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

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591

Post by no-s »

SiVal wrote: post #118

The big problem that needs to be addressed is network effects. When the feature that matters most to users is the presence of other users, the result is a platform that can do all kinds of harm. The power and money in Big Tech result from platforms where network effects leave users, businesses, competitors, even other countries unable to switch to or create viable alternatives. In theory they can, but in practice, th…

>>If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable.

yeah, twitter could implement plug-in choose-your-own fact checking, but that would create a scary market outside twitter's control. Since the number of twitter users is roughly finite this could mean a reduction in attention share to twitter proper...

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

#592

Post by Izkata »

jessaustin wrote: post #568
Izkata wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Caution: this Tweet is unadulterated horseshit." Except it's not. Trump is right here; most of the confirmed voter fraud is on mail-in and absentee ballots, despite being less used than in-person in the past decades. Switching everyone to mail-in will cause a sharp uptick in voter fraud.

I hear this from friends who are Limbaugh fans, but I'd like to see some other source. Many people on the Left seem to think this whole "voter fraud" concern is a fig leaf for denying minorities their voting rights. When I've listened and asked follow-up questions, the Left's narrative seems more plausible.

PDF of individual confirmed cases: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p...

Spot-checking and using search for counts, most are manipulation of mail-in or absentee ballots (many being a bunch of ballots by a single person), with the next highest looking like individual people voting who didn't realize they were ineligible.

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

#593

Post by Avicebron »

esoterica wrote: post #471
bosswipe wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

The comment was talking about there being a blurred line in how these companies exist in our world today. Not arguing for cake based discrimination. If Twitter and co are in novel ethical territory, it's worth questioning if we need new a new paradigm.

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

#594

Post by ngcc_hk »

pchristensen wrote: post #402
jayspell wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not to put words in the parent comment's mouth, but I would guess he mans "these people" = leaders of the Republic party, primarily Trump and McConnell. Many other Republican leaders and I assume most conservative voters still have morals, right and wrong, etc, but it's those two at the top and a handful of others in power that have made the Republic party's actions amoral and power-centric.

Pots ok. But is McConnell is elected among equals. He can be removed? The rest of republican leaders, party and voters to them (and pots) cannot be totally spare. At least not in the next cycle. If they are both re-elected (McConnell is “re-elected” everyday in a sense).

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

#595

Post by gamblor956 »

meragrin_ wrote: post #414
kanox wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the correct model for large social media platforms (for example above 10m users) is that of a telecom provider. Comcast can't block CNBC or Fox and at the same time nobody assumes that Comcast is responsible for view expressed on the networks it carries

Comcast pays to carry CNBC and Fox content. They can freely decline to pay the content providers what they wish and drop their content. It is not an uncommon occurrence. Fox and NBC cannot provide air time for one political campaign and deny air time for an opposing political campaign. Twitter is more like Fox and NBC rather than Comcast.

Twitter is nothing like Fox and NBC, unless they've managed to pick up a broadcast license without anyone noticing.

Fox and NBC are only required to provide political campaigns equal access because of their licenses to exclusive use of portions of the public spectrum.

Cable channels like CNN and Fox News don't use this spectrum, and thus don't have the same requirement. Twitter is more like a cable channel than a broadcast station.

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

#596

Post by sub7 »

sreedhark wrote: post #502

I wanted to share a debate on topic " Constitutional Free Speech Principles Can Save Social Media Companies from Themselves ". https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/constitutional... . Main Points from the page. - The First Amendment is content-neutral and provides a nonpolitical framework for regulating speech. It would behoove social media companies to abide by it. - Rather than resort to censorship, social…

If by some bizarre chain of events this chimp actually manages to reign in all the shittiness that permeates freely on YouTube, FB+WA+IG and Twitter I think he would have made the world whole for fucking up covid.

My 2 cents has always been that we should just ban the advertising incentive entirely from social platforms. All the expensive data harvesting, the tricks to keep you addicted, the shit UIs etc would end automatically. They would end up smaller and poorer and we'd all be better off.

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

#597

Post by [deleted] »

augustt wrote: post #408
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 mostly feel uncomfortable that we've fallen to the point where the president is pretty brazenly trying to undermine a democratic election.

[deleted]

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

#599

Post by xiphias2 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #546
xiphias2 wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It would be as simple as you write if social media companies would take responsibility for the publishing rights for what they publish What do social media companies "publish"? In this case, the only thing twitter published was a link to information about mail-in voting[0]. That's it. They did so in the context of a tweet. So at worst, twitter would be liable for any illegal content in either President Trump's orig…

Twitter is publishing everything any person tweets. Those 2 comments are nothing compared to the power of selectively blocking/publishing users tweets (which communication companies are not allowed to do), but at the same time not be responsible for copyright violations (which other types of media companies are).

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

#600

Post by perl4ever »

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?

Anyone who replies to you is guilty of selective editorialization of an individual covered by the first amendment. Except me. I'm not expressing an opinion. It seems unwise in an age like this.
Post reply on HN