Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by geofft » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:09 AM UTC

nicosaul wrote: post #69

Nobody thinks there is a big problem with online censoring that needs to be dealt with?

Not really - there is certainly a "problem" of major social media platforms banning abusive/hurtful behavior, and for whatever reason, such behavior seems to not be evenly distributed across the political spectrum, but there is not a big problem of them banning ideas or good-faith or even mostly-good-faith debate. You can find tradcaths on Twitter, threepers on Facebook, tankies on YouTube, and literally /r/politicalcompassmemes on Reddit.

Certainly no platform is anywhere close to banning the ideas or platform of the Trump campaign or the Republican Party - they get debate and discussion but they certainly are not censored. They are firmly within the mainstream.

(I also think, in a broader sense, that people need to not rely on big for-profit tech companies for unpopular ideas. I think it's good for society that everyone from the boogaloo folks to the Unabomber get to be able to publish their ideas, even - and perhaps especially - when those ideas involve violent revolution to the social order. But I also think it's foolish to expect platforms that are profiting handsomely from the stability of the social order to fairly convey those discussions, especially if any of those ideologies gets close to making a difference. So, even if I thought that we had a problem with the big tech companies censoring discussions, it doesn't seem like a problem worth solving.)

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

#102

Post by dmix » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:10 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #82

wmf wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"None of [the CDA's architects] said that there was this intent for platforms to be neutral. In fact, that was the opposite. They wanted platforms to feel free to make these judgments without risking liability..." https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte... Can an executive order overturn this? Isn't there already precedent about this topic?

An executive order can neither overturn statutory immunity from liability nor overturn Constitutional freedom of speech. OTOH, if Trump thinks that the Courts have changed (either in genuine opinion on the legal question, or if he thinks that the courts—or, ultimately, just the Supreme Court—has become partisan enough to simply favor his preferences independent of any genuine legal interpretation) then issuing an exe…

In politics it often doesn't matter if policy doesn't actually work, it's frequently about sending a message. Especially when elections are around. It's not like they are ever tied to measurable outcomes.

Plus even if the courts decline it will then further fuel the victimization, which conspiracies and radical groups historically feed off of.

I've always believed creating martyrs over online speech is a minefield for radicalizing people. No longer venting into the void people become increasingly angry and isolated. The long term implications of this worries me a great deal.

I also don't believe our only alternative means allowing (legitimate) hate speech, as a more limited approach has worked in countless other scenarios without the endless scope creep we're witnessing. But today this debate seems to be long lost, Twitter et al are full steam ahead, and now we can only witness the implications and hopefully adapt...

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

#103

Post by bilegeek » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:11 AM UTC

hondo77 wrote: post #76

geofft wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He is possibly going to try to strip valuable protections from the entire internet because Twitter is fact-checking him. Imagine what kicking him off would entail.

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

#104

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:11 AM UTC

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).

> Can anyone give a tl;dr of what the implications actually are?

Were it allowed to be executed, the biggest implication is that the US has become an executive dictatorship where the laws adopted by Congress can be rewritten at whim by the executive (under the pretext of “clarification” that is 180° opposed to both the text and the actual intent of the law demonstrated by the legislative history), and the Constitutional order and structure of government is a dead letter, which absolutely dwarfs any policy implications.

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

#105

Post by tehwebguy » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:12 AM UTC

dpbriggs wrote: post #23

dav43 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think he understands free speech. If you tell lies, I’m allowed to call it out.

The issue isn't you or me calling him out, it's whether Twitter is acting as a platform or publisher by annotating the tweet. The document here alleges that they are like a publisher, and will lose vital protection. This has serious implications.

Do you think publishers aren’t allowed to comment on the validity of what they are publishing?

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

#106

Post by w3mmpp » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:12 AM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #77

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 le…

Indeed in a parallel universe but in the end they'll lose those battles one after the other because they are on the wrong side of history.

People on the right need to be more vocal here and elsewhere, we can't let the children and their feelings, run the ship or it'll end badly.

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

#107

Post by whateveracct » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:12 AM UTC

mentalpiracy wrote: post #25

whateveracct wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally no way this holds up in court. If it does, we have bigger problems than this EO.

Honestly whether it ultimately holds up in court or not is hardly the point - the disruptive theater of the EO and the subsequent muddying discourse unfortunately ends up being victory enough.

That's 100% true.

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

#108

Post by geofft » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:13 AM UTC

hondo77 wrote: post #76

geofft wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hm, would that be permitted by the order? (At the very least, they'd have to preserve all the content he's already generated, but I could see Trump arguing that a platform that kicks him off "removes or restricts access to content" that he'd like to post but can't.)

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

#109

Post by geofft » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:15 AM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #75

geofft wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes - but the order directs the Secretary of Commerce, the NTIA, and the FCC to make some regulations to clarify what exactly that means. I don't think the text in this order, by itself, purports to change how any court is interpreting Section 230, yet - just how executive-branch departments interpret it.

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

#110

Post by mehrdadn » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:15 AM UTC

I seem to recall we had a court ruling (non-SC) earlier that said officials that use social media can't block other users on there... something about it being a public forum or such. But if we treat it that way, then does that have implications on what people can expect in terms of limits on speech?