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

Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#11

Post by blunte »

notretarded wrote: post #7
detaro wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have, but I presume getting a president to use something like that is tricky if he doesn't want to, and I get the impression that using Twitter (and not using it through something some backstabbing staffer could access) was very much the point for Trump.

It's far less nuanced than that. It's the "old man shouts at cloud" meme, grumpy, lazy, old man wants to communicate to the word using methods he already knows.

I suspect it's also about being visibly popular compared to other people on the platform. What good are "ratings" if you are the only person on a given rating system.

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#12

Post by roflc0ptic »

spzb wrote: post #8
amelius wrote: post #6

Just a random idea: perhaps we should extend democracy to the spreading of information. I.e. you can spread information but only if the majority of people agree with it. (A post is evaluated/moderated by a small group, then a bigger group, etc., until perhaps it reaches the entire population). Moderation is not limited to groups, so echo chambers would not have a chance. EDIT: minorities still have a chance in two wa…

That seems like it would just silence minority voices.

Right. How would anyone argue for the repeal of popular, unjust laws? Having free speech tied to current moral fashions seems disastrous.

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#13

Post by jokethrowaway »

amelius wrote: post #6

Just a random idea: perhaps we should extend democracy to the spreading of information. I.e. you can spread information but only if the majority of people agree with it. (A post is evaluated/moderated by a small group, then a bigger group, etc., until perhaps it reaches the entire population). Moderation is not limited to groups, so echo chambers would not have a chance. EDIT: minorities still have a chance in two wa…

I think we need to clear this misconception that democracy is good. It may be the least evil form of managing societies we attempted until now, but it's in no way good.

Democracy is violently (under threat or by direct action) imposing the will of majority on a minority.

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#14

Post by [deleted] »

amelius wrote: post #6

Just a random idea: perhaps we should extend democracy to the spreading of information. I.e. you can spread information but only if the majority of people agree with it. (A post is evaluated/moderated by a small group, then a bigger group, etc., until perhaps it reaches the entire population). Moderation is not limited to groups, so echo chambers would not have a chance. EDIT: minorities still have a chance in two wa…

[deleted]

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#15

Post by rational_indian »

konjin wrote: post #10
grenoire wrote: post #3

My thinking right now is that the status quo is the symptom and not the cause. Were we as the human race simply not ready for this? Could we have been more diligent in educating people on ways of debating and understanding, could we have built a society that is not obsessed with perfection and winning? If it wasn't Twitter, Facebook, Google etc. it would simply be something else in their place who had to perform the…

The people got too much of a voice and the powers that be are now reigning that back. Decentralization, encryption and anonymity is the only way to deal with this. Aether is a good first draft: multi part app with a back end that can live on a single board computer in your closet and costs $4 to run for a year and a front end that you can use on your phone.

Link to Aether?

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#16

Post by spzb »

blunte wrote: post #9

What does the "Health Secretary" have to do with tech regulation? [edit: I would think the UK Health Secretary should be pretty specifically focused on the growing health crisis at home rather than interviewing on topics outside his current role.] In any case, regardless of who you are, if you violate the terms of service of platform, you can be terminated on that platform. The platform makes the rules, within the co…

> What does the "Health Secretary" have to do with tech regulation?

Nothing in terms of his day job but he is known as a fan of technology (not a particularly well-informed one) so he’s likely to have an opinion on the matter. More to the point, though, the government usually nominate a minister to go round all the Sunday morning political TV shows and answer questions on whatever is in the news.

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#17

Post by amelius »

spzb wrote: post #8
amelius wrote: post #6

Just a random idea: perhaps we should extend democracy to the spreading of information. I.e. you can spread information but only if the majority of people agree with it. (A post is evaluated/moderated by a small group, then a bigger group, etc., until perhaps it reaches the entire population). Moderation is not limited to groups, so echo chambers would not have a chance. EDIT: minorities still have a chance in two wa…

That seems like it would just silence minority voices.

Not if the majority would allow them.

Minorities can still have discussion groups. It's just that their ideas never achieve mass broadcasting if the majority finds those ideas objectionable.

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#18

Post by konjin »

rational_indian wrote: post #15
konjin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people got too much of a voice and the powers that be are now reigning that back. Decentralization, encryption and anonymity is the only way to deal with this. Aether is a good first draft: multi part app with a back end that can live on a single board computer in your closet and costs $4 to run for a year and a front end that you can use on your phone.

Link to Aether?

https://getaether.net/

Be prepared that it's a distributed system, it takes a while for posts to show up when you first run it.

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#19

Post by Blikkentrekker »

thinkingemote wrote: post #4

The logic is that by banning and moderating they are taking editorial decisions which mark them out as being a "publisher" as opposed to an impartial "platform". It's a bit of a stretch. For these big companies I think governments gave them the choice to censor or be broken up, so they chose censorship. Now the governments are wanting more regulation. I don't know how they all are responding but could Facebook be han…

I'd rather fancy a system where such platforms can choose between being a publisher and a platform.

If they be a publisher, they may take editorial control but the also become liable for anything that escaped their control and can no longer claim “The views expressed here are not our own.”.

In the alternative, they can be a platform, and may not take editorial control and only be required and allowed to remove content they are legally required to remove.

The current situation is that they want their cake and eat it too.

Re: Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister

#20

Post by jokethrowaway »

Threatening social media platforms with regulations sounds like a good plan to get them to act as impartial platforms.

Still, I fear they will just accept being publishers and deal with regulations while still being considered impartial platforms by the public.

Post reply on HN