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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by SllX »

bedhead wrote: post #227

The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that the lines are getting blurry with regards to public vs private. Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. Not saying I have any answers, just saying it's definitely not a clear issue anymore.

Someone that spends too much time at the bar might mistake that for the town square, as might someone who spends too much time on Twitter.

The more foolish aspect of this is that the President doesn’t have a direct means of striking back against what Twitter actually did (post a Get the Facts link), so he’s trying to punish them by reinterpreting Section 230. This EO definitely has some teeth, but there are provisions in it that I can’t wait to see in court.

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

#762

Post by kbenson »

holler wrote: post #384
kbenson wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they need him just as much as he needs them. Not if he's threatening their business, and I think you overestimate how much Trump brings to Twitter. I'm sure he drives a level and engagement and discourse, but that's still going to be there to a large degree even if his account isn't. It's not like people aren't posting news clips about him from other websites all the time. Trump is one of many thousands of popular…

> Twitter is the one preferred platform for Trump to speak to his followers Funny you mention that, Trump doesn't realize the real power he has to help solve his own problem AND benefit the rest of us, is by lending his voice to a different platform. If, like me, you believe the solution to the stranglehold that the current social cartel has had for the past decade is to build new, competing platforms, and encourage…

> If, like me, you believe the solution to the stranglehold that the current social cartel has had for the past decade is to build new, competing platforms, and encourage their growth

I think that's half of it. The other is a lot of time. It seems pretty clear to me that different age groups use social media in different ways, and I'm not sure it's a behavior that stays with the cohort as it ages, or is associated with that age itself.

My teenage children use whatever social network they feel like and don't really care for Facebook or Twitter. Does that change as they get older, or does it mean that in 10-20 years those companies will be less relevant (unless they buy the up-and-comers, like Facebook did with Instagram)?

I think Trump definitely has the ability to put that to the test though, and that you're right in that he's got a lot of pull to cause at least a short term shift based on the narrative he expresses.

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

#763

Post by ascagnel_ »

derefr wrote: post #677
bedhead wrote: post #227

The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that the lines are getting blurry with regards to public vs private. Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. Not saying I have any answers, just saying it's definitely not a clear issue anymore.

Now I'm curious what the historical precedent is for this. What happens (first-amendment-wise) when a company town has a literal private-property town square? Could the company control speech in "its" town square? For that matter: what about malls? Or university campuses? Or public transit infrastructure provided by private government contractors? What are your free-speech rights when in one of these (privately-owned…

> What happens (first-amendment-wise) when a company town has a literal private-property town square? Could the company control speech in "its" town square?

Thankfully, we don’t need to imagine what happens: the Disney Corporation has a modern company town (Celebration, FL)[0]; they control a pair of HOAs (one each for residential and non-residential owners). Lexin Capital manages the literal town square, and while I can’t find anything on the topic, I would imagine standard private property rights would apply to the land they own.

[0]: https://celebration.fl.us/celebration-community-governance/

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

#764

Post by ashtonkem »

_-david-_ wrote: post #750
ashtonkem wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been over this before. Unless if you’re going to eliminate the ability for Twitter to moderate any protected speech, then this is an expansion of government power. This would give someone in the government the ability to determine what protected speech is immune from Twitter moderation, and what protected speech is not. This is a massive expansion of government power, and turns a two tier speech system (protecte…

Can you clarify what you mean? There is already protected speech. You can say whatever you want as long as its not libel, treason, direct threats, etc. Twitter has a TOC that is not strictly based on protected speech. They ban people / censor people all the time who violate their TOC but do not violate the law. Also, it is not going to be certain speech that is protected but certain companies. Its possible Twitter wo…

The core premise of the arguments being raised is that Twitter is being politically biased (citation needed), and that something should be done to make Twitter politically neutral since Twitter is such an important faux public square.

The problem is enforcement. How exactly will we make Twitter be politically neutral? There are two basic ways: you either eliminate Twitter’s ability to moderate at all, or someone has to define what speech is immune from moderation in the name of political neutrality.

The former is disastrous for the quality of these platforms. All kinds of anti-social and unpleasant behavior is protected speech, as is pornography and violent material. I think we can all agree that Twitter is within its rights to say “no porn here”, so we don’t want to set the bar at protected speech.

If we decide that twitter can moderate some but not all protected speech, then someone must legally define what protected speech is immune from moderation, and what protected speech is not. This represents an expansion of government power, as you’re giving the government the power to decide what types of protected speech is more important than other types of protected speech.

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

#765

Post by 0xEFF »

bedhead wrote: post #227

The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that the lines are getting blurry with regards to public vs private. Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. Not saying I have any answers, just saying it's definitely not a clear issue anymore.

The first amendment only protects from limits placed by the government, not if it’s a public or private setting.

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

#766

Post by ryanwaggoner »

tomohawk wrote: post #657
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…

Why does the US government exist? The only reason is to protect the rights of the citizens. Once upon a time, the rights of citizens only protected them from the federal government's actions. States could (and did) infringe on these rights. Corporations were much less powerful at this time, so were not much of a concern. We ended up fighting a war over this, and one result was the 14th amendment, which binds the stat…

I’m sad to see this downvoted. I’m not entirely sure I agree with your point, as I think the gulf between “profit-seeking corporation” and “democratically-elected government” is a lot wider than the one we jumped between Federal and state government for the 14th. That said, I like that this line of thinking made me question some assumptions I didn’t know I was even making before.

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

#767

Post by rwoodley »

irrational wrote: post #669
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…

>I'm not sure how much more embarrassed I can get for my country. I honestly used to be proud to be an American. Now I am so ashamed that when I travel (or back in the days when I traveled) I lie and say I'm a Canadian.

I used to be proud of our flag and would display it. Now (past 3 years) it has morphed into a symbol of hate and oppression. When I see armed 'protestors' terrorizing a state legislature and waving the flag, then the flag is no longer a symbol of freedom but of intimidation.

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

#769

Post by caseysoftware »

gamblor956 wrote: post #537
caseysoftware wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting downvoted to oblivion but I think that's a fundamental question in all of this. Does a private company have the authority to impede access to Official Statements? If so, under what conditions? If no, is it "never"?

This fundamental question has already been addressed by the courts many times. The answer is yes to your first question. A private company is not required to make available "Official Statements" (whatever that means) using its own resources. The government (in the US at least) must pay for publication and dissemination of "Official Statements."

Fantastic, despite looking, I hadn't found a decision along those lines. Can you give me a case to read? Just the name, I'm happy to do the research myself. Thanks in advance!

And to be clear, I've read the DOJ position asserting that "Trump's tweets are official government statements" (linked in this thread) but wasn't aware of court rulings.

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

#770

Post by [deleted] »

irrational wrote: post #669
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…

>I'm not sure how much more embarrassed I can get for my country. I honestly used to be proud to be an American. Now I am so ashamed that when I travel (or back in the days when I traveled) I lie and say I'm a Canadian.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN