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

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#51

Post by [deleted] »

Simulacra wrote: post #29
minimaxir wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#52

Post by ocdtrekkie »

coffeefirst wrote: post #37
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 l…

> 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say.

This definitely isn't true. The reality is that you are never automatically responsible for what someone else does. (It makes no sense!) Tech companies would like you to believe that Section 230 is some fundamental bedrock to the Internet, but it's not, it's just a get out of jail card for ad companies acting badly.

> Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this.

There's probably some manner of activity executive departments such as the FTC and FCC are capable of doing. Though it's definitely true that Congress-passed laws (unfortunately, including Section 230 of the CDA) stand above the regulatory power they have. But this order may be a precursor towards a larger push to scale back or (ideally) remove Section 230 in legislation.

> just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them

I actually disagree here. The vast majority of issues that require legislative attention aren't getting it because they're not loud enough to be put as conditions upon other things happening. Legislatively a lot of issues are at a complete standstill. But once it becomes a hot button issue, legislators are more likely to pack it in here or there until something moves on it.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#53

Post by ocdtrekkie »

henriquez wrote: post #41
Simulacra wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pres…

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

True, but it's within the executive branch's purview to... interpret the law a bit, as they execute it. Of course, then it's on the judicial branch to determine whether or not that was okay.

> In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,”

This is actually one of the most interesting parts of this, though it definitely will be tested by the judicial branch here. Trump has decided Twitter constitutes the modern equivalent of the "public square", where people are entitled to speak freely. ...Apart from the fact that it's corporately owned, I'd totally agree that that's true: Modern free speech has moved entirely to media (TV, Internet, Radio, etc.) which are all owned by corporations.

Now, where that gets interesting is that the government is required to allow you to speak freely... corporations aren't, according to current interpretations of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, has vastly expanded the application of the Bill of Rights before though. It's presumably possible that a future court could decide that social media companies must allow people their town square.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#54

Post by [deleted] »

FpUser wrote: post #49
uniqueid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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?

[deleted]

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#55

Post by dragonwriter »

ColanR wrote: post #48
dragonwriter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tightl…

> However, what about sites like HN?

HN has nowhere near enough active management to safe from liability without Section 230, but enough to be at risk of losing Section 230 protection especially for a government effort overtly motivated by perceived anti-Republican bias (which HN is regularly accused of exhibiting and reinforcing via it's moderation policies.)

I'm pretty sure YC wouldn't risk running it if Section 230 protection with active moderation wasn't available; user-submitted content sites that are side project for a business are even more at risk than ones that are core business; no one is going to absorb substantial liabit risk for a peripheral effort.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#56

Post by [deleted] »

FpUser wrote: post #49
uniqueid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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?

[deleted]

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#57

Post by Dylan16807 »

FpUser wrote: post #49
uniqueid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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?

The person doing the hosting.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#58

Post by [deleted] »

braythwayt wrote: post #47
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.

[deleted]

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#59

Post by Simulacra »

braythwayt wrote: post #47
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.

If you're going to keep censoring and deleting, then you're just proving the point. I don't understand.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#60

Post by Simulacra »

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.

Can you please point out where it forces Twitter to do anything?
Post reply on HN