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

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

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 164 posts

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

#111

Post by scaramanga »

samatman wrote: post #26

> A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful. Ok... why not? A government is an unavoidably violent institution, and what's more, one which assumes the right and responsibility to use violence. In a free nation, it derives that right through various rituals from the consent of the…

Two planes fly in to the world trade centres. Is Osama bin Laden allowed to tweet "Today we conducted a successful planes operation against the US imperialist international terrorists and sent them scurrying. Today is a good day, we good guys have struck a firm and lasting blow to the bad guys." ?

Of course not (imo, but your values may differ).

If north korea fires artillery shells at south korea because of its maritime border dispute should it be allowed to make a similar tweet?

Of course not (imo, but your values may differ).

Can the US president make a tweet like that when he launches a criminal attack on another country?

Of course not (imo, but your values may differ).

Some people hold the view (which you can disagree with, but regardless is a perfectly reasonable view for someone to hold even if you disagree with it) that crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity even when they are carried out by lawfully appointed officials.

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

#112

Post by lumpenprole »

edbob wrote: post #108
mewse wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing. “we”? He also called the insurrectionists “patriots”, and said that he “loved them”, while they were holding the capital building, looting, causing damage, and parading confederate flags through the halls. Just FYI. As like another thing to consider. It’s sort of surprising how you didn’t mention that yourself. It was literally in the same tweet. I guess it must h…

Not everyone thinks that hatred is a moral obligation. It's okay to show compassion to people that you think are making a mistake.

Which part was the mistake? Breaking in, looting, parading the confederate flag, killing a cop, insurrection?

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

#113

Post by lumpenprole »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #104
dbsmith83 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they do that? How would it be any different if the government shut down their hosting service vs. someone else's? They'd still have to do their normal legal thing they do, while also having to manage a hosting service.

> They'd still have to do their normal legal thing they do, while also having to manage a hosting service. Yeah, you generally have to put in some efforts to realize your beliefs.

Not really. You could hang out here instead.

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

#114

Post by scaramanga »

scaramanga wrote: post #111
samatman wrote: post #26

> A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful. Ok... why not? A government is an unavoidably violent institution, and what's more, one which assumes the right and responsibility to use violence. In a free nation, it derives that right through various rituals from the consent of the…

Two planes fly in to the world trade centres. Is Osama bin Laden allowed to tweet "Today we conducted a successful planes operation against the US imperialist international terrorists and sent them scurrying. Today is a good day, we good guys have struck a firm and lasting blow to the bad guys." ? Of course not (imo, but your values may differ). If north korea fires artillery shells at south korea because of its mari…

If this is two oblique of an answer. Consider this. The same principles can be applied in two near identical circumstances and come up with quite different conclusions.

For example, vigilante justice or mafia-led street enforcement activities can be considered criminal acts, even if it would come to the same results and verdicts as a law enforcement operation and/or judicial process.

I don't think anybody is proposing banning police officials because they lawfully "kidnapped and trafficked" someone by arresting them.

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

#115

Post by colanderman »

noodles_nomore wrote: post #28

Echo of majority view on incident. Clarification of legal basis for censorship on private platforms. Support of section 230. Concern about bias in private censorship. Call for transparency and consistency. It's as neutral as can be.

They sort of have to be. In the fight to preserve electronic freedoms, freedom from censorship and freedom to operate a service as one pleases come at odds with each other in cases like this.

If instead, the government had confiscated Parler's domains, or enjoined Apple, Google, and Amazon from booting them, I think EFF's response would (rightly/expectedly IMO) be very different.

As an EFF member I think they made the right call here.

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

#116

Post by dbsmith83 »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #104
dbsmith83 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they do that? How would it be any different if the government shut down their hosting service vs. someone else's? They'd still have to do their normal legal thing they do, while also having to manage a hosting service.

> They'd still have to do their normal legal thing they do, while also having to manage a hosting service. Yeah, you generally have to put in some efforts to realize your beliefs.

They focus on certain things while plenty of other companies run their own hosting services. It is not needed effort.

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

#117

Post by oehtXRwMkIs »

deet wrote: post #91

Could anyone point me to some cogent, well-formed arguments for why censorship of social media platforms is a good idea? i.e. books, articles, etc? I have some thoughts but would like more perspective before fully forming an opinion. (not arguing one way or the other below) For example, I’d like to understand the defining characteristics of social media platforms that contrasts them from traditional public forums tha…

Paradox of tolerance -> paradox of freedom -> restriction of the freedom to undermine freedom.

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

#118

Post by Barrin92 »

samatman wrote: post #26

> A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful. Ok... why not? A government is an unavoidably violent institution, and what's more, one which assumes the right and responsibility to use violence. In a free nation, it derives that right through various rituals from the consent of the…

>So I ask again: why should there be one set of rules for both?

because in a well functioning Republic communication channels for the government are public, and private companies serve private customers.

The only reason we're having this discussion is because Donald Trump has intentionally conflated the private and public sphere by using his personal twitter account to conduct governmental affairs.

This is terrible because it is 1. insecure and intransparent, 2. there's no established procedures for anything, 3. it conflates his private interest with his public interest (i.e. his decisions in office can be influenced by his commercial interests on the platform).

There should be different rules for Trump when he acts as the president, and indeed he has established communication channels for that very purpose, but when he speaks as a private citizen on a private platform he ought to be treated like everyone else. That's the basis of any non-corrupt system. When Angela Merkel goes to the supermarket (which she in fact does herself) she stands in the queue like everyone else because the fact that she inhabits the office of the Chancellor does not give her superpowers when she enters an ALDI.

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

#120

Post by jelliclesfarm »

illustriousbear wrote: post #119

The EFF giving a nothing statement that sides with corporate monopoly censorship. This is how you become irrelevant as an activist organisation, what sane person would donate to them now?

That’s the most interesting question to me. Why? Why are all these organizations willing to burn bridges?

Rational people can see this surreal juvenile drama..this theatre..for what it is..and they are also watching and noticing the cognitive dissonance that has gripped our country.

After Jan 20, the real damage would be the aftermath of tech industry’s blitzkrieg. There is a silent majority that is watching and wondering. And shaking our heads.

My fear is darker. Are they acting on their own/in tandem or are they acting upon orders? If so, from who?

These are not irrational people. These are the best run corporate behemoths and such decisions are not made by one person. And it’s too swift to be made via consensus or analysis. None of this makes sense.

There are going to be questions after the dust settles.

Post reply on HN