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

41–50 of 104 posts

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

#41

Post by gwbas1c »

newacct583 wrote: post #2

Absent everything else, I have to admit I find it hilarious that in four years the White House never figured out a way for the President to address the public via electronic means beyond the consumer app in his pocket. I mean, it's a banal and boring law, but his use of Twitter was always a clear violation of the Presidential Records Act. They couldn't have set up a dumb finger server or something and written him a j…

Perhaps they set up something that hooks into Trump's account to make a record of his tweets?

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

#42

Post by snicker7 »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #20

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.

Social media platforms are already happy with acting as publishers without taking responsibility for its content.

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

#43

Post by spaced-out »

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.

He also likes to retweet, probably likes to doom scroll as well. He won't get the same endorphin rushes from some boring government app.

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

#44

Post by amelius »

rhexs wrote: post #35
amelius wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

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

No, it is:

“You still have freedom of speech, but not a free platform”.

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

#45

Post by jackjeff »

To what extent could the UK regulate a US company? Especially if they don’t have a UK subsidiary.

Last I checked I publish a blog site and I did not get the necessary permission from Chinese authorities to do so... and I don’t care, I have no link to China.

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

#46

Post by sockjuice »

d0100 wrote: post #38

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 b…

Companies should be shielded from ... the fair treatment of all people in a society?

What is your comment even saying?

Don't dogwhistle please, write what you really mean.

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

#47

Post by dgellow »

d0100 wrote: post #38

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 b…

Of course people will boycott twitter if the company cannot easily ban content. They will label twitter as a network that promote right wing propaganda and push people to move to other places if they don’t want to be associated with that group.

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

#48

Post by jackjeff »

DanBC wrote: post #33

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 “safe…

Nice to see he’s got some free time. It’s not like the Pandemic is out of control and should keep him busy... oh wait.

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

#49

Post by DanBC »

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…

> I would think the UK Health Secretary

Minor nit, but he's not UK health secretary. Health is devolved so he only has responsibility for England.

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

#50

Post by h2odragon »

newacct583 wrote: post #2

Absent everything else, I have to admit I find it hilarious that in four years the White House never figured out a way for the President to address the public via electronic means beyond the consumer app in his pocket. I mean, it's a banal and boring law, but his use of Twitter was always a clear violation of the Presidential Records Act. They couldn't have set up a dumb finger server or something and written him a j…

If the US Government employs someone who could set up a `finger` server; they're a contractor.

I dont think they even have the ability to talk to anyone who could make that into a twitter bot.

Post reply on HN