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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by illumin8 »

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.

Since when is protecting the private property rights of corporations a "left" issue? This is a constitutional issue, and the fact that any court ruling that GOP voters disagree with is now a "left" issue tells you everything you need to know about how far civil discourse in this country has fallen.

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

#212

Post by guyxcw122 »

It seems like the fundamental question is: are services like Twitter and Facebook basically utilities (like ISPs) or are they basically editorial (like newspapers).

That is, there are some private companies, like ISPs, that are seen as part of the basic plumbing of the internet, and which are generally not allowed to editorialize their content (for example, through net neutrality rules). However, there are others, like Yelp, which are seen as publishers of edited and curated content, even if some of the content was written by users and not the company itself.

The question is, have Twitter and Facebook (etc.) become dominant enough that they are essentially utilities, or are they editors of content like Yelp?

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

#213

Post by outericky »

tmpz22 wrote: post #172
oarabbus_ wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you mean this seriously, or in an exasperated but joking manner. If you are serious, it's because Trump has done more for the legitimacy and usage of Twitter than any engineer, businessperson, or celebrity other than Dorsey & cofounders. To be clear: Twitter may take a tough official stance against Trump, but behind closed doors he is the MVP.

Twitter stock 2013-2020 [1] vs. S&P 500 [2] supports your claim. My take is its a combination of political divisiveness in the US alongside larger influences (i.e. Trump) inflating audiences / ad. revenue. [1]: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/stock... [2]: https://www.macrotrends.net/2488/sp500-10-year-daily-chart

Maybe...

I saw it posted somewhere that because 80m people follow Trump, he sways the monthly actives... but there are others with more followers than Trump.

I don't think there is enough evidence of his impact to the stock price.

edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_...

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

#214

Post by partyboat1586 »

downvoteme1 wrote: post #183
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.

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.

You're just repeating what the current state of affairs is. Doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

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

#215

Post by kbenson »

You know, it would be pretty funny if Twitter banned Trump's account because of some TOS terms have or something. If he actually causes them enough problems over this such that they are already paying for it, it might be worth it as a power play on their part.

Trump definitely depends on Twitter far more than Twitter depends on Trump. He could move to Facebook/Instagram, but I just don't see that being a move he would want to do, partly because the type of communication doesn't seem to be the same, and partly because it would be a huge admission of defeat, where he couldn't bully a person or company into doing what he wanted.

Twitter would likely see a big dip in usage, at least for a short period, as some Trump loyalists boycotted it, but I imagine a lot of them would be back. There's also the rights of a private companies to control their own service which is a traditional Republican belief, but I doubt that would matter much, as the current political climate doesn't seem conducive to politicians adhering to past beliefs, not matter whcih side of the divide they are on.

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

#216

Post by nkassis »

apostacy wrote: post #191
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…

Well, is Verizon allowed to use packet injection to "fact check" a website you view over their internet connection? Because seems to be presenting themselves as a neutral platform, which they have shown themselves to not be. EDIT: Just to clarify, obviously Twitter is not presenting themselves to users as a neutral platform. But for legal purposes, they are cloaking themselves in the same privileged status as a phone…

I believe they can, comcast actually has injected javascript into websites in the past using a similar technique.

https://gizmodo.com/comcast-to-customer-who-noticed-it-secre...

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

#218

Post by AnimalMuppet »

akersten wrote: post #151
caseysoftware wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a government official, you cannot take action to try to impede someone's access to your official statements. That is independent of the platform, and independent of how much work someone has to do to still access the information.

But when Trump tweets, are those official statements? (IANAL, and I don't know. I can see why they might be considered to be so, and I can see why they wouldn't.)

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

#219

Post by DEADBEEFC0FFEE »

MrJagil wrote: post #143
krapp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I think you're overestimating the number of users. Hardly anyone I know uses Twitter. It may be a big thing for you but it's largely irrelevant for others. It's an opt-in service

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

#220

Post by vkou »

seanwilson wrote: post #112
vkou wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journalists do followup with obvious questions, but the WHPS doesn't answer them.

Why do they not keep pushing back with "you haven't answered my question" though? If it's so easy to ignore hard question, why doesn't everyone just do this to avoid criticism from the press?

Because then they don't get invited back to the next press conference, and they get fired, because their spineless employers want their journalists to be present at press conferences. Meanwhile, the press conference room can always be filled with sympathetic media reps.

> If it's so easy to ignore hard question, why doesn't everyone just do this to avoid criticism from the press?

Have you seen how this administration has been running press conferences? It's not an entirely unprecedented trainwreck (when any administration is in scandal mode, it behaves in such a fashion), but it is unprecedented for how frequently it has had to operate in scandal mode.

Its supporters, of course, point to this sort of thing as an example of the bad liberal media bias that is being mean to the greatest man in the history of this country. The WHPS of the week could spend every single conference reading from a phonebook, and it still wouldn't change anyone's mind on anything.

Post reply on HN