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

141–150 of 1001 posts

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

#141

Post by komali2 »

friedman23 wrote: post #43
ddoolin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter isn't a public right. He chooses to use their platform so they choose to annotate his lies. I don't see how this executive order would even change exactly what started the whole thing.

People have a right to communicate, if a few platforms have the power to block all communication maybe they should be.

> People have a right to communicate, if a few platforms have the power to block all communication maybe they should be.

Hm.... I don't see how Twitter is preventing anyone from the right to communicate, nor do I sense that Twitter has the power, even if it worked with the next 3 largest social media platforms, to "block all communications." Last I checked, the internet would still exist if Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin shut down.

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

#142

Post by caseysoftware »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #35
cdolan wrote: post #2

The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline: “This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations. Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”

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's further complicated by the people who sued Trump for blocking them. They won, he had to unblock them.

Considering they could log out (or open a private tab) and view the content, obviously it wasn't access to the information that was fundamental but the act of the President taking a step to reduce someone's access.

With that in mind, does the host have the authority to take the same action? Why or why not?

This is not a 1st Amendment issue - after all Trump blocking someone doesn't limit their ability to tweet him or at all - but it's a really weird spot of free speech vs private property vs public forum vs public access vs.. ?

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

#143

Post by MrJagil »

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.

I think that’s a simplistic view. No one is arguing Twitter is comparable to a store with a display window. The reality is that Tweets are broadcasted to billions of people. It’s a new reality. It’s a newspaper where anyone and everyone is authoring anything, including presidents, and with the roll of a die, the message is amplified to a multiple of the expected audience.

Twitter may technically be a private platform run by a private company, but the issue not one of semantics, it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech.

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

#144

Post by elpool2 »

ddoolin wrote: post #47
onetimemanytime wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, they are not liable if they just host the comments, not if they endorse them. I guess every comment without a "fake /dubious" label is true? (Cause I'm about to drink a gallon of bleach and eat 2 lbs of raw garlic to ward off Covid as per a tweet's instruction ;) (joking) )

Even if they were the publisher in this scenario and were liable for his comment AND their annotation, there is nothing illegal about it.

Twitter could put "Everything trump says is false!" underneath every Trump tweet and it would still be perfectly legal.

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

#145

Post by bosswipe »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #35
cdolan wrote: post #2

The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline: “This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations. Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”

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.

Should breitbart.com be forced to allow liberals comments?

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

#146

Post by threeseed »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #35
cdolan wrote: post #2

The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline: “This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations. Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”

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.

Twitter is not a monopoly therefore every web site would be considered a public web space.

And so if I run a knitting forum I am not allowed to restrict people who want to turn it into a pornography one. And how would it work for spam. This could end up in a situation where a large spammer could force websites to not remove spam.

It sounds unworkable and over the top just to protect some people who aren't even having their rights impeded.

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

#147

Post by paulgb »

glennvtx wrote: post #131
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a nice theory but are there any instances of Nazis being converted to normies because someone told them they were wrong on the internet?

Instead what seems to happen is that normies get pulled into Nazi content because the recommendation algorithms on these sites see heated discussions as engagement and try to feed it.

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

#148

Post by jjcon »

kingnight wrote: post #89
jjcon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been in the works since last summer - it has little to do with the recent twitter spat. Edit: I find it funny someone claiming it was due to fact checking downvotes me because I fact checked them.

Source?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social...

> consistent with a draft order whose text CNN first reported last summer

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

#149

Post by kube-system »

HeroOfAges wrote: post #121
kube-system wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some predictions are known with enough certainty that they would be very accurately called facts. Example:

Fact: The sun will rise at 5:50am in San Francisco tomorrow.

False: The sun will rise at 10:00am in San Francisco tomorrow.

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

#150

Post by gok »

The nice thing about Trump having the emotional self control of a toddler is that we don't have to wonder if this was really part of some larger plan. We know without a doubt that this was because Twitter subtly showed him an ounce of disrespect. Tech companies should therefore realize the futility of trying to negotiate with this administration.
Post reply on HN