Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#121

Post by HeroOfAges » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #83

ReptileMan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is impossible to fact check a prediction. Fact check "The sun is going to turn red supergiant in 9 days" ...

Yes, it is. Mankind's amassed knowledge of physics, chemistry, and astronomy has lots of evidence to demonstrate why that would not happen, and when it probably will. That can be compared to the evidence you have to show for your claim, which is nothing.

But that's entirely his point. Facts can be backed up by evidence. As you rightly pointed out, he can provide no evidence as proof of his wild prediction. We can make predictions based on scientific facts, but a prediction itself is not a fact.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#122

Post by oarabbus_ » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

jtchang wrote: post #72

Sometimes I wonder why Twitter doesn't just ban his account like they would any other troll on the internet.

I'm not sure if you mean this seriously, or in an exasperated but joking manner.

If you are serious, it's because Trump has done more for the legitimacy and usage of Twitter than any engineer, businessperson, or celebrity other than Dorsey & cofounders.

To be clear: Twitter may take a tough official stance against Trump, but behind closed doors he is the MVP.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#123

Post by komali2 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #96

krapp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company No, it isn't, any more than a store is a public space because it has windows the public can see into. You have to sign up for a Twitter account and accept their terms of service to post on the site. It's a private platform run by a private company for its own private business interests.

You have to pay the old telephone company and it's a lot more private communication than Twitter. Yet they had common carrier statis, which is how we should want ISPs regulated. Where twitter and friends fit simply hasn't been defined yet.

The argument falls apart at the ISP level - why does the UN consider internet a human right, but not, specifically, access to Twitter? It may seem like there's no distinction at all but it is there and it is important.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#124

Post by buboard » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

> Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike

About time. Social media should have been commoditized and decentralized by now, joining the group of email, DNS etc. Social media companies enjoyed milking free user content for 15 years, it's about time people take hold of their own intellectual property in the fediverse.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#125

Post by angst_ridden » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

admiralspoo wrote: post #17

This is long overdue. Social media companies grew their networks without censorship, but when they got sufficient monopoly and network power started censoring generally only in one direction.

They have clearly stated TOS. You can read it at https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules Now, they do a crap job of enforcement, but it appears that that crap job is omnidirectional in its failings.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#126

Post by kube-system » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

eiji wrote: post #51

kube-system wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the obvious answer is limited manpower. It makes logical sense to prioritize fact checking efforts on a tweet viewed by a million people above a tweet viewed by 10 people.

Does it? Is one "lie" by a public figure worth more than another "lie" repeated a billion times by main-street users? Lets fact check "God exists".

> Lets fact check "God exists".

Easy, it's the same answer as the opposite assertion:

Undetermined. This statement is not agreed upon and is an ongoing subject of debate among both experts and in popular culture.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#127

Post by HPsquared » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

wnevets wrote: post #32

Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government republicans

To play devils advocate, isn't this a case of _removing_ a law? Sounds like a reduction to me.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#128

Post by komali2 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #86

thrusong wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have the right to stand in your community's biggest mall screaming racist things or does the property owner/operator have the right to remove you from the premise?

To play devil's advocate, you can't do that in a public park either. You can be arrested for disturbing the peace or some such. So I'm not sure it's necessarily about private vs public.

I'm not aware of it being illegal to stand on a soapbox and say racist things in a public park. If you're screaming at the top of your lungs, sure, maybe?

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#129

Post by nullc » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

amalcon wrote: post #80

Ignoring the mechanical-legal aspects of what Section 230 already does, the discourse on this has been a shining example of logically inconsistent philosophy. The Citizens United v. FEC decision indicates that corporations have free speech rights similar to those of individuals. Logically, if you agree with that part of the decision, then you should also agree that the government can't punish Twitter for doing this,…

This tension comes from the fact that there don't exist any "traditional public forum" online. All venues online are private spaces, yet some act as extremely convincing replicas of public spaces.

While I don't agree with this weird S230 opposition, the general sentiment that people expect to have a similar protection for free speech that they enjoy in our public squares, street corners, libraries and parks in the online alternatives to these things... isn't really a crazy one.

It's also a tenshion that exists in offline form. Increasingly there are gigantic public "downtown" areas which are privately owned (on land taken from the public through eminent domain then sold to developers), where people's free speech is heavily curtailed.

The general idea that just because the physical manifestation (or legal structure) behind our traditional public spaces is changing our effective right to free speech shouldn't change seems like a reasonable idea to me.

Also the general idea that twitter itself should automatically be free from regulation in how it restricts others due to its own free speech seems extremely specious to me. Twitter is a business, it operates to make money. While businesses have free speech right, commercial operations have a strictly lower level of rights in many areas. Twitter has only refrained from banning the president, who regularly and flagrantly violates their rules, because he makes them money. If twitter consisted primarily of its owners speech no one would visit it. It is effectively a place of public accommodation and its value stems entirely from the public's use of it. We traditionally impose significant regulation on how private businesses that serve the public operate, including extensive rules ensuring equality of access and against discrimination.

This executive order seems pretty foolish overall. But a law that set a threshold where a service like twitter become a "public forum"-- places where the public use is the whole point-- and they had to meet a much higher standard when they wanted to silence people or ideas (beyond "our AI picked you at random, tough luck") and had provide effective modes of redress might be important to preserving people's effective freedom of speech in the long run.

Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

#130

Post by akersten » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). It's a disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.