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

Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 1001 posts

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

#131

Post by glennvtx »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #69
cdubzzz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One potential outcome here -- social media platforms start _more actively_ banning users to prevent potential liability issues, thus fracturing the market. Highly doubt it will work out that way, but it would be nice (well, maybe...).

Hopefully it will lead to what happened on reddit: the worst go off to a competitor which then fails to gain mainstream attention (e.g. Voat, Gab, etc). While they’ll be in an echo-chamber (which isn’t a good thing at all), at least they won’t ruin other communities.

The problem there is that these sites have become echo-chambers, where they breed extremism. These kinds of ideologies (E.G. Nazism) need to be exposed to the light, like a bacteria, in order to be shamed and debunked.

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

#132

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

Barrin92 wrote: post #64
HPsquared wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either they're a public utility or they have control (and thus should have some degree of liability) for what is transmitted/published on their platform. They can't eat their cake and have it too!

Platforms have removed harmful content, for example terrorist propaganda or child pornography with 230 protections intact and governments appeared to welcome it so I think you can actually have your cake and eat it too, or at least you could until you fact checked Republicans I suppose Platforms both enjoy first amendment protection to moderate their platforms as they see fit as well as protection from liability unde…

Nice job moving goalposts.

Terrorism and child porn are criminal activities.

Expressing an opinion , no matter how unsavory, is not

Therefore systematically editioralizing of the latter constitutes control which means you own all content on your site ... Including the aforementioned criminal content

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

#134

Post by jrockway »

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.

Here's how it breaks down for this particular case. People are afraid to vote because they don't want to get COVID-19 while standing in line waiting at the polls. So states are letting people vote by mail. The problem with that is that Republicans tend to lose elections when everyone who is allowed to vote votes. So Trump, in an attempt to win the election, is sowing seeds of discontent with regards to mail-in ballots, claiming that fraud will be widespread. The goal is to get people to pressure states to not allow voting by mail, thus suppressing votes from people scared about COVID-19 (which tend to be poorer people that can't afford a $200,000 hospital stay), and thus leading to a Trump reelection. Twitter has stepped in to say "hey, voting by mail is not a new thing and there wasn't really a lot of fraud".

That is not censoring a conservative viewpoint. It's just giving people some facts. Here's Trump's opinion, here's some data, make your own decision.

I am sure that if Joe Biden started tweeting random conspiracy theories, Twitter would fact check those. But he doesn't, so we don't get to see that in action. Just because a conservative person in power tends to lie and start conspiracy theories on social media, doesn't mean the platform is biased against conservatives. It just means that they're not going to publish falsehoods without a little asterisk.

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

#135

Post by komali2 »

orblivion wrote: post #74
wnevets wrote: post #32

Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government republicans

Some of them disagree with this thankfully. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.

> supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.

Not much wrong with using the tools available to accomplish a goal. The end game is moral and the means aren't that immoral at all.

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

#136

Post by _2d30 »

Goronmon wrote: post #87
marcell wrote: post #20

I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions. Twitter's "fact check" singles out a specific Trump tweet. It's clearly a human intervention by Twitter staff, not user generated content. The subject of Trump's tweet was a political dispute, and while Trump certainly had false statements in his tweet, that's basically par for the course on Twitter. T…

At what point does Twitter or Medium cease to be a neutral discussion platform, and become more like a publisher that pushes a specific narrative (like Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, etc.). What does "neutral discussion platform" even mean? My understanding is that Fox News, New York Times, CNN, etc, all benefit from protections against what users post in places like comments sections, etc. This whole "neutrality…

“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. It’s comical to think that anyone has the ability to be the arbiter of truth and specifically in this case, the truthiness of the statement is completely unverifiable as it’s a forecast.

BTW, don’t think voter fraud with mail in votes is possible? Think again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrae_Dowless

The GOP knows it’s an issue better than anyone since they leverage it heavily.

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

#137

Post by cdubzzz »

Goronmon wrote: post #108
microcolonel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a spectacular outcome, especially for anyone who likes ActivityPub and blogs, and wants to see them get a fresh shot of juice. I'm just glad the prevailing call isn't to delete Section 230 altogether, which I think would cause a bit of pandemonium (though maybe that would be a social good as well, and maybe Section 230 was the mistake that made the social media monster).

That would be a spectacular outcome, especially for anyone who likes ActivityPub and blogs, and wants to see them get a fresh shot of juice. Wouldn't this harm any of these activities, aside from situations where people are directly hosting their own content, because anyone hosting could be held liable for what gets posted?

That's the rub. The fantasy seems great initially for the prospect of breaking up the far too large (in my opinion) social media behemoths but maybe also ruins things for all the potential little guys as well.

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

#138

Post by aianus »

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.

It certainly seems that mail-in voting is more easily corrupted than going in person and showing ID and voting in secret.

There are tradeoffs with accessibility, of course, but it seems depressingly easy to sell a mail-in ballot to someone else or to be verifiably coerced by a boss or family member into voting a certain way.

All-in-all Trump tweets worse, dangerous lies on a daily basis so it's bizarre they're pushing back now on this.

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

#139

Post by [deleted] »

krapp wrote: post #65
TheColorYellow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an interesting thought experiment to assess in what ways Twitter is a "private website". It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts comprehension.

>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.

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by epicureanideal »

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.

And this is where the courts are also going to need to do some work to decide what exactly is "disturbing the peace". What if someone says that wearing a red hat is "disturbing the peace"? What if someone says wearing an "I'm with her" shirt is disturbing the peace? Who decides when simply displaying a political view is disturbing the peace?

The left can attempt to immediately equate everything to the right of Obama with Hitler.

The right can attempt to immediately equate everything to the left of Reagan with Stalin and Mao.

Who is going to sort this out? Both sides might think they're being perfectly reasonable about their characterization of the other side. And if a judge on one side agrees with them, the alternative viewpoint becomes criminal hate speech. This is very dangerous.

Post reply on HN