Trump Twitter ban 'raises regulation questions' – UK govt minister • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by Aerroon » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

NalNezumi wrote: post #51

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…

We could always go the cigarette route: Put a big sticker (legally required) in front of every twitter & facebook post/page just like cigarette boxes need a "smoking kills" sticker. Something like: "Warning: This site contains highly speculative & offensive gossip and might cause anxiety, stress, unattainable standards and lowered self-esteem. Information on this site should not be considered credible, and might caus…

The problem is that cigarettes aren't vital to a functioning democracy, information is. When you impose limits on the spreading of information you give tools that can be abused to block valid information. Even if the 'block' is putting a label on everything, it'll still limit the spread of information.

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

#92

Post by andy_ppp » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

galbar wrote: post #57

andy_ppp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is inciting violence allowed?

Let the government regulate it, not a private company.

The government are the ones inciting violence though, seems like they have made the right decision to me, he’s done things that would get any other user banned for years!

Incidentally I absolutely love it when conservatives advocate for more government, whatever happened to the market is perfect let it decide the winners and losers.

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

#93

Post by DanBC » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

sockjuice wrote: post #53

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…

He's also a very strange man aside from that. For example, have you seen that video of him standing uncomfortably close to a lady he's being interviewed with, and staring at her? Weird as fuck.

Yes. Here's a twitter thread of him being odd. https://twitter.com/Emcharlotte10/status/1341334691035623425

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

#94

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

bondarchuk wrote: post #85

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to admit that that would be a lot easier if the people you are disagreeing with were making reasonable level-headed arguments, but somehow we are living in an era where large swaths of the population are convinced that there is no difference between what is true and what they feel is true and, consequently, they reject rationality and with it the concept of objective reality. I know I'm on the record as sayi…

Yes, large swaths of the population are wrong (from your viewpoint) and not open to rational argument and there's nothing you can do to change it, except totalitarian control of public discourse. My point is that it's vastly preferable to just let them be wrong on the internet and deal with it like an adult.

That has lead us to a point where people who, in spite of failed court cases, lack of evidence, expert opinion, and even disagreement among people who align with their political ideology, have insisted that a democratic election was stolen and believe it strongly enough to attempt to invade a government building with the expressed intent of executing politicians.

That anyone can believe that simply "letting them be wrong on the internet" is a viable course of action at this point is utterly baffling.

I sincerely hope there is an alternative to totalitarian control of public discourse, but I am becoming increasingly worried that there is not.

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

#95

Post by galbar » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #92

galbar wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the government regulate it, not a private company.

The government are the ones inciting violence though, seems like they have made the right decision to me, he’s done things that would get any other user banned for years ! Incidentally I absolutely love it when conservatives advocate for more government, whatever happened to the market is perfect let it decide the winners and losers.

As I see it, a company can either offer a public platform for everyone to voice their oppinion, not moderate and not be responsible for what is published on its platform but let the authorities handle illegal/harmful behaviour.

Or they can choose to moderate and/or editorialize the content they host and the conversations that happen on their platform AND be held responsible for it.

I'm not saying it is bad that a company moderates their platform, please do it! But don't pretend everyone can voice their view on their platform and be clear and forward about what you are doing.

The government is one small part of the State (as an organization). I should have probably said "Let the legislative and judiciary powers of the State handle it".

>whatever happened to the market is perfect let it decide the winners and losers

This is already happening: some people, disillusioned by the service Twitter provides, are moving to Parlor, for example.

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

#96

Post by galbar » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #91

NalNezumi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could always go the cigarette route: Put a big sticker (legally required) in front of every twitter & facebook post/page just like cigarette boxes need a "smoking kills" sticker. Something like: "Warning: This site contains highly speculative & offensive gossip and might cause anxiety, stress, unattainable standards and lowered self-esteem. Information on this site should not be considered credible, and might caus…

The problem is that cigarettes aren't vital to a functioning democracy, information is. When you impose limits on the spreading of information you give tools that can be abused to block valid information. Even if the 'block' is putting a label on everything, it'll still limit the spread of information.

Devil's advocate: democracy worked well (at least as well as the last ten years) before everyone could voice their oppinions in a worldwide public forum. We had journalists that spread the information through various channels.

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

#97

Post by timellis-smith » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

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…

I really thought that HN was a place where logical arguments were supposed to be conducted NOT unsubstantiated ad-hominem attacks. I really can't believe this comment is the top-rated one.

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

#98

Post by timellis-smith » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

timellis-smith wrote: post #97

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…

I really thought that HN was a place where logical arguments were supposed to be conducted NOT unsubstantiated ad-hominem attacks. I really can't believe this comment is the top-rated one.

Mr Hancock, a former culture secretary, told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show.

I would hardly say that this counts as free time, and I would argue keeping up with the news is the job of a government minister.

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

#99

Post by jmull » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #83

jmull wrote: post #80

Fortunately, in the US, the constitution prevents the government from forcing private companies or individuals to promote/broadcast/display the messages of government leaders. It’s a little weird he tries to characterize Twitter exercising their ability to choose who has a voice on their platform as a new thing. That’s not new. They’ve been doing this all along. If you only promote free speech in defense of authorita…

Unfortunately, Twitter has decided to eagerly toss themselves into 18 other countries too, including the UK, each with different interpretations of what rights their citizens are entitled too. Their Dubai office is especially spicy, considering that countries stance regarding woman and LGBT rights.

Waddabout Dubai?

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

#100

Post by andy_ppp » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 8:37 PM UTC

galbar wrote: post #95

andy_ppp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government are the ones inciting violence though, seems like they have made the right decision to me, he’s done things that would get any other user banned for years ! Incidentally I absolutely love it when conservatives advocate for more government, whatever happened to the market is perfect let it decide the winners and losers.

As I see it, a company can either offer a public platform for everyone to voice their oppinion, not moderate and not be responsible for what is published on its platform but let the authorities handle illegal/harmful behaviour. Or they can choose to moderate and/or editorialize the content they host and the conversations that happen on their platform AND be held responsible for it. I'm not saying it is bad that a com…

You’re stating your opinions as if they are natural laws. It would be best for everyone if Twitter stopped policing things themselves and moved to a community driven model, nothing should be deleted but if the “incites violence” (or certain others) tag is added by enough people those tweets get broadcast to nobody and you’d have to look on Trump’s or whoever’s page to see it. Yes the gaming of this system would itself have to be policed, however I think on average it would be better than what we have now.

In the end Twitter have the power to ban Trump from their platform the same way a bar owner can ban people who they don’t like. Just because everyone thinks and feels Twitter is a public forum does not make it one; it is private property like virtually everything on the Internet.