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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by zmmmmm »

What I find weird here is that the president is transparently stating that he is doing this to help is own political interests. I would have hoped that any presidential action exercising executive power (of any kind) with the stated intent to influence his own electoral chances in an imminent election would be considered an illegal act, based on intent alone.

It is not dissimilar to the original immigration bans where they were struck down initially because Trump openly expressed the intent that they were designed to achieve an outcome based on race, even though in technical implementation an argument could be made that they were not.

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

#622

Post by username90 »

metaobject wrote: post #598
theduder99 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Do you even know what “free speech” means?

Free speech as an idea doesn't just apply to the government, it is just that we only enforce free speech on the government. The ideal of free speech and its merits applies just as well to private actors and we should try to live up to it whenever we can. If you think that companies should be able to use their power and influence to suppress the speech of individuals then I would say that you are more authoritarian than liberal.

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

#623

Post by dnautics »

vannevar wrote: post #377
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.

Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. And if we're going to make them into public spaces legally, it's certainly not going to happen through an executive order. It would require an act of Congress, similar to the restrictions and obligations placed on broadcasters.

By the same token though, as per the tweets assertion (I have not read the EO personally) it looks like a good chunk of the teeth of this bill is "preventing the government from advertising on a platform that doesn't X", not "creating legal consequences for a company that doesn't X", which is... Not at all the same.

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

#624

Post by pnw_hazor »

gamblor956 wrote: post #570
pnw_hazor wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/q... edit: deleted - the link did not support my claim.

Note that under Pruneyard and Lloyd the limited purpose invitation standard and focus does not apply to private spaces. Thus it matters whether the land is private or public, not the purpose for which the public is invited to enter. The "limited purpose" test examines public or quasi public facilities (i.e., joint public-private parnerships), like airports, to determine whether they would be considered public forums…

You are right - I misread the article.

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

#625

Post by throwaways1232 »

akoncius wrote: post #606
throwaways1232 wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I own Google and refuse to index and show in search results anything from Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Post is that okay? It is not! Technically, Google is a private entity and can do whatever it wants. Once a company becomes too big like Twitter, Google, Facebook, they have a moral obligation to stay neutral. Interesting how opinions expressing a viewpoint that differs from the hive mind gets down-voted.

there are numerous examples when google removes websites from search results because of violating SEO rules and other rules of google. numerous examples when google removes apps from their appstore. even numerous examples when they are abusing search and prioritise their own products instead of competitors. same for amazon. corporate interests are not moral, dont forget that.

Violating SEO rules is bad and these sites should be removed that can be understood.

Is it good for the democracy if Google removes all results from new sites it doesn't agree with? It should remain neutral as much as possible and not tamper with its search results.

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

#626

Post by sneak »

phkahler wrote: post #542
sneak wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget Twitter, and substitute “gmail deliverability”? Without that, you cannot run a business.

>> Forget Twitter, and substitute “gmail deliverability”? Without that, you cannot run a business. I was going to say it's not really about access but censorship. Using gmail as an example is nice because I do appreciate their spam filtering which spammers might consider a form of censorship (lack of deliverability). And yet I'm against platforms like twitter censoring things. The spam situation quickly leads into an…

I imagine this is because you haven’t been bitten by missing critical emails due to gmail’s overzealous spam filtering.

This has happened to me multiple times. Most people would likely never notice the opportunities they missed as a result of such.

I’m talking about real live false positives, on important messages from real live human beings.

Additionally, gmail spam folders even well run, nonspam, properly configured and secured mailservers AFAICT simply for not being part of the wider deliverability cartel.

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

#627

Post by packetslave »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #218
akersten wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a government official, you cannot take action to try to impede someone's access to your official statements. That is independent of the platform, and independent of how much work someone has to do to still access the information.

But when Trump tweets, are those official statements? (IANAL, and I don't know. I can see why they might be considered to be so, and I can see why they wouldn't.)

I can't vouch for the source (so do your own research if you're so inclined), but Trump's own Justice Department says they are:

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trum...

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

#628

Post by joshuamorton »

xiphias2 wrote: post #599
joshuamorton wrote: post #546

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 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 ).

Are you familiar with section 230? Which says that under current US law, twitter is not a publisher of the tweets it hosts. It would require an act of congress to change that.

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

#629

Post by Reelin »

vannevar wrote: post #377
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.

Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. And if we're going to make them into public spaces legally, it's certainly not going to happen through an executive order. It would require an act of Congress, similar to the restrictions and obligations placed on broadcasters.

Except that SCOTUS has already at least flirted with the idea (see Packingham v. North Carolina, 2017). Also the executive order in question doesn't have anything to do with public spaces but rather Section 230 protections; the argument is that fact checking is a form of editorializing.

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

#630

Post by edoceo »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #567
theduder99 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What are you talking about? Trump is the one going after Twitter's right to free speech with this executive order. Liberals (and probably, hopefully, and if so, rightly, some conservatives) are the ones arguing for free speech right now.

No, this EO is so the Pres can say whatever, on Social and not have his "free speech" checked.

Both parties still have free speech w/o this EO.

Pres can say whatever (free speech) and Twitter can attach a flag (free-speech).

A challenge to your speech is not restricting your speech.

Post reply on HN