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

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

#801

Post by isoskeles » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

yibg wrote: post #780

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…

Also, in this case no one is being censored. It's not like the president isn't allowed to post and is having his "freedom of speech" taken away. This is more like his speech is being responded to, and he doesn't like that others can challenge what he's saying. The very antithesis of free speech.

Applied unequally. Reminds me of these old fact checks during the election:

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-fact...

> Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed Clinton “acid washed” 33,000 personal emails to delete them, calling it “an expensive process.” The FBI said Clinton’s tech team used BleachBit, which is a free software program. It does not use chemicals.

These sorts of "fact checks" are blatant horse shit that always go in one direction. Some "challenge", the very antithesis of any sort of good faith discussion on the facts.

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

#802

Post by banads » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

bananabreakfast wrote: post #786

rmtech wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A private company that has a monopoly on speech is no longer a private company, it's essentially an unelected and unaccountable part of the permanent government. You need to think about entities based on their properties, not the labels that are attached to them. That ought to be obvious to people who program for a living; think of a private company with a speech monopoly as the good old .txt.exe scam. You're attachi…

No company has a monopoly on speech. Especially not twitter of all places...

Has any group of people in history ever had so much control over public discourse at such a large scale as Facebook, or Twitter?

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

#803

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:12 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?

as long as they are not using limited public goods (e.g. part of the EM spectrum to broadcast), then from my perspective they can do anything they want assuming it doesn't break another law.

now if they want to use limited public goods, well then there's a role for the FCC or something like it...

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

#804

Post by classified » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

Who would have thought that being a massive a-hole can be such a successful brand? Trump misses no opportunity to demonstrate his unwavering commitment to despotism. He will make a great dictator once his presidency runs out.

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

#805

Post by effable » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

rmtech wrote: post #781

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…

A private company that has a monopoly on speech is no longer a private company, it's essentially an unelected and unaccountable part of the permanent government. You need to think about entities based on their properties, not the labels that are attached to them. That ought to be obvious to people who program for a living; think of a private company with a speech monopoly as the good old .txt.exe scam. You're attachi…

So what's the criteria for ascertaining that a company, like Twitter, has a monopoly on speech and why does that make it like a government? Unless you are claiming that the US government has a monopoly on speech - meaning that anything the US government does not want said, cannot be said in public which is certainly not true in this case since the head of the US government is threatening to shut down Twitter over something they "said".

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

#806

Post by standardUser » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

meragrin_ wrote: post #789

standardUser wrote: post #652

There seem to be some upside down priorities here. Many folks seem to be arguing that its an unacceptable form of censorship for a private platform to annotate content it allows others to post. Meanwhile, I'm seeing barely a mention of the fact that the President of the United States has threatened to use government power to shut down an entire sector of the economy devoted to communication. The latter is almost cert…

Perhaps they see it as targeting a political figure because of political differences rather than trying to prevent the spread of misinformation. I'm not seeing any annotations on a number prominent members of Congress spreading misinformation. Where in the US Constitution does it say presidents cannot threaten companies? Obama had his share of threats. I'm sure they could find a suitable legal issue with Twitter targ…

"Obama had his share of threats."

Cite two.

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

#807

Post by tw04 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:23 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?

I love the theoretical situation that doesn't exist as a justification for not doing the right thing. This isn't a "different points of view" - this is the leader of the United States LYING on their platform, and them choosing to provide a link to FACTUAL INFORMATION. There is no "contradictory point of view" - he claimed there was massive voter fraud and there's literally 0 proof to back up his claim and mountains of evidence to counter it.

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

#808

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

isoskeles wrote: post #801

yibg wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, in this case no one is being censored. It's not like the president isn't allowed to post and is having his "freedom of speech" taken away. This is more like his speech is being responded to, and he doesn't like that others can challenge what he's saying. The very antithesis of free speech.

Applied unequally. Reminds me of these old fact checks during the election: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-fact... > Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed Clinton “acid washed” 33,000 personal emails to delete them, calling it “an expensive process.” The FBI said Clinton’s tech team used BleachBit, which is a free software program. It does not use chemicals. These sorts…

[deleted]

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

#809

Post by RandomTisk » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

meragrin_ wrote: post #789

standardUser wrote: post #652

There seem to be some upside down priorities here. Many folks seem to be arguing that its an unacceptable form of censorship for a private platform to annotate content it allows others to post. Meanwhile, I'm seeing barely a mention of the fact that the President of the United States has threatened to use government power to shut down an entire sector of the economy devoted to communication. The latter is almost cert…

Perhaps they see it as targeting a political figure because of political differences rather than trying to prevent the spread of misinformation. I'm not seeing any annotations on a number prominent members of Congress spreading misinformation. Where in the US Constitution does it say presidents cannot threaten companies? Obama had his share of threats. I'm sure they could find a suitable legal issue with Twitter targ…

That is exactly how I see it. I see it as silicon valley employees taking it upon themselves to try to get the last word in with Trump's message. Linking to CNN and WP was just beyond the pale.

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

#810

Post by cgy1 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 10:25 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?

They don't have to because they would've banned and will continue to ban anyone else who's tweeted the type of stuff that Trump's tweeted. They've only gotten into this situation because they've refused to ban or suspend Trump's account.