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

31–40 of 104 posts

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

#31

Post by jfengel »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #13
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.

All modern democracies have tools in place to protect minorities. It's never as simple as a bare majority imposing its will.

Ironically, it leads to the exact opposite, where certain minorities express disproportionate power. For example, the rules always favor the status quo, so a minority in power can retain power, and subvert even largish majorities from passing rules they favor.

Democracy may well be the least worst form of government, but it's even worse than I think most people give it credit for. The assumption is that at least half the people are happy with at least half of the results, and it doesn't even guarantee that much.

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

#32

Post by sanp »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #13
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.

Or, depending on how you implement it l, imposing the will of the minority (red state populations) on a majority

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

#33

Post by DanBC »

Hancock is a lack-talent idiot. It takes real skill to be a worse secretary of health than both Hunt and Lansley, but he's somehow managed it.

He'll say whatever he thinks is popular at the time.

Here he is calling for tighter regulation of social media: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/internet-laws...

> New laws will be introduced aimed at tackling the internet “wild west” and making Britain the “safest place in the world” to be online, the culture secretary has said.

> The largest social media companies could be fined billions of pounds if they do not take steps to protect users, Matt Hancock warned.

> A new code of practice to tackle online bullying, stricter age verification requirements, and a regular internet safety transparency report to keep tabs on online abuse could also be included in new legislation.

> Measures to tackle online harm could be funded through an industry-wide levy on firms such Facebook and Twitter.

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

#34

Post by eplanit »

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…

On the basis of (mental) health concerns, one could conceivably and justifiably ban Twitter altogether.

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

#35

Post by rhexs »

amelius wrote: post #17
spzb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m amazed how a large portion of the Internet can hold two diametrically opposed ideas in their heads like this as the same time. Really bodes well for the next decade.

“You still have freedom of speech, but can only talk about subjects I approve of”.

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

#36

Post by spaced-out »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #19
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 conten…

>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.

Any platform that tries to do this will quickly fill up with spam.

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

#37

Post by jacquesm »

UK government minister belatedly finds out that adopting US based companies as pseudo official channels may be a mistake. Worrisome to see how far elected officials can be out of touch with reality.

I never understood why my own government seems to feel the need to jump on every social medium out there. It gives those legacy, leverage and goes against many years of tradition.

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

#38

Post by d0100 »

Companies are now shielded from the government when it comes to user generated content with Section 230. They are not, however, shielded from social justice. And there lies the problem.

Social spaces and infrastructure should be regulated so that they can be shielded from social justice and the government regarding user generated content.

No one will boycott twitter if they know twitter can't just press a button to ban. No one will ask for demonetization of a YouTube channel if they know that has to come from the legal system. Or pressure companies buying ads that show on channels you don't like

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

#39

Post by villgax »

Lol Govts around the world are stupidly starting to think that they have a say in how private companies can regulate users on it. Lol users don't even pay for the bulk of social media & its mostly Govts/politicians/celebs who pay PR firms to manage their 'free'/ToS attached accounts. Talk about SelfAwareWolves
Post reply on HN