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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by fooey »

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…

1. Verizon is a common carrier, Twitter is not

2. Twitter has never had any obligation to be a neutral platform

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

#222

Post by suff »

illumin8 wrote: post #211
nostromo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This was very certainly not the first sign.

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

#223

Post by w3mmpp »

akersten wrote: post #84
w3mmpp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here." At least it'd be clear if they said so, nothing worse than the current situation where they think it but won't say it because it'd be bad for business.

I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all. Some prominent conservatives have been banned from the platform, like Alex Jones, but it wasn't due to their views on Keynesian economics, it was for spreading outright lies about Sandy Hook. Diving deeper into almost any of the examples that people dig up as 'anti-conservative bias' reveals trolling, hateful attacks, or other bad behavior, c…

> I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all.

Are you a conservative yourself?

I'm gonna take a guess that you are not so how would you know?

It's a real question, no trick.

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

#224

Post by salawat »

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's actually kind of funny right there. Politically, internet access is being championed as a fundamental human right (I.e. being classified as a need).

Yet we still have people trying to define what activity on the Net constitutes the necessity that access is supposed to fulfill.

I understand where you're coming from though. I just wanted to point out the amusing dichotomy that stood out in my head.

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

#225

Post by justaguyhere »

slfnflctd wrote: post #189
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…

If Dorsey banned his account, it would probably be a shitshow. Right wing trolls would come out in droves (even more than they do now).

If Twitter did ban his account, what about other equally bad but smaller accounts? How many can they ban?

It seems like Twitter is in a lose-lose situation here.

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

#227

Post by bedhead »

The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that the lines are getting blurry with regards to public vs private. Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. Not saying I have any answers, just saying it's definitely not a clear issue anymore.

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

#228

Post by free_rms »

illumin8 wrote: post #211
nostromo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because everything is tribalism now.

You can call the right hypocrites for doing a 180 on corporate property rights and demanding a 21st century fairness doctrine.. but didn't the left do a 180 as well?

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

#229

Post by holler »

kbenson wrote: post #215

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 woul…

why would Twitter ban their most popular user? not in a million years... they need him just as much as he needs them.

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

#230

Post by mam2 »

akersten wrote: post #130

I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). It's a disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN