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

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

#571

Post by Mirioron » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

javagram wrote: post #412

lgleason wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This actually happened to a news site in Estonia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delfi_AS_v._Estonia

There was a later ruling in Hungary that seemed to go the other way though: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/magyar-...

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

#572

Post by bedhead » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

bosswipe wrote: post #262

bedhead wrote: post #227

The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that the lines are getting blurry with regards to public vs private. Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. Not saying I have any answers, just saying it's definitely not a clear issue anymore.

[flagged]

That's odd, I don't recall arguing for nationalization of Twitter, nor do I recall planting a "conservative" flag. People see what they want to see I guess...

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

#573

Post by jeremyjh » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #317

threeseed wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers have restricted what they publish for centuries. They don't allow libellous, defamatory, salacious or inappropriate comments for example. So it sounds 'new tech' hasn't really changed anything.

Newspapers do that because they are liable for what they publish. Twitter is not liable for what it publishes. Why should it not be liable? The answer is because they are just providing a platform and others are publishing. But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right?

> But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right?

They've always done some editing and removal of certain content.

In this particular case, was anything modified or censored though? It seems more like Trump had his say, and Twitter had theirs. Is Trump saying that Twitter can't also express themselves on their platform?

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

#574

Post by Animats » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

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.

Yes. It's the sort of behavior one usually sees from lesser-country petty tyrants like Erdogan (Turkey) and Netanyahu (Israel). They're elected, and don't have full autocratic power, but they heavily abuse what power they have to stay in power. This problem was classic among the central American countries and Mexico, although that part of the world is looking up a bit.

Historically, leaders like this are not rare. They're just rare in US history. In the US, they've rarely advanced beyond the mayor level. (See Tweed Ring, Pendergast machine, Daley machine, etc.) Huey Long made it to one term as Louisiana governor; he's the best known US example of the type.

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

#575

Post by ineedasername » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

partyboat1586 wrote: post #470

ineedasername wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We are taking about reform not what the current state of the law is. Twitter has an outsized impact for the small number of people who make those decisions.

What decisions? You think the government should be able to control whether Twitter adds additional context to posts?

For almost 100 years it has been held both in general and by the Supreme Court in particular that the remedy to speech you disagree with is more speech. Do you object to Twitter's ability to have such a disagreement?

Or, as is being proposed, do you believe Twitter should be held legally liable for every nasty thing said on their platform simply because they choose to have an opinion of their own?

To me that seems like a recipe for significantly more banning of content & users by Twitter to avoid even the hint of liability that would come with allowing it to stand.

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

#576

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

xiphias2 wrote: post #503

joshuamorton wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all, they're directly at odds in this case. The President using presidential authority to restrict what twitter can say on their own platform is directly violating the first amendment to restrict twitter's free expression. You can argue that twitter is also restricting others' free expression, but that is their right, while the government preventing twitter from doing so is a 1A violation.

It would be as simple as you write if social media companies would take responsibility for the publishing rights for what they publish, but they don't. For a long time they are picking and choosing the laws they want to abide by.

What law did Twitter fail to abide by in linking a tweet to factual information?

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

#577

Post by SiVal » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #349

partyboat1586 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs for some that it happens to be a private company with a bias. And for better of for worse it does have a bias.

I'm not convinced it does have any bias against mainstream political ideas (obviously it is biased against things like white supremacy). This just lays bare that the "free speech" advocates are nothing of the sort.

No, Twitter has no bias against "mainstream political ideas". Their San Francisco urban chic politics are the very definition of today's "mainstream". Looking back over history, have mainstream political ideas always been the right ones, more or less? Or have mainstream political opinions frequently been pretty bad in retrospect?

The point of "free speech" is to be able to express opinions that aren't currently "mainstream" among fashionable thinkers. Free speech advocates aren't objecting to a single instance of some company expressing an opinion. That was just a "last straw", it seems. They are objecting to the tactics of Big Tech platforms in general, which use all sorts of deceitful methods to manipulate the visibility of arguments in order to influence the debate while pretending to be merely neutral platforms.

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

#578

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

bosswipe wrote: post #145

TheColorYellow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an interesting thought experiment to assess in what ways Twitter is a "private website". It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts comprehension.

Should breitbart.com be forced to allow liberals comments?

[deleted]

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

#579

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

outworlder wrote: post #153

takeda wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people totally miss the point. The first amendment is there from preventing the government from controlling the speech. Exactly what Trump is doing to Twitter right now.

> 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…

> If they did look it up, they would literally see the very first words of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law (...)".

The great irony is that the same people will happily quote "... shall not be abridged" when it comes to the next Amendment.

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

#580

Post by Reelin » Thu, May 28, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #510

partyboat1586 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is not equivalent to some obscure knitting forum. It is huge. So huge that it gets quoted in nearly every mainstream media article. Twitter matters to political discourse, knitting doesn't.

Twitter matters to political discourse, knitting doesn't. Doesn't matter. Twitter is a privately owned platform not a public one. SCOTUS has already said that simply being open to the public does not make a business a public platform, see Pruneyard v Robins , applying this reasoning to privately-owned malls. And yes, that makes all the difference, since SCOTUS has repeatedly held that publicly owned spaces like publi…

Except it's not nearly as simple as you make out here.

In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) SCOTUS described social media websites as similar to a public square and ruled that the state couldn't block access to them in an overly broad manner.

Being open to the public does change how a business is regulated (see the ADA and Civil Rights Act among others) even if it doesn't make it a "public platform" specifically. However, a reasonable case can be made that Twitter has _intentionally_ positioned themselves as a public platform and so the case you cite could be argued not to apply.

Alternatively, Twitter could be argued to be editorializing. If that were the case, presumably they wouldn't really be a public platform but rather a publisher. But if that's the case, shouldn't they be held liable for all the nonsense that people post there?

The situation isn't clear at all even though many people on both sides of the debate frequently claim that it is.