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

31–40 of 164 posts

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

#31

Post by jelliclesfarm »

https://twitter.com/balajis : there are some interesting viewpoints being espoused on balajis' twitter feed. one of them cut and paste below. (there is a 'thread unroll' feature on twitter.. too many retweets. but it makes for an interesting train of tweet thoughts)

quoting balajis

[..]How would countries build sovereign apps?

1) Clone the features of WeChat, FB, or Twitter, which is much easier than developing from scratch

2) Encourage or requirr citizens to sign up, which is much easier if you’re a state

That’s product and distribution respectively.[..]

essentially..decentralised web.

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

#32

Post by zozbot234 »

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…

Freedom-respecting governments are bound by the rule of law. A government official tweeting "leave your house and me and my boys will stomp you" in the absence of a lawful policy directing as such is not really acting pursuant to the government's "right and responsibility to use violence", so there's hardly any reason to treat them differently from a random person doing the same.

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

#33

Post by motohagiography »

The idea that this particular U.S. president is exceptional underpins the policies and actions of the platform companies. The EFF has to respond, as this is specifically what they were set up to respond to, sort of what the ACLU's original mandate was.

However, that major platform companies are working on behalf of a (still) opposition party to obstruct and suppress a (still) sitting president with some 10 days left in his term, could have unforeseen legal consequences. It will be a very interesting week.

The problem is that if well meaning people break the rules, there is no reason for less well meaning ones not to ignore them.

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

#34

Post by olliej »

jtbayly wrote: post #24
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.b…

You look at the context, he’s saying a person in the act of a violent insurrection should expect lethal force in response.

He’s not inciting violence, he’s stating why the violence occurred.

He could also be simply saying treason carries the potential for the death penalty.

Either way not inciting violence.

He isn’t saying go use force against all the insurrectionists, unlike some politicians who were actively saying use force to overthrow the election.

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

#35

Post by mc32 »

mumblemumble wrote: post #27
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.

Wait... so Zuckerberg is totally cool if he goes and censors anything and everything that speaks ill of him or Facebook? Cool if he censors anyone who sues FB or him? Is that your position on a medium that is built for people to post diverse opinions?

What if he suffers a stroke and suddenly becomes a religious nut, cool if he only allows promotion of his religion on his medium and bans all others?

Good god, we’re effed!

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

#36

Post by ineedasername »

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…

Any rule by any group ultimately comes down to enforcement through some variety of force. I have never seen it as a particularly useful talking point to highlight that governments are also subject to this foundational principal of the enFORCEment of a rule/law etc.

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

#37

Post by kodah »

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…

I think you're probably looking at this from the opposite side of the coin that the EFF is. The EFF is looking at people on social media who are government officials and have gotten away with condoning violence because of some high ideals that say having a cancer in the sunlight is better than hiding it away in the dark while normal citizens are held to a different set of arbitrary rules that are often not enforced equally.

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

#38

Post by shkkmo »

motohagiography wrote: post #33

The idea that this particular U.S. president is exceptional underpins the policies and actions of the platform companies. The EFF has to respond, as this is specifically what they were set up to respond to, sort of what the ACLU's original mandate was. However, that major platform companies are working on behalf of a (still) opposition party to obstruct and suppress a (still) sitting president with some 10 days left…

What rules are you alluding to being broken?

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

#39

Post by marcinzm »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #31

https://twitter.com/balajis : there are some interesting viewpoints being espoused on balajis' twitter feed. one of them cut and paste below. (there is a 'thread unroll' feature on twitter.. too many retweets. but it makes for an interesting train of tweet thoughts) quoting balajis [..]How would countries build sovereign apps? 1) Clone the features of WeChat, FB, or Twitter, which is much easier than developing from…

Sounds like centralized web to me since for every person there is a single app they are required to use made by their country of residence.

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

#40

Post by lettergram »

Well, I’ll never be donating again.

I’m more concerned about parler being banned or that “hang pence” was trending, but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing.

I’m against all rioting (all year it feels like) and what happened Jan 6 was horrifying.

You know how to simmer tensions? You convince the leaders of said movement to calm followers.

banning / arresting / killing all the leaders and then banning their other platforms will make people scared and ready to fight.

Post reply on HN