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

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

#251

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

bedhead wrote: post #227

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.

This is a valid argument, but it seems like the proper government response would be to use the tools that were designed to address issues like this such as antitrust law. We shouldn't be bestowing governmental responsibilities on these companies just because we let them become monopolies.

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

#252

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

pengaru wrote: post #92

What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. It's like they've never even been to a movie theater where they need to shut the hell up or leave. And here we have a US president signing an executive order in response to being moderated on a web site after years of arguably excessive tolerance of his b.s. I'm n…

Social media are the broadcasters of this age. I see no reason why they should be exempt from the same rules and regulations as old school broadcasters.

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

#253

Post by sixstringtheory » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

lgleason wrote: post #240

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.

No it's not. Twitter currently enjoys immunity from section 230 of the communication decency act. That protection requires that they are not editorializing content. Fact checking content is a form of editorializing. If you want to do that, no protection and you are open to lawsuits. This has bi-partisan support and they are simply reining this in which is long overdue.

That is not editorializing. Day in and day out journalists print news stories that have been fact checked and contain links to source information. And then there’s the opinion section. It’s clear which Twitter was doing, and it wasn’t editorial.

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

#254

Post by nine_zeros » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

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.

+1

These are the exact steps taken by authoritarian democracies (typically third world phony democracies).

The last 4 years have been nothing short of a nightmare.

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

#255

Post by akersten » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

lgleason wrote: post #240

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.

No it's not. Twitter currently enjoys immunity from section 230 of the communication decency act. That protection requires that they are not editorializing content. Fact checking content is a form of editorializing. If you want to do that, no protection and you are open to lawsuits. This has bi-partisan support and they are simply reining this in which is long overdue.

> That protection requires that they are not editorializing content.

Please cite the law that says that, because it's certainly not S230.

S230 was specifically made to empower sites to moderate, editorialize, and remove content as they see fit for their platform.

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

#256

Post by partyboat1586 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

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.

Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs for some that it happens to be a private company with a bias. And for better of for worse it does have a bias.

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

#257

Post by fzeroracer » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

w3mmpp wrote: post #223

akersten wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My counter argument to yours is that Twitter has a major anti-progressive bias. This can be shown by the number of people that have been banned due to responding against racism.

Since you're not a progressive, you can't counter my claim as there's no way you would know about any anti-progressive bias.

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

#258

Post by dgellow » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

lgleason wrote: post #240

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.

No it's not. Twitter currently enjoys immunity from section 230 of the communication decency act. That protection requires that they are not editorializing content. Fact checking content is a form of editorializing. If you want to do that, no protection and you are open to lawsuits. This has bi-partisan support and they are simply reining this in which is long overdue.

Even if that’s your take, doing this with an executive order feels like a totalitarian move.

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

#259

Post by jklein11 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

ddoolin wrote: post #47

onetimemanytime wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, they are not liable if they just host the comments, not if they endorse them. I guess every comment without a "fake /dubious" label is true? (Cause I'm about to drink a gallon of bleach and eat 2 lbs of raw garlic to ward off Covid as per a tweet's instruction ;) (joking) )

Even if they were the publisher in this scenario and were liable for his comment AND their annotation, there is nothing illegal about it.

I don't think the executive action targets the fact check label on Trump's tweet specifically. I think Twitter did something that really pissed Trump off and Trump is using Section 230 as leverage and a way to extend the narrative of "Twitter is plotting against me so don't believe everything you read."

This is neither here nor there but I have considered my self a republican for the last 28 years of my life. This president's actions make me feel physically ill.

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

#260

Post by t0mas88 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

justaguyhere wrote: post #225

slfnflctd wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Twitter is in a very winning situation. Before Trump took office and started tweeting a lot, the relevance of Twitter was often up for debate. Now they're a place where people get the latest updates from a world leader. That's great for Twitter.