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

181–190 of 1001 posts

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

#181

Post by hairofadog »

ineedasername wrote: post #6

Seems counter productive to the President's intent. If platforms can be held liable for user posts, that will give them a strong incentive to remove anything at all that might even come close to giving them legal liability. So sure, maybe changing the law (or asking the FCC to reinterpret its strictures) would "get back" at the companies President Trump thinks are doing something wrong to him, but the net results wou…

The idea is that it would be impossible for Twitter to remove every single Tweet that's libelous, threatening, etc., and so the only way to avoid being sued is to not remove _anything_. That ends up being a policy that is favorable to people who want to spread disinformation.

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

#182

Post by scaredtobeme »

pengaru wrote: post #92

What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. It's like they've never even been to a movie theater where they need to shut the hell up or leave. And here we have a US president signing an executive order in response to being moderated on a web site after years of arguably excessive tolerance of his b.s. I'm n…

That's because these companies function in a way that is between the private and public sectors, and are getting more so. There are plenty of precedents for this, e.g. utilities, and the way we generally address such gray areas is regulation. It's interesting in this case that the side that usually calls for regulation is citing the arguments of the side that's usually against it, and vice versa. (Corollary: no one actually has any principles about this. People care only about their side and pivot like a weathervane depending on its interests. Is there even a single example to the contrary? That would truly be a mutant.)

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

#183

Post by downvoteme1 »

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.

Why do you think Twitter is a public space. Your use of twitter is governed by agreeing to its T&C’s. You agree to them when signing up and violating them will result in bans.

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

#184

Post by ComputerGuru »

smkellat wrote: post #79
ComputerGuru wrote: post #5

Another source with some remarks from a Democrat FCC commissioner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-s...

Why not refer to her by name? Her press statement was in this morning’s FCC Daily Digest so it is not a horrible thing to say that Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel made a statement. Here’s her original statement as released: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-364605A1.pdf

Because a) most people don’t know her by name b) her name is not my reason for recommending the article but rather the combination of her part affiliation and position, and c) I’m on my phone and it makes referencing articles a pita.

Is it such a big deal that I didn’t use her name?

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

#185

Post by fach »

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".

One could argue the one lie by a public figure, given a large enough following, can translate into a lie repeated a billion times by main street users. It's certainly less probable when the lie is sourced in the other direction.

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

#186

Post by nostromo »

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.”

Be aware that the DC Circuit leans left, by a lot -- so it's an unsurprising result.

The Supreme Court may eventually take one of these cases and come to a different conclusion.

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

#187

Post by Goronmon »

_2d30 wrote: post #136
Goronmon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“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.

You aren't describing "neutrality" you are describing "feigning ignorance". And even if this could be considered "neutral" why is that something to push for (not just on Twitter but on every private business/platform/etc in existence) and what does this have to do with the law in question?

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

#188

Post by rbanffy »

takeda wrote: post #93
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?

If you were a president visiting that mall, you would be allowed to do a lot of things that ordinary people would be kicked for.

And we need to consider this. By Twitter's ToS, he should have lost his account a long time ago.

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

#189

Post by slfnflctd »

jtchang wrote: post #72

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

Jack Dorsey has responded to this question multiple times in several places-- I heard him address it in the Making Sense podcast by Sam Harris some time in the past year. He seemed to show a firm grasp of the nuances involved.

Here is a quote from him: "Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate,” [...] “It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”

He apparently feels there will be wider discussion from all parts of the political spectrum if things are left as they are. Should Trump move to a platform where he has more control over the format, it might just make it easier for him to suppress or obfuscate dissent.

I don't know if Dorsey is making the right call here, but he has clearly thought about it a lot, and discussed those thoughts publicly.

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

#190

Post by ComputerGuru »

raldi wrote: post #13
ComputerGuru wrote: post #5

Another source with some remarks from a Democrat FCC commissioner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-s...

Democrat is not an adjective.

Ok. Thanks for the correction, I explained below. I think you knew what I meant, though.
Post reply on HN