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

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

#431

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

zaroth wrote: post #400

joshuamorton wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the same article: > Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content? Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "…

And the next paragraph from that EFF article; > The courts have not clarified the line between acceptable editing and the point at which you become the "information content provider." To the extent that your edits or comment change the meaning of the information, and the new meaning is defamatory, you may lose the protection of Section 230. I'm not qualified to say what the limit is, I'm merely hoping to provide some…

Right, again: if your edits cause the content to become defamatory, you may be liable for that specific content. Modifying any particular piece of content does not cause you to lose sec 230 protections in general.

So unless Trump's original tweet, or Twitter's fact check are defamatory or otherwise illegal, Twitter doesn't care.

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

#432

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #332

It's basically too late. First, the administration must formulate the rule itself. In formulating the rule, it must also provide supporting documentation justifying the rulemaking, which must include a record of the data looked at in deciding upon the need for the rule, research and conclusions drawn from that data. If the research is external to the agency, they must also justify the selection of research used in dr…

Note: providing as followup comment since other is very long.

Trump's order is not rulemaking. It's just an order to the federal agencies to start drafting a rule that would strip social media companies of CDA protection. Executive agencies have been designated the power to make legislative rules by laws of Congress (which sets forth the required procedure described above) but this grant does not extend to the Executive Office itself (i.e., the president).

As the Axios article notes, a very conservative appeals court just ruled that under the CDA, social media companies aren't public forums for first amendment purposes, so the agencies would also have to come up with a conforming legal justification explaining why social media platforms are public spaces or otherwise subject to the infringement of their private first amendment rights.

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

#433

Post by akersten » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:11 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…

A ruling like that makes me even more surprised that the government did not take steps to maintain net neutrality. I would say ISPs are a far more "critical pathway of communication" than Twitter is.

Them taking steps to prevent Twitter from "restricting" information really doesn't follow with the approach this administration's FCC took with ISPs.

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

#434

Post by esoterica » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

suyash wrote: post #391

ddoolin wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't they?

Because we value individual freedom in this country including free speech.

Individual freedoms mean having the right to decide what content you want to host on your privately owned servers. Forcing companies to host content against their will their servers is anti-freedom and anti-free-speech. It's no different from forcing someone to place sign on their yard for a political candidate they dislike.

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

#435

Post by TallGuyShort » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #353

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.

Is providing fact-check links to the tweets of a specific person or group considered editorizing? Twitter said offering fact-check was not editorization, but the critics said that fact-checking a targeted group was. I have yet to see anyone clarify that key difference.

I could see how it would be considered editorializing. I haven't looked much at the facts in this particular case myself, but I've definitely seen cases where fact checks seemed to be dripping with a bias or agenda of their own.

But here's the thing: that's fine! I can see why people would think that Constitutional protections of individual free speech apply on social media, but regardless of if you think they do or not, then adding editorial content to the posts should be protected as well.

Do you think the 1st amendment protects your posts because they're "speech"? Yes? Then Twitter also has free speech on it's own platform, even if it's biased.

Do you think the 1st amendment does not protect your posts, because Twitter is a private company? Yes? Then Twitter is also allowed to say whatever it wants on it's own private platform.

There's a difference between censoring, which is a whole other discussion, and adding editorial or fact-checking content, and I just don't see how anyone can argue that Twitter can't do the latter.

edit: there's also a difference in individual free speech and companies having free speech, but I think Trump is the last person who can make a stand on the idea that commercial interests can't be operated based on individual preferences.

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

#436

Post by chrisco255 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

inamberclad wrote: post #355

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…

Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on short messages posted online, and it's no real loss if I don't use Twitter at all. The closest internet company to being a monopoly is clearly Google, and that's because it's nearly impossible to avoid them. Twitter ain't there yet.

Microsoft wasn't the only operating system on the market. It doesn't matter, in legal terms a monopoly isn't owning 100% of a platform. It is having a majority of a market and engaging in anticompetitive practices, including controlling access to goods and services. Sorry, but Twitter, Facebook, and Google could all be subject to antitrust actions.

