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

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

#441

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

partyboat1586 wrote: post #379

jrockway wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is and isn't fact is for people to decide by themselves based on evidence. That is why Twitter is linking some facts to go along with the President's tweets.

Which facts you choose can show bias. Let people supply sources in replies.

Is the free speech of Twitter to be abridged? Section 230 allows good-faith moderation. Whether or not you believe they should do it, current law and court rulings have come down on the side them being allowed to do it and maintain their safe-harbor status.

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

#442

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

mc32 wrote: post #196

akersten wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a government official, you cannot take action to try to impede someone's access to your official statements. That is independent of the platform, and independent of how much work someone has to do to still access the information.

But a private company can take action to impede everyone’s access to an official’s statements if they “suppress” those statements... that would mean Twitter has to allow anything any public official, at least in the US, broadcasts via that medium...

You're getting downvoted to oblivion but I think that's a fundamental question in all of this.

Does a private company have the authority to impede access to Official Statements? If so, under what conditions? If no, is it "never"?

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

#443

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

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #309

rbanffy wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And newspapers get sued if their paid editors publish defamatory content.

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

#444

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

jayspell wrote: post #237

munificent wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but you have a fundamentally flawed model for how Trump (and many in the GOP) think about the world. You're operating under a principle that says that people are essential equal in terms of rights and that there is a moral obligation to consistency. The old Golden Rule, and everything. Under that framework, it's stupid to punch someone in the face unless you also want to get punched in the face, because you…

I hate the term "these people" some of "these people" meet some of your criteria but not all. You would likely place me in the category of "these people" because I believe social media favors the left side of arguments. I believe in a fair an open internet, let ideas be shared and stop censoring. Every group is a hypocrite, but everyone feels justified in their hypocrisy. It would go a long way if we stopped dividing…

> I believe social media favors the left side of arguments

> It would go a long way if we stopped dividing each other up into camps.

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

#445

Post by kyrra » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:12 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.

WSJ Editorial Board's take on this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-plays-into-trumps-hands...

One key quote:

> On California, Twitter is right that Mr. Trump is wrong. But on voter fraud, it’s complicated. There isn’t evidence of widespread fraud in mail voting. That doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. Last year a close House election in North Carolina was thrown out because of accusations that a Republican operative illegally collected absentee ballots, including incomplete ballots that his workers allegedly filled in. Investigators then also charged him with doing similar funny business in 2016.

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

#446

Post by suyash » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

ddoolin wrote: post #401

suyash wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A private company being able to ban/shadowban people is part of their own free speech. Not to mention free speech doesn't extend into the private sector.

Twitter is not private, at least from the platform discussion point of view, anyone can see Tweets even without having an account. It's more akin to modern day digital town square.

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

#447

Post by javagram » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #350

javagram wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens.” Say what? https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw... Twitter is a minority. Fox News Channel is arguably the place where political discourse happens. It’s the most popular cable news network in America. Should Fox News be regulated and forced to have a democrat on each show?

Fox News is subject to liability and lawsuits if they publish defamatory statements on their platform. And that statement by Pew says nothing about the leverage and influence that Twitter enjoys on the national conversation.

Twitter was crazy for Bernie, but Joe Biden won the primary anyway.

Twitter is a self-selected minority of power users. It isn’t “The place” for political discourse, it’s simply a popular online web forum. Facebook is likely at least as influential on politics as twitter is.

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

#448

Post by ineedasername » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #338

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.

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…

If Twitter had a monopoly, you might be correct.

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

#449

Post by partyboat1586 » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #419

partyboat1586 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People are free to reply to Tweets with sources and facts if they want to. I just don't think that should be Twitter's job.

This case is fair enough but I really do believe in the slippery slope argument.

It's also clearly not an echo chamber to talk about it here considering the number of downvotes I'm sustaining. I'm also seeing posts get upvoted before they get downvoted so it's controversial... Which is a good thing for discourse!

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

#450

Post by asdgopiahsogfi » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

partyboat1586 wrote: post #235

tombert wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) Twitter has never presented itself as a neutral platform. They've banned white supremacists, dangerous conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones, and even left-leaning people like Destiny when he joked about how he was going to bomb Comcast. B) Verizon (Comcast, Spectrum, etc...) are closer to something like a utility. I wouldn't be supportive of a water or electricity company not providing services to people I disagree wit…

Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens not just _a_ place where it happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs that they happen to be a private company with a bias.

Here's simple fact check. Twitter is not _the_ place where political discourse happens. You're discussing politics on HN right now.