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

201–210 of 1001 posts

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

#201

Post by sneak »

rbanffy wrote: post #179
phkahler wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because you need a phone to phone someone, call an ambulance or the police. You need an ISP to get to the internet. You don't need Twitter.

Forget Twitter, and substitute “gmail deliverability”? Without that, you cannot run a business.

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

#202

Post by gkoberger »

"There's nothing I'd rather do than get rid of my whole Twitter account." - Trump

He doesn't care about the truth, and is trying to take advantage of our desire for neutrality and free speech to push lies. It's possible for us to be nuanced, and not let him ruin Twitter/Facebook/etc with bad-faith arguments.

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

#203

Post by mmazing »

munificent wrote: post #154
tombert wrote: post #103

Oh my goodness is he a big dumb stupid moron. At the risk of this being downvoted to oblivion, why doesn't he think that Twitter, a privately run company, has the right to fact-check claims made on their site? Even if there were some secret evil liberal agenda on Twitter, which there absolutely is not, why aren't they allowed to do that exactly? Is he planning on holding Fox News to the same standard and make them pu…

I'm sorry but you have a fundamentally flawed model for how Trump (and many in the GOP) think about the world. You're operating under a principle that says that people are essential equal in terms of rights and that there is a moral obligation to consistency. The old Golden Rule, and everything. Under that framework, it's stupid to punch someone in the face unless you also want to get punched in the face, because you…

Well put.

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

#205

Post by JChase2 »

nostromo wrote: post #186
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.

I'm not sure this is the case anymore. McConnell and Trump have been rapidly filling the courts with young, right leaning justices. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/28/thanks-tru...

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

#206

Post by CamperBob2 »

rbanffy wrote: post #179
phkahler wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because you need a phone to phone someone, call an ambulance or the police. You need an ISP to get to the internet. You don't need Twitter.

That arguably changes when the President starts to use it as a primary means of communication with the citizenry.

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

#207

Post by knodi123 »

techntoke wrote: post #156
mint2 wrote: post #90

Wait, if this was somehow enforceable wouldn’t the order make Twitter liable for trump posting misinformation essentially making them legally required to censor or flag him?

I think it may actually be a way to empower companies to gain more access to information. If the companies are responsible, then they will want to sue the users for violations and personally identify them. A side effect is that they will have some government agency deciding what is acceptable or not. Much like China.

> If the companies are responsible, then they will want to sue the users for violations and personally identify them

I think you're drastically overestimating the profitability of a single twitter user.

They have hundreds of millions of active users. It would probably be far easier and more cost effective to ban every user that causes them any amount of grief, than to investigate and potentially sue them.

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

#208

Post by jjjensen90 »

HeroOfAges wrote: post #162
wnevets wrote: post #32

Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government republicans

This isn't about moderation, or removing tweets or banning people. Twitter changed the content of The President's tweet. When they edited his content, they became a publisher. Had simply removed it, I think they'd still be ok, but when they changed the content, they risked losing their protections under Section 230.

You are incorrect, they did not edit his tweet, they editorialized it. Completely different, and also covered under section 230, and confirmed in court decisions up to the 9th circuit court.

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

#210

Post by partyboat1586 »

threeseed wrote: post #146
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.

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…

Twitter is not equivalent to some obscure knitting forum. It is huge. So huge that it gets quoted in nearly every mainstream media article. Twitter matters to political discourse, knitting doesn't.
Post reply on HN