Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#611

Post by SaltyBackendGuy » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #601

mathdev wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fact check would be fine if it led to objective analyses of some sort, or even Wikipedia. But when I clicked it, it displayed some highly partisan sources, including a CNN article with its usual "Trump bad" vitriol. Maybe it was an algorithm's fault, but it didn't work at all.

Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable?

> Would an AP article similarly critical of the president's remarks been more acceptable?

Seems like it would be more acceptable.

(sorry for the ads)

CNN: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

AP : https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#612

Post by three_seagrass » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #520

ianleeclark wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, yeah, many of us get a bit worked up when people are kicked off platforms, because they are being silenced, sometimes to the point of being shut out of the modern internet entirely (when their rights to a DNS address are comprehensively removed). Why is it bad that were refusing to let something like stormfront operate in polite society? Your free speech absolutism is dangerous. You can't debate an inherently b…

You debate an inherently bad-faith interlocutor, not to win the debate with them, but to win the audience . The thing is, something like stormfront is out there, whether twitter or whoever carries them or not. I'd like their drivel to be clearly exposed as drivel, and clearly understood to be drivel by everyone, so that when they get exposed to it in some unexpected way (they follow an innocent-looking link or whatev…

Jean-Paul Sartre called this out half a century ago when faced with the alt-right of his time:

>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#613

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

anewdirection wrote: post #586

shadowgovt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they take Trump head-on, and declare an affirmative right to freedom of the press that does not violate safe-harbor policy.

Why? Thats the whole problem.

The problem is that sites (that users can choose to use or refrain from using) have a right to freedom of the press and protection against libel / slander lawsuits for also re-hosting information that third parties post through them?

I don't think that's a problem. Sounds like working-as-intended.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#614

Post by three_seagrass » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

tuna-piano wrote: post #133

There's an unsolved conundrum I haven't heard mentioned yet. After the 2016 election, there was a thought that too much false information is spreading on social media. This happens in every country and across every form of communication - but social media platforms seem particularly worrysome (and is particularly bad with Whatsapp forwards in some Asian countries). So what should the social media companies do? Censor…

The NYT is doing a special podcast on this topic right now.

In one of their episodes, they interview the CEO of YouTube about what they're doing to stop the spread of misinformation on web content platforms like their own.

Her response is that they're no longer tailoring their recommendation models or carousels based purely on engagement alone, but also based on potential harm or impact, because the common misinformation preys on being highly engaging. The biggest example of this is how YouTube is dealing with Covid-19 misinformation, that the "COVID-19 news" carousel on the home page doesn't get much engagement but is important for people to stay informed.

It's a good listen if you have the time: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/podcasts/rabbit-hole-yout...

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#615

Post by neaden » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #566

0x5002 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have struggled with both points of the argument for a while now. In general, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment that this would be a glaring overreach on the side of the feds. It's also apparent that social networks have a tendency to cater massively to one side of the increasingly divided political spectrum, as proven with experiments like Gab. I've always liked the idea of having a Twitter clone that base…

The obvious way around both of these arguments is to offer consumers more choices. If someone is censored from a particular platform, there needs to be another that they can use. There are a tiiiiny number of companies that are controlling global communications, and that should make us all uncomfortable. Being banned from one restaurant in town, should not mean you're banned from all restaurants in the world.

Right, but if you dress in a shirt with a Swastika you're going to get banned from every restaurant in town pretty quickly, and I don't think that is a bad thing.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#616

Post by rsynnott » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

m-p-3 wrote: post #600

VBprogrammer wrote: post #101

Can this even be considered a free speech issue? They aren't deleting his tweet, only displaying it alongside a fact check. Of course you can try to call into question the impartiality of the fact check but that is a long way from not deciding not to show the content.

And if he decided to "close" Twitter, it would actually be a clear case of censorship from the government and a violation of free speech. Twitter is merely labelling a tweet as being factually incorrect, it's not hiding the content.

Well, it wouldn't be, because he _couldn't do it_. He's not a dictator, despite apparent aspirations.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#617

Post by unexaminedlife » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

Somehow technology needs to help bridge the divide here. Literally the ONLY argument that needs to be had is "what are facts and logic". Unfortunately not enough people know what these are, which is severely hampering our country's ability to function as a democracy.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#618

Post by jmeyer2k » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

supportlocal4h wrote: post #450

gjulianm wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there no way to consider social media as unreliable overall and not bother fact checking anything there? The issue is that this is not just a random social media post, it's coming from the President of the US, and most people expect that someone in that position will not post clearly false messages, specially when those messages affect something as fundamental as the election process.

Imagine if a U.S. president were to flagrantly make up a claim that some other country was developing weapons of mass destruction. Imagine that there was no way to verify this claim. Imagine that the president insisted on invading said country on the basis of the unsupported claim. Do most people still expect that someone in that position will not post clearly false messages, specially when those messages affect some…

Somewhat off-topic, but it's funny you mention Iran contra and not Operation Ajax [1] where the CIA literally distributed propaganda and overthrew the Iranian government.

This lead to huge stability in Iran and the middle-east and arguably lead to the rise of Al-Qaeda and a super unpopular right-wing religious government in Iran that they have now.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#619

Post by TrackerFF » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #607

jjuel wrote: post #27

It is crazy to see how well he knows his base and how to get them to rally close to an election. Making them think everything is a liberal bias against them, and if they don't vote for his big government agenda they will receive a big government agenda. This is just one more way for him to get his base to believe everything he says versus people who actually prove what he says is a lie. He wants state run media and s…

It isn't that he has a special insight into his base, he is just willing to abandon any sense of truth or decency to flame it. That is what is remarkable about him.

One can hate or like Biden, but he put it perfectly: This is a prostitution of the presidency. Nothing more, nothing less.

Republicans are willing to look away, and let Trump run rampant, if it means that they'll get their part in return (judges, etc.)

Trump, in turn, will say anything. He has no restrains, and knows this - he can say absolutely anything, and no-one within will do or say anything.

Right now, the presidency (for Trump) is a case of survival. He needs to remain in power, in order to escape whatever civil charges he'll face.

For his own sake, Trump should have never ran for Presidency. He hates his job, and got lost in his own ego.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#620

Post by mamon » Wed, May 27, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

mathdev wrote: post #571

VBprogrammer wrote: post #101

Can this even be considered a free speech issue? They aren't deleting his tweet, only displaying it alongside a fact check. Of course you can try to call into question the impartiality of the fact check but that is a long way from not deciding not to show the content.

A fact check would be fine if it led to objective analyses of some sort, or even Wikipedia. But when I clicked it, it displayed some highly partisan sources, including a CNN article with its usual "Trump bad" vitriol. Maybe it was an algorithm's fault, but it didn't work at all.

In which alternative universe is Wikipedia objective? From my experience it is far-left, sometimes deliberately spreading fake news if it fits their narrative. This is especially visible in articles about politicians and historical events.