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

101–110 of 164 posts

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

#101

Post by grahamburger »

mc32 wrote: post #75
grahamburger wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. In both cases the EFF sided with the company's ability to practice their free speech instead of the government compelling them to speak or not speak. Seems perfectly consistent.

Aha, so in your heart of hears if Tim was like, yes, FBI, here are 100 engineers, we'll let you into any phone you want! EFF is HAPPY yes? That's what you're saying? I mean, in this hypothetical this would be what Tim/Apple wants...

EFF seems to dislike corporations and governments working together against people, whether voluntary or compelled. I expect they would dislike Tim Cook handing over info, and would dislike Twitter being compelled to carry speech by government officials.

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

#102

Post by Dylan16807 »

mc32 wrote: post #71
Dylan16807 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're saying to apply the same rules to everyone, and that the rules should be based on a human rights framework. Those seem like pretty good ideals to me.

Unfortunately this is categorically untrue. Twitter does not ban international terrorists from its ranks nor does it remove regular people who say awful things on Twitter. Go for it, do a search for violent threats on twitter. See if they have banned every account in Africa or the Middle East, or Asia, etc. Even north America. They may ban Luis CK for misogyny let's say, but they sure as hell would not ban all the Br…

Twitter has a system that misses a lot but they ban regular people all the time. You can pick up a suspension for saying you hope someone steps on a lego.

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

#103

Post by mumblemumble »

refurb wrote: post #88
mumblemumble wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The huh? Are you saying if Twitter was compelling to let Trump on their platform and send messages that’s the same as compelling speech ? But it’s not Twitters speech. It’s Trumps.

The linked article includes links out to other articles that go into more detail.

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

#104

Post by perryizgr8 »

dbsmith83 wrote: post #25
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.

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

Yeah, you generally have to put in some efforts to realize your beliefs.

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

#105

Post by xpe »

deet wrote: post #91

Could anyone point me to some cogent, well-formed arguments for why censorship of social media platforms is a good idea? i.e. books, articles, etc? I have some thoughts but would like more perspective before fully forming an opinion. (not arguing one way or the other below) For example, I’d like to understand the defining characteristics of social media platforms that contrasts them from traditional public forums tha…

> In all the years of human history before social media, there have been countless examples of insurrections, of hateful acts inspired by a few, of coups, of routine crimes, of widely believed mistruths, etc. So obviously individuals in those societies were able to communicate and organize without social media (and in many cases without any electronic communication at all). Which means that access to social media is not a necessary condition for bad events to happen or bad social phenomena to spread. And therefore these things will find a way to continue to happen even if all social media communication were terminated.

Not to the same extent. (Your argument offers a false dichotomy.)

With terrorism, insurrections, and so on (coordinated crimes in general), being able to slow down, monitor, and respond to communication flows can make the difference between a tragedy and an intervention.

The idea of 'slowing things down' can also apply to any information source, such as business news or the political rumor-mill. Do you want recent, vetted, and contextualized information? In practice, pick two.

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

#107

Post by xpe »

agiroth wrote: post #97
breatheoften wrote: post #80

I think EFF should look for improvements to their communication on this topic. They need to be providing much more practical leadership guidance. The ideological goals don't need compromise -- but the practical reality is that our society _needs_ an organization like EFF to be at the forefront on these topics -- advocating for better abstractions to help shape how we as a society should think and deal with these comp…

I found their response underwhelming as well. I am tentatively willing to accept that these are simply applications of free speech and section 230, provided that the EFF prompt governments to write legal frameworks for what these platforms can and cannot do. It is not acceptable to have companies this large, and this influential, 100% unaccountable to democracy.

> It is not acceptable to have companies this large, and this influential, 100% unaccountable to democracy.

Perhaps I'm not understanding you, but as written, this is not true.

First, Congress can pass laws. Second, outside of legislation, there are democratic-capitalistic feedback mechanisms as well: people can 'vote with their feet'; decide what services to use, recommend, and criticize.

So I think you meant something else?

To be clear, I'm not defending these companies, and I do support intelligent (as opposed to reactionary), targeted (as opposed to blunt), principled (as opposed to arbitrary), and simple (as opposed to byzantine, inscrutable) regulations.

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

#108

Post by edbob »

mewse wrote: post #87
lettergram wrote: post #40

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 lea…

> who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing. “we”? He also called the insurrectionists “patriots”, and said that he “loved them”, while they were holding the capital building, looting, causing damage, and parading confederate flags through the halls. Just FYI. As like another thing to consider. It’s sort of surprising how you didn’t mention that yourself. It was literally in the same tweet. I guess it must h…

Not everyone thinks that hatred is a moral obligation. It's okay to show compassion to people that you think are making a mistake.

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

#109

Post by deet »

RobLach wrote: post #98
deet wrote: post #91

Could anyone point me to some cogent, well-formed arguments for why censorship of social media platforms is a good idea? i.e. books, articles, etc? I have some thoughts but would like more perspective before fully forming an opinion. (not arguing one way or the other below) For example, I’d like to understand the defining characteristics of social media platforms that contrasts them from traditional public forums tha…

Is anyone claiming that censorship of social media platforms is a good idea? It is mostly people under a false/misunderstood "freedom of speech" pretense saying that Twitter/Facebook/etc should not be able to ban whomever they want.

Perhaps I'm using the word "censor" in a way that points to the government being the censor. But I mean it to be more encompassing of any entity that has the right to remove content from communications channels.

Currently the platforms are private (as a peer comment points out). So right now there isn't technically a "freedom of speech" issue as it's a private matter and private entities in the USA don't need to respect the 1st amendment.

As a thought experiment -- suppose the social media platforms were turned into "utilities" and completely absolved of the responsibility (or even the authority) to "censor" speech. In the same way someone's phone doesn't turn off if they make a threatening phone call. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Would losing the ability for anyone to remove content be fundamentally bad? Given that we have social mechanisms that existed prior to digital communication for countering bad speech?

As to your question, the fact that some people do support the suspension by the platform controllers (currently private) of accounts that post inflammatory speech would suggest that yes, some folks do think that censorship is a good idea.

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

#110

Post by dgreensp »

deet wrote: post #91

Could anyone point me to some cogent, well-formed arguments for why censorship of social media platforms is a good idea? i.e. books, articles, etc? I have some thoughts but would like more perspective before fully forming an opinion. (not arguing one way or the other below) For example, I’d like to understand the defining characteristics of social media platforms that contrasts them from traditional public forums tha…

There are limits to what kinds of meetings will be allowed to be held in a town square, or a McDonald’s franchise, say, to pick some random giant company that provides a space to socialize.

Facebook and Twitter are like giant newspaper companies that, unlike paper newspapers, which can get in trouble for reprinting someone’s illegal words, are free to distribute others’ words, moderated or unmoderated. No website that you post content to has to distribute that content for you if it doesn’t want to. Twitter is not air.

That said, I don’t know what Facebook and Twitter should do, if there is such a thing as that. I think Twitter could easily justify not blocking Trump, by making the argument that they are a communication service, and they don’t want to start editorializing, but clearly that is not their stance! Facebook curates and bumps content up and down by its very nature, so Lord knows what it “should” do with itself.

We probably just shouldn’t have these giant monoliths.

Post reply on HN