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

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

#181

Post by tehwebguy » Thu, May 28, 2020, 8:25 AM UTC

dpbriggs wrote: post #157

tehwebguy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am not a lawyer. I just read the draft. Publishers are absolutely allowed to comment on the validity of the content they've published - why are you asking? Twitter is benefiting from the fact they're classed as a _platform_. Platform != Publisher. It's up to the courts to decide whether annotating content in the way Twitter has is editorial. Twitter opened a can of worms here.

Ok so to clarify the same question:

If/When Twitter is classified as a publisher do you believe they will be able to comment on the validity of things they publish? Like, for instance, a newspaper would?

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

#182

Post by akvadrako » Thu, May 28, 2020, 8:30 AM UTC

tehwebguy wrote: post #98

throwawaysea wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think requiring viewpoint neutrality via regulation from platforms that behave like utilities is perfectly reasonable.

In what ways is Twitter like a utility?

I wouldn’t say utility but the courts ruled recently it’s a public forum; the same logic applies.

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

#183

Post by dpbriggs » Thu, May 28, 2020, 8:33 AM UTC

tehwebguy wrote: post #181

dpbriggs wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer. I just read the draft. Publishers are absolutely allowed to comment on the validity of the content they've published - why are you asking? Twitter is benefiting from the fact they're classed as a _platform_. Platform != Publisher. It's up to the courts to decide whether annotating content in the way Twitter has is editorial. Twitter opened a can of worms here.

Ok so to clarify the same question: If/When Twitter is classified as a publisher do you believe they will be able to comment on the validity of things they publish? Like, for instance, a newspaper would?

Of course: they'd be a publisher in that case. However, I don't think they would last long as a company without platform protections.

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

#184

Post by akvadrako » Thu, May 28, 2020, 8:40 AM UTC

w3mmpp wrote: post #106

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.

I’m doubtful that it does any good to provide opposing viewpoints in these threads unless you have something surprising to say, either facts or insight.

The effect on reality of a HN thread isn’t much and it’s not really a place for nuanced discussion.

The twitter thing doesn’t matter because the solution is obvious - we need decentralized platforms where such behavior isn’t possible.

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

#185

Post by tehwebguy » Thu, May 28, 2020, 8:52 AM UTC

RNCTX wrote: post #34

I particularly like the bit about how a provider is found in violation of "good faith" if they act in violation of their own terms of service, OR, if they restrict access to material after insufficient notice, unreasoned explanation, or acting against a user who has not had a "meaningful opportunity to be heard." Not being facetious, I really like it. Everyone should start by mass-complaining to the White House's rep…

You mean like disabling comments on a blog? Please explain what thought process could possibly lead you to this conclusion.

You can scream whatever stupid shit you want in public but why in the world should you have the right to use someone else’s megaphone to do it?

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

#186

Post by 2019-nCoV » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:16 AM UTC

anyon wrote: post #91

adventured wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

sorry to see you downvoted. People can disagree with your opinion but it is encouraging a debate. there is no god-given right for these companies to become monopolies. If this were to pass, it could break the monopolies: Decision 1: they choose to stop all moderation Out come 1: Advertisers ditch them because of all the objectionable content that will surely come. Decision 2: They choose to moderate, and take on the…

Seppuku.

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

#187

Post by 4x5-Guy » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:37 AM UTC

dpbriggs wrote: post #168

4x5-Guy wrote: post #80

It would seem to me that this order tramples on the First Amendment. No matter how much the executive wants to trample on twitter, they are still a private company and can publish or not publish what they wish.

Could you expand further on that? I don't see anything in the order that prohibits speech, instead focusing on questioning if Twitter et al. qualify for platform protections. Plus some other ad-money ammunition. An argument could be made that this EO itself violates the first amendment as it's clearly in response to the tweet fact checks, thereby silencing twitter?

In the First Amendment, the government is not allowed to either promote or attack speech. The courts have ruled that some speech, such as hate speech, does not have this protection. Just by deciding whether or not the government will spend ad-money on a platform or not, based solely on what is said on the platform, is one form of the government either rewarding or punishing that platform. I can't comment on the platform protections at the moment.

I'm going to say I believe the courts will block this, but it will look good to Trump's base in an election year.

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

#188

Post by jki275 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 11:24 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #104

Trasmatta wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Constitutio…

You care about that now?? I don’t remember the left up in arms about President Obama’s EOs.

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

#189

Post by jki275 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #178

chrisco255 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So telling the FCC is not telling the courts. “Clarifying” regulation specifically is a message to the courts on interpretation; directing executive agencies to craft clarifying regulation is directing subordinate executive officers to tell the courts.

Courts aren’t part of the executive branch. Independent judiciary is supposed to mean something...

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

#190

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, May 28, 2020, 11:40 AM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #189

dragonwriter wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So telling the FCC is not telling the courts. “Clarifying” regulation specifically is a message to the courts on interpretation; directing executive agencies to craft clarifying regulation is directing subordinate executive officers to tell the courts.

Courts aren’t part of the executive branch. Independent judiciary is supposed to mean something...

> Courts aren’t part of the executive branch.

Correct but irrelevant.

I can tell people things over whom I don't have directive authority. “Clarifying” regulations are exactly the executive telling the courts how the law should be interpreted.

Courts can disregard them (and, in principle, will if they don't find them the issuing agency to have been empowered to enforce the law and thereby entrusted with that interpretive role, and even if they are authorized, they deference granted to them is not unlimited) but the fact that someone might not follow your direction to them doesn't mean you haven't given them direction.