ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#161

Post by xnx » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

timmytokyo wrote: post #76

nostromo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autonomous zones for me but not for thee. Listen, I’m center left and oppose all this craziness. But the tech giants banning these accounts is counterproductive. Violence will increase not decrease as extremists are pushed out of the public square and into echo chambers and non-public Signal groups. “A riot is the language of the unheard” remember?

>Violence will increase not decrease as extremists are pushed out of the public square and into echo chambers and non-public Signal groups. I see this claim a lot, but is it true? On the one hand, some people will move into harder to find echo chambers. On the other, fewer people will be exposed to extremist content in the first place. Both factors are in play. It isn't clear which one "wins".

It's definitely not obvious that appeasement leads to better outcomes.

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#162

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #130

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how this is 100% a liability issue and everyone jumps to the First Amendment like automatons. Twitter and Facebook are each gonna blow hundreds of millions of dollars dealing with litigation from the fallout of the other day. They have zero obligation to host insane seditious rhetoric or the people who have encouraged it.

Is it a liability issue? Section 230?

> Is it a liability issue?

Yes, it's a criminal liability issue.

> Section 230?

Section 230 provides immunity from certain civil liability. It doesn't provide any immunity from criminal liability, such as that for providing “any property, tangible or intangible, or service [...] except medicine or religious materials” while “knowing [...] that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of” any of a wide variety of federal criminal statutes, several of which would apply to events like the Capitol attack or the follow-on already being planned on social media, “or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act” under 18 USC Sec 2339A (“Providing material support to terrorists”.)

This creates a positive obligation to act on knowledge of the organization of such acts on your platform, that Section 230 cam’t immunize against.

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#163

Post by rhino369 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #148

neogodless wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are probably variances among polls, but this sample from 2000 shows 18% of Americans believed the election was stolen[0] (and it heavily leans Democratic). Before the 2020 election, we see "record low" confidence, particularly among Republicans[1]. After the election, this poll shows 34% believe the win was not legitimate[2], nearly double from 20 years earlier. There are several differences between 2000 and 20…

There is lower confidence because there have been more issues. 2020 has been a hectic year. Ascribing the lower confidence entirely to the media is not a convincing argument. Regardless, that’s not really my point. A sizable portion of the population thinks the election was fishy. Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” doesn’t accomplish anything when it comes to reducing polarization. I genuinely don’t see the pro…

Also, the media was running election security fearmongering stories since the day Trump won in 2016.

Liberals didn't denounce "Hamilton Electors" very strongly in 2016--though, admittedly, Clinton and most democratic leadership didn't support those efforts, and a larger share of congressional republicans supported Trumps attempt at the same thing.

The number of democrats who thought the 2016 election result was fraudulent was pretty high.

Democratic intelligence committee members outright lied about their evidence for years re Russiagate because it hurt trump.

And Democrats were laying groundwork for contested election this time around too. Hillary Clinton essentially suggested Biden never concede if he lost--implying that a loss would equal fraud.

None of this is as nearly as bad as Trump is doing. But it certainly helps Trump destroy any norms prohibiting bad behavior.

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#164

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 9:59 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #68

karaterobot wrote: post #26

Maybe it would help if someone on the internet condescendingly pointed out to them that the first amendment doesn't apply to private platforms. I mean I know that's not what they're talking about at all, but it's what always seems to happen in these discussions.

I love how this is 100% a liability issue and everyone jumps to the First Amendment like automatons. Twitter and Facebook are each gonna blow hundreds of millions of dollars dealing with litigation from the fallout of the other day. They have zero obligation to host insane seditious rhetoric or the people who have encouraged it.

> I love how this is 100% a liability issue and everyone jumps to the First Amendment like automatons.

Liability is government action, and is limited by the First Amendment. That’s why the US has much less defamation liability than many other countries with closely related legal systems; the Constitutional protection free speech and press prevents the government from imposing liability where other governments have.

