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

111–120 of 220 posts

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

#111

Post by chrisco255 »

whateveracct wrote: post #6
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…

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

If not then all it takes is a temporary majority to rectify the situation. Plus they still have potential antitrust laws to contend with if they really want to tango. I just think that on Twitter's part, they have far more to lose by doubling down on their Ministry of Truth than disbanding it as a concept.

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

#112

Post by blisterpeanuts »

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…

Ironically, back in the 1980s techies were fiercely pro-free speech and anti-censorship. The older companies like Apple and Microsoft still have some remnants of this culture, whereas newer ones like Google etc. are curiously ambivalent about freedom of speech.

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

#113

Post by dragonwriter »

throwlaplace wrote: post #89
WatchDog wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hello there false equivalence. Being upset about money as speech leading to unlimited campaign spending and supporting a company's rights manipulate their own product isn't internally contradictory.

It actually is, since they are both about the company's right to spend it's resources at its own discretion for what is clearly core political speech at the heart of what is protected by the First Amendment.

Both the left and the right are unhappy with different aspects of that, but neither wants to face up publicly to the fact that they can't have what they want without cutting the heart out of the First Amendment.

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

#114

Post by chrisco255 »

bawolff wrote: post #85
sulam wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Today they can claim that they aren’t responsible for it, the posters are. If they are operating in an editorial capacity, that shield is removed.

That's what its intended to do, but i think what it would actually do is kind of debatable. America isn't a dictatorship (yet)

No but we are certainly a very litigious society and I'm sure there's an army of lawyers out there salivating over potential lawsuits against Twitter.

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

#115

Post by dragonwriter »

Barrin92 wrote: post #20
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.

>Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO "Patreon is and should remain free to disassociate itself from whomever it wants. Like all companies that have guidelines and content‐ moderation policies, Patreon is open to accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistently applying its speech standards. Anyone looking for a comp…

> Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO

CATO is right-libertarian, but more libertarian than right. Describing them simply as simply “conservative” in this context is a bit misleading.

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

#116

Post by millstone »

dpbriggs wrote: post #81
wnmurphy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would also apply to any news outlet with a moderated comment section, including Fox News, no?

I would think so, yes. In that case I wouldn't be surprised if the comment section is removed, or the moderation team of Fox News more carefully sticks to platform principles. Honestly not sure.

Fox News will be wholly empowered by this. This EO is a reaction to attempts to fact-check the White House, and Fox News is in a different line of business.

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

#117

Post by colejohnson66 »

lame-robot-hoax wrote: post #94
w3mmpp wrote: post #79

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.

This won’t hold up in court. It will be challenged by a judge immediately, and then the only chance it will have is a long process up to the Supreme Court.

Judges can’t really challenge this law; they don’t have standing. A judge can’t just decide to issue a ruling on something; there has to be a case for them to rule on.

The way this will go is: Twitter sues, judge almost certainly issues an injunction, Trump administration appeals, and we go from there.

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

#118

Post by prawn »

I'm not American and not familiar with Section 230 in any detail, but I do run a forum where I consider moderation, legality and responsibility of content. Could Twitter apply some level of automatic editorial response on particular topics rather than flag particular posts or users?

e.g., if it suspects the tweet is about COVID-19 (whether mundane or outrageous), it links off to a broader information and fact-checking page about the topic. Likewise for voting fraud or any other hot topic.

What if it were independent of the tweet itself and just one of a small selection of header links like Reddit and others are currently doing with COVID-19?

Edit: Also, could they differentiate the levels of editorial based on tier of account? e.g., claim platform-status for the bulk, but accept legal responsibility for anything by the largest accounts which saw immediate moderator review.

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

#119

Post by seemslegit »

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…

It's one thing to believe the poster but why does the poster believe an anonymously sent "Executive order draft" and publish it ?

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

#120

Post by w3mmpp »

tehwebguy wrote: post #90
w3mmpp wrote: post #79

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.

1. I would think every conservative would look to the free market to make better, less biased social networks and websites? 2. You think you will be downvoted here, is it due to humans with differing views or this website’s management’s bias, and what does that mean for your point? 3. Do you not know that conservative talking heads and influencers go wildly viral every hour of every day on all 3 of these networks, re…

1. Sure, the market will take care of it at some point in the future, but at this point in time those entities are monopolistic.

2. It's simple, liberals are more prone to downvote and censor than conservatives.

3. They reach their followers, Twitter, FB and Google reach everybody.

Post reply on HN