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

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

#131

Post by esoterica » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:34 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #61

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.

> It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Exactly as it should be. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and others, now that they're getting into the business of editorializing and dictating the truth as they see it via heavy-handed moderation, should be fully liable for all things posted to their platforms. It should apply to any large platform that makes that shift. It's perfectly fine if the…

Hacker News has active moderation and would be effectively illegal to operate if you made websites that practice moderation legally responsible for any illegal content posted by their users.

If you really believe this is the right path to go down you should stop being a hypocrite and delete your HN account since you clearly believe HN has no right to exist in its current form.

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

#132

Post by tehwebguy » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:35 AM UTC

w3mmpp wrote: post #120

tehwebguy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. Most Americans don’t use Twitter at all, could Twitter in particular possibly be a monopoly? What is being monopolized by Twitter specifically?

2. No I am asking do you think people are downvoting you or do you think this website is penalizing you for saying conservative leaning things?

3. Where do you think conservative influencers get their new followers? If they play the game right (posting engaging content that people would want to share) their content goes viral and they get huge algorithmic discovery from new audiences.

It’s why you upload a video you want to get lots of views to YouTube instead of Vimeo, the discovery engine helps you get a bigger audience.

But it doesn’t mean you are silenced if you upload to Vimeo or even your own website, it just means that you aren’t playing YouTube’s game and as a result won’t get YouTube’s completely free search, related and social traffic boosts.

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

#133

Post by bawolff » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:35 AM UTC

So after actually reading it, it seems to want two things:

* prevent astro-turfing, especially by foreign governments

* require that sites engaging in moderation basically follow some sort of rule of law-eaque process (there are rules posted, and you cant be arbitraily blocked unless you break them)

Honestly in many ways those are things i agree with, but it seems inappropriate to do it with an executive order, and much of this seems vauge and could be used as a justification to put pressure on social media sites arbitrarily.

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

#134

Post by seemslegit » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:37 AM UTC

So what about this purported order establishes new censorship ? Surely censorship has not become synonymous with interfering with the right of online services to the moderate their content as they see fit ?

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

#135

Post by mola » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:38 AM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #117

lame-robot-hoax wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or he could denounce the entire law system as an adversary to the populous and round his supporters around that. That's what Benjamin netanyahu is doing in Israel at this moment when he's facing criminal charges. He is rallying his supporters telling them they are on trial by the corrupt judicial branch. He has his henchmen flooding the media with this sentiment, his own private propaganda machine is pumping this message through direct link to his supporters via WhatsApp and telegram bypassing all editorial discussion. While the media outlets controlled by him are repeating this message. He is also digging dirt on judges and prosecution and leaking controversial tapes in order to erode the support for the judicial system even in people who are not his supporters.

And it's working, perhaps a third of the population believe this, and another third is losing it's trust in the entire system.

He doesn't need total support, just enough steadfast support while keeping the opposition dazed and confused.

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

#136

Post by w3mmpp » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:39 AM UTC

millstone wrote: post #124

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.

"Everyone living in California gets a ballot" is an outright lie. We can address bias once the lying stops.

The lies from both sides?

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

#137

Post by bawolff » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:39 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #114

bawolff wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dont really understand US law, but isnt this just a statement of executive branch policy. Wouldn't this not affect the ability of private parties to sue? They were always able to use any argument they felt made sense.

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

#138

Post by chrisco255 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:40 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #130

chrisco255 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not "telling" the courts anything, he's telling the FTC, FCC, etc to interpret 230 as intended, where a social media site can now be interpreted as a publisher and not as a neutral platform if they engage in active editorial decision making (i.e. feed manipulation, shadow banning, editorial injections, etc). If Twitter wants to challenge the Federal Government on this, they'll have to do battle in court. In the…

> He's not "telling" the courts anything Yes, he is. He is telling the FCC, etc., to issue regulations “clarifying” section 230; regulations clarifying law exist specifically to guide the courts in application, and courts grant such regulations (where properly authorized under statute) great deference, which Trump clearly hopes to benefit from.

The FCC is an executive branch department. So telling the FCC is not telling the courts. The FCC and FTC can make certain moves and it's up to Twitter to sue the Federal Government to contend with them. And then, the courts get to decide on the matter. But until then, let's not pretend 230c is the most well-defined precedent in legal history.

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

#139

Post by geofft » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:40 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #133

So after actually reading it, it seems to want two things: * prevent astro-turfing, especially by foreign governments * require that sites engaging in moderation basically follow some sort of rule of law-eaque process (there are rules posted, and you cant be arbitraily blocked unless you break them) Honestly in many ways those are things i agree with, but it seems inappropriate to do it with an executive order, and m…

There's nothing in the order to prevent astroturfing by foreign governments, is there? (If anything, it limits the ability of sites to censor foreign governments with unpopular opinions.)

It's in the section about vague policies and opinions, but I don't think it actually does anything beyond saying "China bad."

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

#140

Post by cmdshiftf4 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:43 AM UTC

If nothing else this is going to provoke a crucial test for social media "platforms" and has the potential to alter them permanently going forward, whether they win or lose.

As someone who's quite anti social-media, and the effect it appears to have had on our societies, I'm interested in how this plays out either way. It feels like a test that has been a long time coming.

Regardless, it seems the next rational step is for Trump to quit Twitter and encourage his base to do the same, or for Twitter to ban Trump and provoke his base to leave. Trump staying active on Twitter after this, or Twitter allowing him to, would be something beyond bizarre.