Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms • Hacker News Board

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

#761

Post by Talanes » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #743

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.

Attaching a disclaimer to the speech of another though is not straightforward. Will they get into the business of fact checking everyone over certain number of followers? Will they do it impartially world-wide? How can they even be impartial world wide given the different contradictory points of view, valid from both sides? Cyprus? What’s the take there?

What requires them to be impartial?

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

#762

Post by heurist » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:23 PM UTC

staycoolboy wrote: post #535

itchyjunk wrote: post #151

Hm, is fact checking solved problem? I remember someone here had their game flagged just because it referenced SARS-CoV-2. I hear almost daily horror stories of youtube algo's screwing up content creator. As a human, I still struggle a lot to read a paper and figure out what I just read. On top of that, things like the GPT2 from OpenAI might generate very human like comment. Is there no way to consider social media a…

> As a human, I still struggle a lot to read a paper and figure out what I just read Has this always been the case for you? or just in the past few years? I didn't care about news until the first gulf war. Then something flipped a switch in my brain and I could not get enough news. When news broadcasters started adopting websites in the 90's, I was like a junkie. I don't recall significant partisan division over Gulf…

I think it's a natural effect of internet expansion. Stick 7B humans in a room together and you'll get a lot of noise because the world is a big place and events are literally happening everywhere all at once. Some find opportunity in that because the real world power is still trapped in spatially localized social networks and the internet can't reliably pierce that realm. Secrets are valuable.

The noise we interact with is the intersection of waves created half a world away and the waves we create or come into contact with locally. The best perspective to maintain, in my opinion, is that local is the most important. If you were under immediate threat of death (eg a stranger with a knife in your home), you probably wouldn't care what's happening in DC, you'd be 100% focused on the danger in front of you. I measure that as "more important". The problem is in distant or murky danger, where you don't want to be caught off-guard. You have to be able to gauge your ability to adapt and achieve safety in comparison to the magnitude of danger, then limit your anxieties. Do what you can to be prepared and accept the rest. (This is what I have learned from a lifelong anxiety disorder).

There is also no general mechanism for making sense of the massive amount of information being produced, so it's overwhelming. Google attacks the problem as an indexing tool (I'm sure they're attempting to become a generally intelligent agent). Wikipedia is a curated collection of humanity's abstract knowledge. Neither describes causality of arbitrary macroeconomic events though. If there was one broadly accepted source of truth then we'd all cling to it like a life raft.

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

#763

Post by beart » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

hadtodoit wrote: post #672

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 premis…

If you take that to the extreme, then someone running a forum for young kids would not be allowed to remove pornographic material, lest they be held liable for all other inappropriate content that gets posted.

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

#764

Post by legolas2412 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #721

centimeter wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

So, discrimination on political lines is fine as it is based on the content of your character?

Btw, political discrimination is illegal.

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

#765

Post by bilekas » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

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 not to point fingers and be an ass but people in the US need to realize the difference between a right and a privilege when it comes to free speech.

You have the right to free speech. That's not disputed. You are entitled to it. However you don't have the right to distribute that free speech on a private companies platform, that's a privilege offered by the owners not a entitlement.

It's very simple. Like it or not, that's your constitution.

Lets just play this out.. The president of the US (a supposed conservative) closes down one of the largest private companies in the US.. Not for doing something illegal as with `SilkRoad` for example.. But for practicing their own business policies.

Does that sound right to anyone ?

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

#766

Post by legolas2412 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

tuna-piano wrote: post #133

There's an unsolved conundrum I haven't heard mentioned yet. After the 2016 election, there was a thought that too much false information is spreading on social media. This happens in every country and across every form of communication - but social media platforms seem particularly worrysome (and is particularly bad with Whatsapp forwards in some Asian countries). So what should the social media companies do? Censor…

I would be fine with a public ministry of truth. Atleast we will have the free speech rights.

Wo have given too much power to these private companies.

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

#767

Post by beart » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #522

craftinator wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really appreciate your approach to this argument. You really cut through any strawman fallacies by pointing out that there's a debate along a spectrum about what protecting free speech entails, but that the President needs to have limitations in his power over private companies. I think this final point is not debatable in a legal context; he does not legally have that power.

Darn right he does not have the power. Either the president does not know the constitutional limits on his power, or he knows them but still thinks it's a good idea to claim power that he does not have. I'm not sure which is worse.

Trump loves twitter. If he actually had a problem with it, he could just stop posting.

So I think it's more of a third choice - He doesn't care if he has the power, he's just creating chaos and conflict to excite his base, as he has been doing for years.

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

#768

Post by clairity » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

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…

it's clearly impossible for trump to shut down twitter. he doesn't know how his own government works and doesn't care to know, because his goal is entirely self-promotion and personal profit. he's not a hard person to figure out.

it's more concerning that people are taking it seriously enough to create so much chatter. it's not even a free speech issue, insofar as twitter is not a government entity. there's literally no 'there' there.

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

#769

Post by aty268 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

Twitter banning Conservatives from the platform for fair talking points is far more concerning than the government threatening to punish companies for silencing their users.

Clearly competition is not solving this problem. So should the federal government do something about it? Maybe.

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

#770

Post by zachware » Wed, May 27, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

This gets to the issue of property rights. It's not unlike the tribal debate over mask requirements in private businesses.

If you are a conservative you believe in property rights. Thus, private companies can make whatever rules they want...with their property...and if I don't agree with them, I go elsewhere.

The same is true with Twitter. So it makes this whole fiasco so hypocritical. If you claim to be a conservative but you don't respect a business' right to set its own rules, you're a charlatan.