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#165

Post by rhino369 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #160

rhino369 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't what happens when tech companies censor a very power man. It's that if they can censor a very power man, then there is no bounds on what they can and will do for less powerful people. For social networks, the root of the problem is their quasi-monopoly status. We wouldn't accept Comcast deplatforming people. It's a bad idea to set policy based on the worst examples. I can't see any harm in kicking T…

The way you’re using “censor” doesn’t accurately describe the situation. It evokes images of people being sent to the gulag for sharing samizdat but he’s not exactly silenced when he can have full coverage by the international media any time he chooses, and Trump’s accounts were not disabled for spreading conservative ideas but for inciting deadly violence. A private company exercising its rights under the contract h…

I strongly dispute that censor evokes gulags.

A person of ordinary education would understand the Hollywood Blacklists of the 50's as censorship. It's a quintessential example of censorship.

To extent you want to redefine censorship as only government actions, there is a pretty plausible argument that elements of the US government pushed for this. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/19/angry-democrats-fa...

It might not be a coincidence that Big Tech waited until Trumps defeat looked certain to finally start censoring his posts in Oct 2020. They were probably afraid of what a Democratic DOJ would do. Democrats have blamed Trump's win on big tech for years.

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#166

Post by bhupy » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

miles wrote: post #41

rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The ACLU was built on rejecting social harm arguments to free speech.

> The ACLU was built on rejecting social harm arguments to free speech. So they're OK with yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Or having a president incite a riot or a war?

> So they're OK with yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater?

Assuming that the ACLU generally supports the Brandenburg v Ohio standard, which overturned the US v Schenck standard, I'd say the answer to that question is "yes".

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#167

Post by klyrs » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

zadokshi wrote: post #4

I don’t care what side your politics are. When corporations can so easily control the voice of the elected leader of a country (one who has genuine legitimate support or about half of the country), I become very scared for the future. Corporations should not have more power than the elected officials.

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part of this indicates that the government has authority over who Twitter chooses to allow on its platform?

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#168

Post by acdha » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 10:09 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #165

acdha wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way you’re using “censor” doesn’t accurately describe the situation. It evokes images of people being sent to the gulag for sharing samizdat but he’s not exactly silenced when he can have full coverage by the international media any time he chooses, and Trump’s accounts were not disabled for spreading conservative ideas but for inciting deadly violence. A private company exercising its rights under the contract h…

I strongly dispute that censor evokes gulags. A person of ordinary education would understand the Hollywood Blacklists of the 50's as censorship. It's a quintessential example of censorship. To extent you want to redefine censorship as only government actions, there is a pretty plausible argument that elements of the US government pushed for this. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/19/angry-democrats-fa... It mig…

Okay, go with that. Trump isn’t losing his job, house, or anything else because of what Twitter did. The only thing he’s using is free use of their infrastructure to advertise his speech — and he still has all of the news media, his campaign and personal websites and email, etc. so that’s really not much of an impediment.

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#169

Post by ergocoder » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

yoav wrote: post #25

ergocoder wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you are downvoted. You raised a legit point. Facebook and Twitter are important communication channels for the public. It's dangerous that they can ban any elected official without going through any single legal process. No judge. No jury. What we are doing here is a screaming match. Who can scream at Facebook/Twitter the loudest probably wins. This is going to turn into threats on FB/Twitter execs very…

Because Twitter/Facebook is private property and has no obligation to provide a platform for someone to overthrow democracy and incite more violence.

I'm not familiar with the situation.

That's why I ask for a due process like what we have with our justice system.

You and I are free to criticize FB and Twitter. As I mention, now it depends on who screams the loudest.

Let me get this right. You are against having a due process for banning elected leaders from a popular communication channel? You prefer we scream at each other until one wins? Really?

Re: ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook

#170

Post by danielscrubs » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #117

nostromo wrote: post #20

“Start your own Twitter then!” ... they do. “Google bans Parler, conservative Twitter. Apple gives them 24 hour notice to moderate more speech or be banned.”

Yes, start your own twitter is a cop out because no one is willing to accept that they are listening to crazy things. Plus this IS the free market solution that American speech norms are ok with. Businesses can choose who they give their services to. If google doesn't surface results that's their choice. Drive business to duck duck go and Bing. VOAT, Parler, are not havens of conservative/ neo-liberal, small governme…

Isn’t it good that they are spewing death threats to anonymous users on easily trackable apps so the police can lock them up before they do anything worse?

This is your neighbors, the shallow fixes won’t help. You need another culture who... trust doctors and democracy for a start and it needs to be pushed in education. Something is failing in US.