being factually incorrect, it's not hiding the content. I think it really depends on what you view twitter as. If it's a communications platform, like your phone, then yes 'merely labelling a tweet' is as troubling as your phone company deciding to shut your call off when you mention to a friend that you're going to vote for Biden. If Twitter is a publishing platform, then it…

> "shut your call off"

I fail to see how those two are equivalent, shutting off would be removing the tweet, they did not do that. Labeling something is not equivalent to censuring the tweet or cutting off communication.

Warning users is similar to phones letting you know they think a caller is spam.

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

#725

Post by [deleted] »

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".

[deleted]

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

#726

Post by dcwca »

NewEntryHN wrote: post #645
Loughla wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ask some oracle what "fact" is and shun every other point of view? This statement concerns me, greatly. Its implication is that facts are merely point of view statements. That is just, well, it's just wrong. Facts are facts. The truth is the truth. They don't care what your beliefs are. If it is empirically true, then it is true. Why and when did it become okay to hand-wave and dismiss anything you didn't believe i…

You are talking about the conceptual notion of a "fact", which is out of human reach. Outside of mathematics, labelling anything as a fact is an opinion, and the label is considered okay as long as everyone involved has a high confidence about this opinion. For example, if you let an apple fall down to the ground and you say "The apple fell to the ground", then you can't really know whether it's a fact or not, becaus…

>If you know you're not under drug usage and if there are other witnesses of the event, then you'll have a very high degree of confidence into the idea that the apple indeed fell on the ground, so much confidence that you would consider it a fact.

As soon as you start talking about what happened with those other witnesses, the group begins influencing the way each other remember what happened, and the narrative becomes more "real" than the actual memory. The more time that passes, and the more times the story of the apple falling from the tree is told, the more reinforced the narrative becomes, regardless of how the apple got to the ground.

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

#728

Post by ibejoeb »

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…

This is clearly incredibly complicated and hinges on all kinds of nuanced definitions that are not yet universally accepted, such as "what is twitter?" As a thought experiment, though, if Twitter is not a publisher, then I think it would be acceptable for the government to sanction it for failing to provide "equal time." That is not the same as the government sanctioning it for airing or failing to air the type of content that the government wants. The latter is clearly an overstep, but the former is currently accepted doctrine.

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

#729

Post by nsgi »

threatofrain wrote: post #249
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 feel that because web tech advanced more quickly than much of society, a vacuum of power developed and Google was forced to step in. If Google had its way, it wouldn't police any content and it would illegally host HBO shows like Game of Thrones -- when you try to hold them responsible, Google would pass off all burden to the offending individual. That's how YouTube used to run. Other industries have things like th…

Didn't Google develop Content ID voluntarily, though? It's not like anyone forced them to. Though I guess it may have been to avoid the threat of regulation

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

#730

Post by cowmoo728 »

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".

It's important to note that youtube is not removing prageru videos, it was just hiding them from being suggested automatically unless you opt in to "non-restricted". There are plenty of parents that would object to their toddlers watching videos about the death penalty or abortion. "Liberal" videos about these topics were similarly restricted. All of the prageru videos are still accessible.

It is also the case that being restricted limits monetization on those videos, but advertisers don't want to be associated with those topics.

Post reply on HN