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

Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#341

Post by ww520 »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #253
lgleason wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Twitter currently enjoys immunity from section 230 of the communication decency act. That protection requires that they are not editorializing content. Fact checking content is a form of editorializing. If you want to do that, no protection and you are open to lawsuits. This has bi-partisan support and they are simply reining this in which is long overdue.

That is not editorializing. Day in and day out journalists print news stories that have been fact checked and contain links to source information. And then there’s the opinion section. It’s clear which Twitter was doing, and it wasn’t editorial.

Newspaper doesn’t enjoy the protection of Section 230.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#343

Post by kanox »

meragrin_ wrote: post #252
pengaru wrote: post #92

What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. It's like they've never even been to a movie theater where they need to shut the hell up or leave. And here we have a US president signing an executive order in response to being moderated on a web site after years of arguably excessive tolerance of his b.s. I'm n…

Social media are the broadcasters of this age. I see no reason why they should be exempt from the same rules and regulations as old school broadcasters.

I believe the correct model for large social media platforms (for example above 10m users) is that of a telecom provider.

Comcast can't block CNBC or Fox and at the same time nobody assumes that Comcast is responsible for view expressed on the networks it carries

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#344

Post by partyboat1586 »

ineedasername wrote: post #307
partyboat1586 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs for some that it happens to be a private company with a bias. And for better of for worse it does have a bias.

What is the alternative? I haven't seen Twitter be too heavy handed, I have yet to hear of a moderation activity on their part that seemed to go too far. If there is something to be frustrated about, it would be their double-standard for world figures that are allowed to violate their ToS with impunity. I can't think of a single platform with a more hands-off approach than Twitter that hasn't become a toxic cesspool.

To be honest I think they are walking the line right now. I would worry about them taking it any further. The problem is there is nothing stopping them taking it any further.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#345

Post by krapp »

akira2501 wrote: post #246
krapp wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech. But that's not what this is really about. This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. It's about fears of a nonexistent conspiracy controlling the media becoming the basis for authori…

> This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. That is the impetus in this case, but that doesn't mean it doesn't border on questions we've been slowly grappling with for some time now, nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. > the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that m…

>I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it?

If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters.

>nor does it mean we have to ignore that question.

We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer.

>What's the obvious First Amendment violation here?

The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent.

Granted, the First Amendment only explicitly applies to Congress, but I feel like if states can be accused of violating it (as they often were regarding quarantine and shelter-at-home orders) then the President can as well.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#346

Post by s1artibartfast »

soheil wrote: post #194

Here is the text of the executive order (draft): https://www.scribd.com/document/463379849/Draft-Executive-Or... Here is the audio version: https://playthis.link/https://pastebin.com/0mzv8heR

Thank you! After reading several contradictory and confusing articles, I found the actual order very clear. I would encourage others to take a look.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#347

Post by apostacy »

apostacy wrote: post #242
jedberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? They fact check everyone who represents more than 10% of their total traffic. It just so happens that only one of those people tweets information that needs fact checking.

If I remember correctly, there was never any conclusive proof that voting fraud happened with the insecure Diebold voting machines in 2004.[1] Those machines stored voting tallies on unencrypted compact flash cards, and there were massive other flaws in their security. But those machines were so insecure, that it would be difficult to prove fraud even happened if it had occurred. Twitter chose a the wrong tweet to fa…

Has it just been decided by Twitter now that the truth is that mail in ballots are 100% secure and anyone questioning our election integrity is just spreading dangerous misinformation? Seriously?

It seems like a really open-ended thing to fact check.

I wish we had asked more questions about election integrity before 2016. I think it is better that we have a robust discussion about this NOW, before the election.

The most important thing about elections is that they be trustworthy by the majority of the population. Without sufficient transparency and oversight, actual security is meaningless. The Computerphile did a two great videos about the dangers of electronic voting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

It seems like mail in ballots re-create the same problems with electronic voting, except that we are just adding an extra layer to it.

But, I know that countries like Germany and Switzerland have instituted some fairly robust means of securing mail in voting -- none of which we are considering. Simple things, like having the affidavit be on the same piece of paper as the ballot, and having ensuring chain of custody of the ballots by only having postal workers pick them up directly from voters.

Are we allowed to express our concerns about this? I for one do not want to make things worse this time around. Is the discussion about this really ending because Twitter decreed it so?

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#348

Post by quicklime »

outworlder wrote: post #153
takeda wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people totally miss the point. The first amendment is there from preventing the government from controlling the speech. Exactly what Trump is doing to Twitter right now.

> Most people totally miss the point. Because 'free speech' is literally _all they know_ about the subject. If they did look it up, they would literally see the very first words of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law (...)". Literally about the legislative branch. Every other consequence of the First Amendment comes from that. Other laws can be more specific and may grant more rights, but this just speci…

Apologies if this is a stupid question; I'm a foreigner so I can't understand freedom like Americans do.

But if the first words are "Congress shall make no law", does that mean that the President and his executive orders are not bound by the First Amendment?

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#349

Post by UncleMeat »

partyboat1586 wrote: post #256
akersten wrote: post #130

I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). It's a disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.

Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs for some that it happens to be a private company with a bias. And for better of for worse it does have a bias.

I'm not convinced it does have any bias against mainstream political ideas (obviously it is biased against things like white supremacy). This just lays bare that the "free speech" advocates are nothing of the sort.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#350

Post by chrisco255 »

javagram wrote: post #324
partyboat1586 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs for some that it happens to be a private company with a bias. And for better of for worse it does have a bias.

“ Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens.” Say what? https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw... Twitter is a minority. Fox News Channel is arguably the place where political discourse happens. It’s the most popular cable news network in America. Should Fox News be regulated and forced to have a democrat on each show?

Fox News is subject to liability and lawsuits if they publish defamatory statements on their platform. And that statement by Pew says nothing about the leverage and influence that Twitter enjoys on the national conversation.
Post reply on HN