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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by _y5hn »

torben-friis wrote: post #565
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…

Talking as an outsider, what's really weird to me is how the things Trump clearly says or does on a whim result in serious, deep debate in all the media and public forums. He goes "I will build a wall spanning a continent to stop mexicans" and you see deep debate about how effective it would be, the price, the logistics of it... it's clearly a dumb idea, why does everyone pretend it's not and engage in deep considera…

"The wall" was an issue long before Trump, as is section 230 for social media. So what may seem like childish tantrums, are in reality diversion and deception tactics in order to drum up thirst for reviving underlying political issues. Since there is already a somewhat stifled political debate, the diversion works on all levels, every single time, to spread FUD, disruption, renewed outrage, discordance and confusion.

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

#662

Post by Thriptic »

throwaways1232 wrote: post #587
joshuamorton wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all, they're directly at odds in this case. The President using presidential authority to restrict what twitter can say on their own platform is directly violating the first amendment to restrict twitter's free expression. You can argue that twitter is also restricting others' free expression, but that is their right, while the government preventing twitter from doing so is a 1A violation.

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.

I would argue that Google has an obligation to be transparent, they do not have an obligation to be neutral. As you state, they are a private entity and can do whatever they want.

If news providers and other knowledge providers are allowed to curate what data they present then I don't think it's reasonable to demand that Google be held to a higher standard. Further, literally nothing is stopping you from creating your own knowledge aggregator if you feel that Google is doing a bad job of displaying pertinent data.

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

#663

Post by partyboat1586 »

SiVal wrote: post #577
UncleMeat wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced it does have any bias against mainstream political ideas (obviously it is biased against things like white supremacy). This just lays bare that the "free speech" advocates are nothing of the sort.

No, Twitter has no bias against "mainstream political ideas". Their San Francisco urban chic politics are the very definition of today's "mainstream". Looking back over history, have mainstream political ideas always been the right ones, more or less? Or have mainstream political opinions frequently been pretty bad in retrospect? The point of "free speech" is to be able to express opinions that aren't currently "main…

Thank you. Finally some hope. The problem is people think the current political landscape is somehow fundamentally different like history doesn't apply. Big picture view.

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

#664

Post by thephyber »

2019-nCoV wrote: post #464
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…

> 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. This is literally what Twitter has been doing. Trump's order puts an end to it. > We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer. Exactly why Twitter needs to be strippe…

> This is literally what Twitter has been doing. Trump's order puts an end to it.

Debatable, on both points. There have been studies[1] that show that accounts are banned, but it's not necessarily because they are conservative accounts or conservative content. In a civil or criminal case, causation must be established. In this case, the president is making it very much more expensive for certain companies to defend themselves.

This EO is more likely to hurt YouTube than Twitter because it has the ability to get the Federal Government to no longer approve grants to Google subsidiaries and for government agencies to stop advertising with them.

> to be stripped of their 203 protections.

You mean The Communications Decency Act, Section 230?

> Twitter's policies and their selective enforcement of such run directly contrary to the underlying tenets of free speech.

That's interesting. Government law enforcers and prosecutors have the ability to use prosecutorial discretion. Are you saying that the government should be able to select who they prosecute, but that private organizations should not be allowed discretion to enforce their own contracts?

If ISPs (where content in a pipe is pretty close to comparable to Common Carrier standards) can't be held up to the standards of Net Neutrality, how can social media companies (where content is much more subjective to interpret as violations of their contract)?

> this will be a net win for the internet

That remains to be seen. I can see it being another tool where the executive branch gets to unilaterally change the definition of which internet companies get protections, not leveling the playing field.

> This will encourage decentralisation in so far as there is now a soft power cap on these big tech companies.

More likely there will be some obvious "unintended consequences" similar to what happened after Trump signed the FOSTA bill in 2018[2] (hint: multiple dating sites, including Craigslist sections, closed up shop). It will very likely increase the cost of being a user-generated content host to the point that only a very select few companies would do it and they will all require arbitration clauses in the ToS to avoid extremely expensive litigation of the CDA230 rules. I expect a handful of forums and lots of news comments sections to close due to this "free speech" Executive Order.

[1] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php

[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/23/596460672...

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

#665

Post by dexen »

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.

>>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.

In 2018 there was a decision of a district court[1], subsequently reaffirmed by the Courts of Appeal, that the President's twitter account is a "designated public forum". This was widely reported due to it's "Trump cannot block other users" aspect, but might have interesting bearing here.

--

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_First_Amendment_Institu...

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

#666

Post by mmazing »

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…

It's not working out so well.

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

#667

Post by christophilus »

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…

> I'm not sure how much more embarrassed I can get for my country.

Every election season, I’ve said, “These are some of the worst candidates I’ve ever seen. I’m not sure how much lower the bar can get.” And then it gets lower.

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

#669

Post by irrational »

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…

>I'm not sure how much more embarrassed I can get for my country.

I honestly used to be proud to be an American. Now I am so ashamed that when I travel (or back in the days when I traveled) I lie and say I'm a Canadian.

Post reply on HN