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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by aniro »

jmull wrote: post #610

I wonder how upset free speech advocates will be about an executive order that trumpets free speech but is intended to punish twitter for exercising free speech? Twitter responded to a message from authority by adding their own, dissenting message, not censoring the first message. I guess this kind of double-speak is what we can expect now.

You should read the signing statement for the CARES act.

The Executive (created to execute the laws enacted by Congress) states that they WILL NOT execute a portion of Congressional Law (the portion that stipulates oversight of the Executive) because they “don’t understand” and because the Constitution has a clause stating that they (the Executive) must execute the laws faithfully.

I think it is the patent for “what to expect moving forward”.

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

#682

Post by [deleted] »

username90 wrote: post #655
sixstringtheory wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have to speak in hypotheticals here. There are plenty of examples: voat, gab, TD, etc. What laws are/were being pushed by liberal politicians to use the force of law to shut them up? Please do link to government documents or quotes from elected officials.

If tech companies instead shut down people clamoring for unions and worker rights then you'd see the left rushing to introduce measures like the one signed by Donald Trump right now. So this is really a bipartisan issue and not just a right wing one, we should all work together to regulate the power of big tech. They might be mostly well-intentioned today, but it is best we regulate them before they have a chance to…

[deleted]

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

#683

Post by Izkata »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #410
partyboat1586 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is now that public square.

Then the solution is to nationalize Twitter and enforce the first amendment there, not this.

> U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled on May 23 [2018] that comments on the president’s account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter/trump-u...

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

#685

Post by isoskeles »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #569
2019-nCoV wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where have Fox News editorialised users content?

> FoxNews.com and FoxBusiness.com do use moderation in an effort to maintain a safe and respectful environment in our online community. If your comment or username includes vulgar, racist, threatening, or otherwise offensive language, it will be removed. https://help.foxnews.com/hc/en-us/articles/233194608-Do-you-...

It's disingenuous to compare political speech to, for example, copy/pasting the N word a dozen times. It seems reasonable for a "neutral" platform to allow "moderation" of the latter, but perhaps not the former.

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

#686

Post by natechols »

username90 wrote: post #655
sixstringtheory wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have to speak in hypotheticals here. There are plenty of examples: voat, gab, TD, etc. What laws are/were being pushed by liberal politicians to use the force of law to shut them up? Please do link to government documents or quotes from elected officials.

If tech companies instead shut down people clamoring for unions and worker rights then you'd see the left rushing to introduce measures like the one signed by Donald Trump right now. So this is really a bipartisan issue and not just a right wing one, we should all work together to regulate the power of big tech. They might be mostly well-intentioned today, but it is best we regulate them before they have a chance to…

What about those of us who do not identify as "left" or "right" and would prefer that both gangs leave the Internet alone?

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

#687

Post by nostromo »

irrational wrote: post #669
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.

This strikes me as shameful behavior.

You should say the truth: you're an American, and Americans have a diversity of views on most subjects, just like every other country.

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

#688

Post by effable »

w3mmpp wrote: post #166
CyberDildonics wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that twitter doesn't allow conservative viewpoints or that obvious lies ARE conservative viewpoints?

I'm implying that twitter favor non-conservative viewpoints, tolerate them because obviously it's good for business, but do whatever they can, without getting caught, to favor more liberal viewpoints.

Curious to see if there's evidence for this. I am not sure how one would go about measuring this - but perhaps it would help if you elaborate on how this favoritism manifests in the way Twitter operates. Is there anything like that or is this based more on your personal feelings on the matter?

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

#689

Post by thephyber »

perl4ever wrote: post #602
anigbrowl wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you act as a conduit for certain types of speech, you're liable for that speech. There's some merit to that position, but things like adding a fact check (which you might or might not agree with) do not incur any sort of civil or criminal liability. You make good points, but we should also engage with the reality that the president and his supporters are demanding a quality of representation/protection for their p…

I didn't know the Fairness Doctrine was a mechanism to prevent the juxtaposition of opposing views.

> to prevent the juxtaposition of opposing views

The way I interpreted it, your parent comment was arguing the opposite of the way you framed it.

It's a long run-on sentence, but the `;` is meant to be interpreted as "start a new sentence that is related to the previous one"

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

#690

Post by username90 »

perl4ever wrote: post #650
username90 wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It doesn't matter, they didn't post a message like everyone else instead they made an official statement using their own privileged way. It is fine to do it on this message, I don't see the harm, but if this continues and people gets used to that blurb then Twitter will definitely start misusing it sooner or later. I don't think that companies should have this kind of power to influence public discourse, I might not agree with Trump but I really think that we need to limit the power big tech companies have.
Post reply on HN