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

Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

kateklonick.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 220 posts

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#201

Post by smkellat »

kthxbye123 wrote: post #198
smkellat wrote: post #197

Parts of this purported draft look a bit off. That is to say the bits being directed are things private citizens would do rather than what the executive branch itself has the authority to do. As bad as the whole idea sounds this doesn't come off as authentic to me based upon presentation or textual structure. Why is he suddenly giving direct orders to the Federal Trade Commission but separately directing a sub-cabine…

This order was hastily drafted by White House staff to soothe a temper tantrum the President had after a day of being extremely online. Why would you expect it to be anything but sloppy and inconsistent?

Generally I’d expect the staff to understand how the machinery of government works by this point in an administration. First hundred days is one thing. This looks more like a forgery especially after the discussions that have cropped up recently on the TeX StackExchange in terms of forging outputs.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#202

Post by tehwebguy »

akvadrako wrote: post #182
tehwebguy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what ways is Twitter like a utility?

I wouldn’t say utility but the courts ruled recently it’s a public forum; the same logic applies.

What courts? What does “public forum” mean legally? I don’t think what you are saying has actually happened and would appreciate a link but I think there is none.

So again, in what way is Twitter even slightly possibly like a utility?

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#203

Post by spacephysics »

smkellat wrote: post #201
kthxbye123 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This order was hastily drafted by White House staff to soothe a temper tantrum the President had after a day of being extremely online. Why would you expect it to be anything but sloppy and inconsistent?

Generally I’d expect the staff to understand how the machinery of government works by this point in an administration. First hundred days is one thing. This looks more like a forgery especially after the discussions that have cropped up recently on the TeX StackExchange in terms of forging outputs.

That sounds interesting, do you have some discussions to link, I’d like to read them.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#204

Post by w3mmpp »

tehwebguy wrote: post #132
w3mmpp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Sure, the market will take care of it at some point in the future, but at this point in time those entities are monopolistic. 2. It's simple, liberals are more prone to downvote and censor than conservatives. 3. They reach their followers, Twitter, FB and Google reach everybody.

1. Most Americans don’t use Twitter at all , could Twitter in particular possibly be a monopoly? What is being monopolized by Twitter specifically? 2. No I am asking do you think people are downvoting you or do you think this website is penalizing you for saying conservative leaning things? 3. Where do you think conservative influencers get their new followers? If they play the game right (posting engaging content th…

1. Most Americans use at least one of the "big 3" and since they all suffer from the same bias, I call it monopolistic.

2. Yes, I think this website (the users who react to the more political posts at least) penalize conservative views. It's not unique to HN of course, if anything it's better than the rest, but it's pretty obvious yes.

3. You compare some personalities that only reach those who are interested in what they have to say with big corps that are unavoidable on the internet and that editorialize every piece of information we're getting, from our news, the video we watch etc.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#205

Post by dragonwriter »

jki275 wrote: post #192
dragonwriter wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Courts aren’t part of the executive branch. Correct but irrelevant. I can tell people things over whom I don't have directive authority. “Clarifying” regulations are exactly the executive telling the courts how the law should be interpreted. Courts can disregard them (and, in principle, will if they don't find them the issuing agency to have been empowered to enforce the law and thereby entrusted with that interpre…

No. EOs tell the EXECUTIVE BRANCH how to enforce laws. They do not tell the courts how to interpret them.

> EOs tell the EXECUTIVE BRANCH how to enforce laws.

Yes, EOs tell executive branch officers what to do.

One of the things this EO tells certain executive branch officers to do is to tell the courts how to interpret Section 230 by way of adopting “clarifying” regulations.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#206

Post by jki275 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #205
jki275 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. EOs tell the EXECUTIVE BRANCH how to enforce laws. They do not tell the courts how to interpret them.

> EOs tell the EXECUTIVE BRANCH how to enforce laws. Yes, EOs tell executive branch officers what to do. One of the things this EO tells certain executive branch officers to do is to tell the courts how to interpret Section 230 by way of adopting “clarifying” regulations.

Believe whatever you want.

Courts ignore executive orders - especially ones from republican presidents, essentially always.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#207

Post by hysan »

Would someone more knowledgeable about Section 230 be able to comment on whether this EO would be solidifying the protections afforded by Section 230? I’m thinking that by making a deeper, clear cut line in what platforms can/cannot do to maintain protections, there is now less legal wiggle room for entities like the MPAA to push for moderation of content. For example, if Google completely scrapped the Content ID system for YouTube, would the wording in this EO put them firmly on the side of being a platform, not a publisher?

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#208

Post by kthxbye123 »

smkellat wrote: post #201
kthxbye123 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This order was hastily drafted by White House staff to soothe a temper tantrum the President had after a day of being extremely online. Why would you expect it to be anything but sloppy and inconsistent?

Generally I’d expect the staff to understand how the machinery of government works by this point in an administration. First hundred days is one thing. This looks more like a forgery especially after the discussions that have cropped up recently on the TeX StackExchange in terms of forging outputs.

I think based on the events of the past three years (or really, the past three months) the most parsimonious explanation by far is that the President and his staff and advisors are simply lazy and incompetent.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#209

Post by koheripbal »

daveevad wrote: post #67
berberous wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t this be a great outcome for twitter? I don’t think they particularly want to be in the role of playing fact checker / censor, but have been forced to do so due to pressure. This seems like it would, practically, tie their hands from continuing, due to the negative consequences, at which point they can legitimately say their hands are tied.

probably not, wouldn't that just alienate the other half of their users that would view that as backing down? it's a good question i hadn't considered though.

Most users only follow and are followed-by people in their own bubble, so I doubt they would notice.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#210

Post by koheripbal »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #199
2019-nCoV wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Akin to banning cigarette advertising, this will free up many millions in the war against misinformation. Would absolve Twitter from any future calls for debunking/censorship. Can't wait to see it enacted.

A 3 month old account that only posts in threads about Trump and/or Social Media (Facebook, et al). Someone's low effort shill account. Come on buddy, the good shill accounts are years old and have longer, more obfuscating post histories.

Argue the argument, not the arguer.
Post reply on HN