As a random thought, I’ll bet Twitter leadership is absolutely frantic right now figuring out next steps.
I’ve been on that side before and it’s not pretty! Lots of long nights for those folks.
Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
671–680 of 1001 posts
Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
#672Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
I'm so baffled by this because there are plenty of places where speech is suppressed and its fine. A highschool teacher can fail a student for shouting answers in an exam. A person can kick someone out of their house for saying horrible things. A cafe can ask someone to leave for saying slurs. A professor can ask a student to leave a lecture hall for talking... The right to speech is curtailed all the time in private…
You are misunderstanding free speech, it isn't a literal statement. Free speech is about being allowed to express ideas, not disrupting classrooms or harassing others. If you are allowed to express your idea after waiting for your turn, then your speech wasn't suppressed even if people told you to be quiet for a while.
Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
#673Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe they can, comcast actually has injected javascript into websites in the past using a similar technique. https://gizmodo.com/comcast-to-customer-who-noticed-it-secre...
can you imagine the horror on HN if this were really a thing?
No need to imagine it.
Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
#674Oh my goodness is he a big dumb stupid moron. At the risk of this being downvoted to oblivion, why doesn't he think that Twitter, a privately run company, has the right to fact-check claims made on their site? Even if there were some secret evil liberal agenda on Twitter, which there absolutely is not, why aren't they allowed to do that exactly? Is he planning on holding Fox News to the same standard and make them pu…
I'm sorry but you have a fundamentally flawed model for how Trump (and many in the GOP) think about the world. You're operating under a principle that says that people are essential equal in terms of rights and that there is a moral obligation to consistency. The old Golden Rule, and everything. Under that framework, it's stupid to punch someone in the face unless you also want to get punched in the face, because you…
How can it be stopped?
Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
#675The 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.
Seems like having the president attack Twitter for their speech (adding extra speech that suggests that some shared information is disputed) is the actual violation of Free Speech. The First Amendment says that the federal government can't stifle free speech, which seems like what is happening here.
Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
#676Regardless 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…
If Trump can post claims about voting by mail, why can’t Twitter?
How could a fact-check not be considered free speech like anything else and why shouldn’t twitter be able to post content?
Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
#677The 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.
Now I'm curious what the historical precedent is for this. What happens (first-amendment-wise) when a company town has a literal private-property town square? Could the company control speech in "its" town square?
For that matter: what about malls? Or university campuses? Or public transit infrastructure provided by private government contractors? What are your free-speech rights when in one of these (privately-owned, public use) places?
I feel like a very extreme edge-case situation could be constructed to test the law here: incorporate a town; and then, as your first act as mayor, sell the whole of the town's incorporated territory to a private corporation. Have the corporation declare that anyone engaging in democratic actions on "its property" (e.g. holding a municipal election) is trespassing. Are you now the town's autocratic mayor-for-life, however-many people may move in?
Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
>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.
This seems like pretty strong implications of cause and effect. Doing something as a payment in return of a service (license).
Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this mindset. It comes back to the question of whether a company should be able to deny the service of a customer based on its own internal decision making. So lets use a real world example, how about a baker denying service to a person based on sexual orientation. Should the company be forced to provide a service if it goes against their conscience? I believe the answer should and alwa…
Legally I see that you make a good point but morally I do not support such behavior by any corporation, specially as large and dominant as Twitter and FB. Baker analogy doesn't quite cut it as there are many other bakers in town, give me 5 other alternatives to Twitter?
Yes, I also agree with you from a moral standpoint that it doesn't seem right, but if you agree to their terms by creating an account, you play by their rules.
Honestly, the point I'm trying to make with the baker analogy is only to understand who has the final say: the company has the final say on what actions they will perform and the customer has the final say on where they spend their time and money.
There are actually plenty of alternatives to Twitter, but obviously these corporations own the largest market share. However, to blame Twitter or Facebook for that is misguided. They are as big as they are because customers have decided to agree to their terms, and if those terms change, Twitter and others have to send updated User Terms, at which point all users have every right to cancel their accounts. Any complaints about a company's policies whilst still being a customer is their own fault. :)
Re: Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies
#680Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
Or maybe we think that giving the government the power to tell private companies which speech they must allow is more authoritarian than letting the companies decide for themselves. Whenever there are tricky balancing questions like this, I always err on the side of the party that doesn't have a monopoly on violence.