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

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

#301

Post by tzs » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

oarabbus_ wrote: post #122

jtchang wrote: post #72

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

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.

That made my curious about what Twitter accounts have the most followers. The top 10 are [1]:

1. Barack Obama, 118 million.

2. Justin Bieber, 111.

3. Katy Perry, 108.

4. Rihanna, 96.

5. Taylor Swift, 86.

6. Christiano Ronoldy, 84.

7. Lady Gaga, 81.

8. Donald Trump, 80.

9. Ellen DeGeneres, 80.

10. Ariana Grande, 74.

The next highest politican is Indian Prime Minister Modi, at #17 with 57 million. The Office of the Prime Minister of India is at #42, with 35 million. Obama, Trump, and Modi are the only politicians in the top 50.

The only individuals in the top 50 who are not those three or entertainers (counting athletes as entertainers) are Bill Gates at #22 with 50 million and Elon Musk at 47 with 34 million.

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

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

#302

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #261

krapp wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Again, this has been drafted since at least last summer and has little to do with the recent twitter news. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social... . > consistent with a draft order whose text CNN first reported last summer

If it has little to do with the recent twitter news, why is it signed today instead of last week?

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

#303

Post by _2d30 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

Goronmon wrote: post #187

_2d30 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. It’s comical to think that anyone has the ability to be the arbiter of truth and specifically in this case, the truthiness of the statement is completely unverifiable as it’s a forecast. BTW, don’t think…

“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. You aren't describing "neutrality" you are describing "feigning ignorance". And even if this could be considered "neutral" why is that something to push for (not just on Twitter but on every private busin…

It is exactly describing neutrality on truthiness. There literally is no other definition. You take no side on truth.

I wouldn’t, nor have I seen anyone, suggest that this is something to push for on every private business/platform/etc in existence. The point to be made is twofold:

1) Have the large social media platforms developed into general spheres of public discourse and thus have become central to ongoing function of public life? If so, then ANY active control over the narratives allowed on the platforms if is of critical concern to the function of Democracy.

2) Separate from point #1 which is broader than Section 230, is whether or not control over the narratives allowed on the platforms is equivalent to editorial moderation at publishers, changing them from being governed by Section 230?

To be clear, I don’t know the answers to either of these questions. But I sure as shit know that I would prefer major realms of public discourse to be free of some bull shit “arbiter of truth” controlling the presentation of people’s thoughts in them.

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

#304

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

partyboat1586 wrote: post #256

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.

> it happens to be a private company with a bias

Political speech in public squares are what the First Amendment was written to protect. “Bias” isn’t an exception.

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

#305

Post by dvt » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

akersten wrote: post #277

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.

If enough people feel that it has a bias, and are discontent with it, they are free to start their own platform. They are also free to not moderate their platform, or even moderate it with whatever bias they so choose. This has happened a few times (Voat, Gab) and the utopia of a hands-off content platform has never played out to anything other than a cesspool. Popular platforms remain popular and useful because they…

> If enough people feel that it has a bias, and are discontent with it, they are free to start their own platform.

This is, of course, disingenuous. It's like saying, just a monolithic railroad company was about to bulldoze your house in the mid 1800s, "If you're discontent, you can always start your own railroad company." We're dealing with a complex system of interconnected motivations. "Start your own Twitter" is an anti-solution.

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

#306

Post by amoorthy » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:47 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…

Dorsey is right to want to encourage broader discussion across the political spectrum on topics. But the current fact-checking approach is flawed as it requires human judgment, which is hobbled by people's biases and potential lack of topical expertise.

A better approach may be to offer a resource page that shows every news article on the topic, with guidelines on political leaning, how credible each article is etc so that readers can exercise their critical thinking to figure out what to believe. For example: https://story.thefactual.com/news/story/239362-Social-Media shows 285 related articles.

Disclosure: above page is from my startup, The Factual.

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

#307

Post by ineedasername » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

partyboat1586 wrote: post #256

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.

What is the alternative? I haven't seen Twitter be too heavy handed, I have yet to hear of a moderation activity on their part that seemed to go too far. If there is something to be frustrated about, it would be their double-standard for world figures that are allowed to violate their ToS with impunity.

I can't think of a single platform with a more hands-off approach than Twitter that hasn't become a toxic cesspool.

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

#308

Post by ordu » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

techntoke wrote: post #107

Hurry up and finish a fast decentralized anonymous web before the US turns into China.

It wouldn't be China. In China there is truth, truth and only truth. The truth approved by government. US turns not into China, but into Russia, where there is no truth, only lies. Literally. Because the only way to categorize all sayings into truth and lies is to pick some political side and stick to it. One cannot believe to any authority: politicians, scientists, journalists, government officials... they are all lying. Some probably are not, but you have no ways to find out who is.

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

#309

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #175

threeseed wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers have restricted what they publish for centuries. They don't allow libellous, defamatory, salacious or inappropriate comments for example. So it sounds 'new tech' hasn't really changed anything.

Newspapers hire and pay people to write for them and exercise editorial control on everything that's published. That's very different from, say, a public restroom where people write on the walls. The owner of the restroom is not responsible for what people write on their walls.

> Newspapers hire and pay people to write for them

Newspapers also have zero obligation to convey the words of the President, and by frequently contextualise them.

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

#310

Post by fortran77 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

I think this executive order is an abuse of power.

However, I do think Twitter could have handled it differently. For example, every time you're looking at posts from any blue-checked elected official, perhaps links could show up on the right hand side column for several fact-check websites. It would be nice to have arrangements with major newspapers, both left and right leaning, so un-paywalled news analysis can be one click away, too. This would help some people who truly want to be better informed.