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

181–190 of 208 posts

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

#181

Post by 29athrowaway »

ergocoder wrote: post #176
29athrowaway wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bann…

Sure, but if he was allowed to continue, there would be no justice system.

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

#182

Post by DenisM »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #135
TheGrim-999 wrote: post #133

These companies have near monopoly control on the flow of information. Like it or not, they are the new public square. Just telling someone that's banned from Twitter, Facebook, etc., "but oh don't worry, you're still free to go downtown and hold up a sign and spread your message!", while everyone else is able to reach millions of people instantly, is not a solution, and you all know it isn't. Telling someone they ca…

Twitter just does not have anywhere close to monopoly control on the flow of information. Only 20% of the country uses it at all.

So you keep saying, but I have to wonder what’s the total reach? If 20% are reading, are they then immediately retelling each to 2 more people? And what if every single news caster, PR agent, and manager is among the 20%?

Also, how much is too much? Is 51% the red line?

I think most fruitful approach is to borrow from the antitrust law - a business should be large enough to distort the entire market. Not quite certain how to apply the metric in this case, but that’s the idea.

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

#183

Post by tonystubblebine »

watwut wrote: post #63
tonystubblebine wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> corporations can so easily control the voice of the elected leader of a country I see this almost in reverse, that why on earth has the US Federal Government put a company like Twitter in this position? The Feds have their own communication apparatus and instead foisted onto Twitter the responsibility of being the primary communication channel of the president. He has other options but he fully embraced Twitter and…

The Feds done nothing of that sort. Donald Trump is tweeting, because he wants to tweet. Feds are simply unable to control him and it is fair to say that they should not be able to control whether president tweets or not.

Fine, I accept that's a more accurate description. But it's the same point. This is a problem of Donald Trump's creation. He foisted himself on Twitter and it's not their job to accept that at all or forever. He had and still has official channels.

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

#184

Post by claytongulick »

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.

Can you please show me specifically where he did this?

If not, it may be time for you to take a break from politics as well, and try to view the situation objectively.

I'm very open to having my bias, if any, pointed out. If you can show me anywhere where the president did what you claim, I'd be very interested.

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

#185

Post by xtracto »

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.

I don't know how is it in the USA, but in Mexico BY LAW Television Stations must give the presidency certain amount of time to speak. So, if this same situation happened in Mexico the president could easily go for 30 minutes on TV and talk his talk.

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

#186

Post by dragonwriter »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #33
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.

At what point do these massive corporations effectively become a government? They govern what you can say, think and buy.

> At what point do these massive corporations effectively become a government?

When they exercise a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within some geographic domain.

> They govern what you can say, think and buy.

No, they don't. They govern what can be published and sold on their platforms, which aren't the exclusive venues for sale or publishing.

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

#187

Post by TulliusCicero »

jkepler wrote: post #178
TulliusCicero wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, they have a bare minimum policy, but the Android and iOS app stores have apparently higher standards for moderation that they require apps to abide by.

Which completely makes sense -- when you get an app from an app store, its content partially reflects on the store itself.

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

#188

Post by yoav »

ergocoder wrote: post #169
yoav wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don’t understand what you’re saying regarding due process or screaming until someone wins? Who’s screaming?

A person was using a privately owned website to encourage people to go commit acts of violence against senators and congress representatives. That website did not want to be complicit in that violence so they removed access to those people.

Eg. If you go into a coffee shop and start smashing windows and beating people up and rallying for people to murder each other the coffee shop doesn’t need “due process” to kick you out and ban you.

There are laws that exist and twitter has a terms of service. There’s no due process needed. If anything Twitter should be criticized for not banning Trump sooner. They let him do so much damage and allowed it to get to this point for ad revenue and engagement. I’m glad they finally did something but frustrated they allowed it to get to this.

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

#189

Post by yoav »

ergocoder wrote: post #177
sokoloff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So your position is that you can walk into any private business that offers free cookies (eg. A car dealership or bank) and then hold a rally to incite violence in that establishment and you believe they’d have to go to court to have you removed from their private property?

Your twitter account is not a product. The product is sold to advertisers. And even the ads they will or won’t show has guidelines they are not legally forced to show ads that would incite violence.

The legal argument being made in multiple threads about freedom of speech like this demonstrates that you all know literally nothing about freedom of speech or what it means

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

#190

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

DenisM wrote: post #182
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter just does not have anywhere close to monopoly control on the flow of information. Only 20% of the country uses it at all.

So you keep saying, but I have to wonder what’s the total reach? If 20% are reading, are they then immediately retelling each to 2 more people? And what if every single news caster, PR agent, and manager is among the 20%? Also, how much is too much? Is 51% the red line? I think most fruitful approach is to borrow from the antitrust law - a business should be large enough to distort the entire market. Not quite certai…

I think that's a reasonable argument - it's just very different from the idea that someone literally cannot communicate their message if they're not allowed to do it on Twitter.
Post reply on HN