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

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 68 posts

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#11

Post by Kapura »

So basically, if noted independent and well-reasoned decision maker William Barr decides that a platform is operating in ways that are 'deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service' they lose protection under section 203(c). Am I understanding this correctly?

If so, that's hilarious because nobody can possibly argue that Twitter's ToS enforcement has been anything close to consistent. The very fact that Trump still has a personal twitter account is proof of that. They're being bit by the dog they refused to muzzle.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#12

Post by Kapura »

henriquez wrote: post #9

This is unconstitutional and will be struck down. The president can’t just decide to change the meaning of a law to make it do something it wasn’t written to do, and assigning three unelected bureaucrats at the FCC to regulate free speech on the Internet sets an extremely dangerous precedent whether you agree with the politics in this case or not. There are _legal_ approaches to address the real issue of online censo…

Are you aware of who appoints and approves federal judges that will hear this case?

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#13

Post by henriquez »

Kapura wrote: post #12
henriquez wrote: post #9

This is unconstitutional and will be struck down. The president can’t just decide to change the meaning of a law to make it do something it wasn’t written to do, and assigning three unelected bureaucrats at the FCC to regulate free speech on the Internet sets an extremely dangerous precedent whether you agree with the politics in this case or not. There are _legal_ approaches to address the real issue of online censo…

Are you aware of who appoints and approves federal judges that will hear this case?

Yes, and the judiciary is not a rubber-stamp for executive authority, contrary to popular belief.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#14

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Obviously I think the order is being done for the wrong reasons, and I doubt the text of it itself will do much to reign in big tech. But I think Trump inadvertently stumbled into a good thing, as tech industry power must be curtailed.

Trump is worried about conservative accounts being censored or shut down with no opportunity for appeal, for instance, but the very same demands for review may help people locked out by broken algorithmic systems on purely non-political errors.

And fundamentally, it's way overdue that we stop giving tech companies immunity from prosecution for their platforms. Right now everyone is focused on using Section 230 as a carrot that requires tech companies do things to continue to receive it (EARN IT, etc.) but we really just need to remove it entirely.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#15

Post by weiming »

minimaxir wrote: post #8

Notable paragraph which was not present in the leaked draft: > Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian…

ﱞ

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#16

Post by tebruno99 »

Wouldn't taking away Section 230 thus making Twitter liable for content posted on Twitter have the opposite effect that Trump is going for.

Twitter will be liable for content posted, therefor won't they start censoring things so they can't be sued? This would make them also liable for Trump's tweets if those tweets aren't removed...

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#17

Post by robotron »

pera wrote: post #3

Interesting how they changed the wording of Section 5: Yesterday's draft: > The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following: > (i) monitoring or creating watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or users (e.g., likes, follows, time spent); and > (ii) monitoring users based on their activity off the platform. Final version: > The working group shall also…

"other anti-democratic associations or governments"

This is troubling to me. Can this be used to mean "anyone I label anti-democratic"?

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#18

Post by anewdirection »

About goddamn time. I am not on Trumps side on 99% of issues but this is absolutely needed. The platform-publishers have failed to police themselves, and have (too) publicly played favorites lately.

Please, if you disagree, reply with why. Besides ad-hominem attacking the person, and if this particular incident is a good example (it is not), explain why fb/twit/etc deserve dual protections?

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#19

Post by luckydata »

weiming wrote: post #15
minimaxir wrote: post #8

Notable paragraph which was not present in the leaked draft: > Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian…

ﱞ

He seems to be a well balanced individual.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#20

Post by [deleted] »

minimaxir wrote: post #8

Notable paragraph which was not present in the leaked draft: > Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN