EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by tatersolid » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:19 AM UTC

deet wrote: post #109

RobLach wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 resp…

> suppose the social media platforms were turned into "utilities" and completely absolved of the responsibility (or even the authority) to "censor" speech.

They’d become even deeper cesspools than current Twitter and decent folk would avoid them, moving to more “curated” private platforms.

Think of the graffiti you see in public restrooms: that’s unmoderated, unrestricted free speech. There’s a ton of jerks out there who love to ruin it for everybody.

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

#162

Post by shkkmo » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

motohagiography wrote: post #60

shkkmo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rules are you alluding to being broken?

Not a lawyer, but most countries have a rule, if perhaps only a convention, where you don't collude with other businesses to obstruct the sitting head of state, and probably specifically during a state of national emergency. Maybe the U.S. is different, and even if it isn't, the incoming admin won't prosecute it, but it looks bad for tech platforms either way. We indeed live in interesting times.

I have never heard of that rule. Do you have any sources on it? Court cases or such? Any sort of precedent as to what qualified as "obstruction"?

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

#163

Post by motohagiography » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #162

motohagiography wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer, but most countries have a rule, if perhaps only a convention, where you don't collude with other businesses to obstruct the sitting head of state, and probably specifically during a state of national emergency. Maybe the U.S. is different, and even if it isn't, the incoming admin won't prosecute it, but it looks bad for tech platforms either way. We indeed live in interesting times.

I have never heard of that rule. Do you have any sources on it? Court cases or such? Any sort of precedent as to what qualified as "obstruction"?

I do recommend googling "obstruction," in its myriad forms.

Of course, communication companies banning their heads of state is probably normal, unless we'd like to sealion this thread?

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

#164

Post by shkkmo » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 1:49 AM UTC

motohagiography wrote: post #163

shkkmo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard of that rule. Do you have any sources on it? Court cases or such? Any sort of precedent as to what qualified as "obstruction"?

I do recommend googling "obstruction," in its myriad forms. Of course, communication companies banning their heads of state is probably normal, unless we'd like to sealion this thread?

We left "normal" behind a long time ago.

Telling me to google a single word is not an argument or a citation. If you have an argument to make or a source to cite, go for it. Otherwise you are just making stuff up.