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

EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 164 posts

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#21

Post by kodah »

mc32 wrote: post #4

I see. Hold your ground for free speech till... Ok, we were kidding we were just bluffing. Go ahead. We don't care. We support corporate censorship now full throat. It's for the best. We're looking out for your own good. I mean really, so you know it was in the government's purview to hold Snowden, Manning and Assange accountable to what's within their rights too. Nice to see you sway with the wind there EFF. Guess B…

The EFF has held this position for quite some time. They think the existing laws are just fine and oppose the idea that additional regulation would be meaningful in compelling companies to do the right thing. Instead, they worked with other activist organizations to create The Santa Clara Principles. [0]

The chief problem is that enforcement will always be unequal, especially when the majority of people in positions of authority come from one political culture. The EFF thinks it's just fine to deal with this retroactively, but basically, that's saying it's okay to sacrifice a few to save the many. I'm okay with saying that if you're okay with making the consequences for sacrificing those few huge. eg: If Facebook disables someones account because they misunderstood some context because they don't have people working there that can properly frame it, then Facebook owes them substantial damages.

[0] https://santaclaraprinciples.org/

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#22

Post by mc32 »

RobLach wrote: post #19
mc32 wrote: post #4

I see. Hold your ground for free speech till... Ok, we were kidding we were just bluffing. Go ahead. We don't care. We support corporate censorship now full throat. It's for the best. We're looking out for your own good. I mean really, so you know it was in the government's purview to hold Snowden, Manning and Assange accountable to what's within their rights too. Nice to see you sway with the wind there EFF. Guess B…

Free speech for a corporation is allowing them to ban whatever they want that's effecting their bottom line. Hosting and publishing certain speech is a liability. Why should the state dictate what a corporation must allow on their own servers facilitated by the services they created? Should the state force YouTube to include videos no advertiser wants to be associated with? EFF's statement is consistent with protecti…

I'm sorry but it's not consistent with protecting digital rights.

This is not the same EFF that supported the Freedom of Speech stance by Apple against the FBI when terrorists killed 16 people in San Bernardino.

Below a poster liked a response by the ACLU which is a much better response to Freedom of Speech than that by the EFF. The EFF caved. They abandoned their one and only mission to promote freedom of speech.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#23

Post by RobLach »

mc32 wrote: post #22
RobLach wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech for a corporation is allowing them to ban whatever they want that's effecting their bottom line. Hosting and publishing certain speech is a liability. Why should the state dictate what a corporation must allow on their own servers facilitated by the services they created? Should the state force YouTube to include videos no advertiser wants to be associated with? EFF's statement is consistent with protecti…

I'm sorry but it's not consistent with protecting digital rights. This is not the same EFF that supported the Freedom of Speech stance by Apple against the FBI when terrorists killed 16 people in San Bernardino. Below a poster liked a response by the ACLU which is a much better response to Freedom of Speech than that by the EFF. The EFF caved. They abandoned their one and only mission to promote freedom of speech.

How so?

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#24

Post by jtbayly »

jumelles wrote: post #15

This is absolutely as close as anyone should come to arguing against removing Trump. Once you're inciting violence free speech goes out the window -- and free speech here also gives companies the right to block you.

Free speech like the response to this week by the Cincinnati Mayor?

> "These are traitors," Cranley said, mentioning a pro-Trump supporter, Ashli Babbitt, a California resident who was shot and killed by Capitol police and a history of supporting unfounded conspiracy theories. "Traitors get shot. That's what happened." [0]

Is that the sort of inciting violence that should get you banned on Twitter?

[0]: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/01/08/as-co...

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#25

Post by dbsmith83 »

Nerada wrote: post #16

If the EFF actually cared about freedom of speech they'd set up a registrar and hosting service.

Why would they do that? How would it be any different if the government shut down their hosting service vs. someone else's?

They'd still have to do their normal legal thing they do, while also having to manage a hosting service.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#26

Post by samatman »

> A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful.

Ok... why not?

A government is an unavoidably violent institution, and what's more, one which assumes the right and responsibility to use violence. In a free nation, it derives that right through various rituals from the consent of the governed, but it remains a fact: if a governmental leader says, for example, "There's a curfew, stay home or be arrested", that's what's going to happen.

If I message someone else "leave your house and me and my boys will stomp you", it's different, isn't it.

So I ask again: why should there be one set of rules for both?

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#27

Post by mumblemumble »

mc32 wrote: post #4

I see. Hold your ground for free speech till... Ok, we were kidding we were just bluffing. Go ahead. We don't care. We support corporate censorship now full throat. It's for the best. We're looking out for your own good. I mean really, so you know it was in the government's purview to hold Snowden, Manning and Assange accountable to what's within their rights too. Nice to see you sway with the wind there EFF. Guess B…

Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. That includes the right not to be compelled to let others use you to broadcast messages you disagree with.

Furthermore, freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#28

Post by noodles_nomore »

Echo of majority view on incident. Clarification of legal basis for censorship on private platforms. Support of section 230. Concern about bias in private censorship. Call for transparency and consistency.

It's as neutral as can be.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#29

Post by adventured »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #18
kortilla wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has to be. EFF is pro free-speech and pro privacy (fights censorship tools and government back doors to encryption, etc). Huge powerful corporations coordinating to censor someone is antithetical to their mission. However, they can’t take the pro free speech stance here because most of their donors are generally leftists who absolutely despise Trump. So the only move is to put the mission on the back burner and ko…

even ACLU managed to squeak a protest via their counsel. weak squeak..but a statement nevertheless. https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counsel-warns-unchecked-power-... : [..]A legislative counsel member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned Friday that the suspension of President Donald Trump's social media accounts wielded "unchecked power," by Twitter and Facebook. Kate Ruane, a senior legislative counsel…

Meanwhile Twitter lets "Hang Mike Pence" go trending with 14,000 tweets (that oh so peaceful, non-violent Twitter, not deserving of being removed from the Internet, unlike Parler).

Everyone knows what's going on, the nature of the blatant double standards and bias that have gone on for years now (with eg left wing celebrities openly, routinely calling for violence with zero consequences). The Republicans were dumb enough to not do anything about these speech-controlling monopoly platforms while they had a chance. Now we've got big tech CCP censorship rolling through the virtual streets.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#30

Post by Miner49er »

samatman wrote: post #26

> A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful. Ok... why not? A government is an unavoidably violent institution, and what's more, one which assumes the right and responsibility to use violence. In a free nation, it derives that right through various rituals from the consent of the…

Maybe the EFF has an anarchist political philosophy and doesn't think the state should have a monopoly on violence and that these types of positions of power shouldn't exist?
Post reply on HN