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

721–730 of 1001 posts

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

#721

Post by FireBeyond »

Karunamon wrote: post #711
FireBeyond wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then perhaps let us debate that in a reasoned and considered manner, rather than an executive order that Trump himself describe as a lashing out at Twitter.

The executive order signed today is far too detailed and far too nuanced to support the idea that its cause for existence is Trump being upset at Twitter a few days ago. This has been being prepared for a long time.

You underestimate the productivity of some underlings and lawyers pulling an all-nighter.

It's also not Day 1 of "Trump being upset at Twitter for much the same reasons", so no doubt there's been a plan. But ascribing the timing of this EO to "just a coincidence" stretches credulity, to me.

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

#722

Post by jessaustin »

munificent wrote: post #154
tombert wrote: post #103

Oh 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…

The Right used to abhor postmodernism, and were properly mocked by the Left whenever they whinged about it.

Now the Right have embraced postmodernism, and the Left have no idea how to respond.

TV news corporations know how to respond, and they've done the same thing for five years now. They keep him (or his empty lectern) on TV as much as they possibly can. Ratings gold!

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

#723

Post by tyrust »

pas wrote: post #479
soheil wrote: post #194

Here is the text of the executive order (draft): https://www.scribd.com/document/463379849/Draft-Executive-Or... Here is the audio version: https://playthis.link/https://pastebin.com/0mzv8heR

[flagged]

It takes about 10 minutes to read and I was able to comprehend it as a layman. I do suggest reading the referenced section U.S. Code 230 [0] beforehand and having it available for reference.

>genderfluid attack helicopterkins

Please avoid transphobic idioms [1]. Replacing "regular normal etc." with simply "laypeople" or "non-lawyers" would suffice.

[0] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Atta...

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

#724

Post by username90 »

natechols wrote: post #686
username90 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Tech companies are way too powerful to be left alone. With great power comes great regulations, as they say.

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

#725

Post by mmazing »

seph-reed wrote: post #409
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…

I think they should have just banned him without any reason but that they felt like it and they could. Instead, this was an attempt to high-road one of the most powerful trolls in history, and high-roading a troll is the absolute most losing strategy around. Basically, however imperfect you are, that's how much ammo you've just given the troll. Twitter is very imperfect, so 1/10, tactless strats imo. And the whole "f…

Look up the "Gish Gallop". Republican Strategy 101.

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

#726

Post by efitz »

I would love to see a law that for corporations, once the corporation exceeds some commercial threshold (e.g. 1M customers or 10M/year revenue or whatever) then you are no longer allowed to discriminate against your users for any reason other than violation of non-discriminatory terms of service.

I don't think that companies that achieve near-monopoly status should have the right to arbitrarily cancel, shadow ban, hide from search, delete content, flag content, "fact check", label, or otherwise interfere with users' use of the service.

This is not a "free speech" issue, it's a "when you have monopoly power and positioning in the market, there are no alternatives" issue. Visa refusing to process CC payments because they don't like your politics, is not a power that I want them to have.

If you're a tiny boutique company, discriminate to your heart's content. When you get big, I don't want you to have that power anymore. If you don't like it, then eschew the current fashion of companies to value growth over all else.

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

#727

Post by Reelin »

gamblor956 wrote: post #632
Reelin wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You keep citing cases regarding private malls. I previously pointed out that a reasonable argument can be made as to why that precedent should not apply. I don't claim to know what the outcome of such an argument would be in court, only that it is a reasonable one to make under the circumstances (and thus the situation is fairly complicated).

> Last I checked, the President is not a member of Congress, and cannot unilaterally override congressional laws.

I never claimed this? I said only that the current situation was not as simple as you made out. (I would also note that the president appears to be targeting Section 230 protections which is quite a different beast.)

> That's not at all what Packingham says.

Except... it is. In their ruling the court _directly_ compares social media to other venues for public gathering. I'm not claiming that they explicitly rule it to be one way or the other (they don't), but they do repeatedly make direct comparisons that would appear to lean that way.

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

#728

Post by edoceo »

Avicebron wrote: post #678
edoceo wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@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).

I did not read as strong implication. Some but not strong.

the word "essentially" and my a-priori knowledge that OTA broadcasters have to also pay cash-money for the license and have other obligations.

I see the scares-resource as one of the many factors for OTA classifications different from webApp.

Fixes for this issue have to cover many legacy and many new complex factors

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

#729

Post by isoskeles »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #709
isoskeles wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question was > Where have Fox News editorialised (sic) users content? not > Where have Fox News editorialised (sic) users political speech? so my reply should in no way construe my opinion of what is or is not political speech. Now that we've established that Fox News does in fact editorialize user content, we can move on to the original question of whether or not they should now > be liable for suit for anything…

> pretending content is not often political speech

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

#730

Post by natechols »

username90 wrote: post #724
natechols wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Tech companies are way too powerful to be left alone. With great power comes great regulations, as they say.

That's an entirely subjective opinion - and one that should ideally be left up to voters and/or their elected representatives, not to any single individual (like our president, or unelected bureaucrats in the FTC/FCC/etc.). And I continue to maintain that it's insanity to be terrified of Twitter's power when the government can order any one of us killed or locked up indefinitely and there are zero consequences when they screw up.
Post reply on HN