Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by holler » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

nkassis wrote: post #216

apostacy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

can you imagine the horror on HN if this were really a thing?

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

#242

Post by apostacy » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #38

onetimemanytime wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

devil's advocate: why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? Twitter is picking sides on a comment made by a user so they should be held liable for that content

> why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? They fact check everyone who represents more than 10% of their total traffic. It just so happens that only one of those people tweets information that needs fact checking.

If I remember correctly, there was never any conclusive proof that voting fraud happened with the insecure Diebold voting machines in 2004.[1]

Those machines stored voting tallies on unencrypted compact flash cards, and there were massive other flaws in their security. But those machines were so insecure, that it would be difficult to prove fraud even happened if it had occurred.

Twitter chose a the wrong tweet to fact check. They are now asserting that a black-box mail voting system that has never been tried on this scale is secure, and we should just stop asking questions.

If I said that I was skeptical of the outcome of the elections that were conducted with voting machines made by Dick Cheney's company, in swing states, running Windows 98, am I going to be fact checked?

I'm really amazed at amount of trust people on HN are putting in mail in ballots.

Voting by mail can be done securely, but there are major problems with the current proposals. Just because Trump said it doesn't mean it is not true. My understanding is that the current proposals do not meet international requirements of transparency to qualify as truly fair.

[1]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/03/diebolds-politi...

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

#243

Post by karatestomp » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #171

nullc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of a ridiculous idea. Before S230 that was the case: Executing any editorial control risked you being concluded to be the publisher. Online providers said this is bullshit, we want be able to remove garbage -- lies, obscene material, defamation, etc. If moderating makes us publishers over everything on our site and legally liable, we can't do that. Make us immune so we can clean up the worst of things, and…

On the other hand, there must be a limit on the amount of "moderation" you're allowed to perform before becoming a publisher. If you start labelling content as misleading (but don't remove it) or even if you privilege certain content instead of another (for example, you privilege social media posts advertising a product because it increases your revenue) then you could be considered a publisher. Let's put in another…

IMO it's when you start curating and suggesting in complex ways rather than simple "most popular having (user-provided) tag X" ways. Throw in other stuff like monetizability but denying that to some creators, and IMO Youtube is way over the line and the rest aren't far behind, because they can't resist using their position to manipulate what the user sees—there's too much money in it.

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

#244

Post by nsajko » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

From day one it seemed to me like Trump's main goal was desecrating the federal state institutions. Seriously, the guy seems as if he cares only about stepping on the constitution and laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't POTUS executive orders only serve to direct the federal government, his employees? Twitter is definitely not a federal agency. Why are a lot of people treating this situation like Trump is able to circumvent the legislative branch?

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

#245

Post by illumin8 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Similarly, I'm conflicted. I understand Jack's argument, but I'm not sure he's making the right call here. It is highly unlikely Trump could build a platform or co-opt one that has the reach of Twitter. And arguably, the terms of service should apply equally to everyone on the platform. Trump has engaged in hate speech and targeted his followers against individuals in a way that probably destroyed their lives (death threats, etc.). IMHO, Twitter should enforce their TOS against all users in a fair and equal way, regardless of whether they are POTUS or a normal citizen.

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

#246

Post by akira2501 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #197

MrJagil wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech. But that's not what this is really about. This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. It's about fears of a nonexistent conspiracy controlling the media becoming the basis for authori…

> This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future.

That is the impetus in this case, but that doesn't mean it doesn't border on questions we've been slowly grappling with for some time now, nor does it mean we have to ignore that question.

> the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that menace

I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? In a sense, I think it's an interesting question, if you're willing to editorialize content on behalf of your users why should you get safe-harbor protection? You clearly are willing to put the man power and technology into it, shouldn't you then be liable for content posted on your site?

> It's about Americans hating "the left" so much that they'll support an obvious violation of the First Amendment as long as it silences their ideological enemies.

What's the obvious First Amendment violation here? If you act as a conduit for certain types of speech, you're liable for that speech. We're just bringing "content neutral providers" into the same realm that everyone else already was.

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

#247

Post by rsynnott » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

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…

> You know, it would be pretty funny if Twitter banned Trump's account because of some TOS terms have or something

I mean, if section 230 were to be weakened, they would probably _have_ to, to protect themselves from liability. For libel, for a start.

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

#248

Post by paulgb » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

JChase2 wrote: post #205

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.

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...

The weird thing is that, a year ago, if you asked me where "private companies should be able to make their own decisions about what content they publish" falls on the spectrum, I would have considered it to be right of center.

I guess it comes down to whether these justices are ideologically "right-leaning", or just Republican partisans.

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

#249

Post by davewritescode » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

I’d much rather platforms like Twitter just ban users who violate the TOS even if they’re politicians. If you’ve ever followed Twitter accounts of local politicians you can see that it provides a framework for civil debate without restricting speech.

What our president doing is abusing opponents using his popular twitter account as a megaphone while violating the TOS.

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

#250

Post by artificial » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

techntoke wrote: post #117

xamuel wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can already sue them. For example, if Fox runs a segment claiming that you (gulli1010) are a murderer, you can sue them for slander (with or without this executive order). If someone tweets that you are a murderer, you can't sue Twitter (or rather, if you do, Twitter will be protected by Section 230). However, suppose Twitter announces the following policy: "Any tweet which calls someone a murderer, shall be dele…

People should look into the Seth Rich lawsuit and Ed Butowsky. Trump forgets his crowd is the one who constantly panders conspiracy theories like PizzaGate and QAnon. This will effectively take them down entirely.

No one side has a monopoly on conspiracy theories. The Russia collusion was something spun for years by the networks where people under oath said one thing privately and another publicly.