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

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

#421

Post by chrisco255 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:08 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #312

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.

By eyeball-hours, Fox is much bigger than Twitter among American audiences. Viewers tune into it for hours, on a daily basis. What kind of regulation is it subjected to? It doesn't have to be neutral, and it has a legally-tested right to lie, and mislead. And that's for first-party content directly produced by it.

Do you have a quote on eyeball hours? Fox at most gets 2-3 million viewers at prime time. Twitter has hundreds of millions of users and their reach exceeds even their membership, as Tweets often drive narrative on many other platforms.

You can read the order. Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act set out provisions protecting internet service providers from liability for obscene, lewd, etc content on the basis they are a neutral platform (like an email provider) and not an active arbiter and curator of content published on their page. The law clearly states it's protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material (lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessive violent, harassing, etc). Not for editorial protection. Not for arbitrary enforcement of TOS.

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

#422

Post by dariusj18 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:08 PM UTC

davewritescode wrote: post #249

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.

I'm of the belief part of the reason Trump ran for President in the first place was because he knew various investigations were in action against him and that eventually he would be prosecuted. By running for President, he turned every illegal thing he has ever done into a political issue, instead of a legal one.

In the US, we have a long history of allowing politicians to get away with illegal activities in the name of not rocking the boat. Every once in a while someone comes along and tries to use that to their advantage, and ideally the system would punish them by media pointing out the issue and people not voting for them. But somehow, due to some nexus of insanity, someone like Trump was catapulted into office.

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

#423

Post by pnw_hazor » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #357

chrisco255 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry big tech is subject to antitrust laws that have been on the books for 120+ years. The Federal Government could break Twitter up into 10 different pieces if it deemed the service a monopoly. That's not totalitarian, that's clearly justified. These platforms claim all the immunity of a utility while actively engaging in algorithmic and human-induced bias that completely slants the platform. In some cases the plat…

The problem is not the existence of anti-trust laws and other regulations - these things are good. The problem is the blatant political use of these tools. If a company becomes a problem to the Trump regime, they will use the full array of existing laws to prosecute them, at the same time when they are dismantling legislation that targets their allies.

At least this President is being upfront about it. Previous administration did things more secretly. See, Operation Chokepoint.

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

#424

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

free_rms wrote: post #228

illumin8 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is protecting the private property rights of corporations a "left" issue? This is a constitutional issue, and the fact that any court ruling that GOP voters disagree with is now a "left" issue tells you everything you need to know about how far civil discourse in this country has fallen.

Because everything is tribalism now. You can call the right hypocrites for doing a 180 on corporate property rights and demanding a 21st century fairness doctrine.. but didn't the left do a 180 as well?

[deleted]

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

#425

Post by evan_ » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #93

thrusong wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have the right to stand in your community's biggest mall screaming racist things or does the property owner/operator have the right to remove you from the premise?

If you were a president visiting that mall, you would be allowed to do a lot of things that ordinary people would be kicked for.

The President can only play in the mall fountain or whatever if the mall management says he can. If they want to boot him they can. The president is not a king.

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

#426

Post by gilbetron » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

aaaaaaaaaaa10 wrote: post #381

t0mas88 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That own executive will attack any industry he doesn't agree with at any point he pleases. It's how he has done it for years in business and it's how he will do it in politics for as long as he isn't prosecuted and removed from office. As long as the Republicans keep supporting him and have a majority he will just continue to pull more and more crazy stunts and get away with it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict...the free flow of information and ideas.” See the case here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-44.ZO.html The full text: "The First Amendment's command that government not impede the freedom of speech does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private inte…

Twitter is expressing it's 1st amendment rights by labeling tweets. Twitter is not the government, Trump is. The situation is completely opposite what you make it.

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

#427

Post by cjbprime » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

akersten wrote: post #323

zaroth wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but I think Section 230 does not extend blanket immunity for any moderation "as they see fit," because then they would be a publisher and should be held up to publisher-type liability. > Section 230 protect a blog host from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, exces…

> of material that the provider or user considers to be [...] otherwise objectionable, That seems like a pretty blank check for moderation to me, at least. "Otherwise objectionable" can easily be defined in a ToS, and you're off to the races.

It does in English, but in legal construction an ending "or otherwise.." usually limits its scope to items similar to the ones at the start of the list.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis

> For example, if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, a court might use ejusdem generis to hold that such vehicles would not include airplanes, because the list included only land-based transportation.

(I'm not a lawyer.)

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

#428

Post by partyboat1586 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #312

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.

By eyeball-hours, Fox is much bigger than Twitter among American audiences. Viewers tune into it for hours, on a daily basis. What kind of regulation is it subjected to? It doesn't have to be neutral, and it has a legally-tested right to lie, and mislead. And that's for first-party content directly produced by it.

Major networks regularly quote Twitter. I would hate for Twitter to become an echo chamber like Fox news.

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

#429

Post by jboog » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

aaaaaaaaaaa10 wrote: post #381

t0mas88 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That own executive will attack any industry he doesn't agree with at any point he pleases. It's how he has done it for years in business and it's how he will do it in politics for as long as he isn't prosecuted and removed from office. As long as the Republicans keep supporting him and have a majority he will just continue to pull more and more crazy stunts and get away with it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict...the free flow of information and ideas.” See the case here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-44.ZO.html The full text: "The First Amendment's command that government not impede the freedom of speech does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private inte…

How does fact-checking dishonest (or at the very least disingenuous) comments "restrict the free flow of information and ideas"?

The ideas still flow freely. Twitter isn't even forcing more accurate and factual information right next to the dishonest framing. You have to click the link to even see it.

This seems like world class straw-grasping.

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

#430

Post by rbanffy » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #206

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.

That arguably changes when the President starts to use it as a primary means of communication with the citizenry.

They didn't remove his message. They merely pointed out it was misinforming the public.

Speaking of which, shouldn't we make it a crime to lie or substantially mislead the public while holding public office?