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

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#21

Post by arminiusreturns »

Kapura wrote: post #11

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…

>noted independent and well-reasoned decision maker William Barr

Laughing so hard at this. Did you forget a /s?

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#22

Post by minimaxir »

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

> A notable part of the pushback directed at this Twitter employee is that his team focuses on bots & platform manipulation (not the same as fact-checking). But because he's been publicly critical of the president on social media, Trump surrogates are claiming it was his decision.

https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1265675205680099328

Plus the response from Jack Dorsey yesterday:

> Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this. We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1265837138114830336

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#23

Post by itsspring »

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

Wow, that's actually a pretty relevant thing to point out

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#24

Post by millzlane »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #10
sixstringtheory wrote: post #4

If you're planning on posting in these threads, scrub your bio here first to avoid having your email messed with. I've discovered some interesting new websites!

Can you explain what you mean by that comment?

I'm guessing he's mentioning it you're commenting in a DT thread to protect your personal info. One of the tools 'THey' like to use is Doxxing.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#26

Post by anewdirection »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14

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 b…

I agree, but there are many that object to anything the potus does by virtue of who he is, and what he stands for in thieir eyes. Its hard to argue in good faith with that camp. There are a few who think the status quo is fine. They are likely the same people making lots of money under the current arrangement and are having trouble seeing the forrest, but for the trees.

I hope this helps at least open new opprotunities for social media whose likes we have never seen before. Both better curation and more open-ness are potentially up for grabs. Surely this is only an opprotunity to anyone with a sharp mind.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#27

Post by Simulacra »

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…

Ya know, he's right: Now that the intelligence committee transcripts have leaked, we know for certain there was absolutely zero Russian collusion. If Twitter wants to fact check trump, fine, but you'd better do it to every other politician. Twitter has too much power to start judging one truth over another.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#28

Post by ColanR »

tebruno99 wrote: post #16

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...

I don't think that's quite right. From what I can tell, it seems like social media sites like twitter are being given two options, and they're being told that the middle of the road between those options isn't ok anymore.

First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection)

Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal protection under Section 230 still applies.

Idk if this is a decent analogy, but it seems comparable to the classic anonymous swiss bank account. Either the bank completely protects all personal information for everyone, or it has to move out of switzerland and give up all its anonymity. (I know the analogy isn't accurate, but it seems like a decent mental model.)

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#29

Post by Simulacra »

minimaxir wrote: post #22
weiming wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ﱞ

> A notable part of the pushback directed at this Twitter employee is that his team focuses on bots & platform manipulation (not the same as fact-checking). But because he's been publicly critical of the president on social media, Trump surrogates are claiming it was his decision. https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1265675205680099328 Plus the response from Jack Dorsey yesterday: > Fact check: there is someone ult…

It's a valid point. Shouldn't the head of integrity not have a history of negative bias? That's impossible in practice, but jeez Louise this guy said some pretty offensive things. I think that in of itself should make him ineligible. There cannot be a double standard here.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#30

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN