Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

kateklonick.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 220 posts

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#71

Post by adrianmonk »

sulam wrote: post #2

If I am to believe the poster, this is a draft of an Executive Order anonymously sent to her. As per: https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Specifically it would declare that sites like Twitter and Facebook are subject to the Communications Decency Act by virtue of their editorializing the content vs ac…

> Therefore, this EO places such platforms outside scope of Sec. 230 protection

So Trump is trying to tell the courts, via executive order, how to interpret the law?

I'm no expert, but I don't think that's how the different branches of government work.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#72

Post by blisterpeanuts »

berberous wrote: post #37
sulam wrote: post #2

If I am to believe the poster, this is a draft of an Executive Order anonymously sent to her. As per: https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Specifically it would declare that sites like Twitter and Facebook are subject to the Communications Decency Act by virtue of their editorializing the content vs ac…

Wouldn’t this be a great outcome for twitter? I don’t think they particularly want to be in the role of playing fact checker / censor, but have been forced to do so due to pressure. This seems like it would, practically, tie their hands from continuing, due to the negative consequences, at which point they can legitimately say their hands are tied.

Actually you have a point. Twitter can "temporarily" shelve this fact checker thing and get back to status quo ante. Dorsey and Trump can both declare victory and move on.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#73

Post by geofft »

Trasmatta wrote: post #28
sulam wrote: post #2

If I am to believe the poster, this is a draft of an Executive Order anonymously sent to her. As per: https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Specifically it would declare that sites like Twitter and Facebook are subject to the Communications Decency Act by virtue of their editorializing the content vs ac…

> The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Can anyone give a tl;dr of what the implications actually are? Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm having a hard time parsing what this would actually do (beyond soothe Trump's feelings after getting called out by Twitter).

Basically,

- Unless they stop calling out Trump, they lose Section 230 protections. Section 230 is what allows a platform like Twitter or Hacker News to do limited good-faith moderation and not be deemed editorially responsible for every piece of nonsense someone tweets/posts that they don't get around to moderating. Without it, you either have to moderate heavily and get everything right, or not moderate at all. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... - pre-Section 230, CompuServe did no moderation and was ruled not responsible for libelous user comments, and Prodigy did and was ruled responsible for something they failed to moderate, and people went "Wait a second, this seems like the opposite of what we want.") The executive order says, roughly, that the behavior Trump doesn't like isn't permissible under Section 230 and makes you editorially responsible for everything, so if you enjoy your Section 230 protections, you can't do that.

- The executive branch is discouraged from spending funds (i.e., buying ads) on platform that Trump doesn't like.

- The FTC will go after these platforms for unfair trade practices.

- The US attorney general will team up with state attorney generals to see if there's any state laws they can wield against these platforms too.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#74

Post by tly_alex »

erentz wrote: post #58
tly_alex wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I am so disappointed by all the crazy things this so called president did in the last few years.The word "President" use to carry a lot of respect.

There was nothing that respectable about Bush or Obama (or Clinton, or Older Bush) either if you really looked at their records. Foreigners do not get to see the bad state democracy is in here in the US, between the corruption, the heavy corporate funding of candidates and the lobbyists, the corporate control of media, and the suppression of voters. A lot of choice, especially the president is decided for people, and…

Oh come on man. Any president is far better than Trump, who just lie and act like there's nothing wrong with it. Trump's twitter feed is full of compeltely false claims and racist comments to anyone he believe is a politcal threat.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#75

Post by jimbob45 »

geofft wrote: post #57
jimbob45 wrote: post #13

If I'm reading this right, platforms must act in "good faith" to restrict access to content that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable". That seems quite broad and doesn't seem to do anything to stop the current deluge of censorship.

That text is quoted from Section 230. The reason Section 230 was introduced is that, long ago, if platforms did literally any moderation on their site, they were considered to be taking an editorial role and liable for all the things they failed to moderate (e.g., if someone posted libel, the platform would have liability for it), so there was an incentive not to moderate at all, because you wouldn't get it 100% righ…

I appreciate you trying to explain because I'm genuinely trying to get to the bottom of this.

Would you not agree that "deceptive or pretextual actions restricting online content" is broad and would be difficult to prove in court?

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#76

Post by hondo77 »

geofft wrote: post #57
jimbob45 wrote: post #13

If I'm reading this right, platforms must act in "good faith" to restrict access to content that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable". That seems quite broad and doesn't seem to do anything to stop the current deluge of censorship.

That text is quoted from Section 230. The reason Section 230 was introduced is that, long ago, if platforms did literally any moderation on their site, they were considered to be taking an editorial role and liable for all the things they failed to moderate (e.g., if someone posted libel, the platform would have liability for it), so there was an incentive not to moderate at all, because you wouldn't get it 100% righ…

Choice 3) kick Trump off Twitter. They don't even have to give a reason like "excessive posting of misinformation". Just kick him off. No law saying they can't.

Heck, the entertainment value alone would be worth it.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#77

Post by ilaksh »

There is no point in me saying this, because people are literally living in parallel universes at this point, but I feel that hatred for Trump and anything associated with the right is blinding people.

What most young people or people on the left seem to want very badly is for tech companies to remove viewpoints they disagree with. Unfortunately the reality is that this is in fact political censorship. And it will lead directly to the type of censorship that China has.

Go ahead and click the downvote button until my viewpoint disappears. It doesn't matter anymore. I actually think that the possibility of real free speech online, if it ever existed, is dead anyway. Because, bizarrely, people are begging for more censorship.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#78

Post by WatchDog »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #8

Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? If a company has an obligation to promote something against their will, violating their own right to free speech, how could a company like Hobby Lobby get away with an exemption on the same grounds? I don’t see this getting past federal courts, even with a heavily conservative judiciary. The fallout would be far too great.

There was a supreme court case a while ago that enshrined freedom of speech rights for companies, I get the sense that many of the same people that complained about that then, are now advocating for the rights of companies.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#79

Post by w3mmpp »

Long overdue, they're publishers just like Google/Youtube and Facebook are publishers.

Every conservative who use those services will tell you, they're biased.

They've been putting their thumb on the scale for many years, now the chickens have come home to roost.

Downvote me to oblivion, I don't care, tonight I'm happy.

Post reply on HN