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

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#41

Post by henriquez »

Simulacra wrote: post #32
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 YEAR…

It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law. Only the legislature can.

Unfortunately CDA is written in a way that broadly allows tech companies to censor any content that doesn’t fit their commercial or political narratives. It’s a poison pill to Internet discourse at the endpoint we’ve reached where three or four companies control that vast majority of online speech.

In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,” an admission of defeat for the free market ideals that we pretend this country champions.

Only a change to the law or reimagining of the Internet can fix this. I don’t share your pessimism that this is impossible. I think decentralized/P2P platforms do have a place and a chance to unseat tech incumbents. Remember what happened to Yahoo and AOL? I just don’t think that our current set of tech companies are immune from the same sort of abandonment and irrelevance. A moment is coming where everything changes.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#42

Post by ilaksh »

The argument I've heard here, I think, is that in fact this is supposedly a trick, and not about preventing online censorship, but actually a sneaky way to increase censorship.

My understanding is that this is the problem that people have with this, and most people who are in that camp also hate Trump.

In my opinion, Trump's racism and other aspects are quite odious, but I want to believe that in this case he actually is fighting against censorship. Because it does seem that conservative viewpoints are being censored.

If this a trick, then we are more screwed than I thought. Because the left-leaning group actually seems to be asking for _more_ censorship.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#43

Post by tebruno99 »

Simulacra wrote: post #38
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…

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.

Maybe they are fact checking Biden and it doesn't seem like it cause they come up empty. LOL

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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.

The scope of publisher liability makes that impractical for a user-submitted content site.

> 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.

Not only don't make comments, but don't control content at all (at least, except (and making errors of interpretation may be dangerous here) removing actually illegal content; this has (among other things) significantly adverse commercial consequences.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#45

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

Simulacra wrote: post #33
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.

Wow well put. Tip of the hat to you sir.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#46

Post by braythwayt »

Simulacra wrote: post #38
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…

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.

I don’t know who “The Left’ are where you live, but I can tell you that nobody I know with progressive views believes that Twitter is anything but a toxic hell-hole of inconsistent application of half-baked policies.

My suggestion to you is that it’s bad enough to “both sides,” an argument. Don’t “both sides” an argument with a hypothetical you just made up.

Plenty of Trump supporters have taken Twitter to task for fact-checking Trump but not other politicians. Or for fact-checking Trump now, but not in the past. These are legitimate arguments, because they refer to actual events.

Your argument is not worthy of the word “argument.” Please stick to comparing actual things that happened, involving actual people and companies, not hypothetical things that didn’t happen, combined with your interpretation of how people you will not name would or wouldn’t react.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#47

Post by braythwayt »

Simulacra wrote: post #39

If Twitter was run by Peter Theil and did this to Bernie Sanders, or Joe Binden, the left would have a collective meltdown. Trump has a valid point: Twitter has never done this before, why are they starting now?

I have taken down this same argument you made elsewhere on this topic:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23345380

And I ask that in addition to your not arguing about something that didn’t happen and how you hypothesize people you cannot name would react, that you make the argument just once and not paper all over a topic with exact copies of it.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#48

Post by ColanR »

dragonwriter wrote: post #44
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…

> 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. The scope of publisher liability makes that impractical for a user-submitted content site. > Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, a…

> significantly adverse commercial consequences

Honestly, it might be nice to end up with a greater divide between the commercial and non-commercial parts of the internet. I agree, it will be very hard to control all the content on e.g. Twitter; the degree of cleanup required to pull it off might limit the users to a small fraction of the current number. We might end up with commercial sites that are much more tightly controlled.

However, what about sites like HN? I think there'd be more of those. Dang does great work, but I think (?) most of the content control is done by users. It might be really nice to regain an internet that isn't dominated by profit-seeking.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#49

Post by FpUser »

uniqueid wrote: post #31
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 li…

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

And who is to decide what makes the world a worse place?

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#50

Post by mike503 »

He has a platform for communicating with the people, just like every other president. He’s chosen to use Twitter. Just like Fox News, another thing he’s complaining about now that it isn’t guaranteed to be frictionless. He can say anything he wants in press releases, on whitehouse.gov, etc.
Post reply on HN