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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by gamblor956 »

Mirioron wrote: post #545
gamblor956 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that Tweets are broadcasted to billions of people. No, they're not. You have to visit the Twitter website or otherwise pull the data from some source to get tweets. it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech. It's technically trivial to create your own Twitter. There are indeed plenty of competitors to Twitter. Twitter has no moral or e…

> No, they're not. You have to visit the Twitter website or otherwise pull the data from some source to get tweets. Would you make this same argument when it comes to privacy? Technically it's your computer sending your data to Google/Facebook, therefore you are giving them permission to use your data, because you're so generously providing it to them. Technically this is true and any real privacy solution would have…

I don't understand your point.

When you send your data to Google or Facebook by explicitly providing that data, you are giving them permission to use that data for purposes of providing the service for which the data is granted. This is true everywhere, even in the EU.

If you're asking whether that upload would grant Googlebook broader rights to use your data, then the answer is yes in the US because there are no laws currently restricting such use, but no in Europe because EU law says permission must be explicitly granted for other uses.

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

#642

Post by busymom0 »

pengaru wrote: post #92

What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. It's like they've never even been to a movie theater where they need to shut the hell up or leave. And here we have a US president signing an executive order in response to being moderated on a web site after years of arguably excessive tolerance of his b.s. I'm n…

The Cox-Wyden Amendment: Section 230 specifically stated:

"encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it;".

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

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

#643

Post by Reelin »

akoncius wrote: post #588
esoterica wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I would inverse your last statement: conservatives are in favor of deregulation when it benefits them. and regulate stuff also when it benefits them.

I would replace "conservatives" with "people in general" and remind everyone that this is why protecting personal freedoms, even ones you don't like, is of the utmost importance.

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

#645

Post by caminante »

slg wrote: post #251
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.

This is a valid argument, but it seems like the proper government response would be to use the tools that were designed to address issues like this such as antitrust law. We shouldn't be bestowing governmental responsibilities on these companies just because we let them become monopolies.

The legislation (Communications Decency Act of 1996) under discussion flows from EFFECTIVE lobbying by telecom monopolies seeking a liability shield [0].

Monopoly power and market manipulation is a second order issue.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

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

#647

Post by edoceo »

Avicebron wrote: post #608
closeparen wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legacy OTA broadcasters were granted exclusive licenses to large chunks of a scarce natural resource (RF spectrum). Their public service obligations are essentially their payments on those licenses. Cable channels are under no obligation to carry news programming, for example, and are allowed to swear.

I don't think it holds up to say that because the internet is not a scare natural resource, rules have to be updated as situations evolve in multiple areas.

@closeparen is not saying "because" they were just explaining the legacy scenario that got us to the classifications used today

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

#648

Post by visarga »

jtbayly wrote: post #317
threeseed wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers have restricted what they publish for centuries. They don't allow libellous, defamatory, salacious or inappropriate comments for example. So it sounds 'new tech' hasn't really changed anything.

Newspapers do that because they are liable for what they publish. Twitter is not liable for what it publishes. Why should it not be liable? The answer is because they are just providing a platform and others are publishing. But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right?

> But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right?

There are degrees to moderation, but not to liability. This black or white approach doesn't seem appropriate. They should be liable in a degree proportional to the moderation they introduce.

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

#649

Post by mattkrause »

Izkata wrote: post #592
jessaustin wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These don't seem like vast criminal conspiracies. Also, if they can successfully prosecute little cases like these....what's the problem?

"Carlos Lopez and his wife, Luz Lopez, registered to vote and voted on three separate occasions (2004, 2006, and 2007) in Hartford, where they own a furniture store, while actually living in Farmington." (Fittingly, this story is included twice: once with each spouse first).

"In 2009, Lillian Cummings Stevenson agreed to a consent order after the State Elections Enforcement Commission found her guilty of illegally signing and submitting two absentee ballot request forms on behalf of her sons, who were living in Europe. She was given a $200 fine."

"James Bryant, Jr. admitted to improperly assisting voters in completing their absentee ballots in the 2005 Americus mayoral election...."

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

#650

Post by perl4ever »

username90 wrote: post #541
rbanffy wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't remove his message. They merely pointed out it was misinforming the public. Speaking of which, shouldn't we make it a crime to lie or substantially mislead the public while holding public office?

> They didn't remove his message. They merely pointed out it was misinforming the public. Why should a private company have this power? I don't think that people who run a successful website automatically are qualified to fact check the president and insert blurbs directly in his messages. That needs to be regulated some way.

Your tone is as if they were editing his message. I don't believe they were doing that in a way that would create any confusion as to what he wrote, were they?
Post reply on HN