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

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#61

Post by Overtonwindow »

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…

There was never any russian collusion, we know that for a fact now. HN can continue to censor this but it's true, and Twitter not recognizing that as disinformation is why they should be regulated.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#62

Post by Simulacra »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #61
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…

There was never any russian collusion, we know that for a fact now. HN can continue to censor this but it's true, and Twitter not recognizing that as disinformation is why they should be regulated.

From the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal:

"Newly released documents show he [Adam Schiff] knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts... 11589326164

So why not put a disclaimer on every politician that says there WAS collusion, or claiming to have evidence of collusion?

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#63

Post by Simulacra »

braythwayt wrote: post #46
Simulacra wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

You still haven't refuted the argument. You disagree with my conclusions, but you've offered no proof that it's wrong. Twitter must editorialize all, or none. That's the deal in Section 230, and they violated it. In my opinion (that means not based on fact, just me here) the contrapositive with Theil would see a swing of vitriol from left to right.

I get that you disagree, but censoring proves the point.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#64

Post by coolgeek »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #61
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…

There was never any russian collusion, we know that for a fact now. HN can continue to censor this but it's true, and Twitter not recognizing that as disinformation is why they should be regulated.

Here are some actual facts, rather than assertions or WSJ editorials (as opposed to reported articles)

https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-repo...

It's almost surreal that users named Overtonwindow and Simulacra are pushing the "no collusion" narrative

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#65

Post by wan23 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #52
coffeefirst wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

You're not responsible for what someone else does, but you are responsible for what you do. If you accept a submission to your newspaper and publish it then you may be liable for any libelous claims because you are the one who published it. You think that HN is different because it automatically publishes anything anyone writes, but that perception isn't shared by many people who are old enough to remember a time before the World Wide Web.

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#66

Post by bedhesd »

coolgeek wrote: post #64
Overtonwindow wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was never any russian collusion, we know that for a fact now. HN can continue to censor this but it's true, and Twitter not recognizing that as disinformation is why they should be regulated.

Here are some actual facts, rather than assertions or WSJ editorials (as opposed to reported articles) https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-repo... It's almost surreal that users named Overtonwindow and Simulacra are pushing the "no collusion" narrative

Thanks for checking in, but it still is contrary to what the House of Representatives founds. Your truth that there was collusion is met with other truths that there were not. Is it twitter's role to decide who is right?

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#67

Post by blarg1 »

tebruno99 wrote: post #43
Simulacra wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

or mayb they can't figure out what he's saying :)

Re: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

#68

Post by coolgeek »

bedhesd wrote: post #66
coolgeek wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some actual facts, rather than assertions or WSJ editorials (as opposed to reported articles) https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-repo... It's almost surreal that users named Overtonwindow and Simulacra are pushing the "no collusion" narrative

Thanks for checking in, but it still is contrary to what the House of Representatives founds. Your truth that there was collusion is met with other truths that there were not. Is it twitter's role to decide who is right?

The Republicans on HPSCI found what they wanted to find, and avoided finding what they didn't want to find. See the HPSCI minority report for the specific details on this.

Much of the HPSCI majority report is also contradicted by:

  - bipartisan Senate reports
  - the Special Counsel's report
  - the Special Counsel's indictments
  - the FBI, as well as the intelligence community (in toto)
  - the DOJ and intelligence Inspectors General
IOW, it was contradicted by everybody else
Post reply on HN