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

551–560 of 1001 posts

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

#551

Post by partyboat1586 »

majormajor wrote: post #488
partyboat1586 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should realize those restrictions you suggest are regulated and enforced by the government and are applied inconsistently all the fucking time . Just look at how various different demonstrations in the last 5 years have been treated, and how some of them have ended in violence. I really don't think you, or Trump, understand the ramifications of what you're asking for. You have this ideal, naive view of what's all…

If Twitter were a physical space there would be regular violence that would have to be shut down. The role of the government is to break up the violence if it occurs.

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

#552

Post by effable »

fortran77 wrote: post #460

Maybe Hacker News should post factchecking links under every Rustlang post.

"fortran 77" - username checks out.

On a more serious note, I have been dipping my toes into Rust and it seems fun. I suppose, I'll have a more considered opinion of it once I actually build something substantial with it.

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

#553

Post by anigbrowl »

akira2501 wrote: post #246
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…

> 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. That is the impetus in this case, but that doesn't mean it doesn't border on questions we've been slowly grappling with for some time now, nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. > the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that m…

If you act as a conduit for certain types of speech, you're liable for that speech.

There's some merit to that position, but things like adding a fact check (which you might or might not agree with) do not incur any sort of civil or criminal liability. You make good points, but we should also engage with the reality that the president and his supporters are demanding a quality of representation/protection for their political views that they don't have any particular entitlement to, and for which no mechanism currently exists in law; it seems (going by the general tenor of their arguments over the last few years) like they want to bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine' that obtained for broadcast media up to the Reagan era to create some protected space for their viewpoint.

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

#554

Post by ddoolin »

burfog wrote: post #528
ddoolin wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Counterexamples: Suppose a phone company (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.) decided to scan your speech for political content, then degrade your phone call quality if the algorithm decides that you seem to oppose the lobbying efforts of the company. Suppose a package company (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) decided that political items for one party would simply be destroyed, with the tracking number disappearing from the syst…

Yes. Telecom is not completely private sector as they are regulated as utilities, and for good reason.

Courier services are pretty much private entities that have liability due to the fact they do not own the things they are delivering (this is a really nuanced topic). Lying about the practice and doing it transparently would be different stories.

I don't think social media is as nuanced. If you don't like it, go start your own or use one of the many that do not censor legal content. The burden of reproducibility is very low.

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

#555

Post by closeparen »

mint2 wrote: post #90

Wait, if this was somehow enforceable wouldn’t the order make Twitter liable for trump posting misinformation essentially making them legally required to censor or flag him?

Where exactly is there liability for misinformation?

Fraud and libel come close, but there are important requirements in both cases beyond truth value.

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

#556

Post by tenebrisalietum »

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…

> ... does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"?

This has nothing to do with any real person, but is just a hypothetical situation pertaining to this question in your post:

Let's say an account X with many followers calls you a pedophile. You're not, of course, so you responded and said you weren't, but since the followers tend to like X, they don't listen to you. X's followers then dox you, find your address, and start making threats to you outside of the realm of social media.

Does the model of "the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction" hold up here?

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

#557

Post by krapp »

kryogen1c wrote: post #480
krapp wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters. >nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an a…

> the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, thats an interestating take, considering trump is trying to stop the selective editorialization of individuals covered by the first amendment. are we really taking twitters side of this because we hate trump so much?

>thats an interestating take, considering trump is trying to stop the selective editorialization of individuals covered by the first amendment.

Again, the first amendment protects those individuals from being censored by the government. Twitter is not bound by the first amendment. They're allowed to editorialize content. They're allowed to curate, moderate, deplatform and ban people.

However, Twitter is also protected by the first amendment, and Trump's executive order is an attempt to erode those protections.

>are we really taking twitters side of this because we hate trump so much?

No. I believe in the right of platforms to censor content as an extension of their own freedom of speech and association, because that still leaves the internet itself free. If one objects to Twitter's behavior, one can always find a new platform or create one. However, when the government attempts to assert censorship over the entire network, that reduces freedom for everyone.

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

#558

Post by rbanffy »

username90 wrote: post #541
rbanffy wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> They didn't remove his message. They merely pointed out it was misinforming the public. Why should a private company have this power? I don't think that people who run a successful website automatically are qualified to fact check the president and insert blurbs directly in his messages. That needs to be regulated some way.

If you are using my product to harm others, I should have the right to try to minimize the damage you cause.

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

#559

Post by sixstringtheory »

2019-nCoV wrote: post #520
theduder99 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Exactly. Politics is the mind killer. Would they have the same opinion if Twitter was a right-leaning Trump-mouthpiece that was disproportionately quelling left-leaning voices? Take a step back and recognise you can agree with Trump's action and not necessarily admire the man.

We don't have to speak in hypotheticals here. There are plenty of examples: voat, gab, TD, etc. What laws are/were being pushed by liberal politicians to use the force of law to shut them up?

Please do link to government documents or quotes from elected officials.

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

#560

Post by rbanffy »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #443
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And that's totally fair, because the hired the person, vouched for them, submitted them to editorial scrutiny an, still, decided to publish defamatory content.
Post reply on HN