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

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#31

Post by uniqueid »

anewdirection wrote: post #18

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?

    > (too) publicly played favorites lately.
So what? Why is that, of itself, bad?

My view is that private companies should not host and enable content that makes the world a worse place to live.

Places like Gab or Voat have their view of what is acceptable, and I disagree and condemn them for it. Places like HN have a code with which I largely agree, and I commend them for it.

I neither expect, nor desire, companies like to twitter to provide "freedom of speech." Not with the internet and web we currently have, whose technical design overwhelmingly favors bad actors.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#32

Post by Simulacra »

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…

1. The political optics of this will never let it happen. Not withstanding those on the right and left who agree, but rather tech companies, their mouthpieces, and oh boy the lobbyists. Be thankful for your government, it's the best money can buy.

2. WAY easier said than done. The FTC started investigating Microsoft in 1992, but it was not until 2001 that the courts settled the matter and Microsoft settled. Nine YEARS. So no, this is absolutely not a top option for the administration because they've got only four years left.

3. Forgive me, I don't know where you are located, but this is kind of the mantra for America. Companies from Google to GAB to that decentralized network I can't remember the name of, have tried to compete. They can't - possibly because the companies are too powerful.

Oh, and it's not unconstitutional, unless you have a specific clause in the Constitution that I am not seeing? At best it's not within the boundaries of Executive Orders; banning guns is definitely not within the boundaries but the Left wants to do it anyway.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#33

Post by Simulacra »

tebruno99 wrote: post #25

Didn't the GOP just not a few months ago argue that a business couldn't be forced to make a Cake for a Gay wedding? Now they want to argue that they can force a business (Twitter) to do something that business (Twitter) doesn't want to do?

Can you please point out where it forces Twitter to do anything?

I think you may have gotten off on the wrong exit. One was a religious freedom case. The other is ordering the government to investigate Twitter for violating Section 203. Two..totally different things. The Executive Order can't force Twitter to do anything.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#34

Post by Simulacra »

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…

Yes but that's why drafts are drafts.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#35

Post by tebruno99 »

ColanR wrote: post #28
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…

Ah yeah, so it's Twitter's choice if they lose 230 protection or not. Keeping doing this lose it (and they become liable and start censoring everything including Trump), or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#36

Post by Simulacra »

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...

YES! For some reason everyone that is howling at Trump seem to have missed that it would censor Trump as well!

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#37

Post by coffeefirst »

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…

This isn't quite right. 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say.

Not that it matters. Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this. And Twitter (or your personal forum) can continue to boot trolls, Nazis, or heads of state posting targeted harassment at widows, and do so in good faith all day long.

What really happened is that the hard, valid questions about how much power social media companies have, how they should ensure free speech without enabling the worst elements of society, how appeals on moderation should work etc, just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#38

Post by Simulacra »

ColanR wrote: post #28
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…

I think the hypothetical opposite would be interesting: What if Twitter was run by Peter Theil, and they fact checked Joe Biden. I think we'd see absolutely uproar by the democrats. The left believes twitter is on their side, and how that came to be is much more interesting.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#40

Post by ColanR »

tebruno99 wrote: post #35
ColanR wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah yeah, so it's Twitter's choice if they lose 230 protection or not. Keeping doing this lose it (and they become liable and start censoring everything including Trump), or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$

> or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$

I don't think the stuff on Twitter has often been held up as an example of healthy dialog. Other than that, I agree.

Post reply on HN