Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 208 posts

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

#171

Post by klyrs »

monocasa wrote: post #54
rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Even they have limits to that, as we saw from the aftermath of Charlottesville. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence...

> Romero told the Journal “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else,” he added.

> The ACLU still officially condemns the hate speech of white supremacists, Romero told the LA Times, but “at the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the 1st Amendment when expressed non-violently.”

> “We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not people who want to carry weapons and are intent on committing violence,” [ACLU spokeswoman Stacy Sullivan] said.

That decision wasn't about their speech, per se, but about the violence of their actions. To be specific: the first amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble and that's where the ACLU has drawn the line.

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

#172

Post by miles »

bhupy wrote: post #166
miles wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Sorry for the lazy shorthand; here’s the fuller version:

What Holmes said after it, however, did become a standard for future free speech arguments. “The question in every case,” he said, “is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-...

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

#173

Post by neogodless »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #152
neogodless wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” Not sure anyone said that. Judges reviewed court cases, and failing to find legitimate cases, dismissed them. That's not saying "you're dumb and wrong." That's saying - you do not have a case because you don't have evidence. > a robust investigation It sounds like each side defines a "robust investigation" differently. Given that judges from both major political parties dism…

Referencing a bunch of random academic sources doesn’t make your argument any stronger. The attitude of the media and the Democratic Party in general has absolutely been “You’re dumb and wrong.” As my initial comment said, this accomplishes the exact opposite thing. People feeling lost and ripped off aren’t going to suddenly change their mind because talking heads on CNN assured them everything was legit. Especially…

It took me about ten minutes but I went through one of the claims from here[0].

So I looked up Minnesota voter registration counts[1] and Minnesota 2020 vote results[2]. I put this in a spreadsheet and looked at totals per county, and any examples of turnout exceeding eligibility. The percentage ranged from 76.9% to to as high as 92.6%. In no case did it exceed 100%, let alone 350% as claimed in a YouTube video. Given that on my first attempt to validate a claim of implied voter fraud (if more votes were actually cast than eligible) I was unable to, I feel there's no reason to investigate that particular claim further. Presumably each of these so called "proofs" follow this pattern. If any did not, I would be shocked if no one outside of conservatively-biased journalism was able to go through each such instance and find sufficient proof that justified further investigation. Sure I'm just one person taking the minimum of effort on one instance (the first I could readily disprove on the list without exhaustive efforts), so I did not go through every item and spend all day. This is just an internet comment, and despite my efforts, I assume I will still change exactly zero minds. But it reaffirms that what some are calling proof and justification is not even accurate, let alone validation.

[0] https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/election_fr...

[1] https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaign...

[2] https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/election-result...

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

#174

Post by intended »

danielscrubs wrote: post #170
intended wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yup. That said, It’s not just the US.

Authoritarianism is on the rise around the world.

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

#175

Post by giantg2 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #162
giantg2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What criminal act? He hasn't been arrested or impeached. His words were quite vague. If we just start assuming people are guilty then I fear our system has failed. This is really an issue for the courts (in this case impeachment) to decide.

It would possible apply to Facebook events, if those events have any description of violence.

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

#176

Post by ergocoder »

29athrowaway wrote: post #122
claytongulick wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually read what the average twitter user posts? Almost all of what I see on there is magnitudes worse than anything I've seen Trump post, and yet there's no action against those users... This is clearly partisan politics. The ban hammer is not applied equally. I see unbelievable insults, direct calls for violence (from both sides), acrimonious, spiteful and hateful posts - with zero consequences. But Trum…

If you interpret the situation in this manner, you really need to take a break from politics and try to engage into some activity that helps you develop some basic common sense. Stop thinking about political parties, and think about individuals, their role in society, their influence and the consequences of their actions. Sending a mob of radicalized people with mental issues to kidnap senators is a bad decision and…

> Sending a mob of radicalized people with mental issues to kidnap senators is a bad decision and he got rightfully punished for it.

Yes!

I'm not familiar with the situation.

Can we have a due process like our justice system to assign blame?

Should I just take your word (and the word of trump opposition)?

Also, isn't it weird that, you claim, he is the leader of the riot into Capitol, and the punishment is being banned from social media??

Should this be like jailed for life or something?

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

#177

Post by ergocoder »

sokoloff wrote: post #29
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…

It seems like “the platform can suspend anyone”, “the platform can make those suspensions indefinite (making them a ban)”, and “the platform can be sued for reinstatement” is, more or less, what we have now and doesn’t strike me as particularly unreasonable or dangerous. If the POTUS is banned from NBC, surely they can still get their TV messages out, right?

So, your position is that a business can ban anyone. AT&T can ban you because you like candy. Yes, candy is evil and destroys millions of teeth.

And if someone is not satisfied, we should just scream at Dorsey until he caves.

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

#178

Post by jkepler »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #131
zadokshi wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we are banning twitter then as well?

No. Twitter actually tries. It's no secret that Parler's ethos is largely anti-moderation, that was basically their whole brand and messaging, after all.

But if one reads Parker's terms of service (TOS), they reserve the right to moderate illegal content, as well as claim unlimited global usage of any content uploaded to their platform. Thus while their ethos was largely anti-moderation, their TOS seems to put responsibility for their platform in their hands---at least in my non-lawyer eyes.

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

#179

Post by bhupy »

miles wrote: post #172
bhupy wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Sorry for the lazy shorthand; here’s the fuller version: What Holmes said after it, however, did become a standard for future free speech arguments. “The question in every case,” he said, “is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” https://www.mentalfloss.co…

Just pulling from your own quote:

> is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger

The "clear and present danger" standard is no longer used. It's been overturned in favor of the "imminent lawless action" standard. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater does not fall under imminent lawless action.

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

#180

Post by throw0101a »

gumby wrote: post #23

The man literally has a press office and a press staff. There are any number of outlets who will cling to his every word in order to praise or criticize it. I don't use twitter and seem to learn what is said. It is difficult to see what the problem is.

> It is difficult to see what the problem is.

No one seems to be angry that Rubert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, gets to decide who is a host/anchor and who isn't, who is a guest that is interviewed and who isn't, who goes on air and who doesn't, etc.

If Fox New (and CNN, OANN, etc) get to decide who to broadcast or not, I'm not sure what's so special about Twitter as a platform deciding as well.

Arguing the contra: if Twitter "must" allow Trump, shouldn't Fox News "have to" allow (e.g.) Noam Chomsky to have his own show?

Post reply on HN