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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by jedberg »

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…

That's election fraud, not voter fraud.

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

#412

Post by javagram »

lgleason wrote: post #264
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…

The order does not say that they don't have the right to fact check. It simply says that they don't have the right to fact check and enjoy section 230 immunity.

FoxNews.com has comments on their website.

By the logic of the order, Fox News should also lose their immunity and be liable for suit for anything posted by commenters to their online articles.

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

#413

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #201
rbanffy wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Forget Twitter, and substitute “gmail deliverability”? Without that, you cannot run a business.

[deleted]

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

#414

Post by meragrin_ »

kanox wrote: post #343
meragrin_ wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe the correct model for large social media platforms (for example above 10m users) is that of a telecom provider. Comcast can't block CNBC or Fox and at the same time nobody assumes that Comcast is responsible for view expressed on the networks it carries

Comcast pays to carry CNBC and Fox content. They can freely decline to pay the content providers what they wish and drop their content. It is not an uncommon occurrence.

Fox and NBC cannot provide air time for one political campaign and deny air time for an opposing political campaign. Twitter is more like Fox and NBC rather than Comcast.

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

#415

Post by asdgopiahsogfi »

JacobGoodson wrote: post #340

Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples post…

Many of these facts are not even complicated things that require "arbitration". Trump has claimed in the past on Twitter that vaccines cause autism, promoted poisons as a cure for diseases, and that the country is being "invaded" by refugees. Propagation of such misinformation can lead to loss of lives and we end up blaming the same social media companies for not flagging factually incorrect content. Let me put it simply - Trump blatantly lies and there are bots that spread these lies on Twitter. No private company with any semblance of conscience and public responsibility would allow this to happen. Twitter doesn't have the gall to suspend his account. I'm happy they at least take a small step to point out these lies. Looking at how low a bar Americans have for their politicians shock me.

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

#416

Post by partyboat1586 »

majormajor wrote: post #385
partyboat1586 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you suggest the government gets to decide, through your proposed regulatory agency. Looking forward to an army of bureaucrats making sure every tweet is kosher, then? An agency will last longer, with staff that lasts longer, than any single presidency. Sounds like a nightmare scenario for an "un-PC" asshole like Trump.

I'm suggesting it has the same rules as a public square, which is what Twitter is. No incitement to violence, no obscenity etc but otherwise free.

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

#417

Post by pas »

roamerz wrote: post #383
JChase2 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

From my observations left leaning means apply liberal criteria to decisions. Right leaning means adhere to the Constitution and law of the United States of America.

So in this case what does the Constitution say?

And where does the Constitution say that a corporation spending money is speech?

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

#418

Post by rbanffy »

sneak wrote: post #201
rbanffy wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Forget Twitter, and substitute “gmail deliverability”? Without that, you cannot run a business.

Do you need Twitter to interact with your bank? To pay your taxes? To buy groceries? Is it the only way you have to reach your family?

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

#419

Post by epistasis »

partyboat1586 wrote: post #298
akersten wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Great and then we will see even more echo chambers. What people need is not another right wing echo chamber and not another left wing one either. Twitter was that neural platform for a while where ideas clashed but now they risk the right splintering off and that is not a good thing for anyone.

Letting false election interference stay up, with a link to facts about actual elections, is pretty much the exact opposite of an "echo chamber."

It's easy to parrot oft-repeated slipper slopes arguments, but doing that is actually the echo chamber. Especially when now even bothering to check to see if it applies in certain situations.

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

#420

Post by ineedasername »

lgleason wrote: post #329
dgellow wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

edited for typos: Honest question with this comment. Which would you rather have controlling content. A private company that has not public accountability or a political official who was put in office via a democratic election? I get that a lot of people do not like Trump, but currently, even if he wanted to be a totalitarian leader the US currently has checks and balances that protect from that.

You ask that question as if it were a choice between the two. It's not. We have neither scenario now, and neither is being proposed.

What we have is private enterprise, and government regulation. Neither has complete control, neither should have complete control.

Post reply on HN