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

#437

Post by nine_zeros » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

quicklime wrote: post #348

outworlder wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Apologies if this is a stupid question; I'm a foreigner so I can't understand freedom like Americans do. But if the first words are "Congress shall make no law", does that mean that the President and his executive orders are not bound by the First Amendment?

Technically yes, other branches are not bound by the first amendment.

By the spirit of the law, no. A lot of historical laws and constitutional writings were to limit power of the government in general. When the constitution was actually written, the executive was just a puppet with military commander powers. But over the centuries there has been power creep into the executive.

Such battles end up in supreme court and the court decides ultimately what interpretation would hold up. The current supreme court is republican/right wing leaning which often ignores the spirit of the law FWIW.

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

#438

Post by pas » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

seph-reed wrote: post #409

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…

I think they should have just banned him without any reason but that they felt like it and they could. Instead, this was an attempt to high-road one of the most powerful trolls in history, and high-roading a troll is the absolute most losing strategy around. Basically, however imperfect you are, that's how much ammo you've just given the troll. Twitter is very imperfect, so 1/10, tactless strats imo. And the whole "f…

Why would it be bad idea? It's pretty easy to just throw WikiPedia links at lies. Of course with AI/ML/deep-learning. Will it be perfect? No, of course not. Would it help? I think it would. At least it is worth a few tries.

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

#439

Post by jboog » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #353

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.

Is providing fact-check links to the tweets of a specific person or group considered editorizing? Twitter said offering fact-check was not editorization, but the critics said that fact-checking a targeted group was. I have yet to see anyone clarify that key difference.

Twitter isn't targeting any specific group so this is a moot point.

They have been and will continue to "fact check" liberals and democrats too.

This reminds me of the dishonest framing of the IRS supposedly targeting conservative non profits for audits.

Yes, it is true Obama's DOJ targeted these groups.

What you'll never hear from the GOP talking points is that the IRS also targeted liberal groups for the same audits.

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

#440

Post by ModernMech » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

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.

> even if he wanted to be a totalitarian leader the US currently has checks and balances that protect that.

What checks, exactly? There was an impeachment recently wherein he refused to hand over any documents and witnesses. Those witnesses who chose to testify in the House were retaliated against. The Senate refused to hear any witnesses (a first for impeachment trials in the US). The President argued that if he believes his conduct will help his election, and he believes his election will help the American people, he cannot be removed for the conduct. The senate affirmed this view by acquitting him of the charges and refusing to remove him from office.

Or maybe the IG system checks him and his agencies? Well he's been busy firing any IG who is investigating him or his cronies like Mike Pompeo. Michael Atkinson was fired for bringing to light the fact that Trump was extorting a bribe from a foreign nation using taxpayer dollars. Glenn Fine was to oversee the spending of coronavirus federal dollars, but Trump wanted control of the money himself, so he had to go. Christi Grimm was fired for investigating PPE shortages in hospitals. Her findings flew against the Trump narrative that "everything was fine" so she had to go. Steve Linick was investigating corruption in the State Department, so he had to go at the request of the Secretary of State under investigation. Mitch Behm was investigating corruption of the Secretary of Transportation, who is the wife of Mitch McConnell, who refused to hear witnesses at Trump's impeachment trial. So he had to go.

Or maybe the Justice department is a check? They are supposed to be independent after all. Well, they're busy interfering in cases related to Trump's friends and associates. His Attorney General is happy to run interference for Trump in a number of areas, whether that be misrepresenting the Mueller report, intervening in Roger Stone's sentencing, or declining to prosecute a man who already plead guilty to crimes. Oh, and an internal memo of the Justice Department states that the President is immune from indictment. So there's no check there.

Maybe the court system can check Trump. He's been arguing in court that he has absolute immunity from investigation. He already enjoys immunity from indictment due to a memo written decades ago, but he asserts that he enjoys absolute immunity from even being investigated in the first place. If Congress and the DOJ can't even investigate him, how is the court supposed to hold him accountable?

Americans really love to trot out this trope that we have a "system of checks and balances" as if this is a hack-proof system that is incorruptible. It's failing right in front of us.