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

61–70 of 1001 posts

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

#61

Post by thrusong »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #35
cdolan wrote: post #2

The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline: “This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations. Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”

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.

Do you have the right to stand in your community's biggest mall screaming racist things or does the property owner/operator have the right to remove you from the premise?

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

#63

Post by HeroOfAges »

ReptileMan wrote: post #30
chasing wrote: post #4

All because Twitter dared to fact check him.

It is impossible to fact check a prediction. Fact check "The sun is going to turn red supergiant in 9 days" ...

This is the point that most people seem to be missing and this is where Jack Dorsey seemingly made a huge mistake. I don't know if he did it on purpose to force his company to do something he knows should be done, but he doesn't have the will to see it through, or if it was just a really bad decision.

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

#64

Post by Barrin92 »

HPsquared wrote: post #45
ddoolin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter isn't a public right. He chooses to use their platform so they choose to annotate his lies. I don't see how this executive order would even change exactly what started the whole thing.

Either they're a public utility or they have control (and thus should have some degree of liability) for what is transmitted/published on their platform. They can't eat their cake and have it too!

Platforms have removed harmful content, for example terrorist propaganda or child pornography with 230 protections intact and governments appeared to welcome it so I think you can actually have your cake and eat it too, or at least you could until you fact checked Republicans I suppose

Platforms both enjoy first amendment protection to moderate their platforms as they see fit as well as protection from liability under 230. They are not mutually exclusive, and platforms have been moderating their content for decades. In fact most online communities could not even function if they had no right to moderate.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...

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

#65

Post by krapp »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #35
cdolan wrote: post #2

The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline: “This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations. Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”

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.

>It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company

No, it isn't, any more than a store is a public space because it has windows the public can see into. You have to sign up for a Twitter account and accept their terms of service to post on the site. It's a private platform run by a private company for its own private business interests.

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

#66

Post by imglorp »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #5

Another source with some remarks from a Democrat FCC commissioner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-s...

If this does reach the FCC, based on Pai's last handling of the network neutrality comment period, we can assume another debacle of public interest.

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

#67

Post by smilebot »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #14
chasing wrote: post #4

All because Twitter dared to fact check him.

devil's advocate: why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? Twitter is picking sides on a comment made by a user so they should be held liable for that content

Or at least people with a critical mass of followers.

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

#68

Post by fluidcruft »

microcolonel wrote: post #12
cdolan wrote: post #2

The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline: “This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations. Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”

> affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations FWIW this is only thematically related, the order concerns the distinction between immune or non-immune activities under Section 230. If you publish something defamatory on your blog, and you operate it, you may be liable. Section 230 is there to say that if a website merely retransmits your public…

Don't all these social media sites augment content with targeted ads?

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

#69

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

cdubzzz wrote: post #23
microcolonel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations FWIW this is only thematically related, the order concerns the distinction between immune or non-immune activities under Section 230. If you publish something defamatory on your blog, and you operate it, you may be liable. Section 230 is there to say that if a website merely retransmits your public…

One potential outcome here -- social media platforms start _more actively_ banning users to prevent potential liability issues, thus fracturing the market. Highly doubt it will work out that way, but it would be nice (well, maybe...).

Hopefully it will lead to what happened on reddit: the worst go off to a competitor which then fails to gain mainstream attention (e.g. Voat, Gab, etc). While they’ll be in an echo-chamber (which isn’t a good thing at all), at least they won’t ruin other communities.

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

#70

Post by ddoolin »

HPsquared wrote: post #45
ddoolin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter isn't a public right. He chooses to use their platform so they choose to annotate his lies. I don't see how this executive order would even change exactly what started the whole thing.

Either they're a public utility or they have control (and thus should have some degree of liability) for what is transmitted/published on their platform. They can't eat their cake and have it too!

They _are_ liable for many things published on their platform. And they are also allowed to moderate content in whatever way they want. I don't see a problem as you are free to go start your own platform and presumably it would be popular if this many people have a problem with the existing censorship.

This honestly seems to be the model that Republicans have been pining for all along, they just don't like that they or their supporters are falling victim to its design.

Post reply on HN