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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by busymom0 »

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history

> The Cox-Wyden Amendment: Section 230

> Worried about the future of free speech online and responding directly to Stratton Oakmont, Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act that would end up becoming Section 230. The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability. Section 230 had two purposes: the first was to "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it; the other was to allow online services to implement their own standards for policing content and provide for child safety. Seeing the crucial importance of the amendment, the House passed it 420-4.

"encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it" is being forgotten by a lot of comments here.

EDIT: I seem to get downvoted on anything remotely political on HN. So I am glad this EO was passed and hoping it gets enforced.

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

#632

Post by gamblor956 »

Reelin wrote: post #580
gamblor956 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. H…

That's not at all what Packingham says. That ruling was about a sex offender's right to access a website on which he could engage in first amendment activities without government restriction. It was not about whether a social media website was a public platform or whether the websites had to allow the appellant access. Moreover, many of the activities identified in the ruling also apply to private malls...which the courts have already ruled several times are not public forums for first amendment purposes (Lloyd and Pruneyard).

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

This is true. A statute of Congress can place restrictions on businesses. Last I checked, the President is not a member of Congress, and cannot unilaterally override congressional laws.

Moreover, SCOTUS cases have ruled that privately owned facilities are not subject to the "limited purpose" test. It doesn't matter that they've held themselves open to the public, it matters that they're privately owned. (See Lloyd and Pruneyard, explicitly addressing this point.)

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

#633

Post by visarga »

akira2501 wrote: post #246
krapp wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech. But that's not what this is really about. This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. It's about fears of a nonexistent conspiracy controlling the media becoming the basis for authori…

> This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. That is the impetus in this case, but that doesn't mean it doesn't border on questions we've been slowly grappling with for some time now, nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. > the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that m…

> You clearly are willing to put the man power and technology into it, shouldn't you then be liable for content posted on your site?

Power and technology can't curate content to the level where you are safe from lawsuits. What you're saying is that if they are willing to do a bit of moderation they should do total moderation.

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

#634

Post by corrupt_measure »

Staying focused on the actual details of the tweet that spurred this order, Twitter's response highlights the problems inherent with content moderation.

There are hundreds of documented cases of people being convicted of mail in ballot voter fraud. In Paterson NJ there was an all mail election recently that is causing significant problems. I shudder at the thought of that playing out on a national scale.

Yet in spite of those facts, Twitter feels that Trump's warnings are somehow wrong. In light of the facts I think his fear is justified.

Twitter is a private company but we restrict the activities of private companies all the time. I see no reason why we shouldn't have a serious conversation about placing special restrictions on internet platforms' ability to censor users.

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

#635

Post by Avicebron »

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.

If an immoral actor reaches a certain size and dominance over enough people's lives don't we generally encourage taking action against that actor?

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

#636

Post by triceratops »

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?

So by your understanding of the First Amendment, if you had a blog with a comment section, I could come by and post spam, or troll and harass other users and you have no right to stop me?

Are you required to let me organize a protest in your front yard? Do property rights not matter anymore?

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

#637

Post by daenz »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #556
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…

> ... does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? This has nothing to do with any real person, but is just a hypothetical situation pertaining to this question in your post: Let's say an account X with many followers calls you a pedophile. You're not, of course, so you responded and said you weren't, but since the followers tend to like X, they don't listen to you. X's followers then dox you, find yo…

Fact checkers are necessary because otherwise people will believe a bad thing and commit crimes? Committing crimes like threatening people is not the natural outcome of the freedom to decide for yourself what you believe.

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

#638

Post by busymom0 »

illumin8 wrote: post #211
nostromo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be aware that the DC Circuit leans left, by a lot -- so it's an unsurprising result. The Supreme Court may eventually take one of these cases and come to a different conclusion.

Since when is protecting the private property rights of corporations a "left" issue? This is a constitutional issue, and the fact that any court ruling that GOP voters disagree with is now a "left" issue tells you everything you need to know about how far civil discourse in this country has fallen.

Have you looked at the circus going on with the General Flynn's case Judge?

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

#639

Post by ngcc_hk »

superfrank wrote: post #489
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…

According to Twitter, the reasons they added the warning to Trump's tweet as as follows: - Trump claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to "a Rigged Election." However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud. - Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there." In fact, only regi…

Turn off the Api Or limit it in a certain way and kill or limit the bot? Let us be human first.

Regards the debate of flagging or counter fact stating, it is hard question. Debate on

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

#640

Post by perl4ever »

Izkata wrote: post #521
CamperBob2 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't disagree with their actions in this case -- if anything, they didn't phrase it strongly enough. ("Get the facts about voting by mail," as opposed to "Caution: this Tweet is unadulterated horseshit.") But I also think that the more Twitter is used to disintermediate political communication, the more it starts to look like a vital public utility. It's tough to say where the line will or should be drawn. I…

> "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.

My understanding is that he supported the concerns about fraud with a specific lie (maybe more than one) about how the state authorities are sending out ballots to everyone, whereas they are only sending them to registered voters.

This could, and presumably is intended to, mislead people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Assuming for the sake of argument that someone could be trying to promote a fundamental truth using lies, it doesn't make it sane to trust or acquiesce as a result of lies.

Maybe in our brave new world, disbelieving in something because it is supported with lies is an example of an ad hominem fallacy?

Post reply on HN