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

281–290 of 1001 posts

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

#281

Post by artificial »

apostacy wrote: post #242
jedberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fa…

In a similar vein here's Jerry Nadler discussing paper ballots susceptibility in NY circa 2004: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3zxnnJHKu8

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

#282

Post by meragrin_ »

jtchang wrote: post #72

Sometimes I wonder why Twitter doesn't just ban his account like they would any other troll on the internet.

He keeps it only because of his current title. I would not be the least bit surprised if he loses it the second another person is elected president. He will definitely lose it once another person is inaugurated.

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

#283

Post by CydeWeys »

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.

Section 230 grants sites the freedom to moderate content. You've got it exactly backwards.

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

#285

Post by kbenson »

holler wrote: post #229
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.

> they need him just as much as he needs them.

Not if he's threatening their business, and I think you overestimate how much Trump brings to Twitter. I'm sure he drives a level and engagement and discourse, but that's still going to be there to a large degree even if his account isn't. It's not like people aren't posting news clips about him from other websites all the time.

Trump is one of many thousands of popular people driving engagement on Twitter, even if he's high up on the list (but he doesn't have the most followers, he's not even in the top 5 apparently.[1]) On the other hand, Twitter is the one preferred platform for Trump to speak to his followers. Press briefings and official statements are a distant second. The fact that he announced his official plans to counterattack Twitter on Twitter first says it all.

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

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

#286

Post by orblivion »

creato wrote: post #170
orblivion wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of them disagree with this thankfully. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.

Uh... are "progressives" opposed to private businesses having rights?

Broadly speaking no, but I don't recall them often being on that side of a given debate.

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

#287

Post by _-david-_ »

chasing wrote: post #4

All because Twitter dared to fact check him.

This was not because of Twitter fact checking him. Trump had signaled he was looking into social media bias prior to yesterday.

From 5 days ago: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/23/21268433/president-trump-...

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

#288

Post by w3mmpp »

fzeroracer wrote: post #257
w3mmpp wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Indeed I wouldn't dare, I don't follow any progressives (I think), don't read their tweets, don't get the recommendations they do etc.

Now I can tell you as a conservative, because I experience it every day.

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

#289

Post by partyboat1586 »

vkou wrote: post #268
partyboat1586 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who should host this discourse instead? The government? A perfectly impartial Vulcan? CNN? Fox?

It can be a private company it just needs to be regulated. I think you are underestimating how big Twitter is... It's way bigger than CNN its way bigger than Fox in fact those networks regularly quote tweets.

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

#290

Post by greenyoda »

outworlder wrote: post #153
takeda wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people totally miss the point. The first amendment is there from preventing the government from controlling the speech. Exactly what Trump is doing to Twitter right now.

> Most people totally miss the point. Because 'free speech' is literally _all they know_ about the subject. If they did look it up, they would literally see the very first words of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law (...)". Literally about the legislative branch. Every other consequence of the First Amendment comes from that. Other laws can be more specific and may grant more rights, but this just speci…

> "Congress shall make no law (...)"

The Bill of Rights has also been extended to apply state governments, based on the 14th Amendment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

Post reply on HN