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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by 6nf »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #810
chongli wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about repealing section 230, it’s about enforcing it. Twitter is exercising editorial control over users’ posts. That makes them a publisher. I don’t like Trump either but I think he has a point here.

The issue is that it's impossible to run a viable user generated site without some moderation. The difference between 4chan & 8chan is some level of moderation (in addition to removing illegal content). Although less extreme, conspiracy theories and fake news are bad PR for social media platforms & thus impact their bottom line. Additionally, many platforms currently are under pressure from investors and ad-networks…

The amount of moderation was explained in the law, and it certainly could be argued that Twitter is overstepping the bounds.

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

#832

Post by caminante »

slg wrote: post #744
caminante wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legislation (Communications Decency Act of 1996) under discussion flows from EFFECTIVE lobbying by telecom monopolies seeking a liability shield [0]. Monopoly power and market manipulation is a second order issue. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

I legitimately don't understand your point here. You seem to be implying that this specific legislation is a form of regulatory capture. Meanwhile nothing in the Wikipedia article you linked seems to support that. It even notes that groups like the ACLU are strongly in support of Sec 230. I don't think the ACLU normally does the bidding of big telecom. Either way, if the root cause is telecom monopolies, let's actual…

My point is that an anti-trust lens isn't adequate if legislation keeps getting passed that rolls back regulation [0] and promotes formation of trusts.

The CDA and §230 was part of the broader Telecommunications Act of 1996. Look at the outcome, which sure seems like "regulatory capture" to me:

> Before the 1996 Act was passed, the largest four [Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers] owned less than half of all the lines in the country while, five years later, the largest four local telephone companies owned about 85% of all the lines in the country.

It's also possible that the ACLU's interests will conveniently align with a subset of interests for third parties when the third party's liability is reduced.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996...

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

#833

Post by 2019-nCoV »

confusedcli wrote: post #811
remarkEon wrote: post #785

I don't know why everyone here is upset by this. Isn't this what we wanted? An actual policy debate, decided by the three branches of government - the executive, congress, the Courts - about what kinds of regulations these super powerful social media companies should have to submit to. Don't fool yourselves, if Facebook or Twitter wanted to swing an election they absolutely have the power to do that . Isn't that a pr…

Could share what regulation you’re talking about? I’m sorry I don’t follow your position when it comes to regulating social media and what regulations are needed. If we use the oil industry as an example I think it’s clear that environmental regulations are needed to preserve ecological environments. What is the end goal to regulating tech giants?

Upholding the bedrock of democracy. The EO spells out the reasoning: https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-...

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

#834

Post by grecy »

nostromo wrote: post #687
irrational wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

This strikes me as shameful behavior. You should say the truth: you're an American, and Americans have a diversity of views on most subjects, just like every other country.

FWIW, I've dozens of backpackers around the world with Canadian flags sewn on their backpacks who later admit quietly they're American.

They said it just makes life easier while travelling.

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

#835

Post by likeclockwork »

augustt wrote: post #408
JacobGoodson wrote: post #340

Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples post…

I mostly feel uncomfortable that we've fallen to the point where the president is pretty brazenly trying to undermine a democratic election.

Seriously. Trying to stop voting-by-mail in the midst of a global pandemic is nothing short of voter suppression.

He said the last election was rigged too.

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

#836

Post by chongli »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #808
chongli wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about repealing section 230, it’s about enforcing it. Twitter is exercising editorial control over users’ posts. That makes them a publisher. I don’t like Trump either but I think he has a point here.

Section 230 does not say “any form of moderation or editorialization makes them liable.” In fact, this what §230(c)(1) says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Enforcing section 230 would actually mean that Twitter is not liable for what Trump posts. Which is already the case. If Tru…

Yes, I read the Wikipedia article as well. Read the section on application and limits:

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[9]

1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."

2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.

3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

By adding "fact checks" to Trump's tweets, they are acting as his editor. This makes them the provider of the information, just as a newspaper editor is the provider despite not necessarily being the original author.

Imagine if dang, the moderator here on HN, decided to edit people's posts with addenda or disclaimers about the factual content of the writing. That'd make him an editor too, rather than a moderator, and then should in fairness be subject to all of the liabilities that publishers face.

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

#837

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

remarkEon wrote: post #800
colejohnson66 wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some people are upset because he’s not going the proper route. He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now . Because he knows that something like this would be held up in Congress by the Democrats. Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “co…

>He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now. And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here. >as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech Not quite sure this is actually the question at hand. It's about choice of…

What? No. Executive order is an order to the executive branch from it's boss the President. It's not going around Congress at all- it's separate from Congress. It's not changing law. All Presidents do this and are allowed to.

You can't do whatever you want via executive order. This is Trump telling the FCC, one of his departments, how to operate, which he can do, as much as I disagree with it.

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

#838

Post by caseysoftware »

belltaco wrote: post #794
caseysoftware wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's probably no decision because it's black and white. For example, many media outlets stopped carrying full Trump press conferences live. https://www.indiewire.com/2020/04/cnn-msnbc-not-airing-trump...

Please don't imply gamblor956 is just making things up. That's inappropriate. I'm looking forward to reading one of the many cases. It's always good to understand a) what the law says and b) how it's interpreted. They're rarely 1:1.

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

#839

Post by jklein11 »

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 think there are two issues at hand here. The first is related to section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. This section provides a legal shield to companies that act as an intermediary by hosting comments. This legal shield is effective even if the intermediary moderates the comments and provides editorials. The executive action is saying if you are providing editorials, you are no longer just an intermediary and should be held accountable for what your users post. In other words, if you fact check your users posts you are responsible if hate speech or misinformation or child pornography are shared on your platform. I think 2 reasonable people could debate the pros and cons of this.

The second issue at hand is the catalyst for this change. Jack Dorsey picked a fight with a giant orange toddler. For some reason the American people entrusted this giant orange toddler with the full authority of the executive branch of the United States of America. The orange toddler decided throw a fit and use this power that is meant to better the American public to retaliate against this personal attack. This second issue is the one that makes me sad to be a registered Republican and an American.

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

#840

Post by incompatible »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #780
empath75 wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repealing section 230 would make twitter liable for publishing trump’s libelous murder accusations and incitement to violence. They’d be forced to ban him.

I’m curious how that would turn out? What would happen if Trump was banned? While I’m against censorship, banning someone for not following your “code of conduct” is well within your rights.

I'd guess Trump would move to a new platform, and take his social media circus with him. Twitter presumably wants to keep that traffic.
Post reply on HN