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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by whymauri »

RandomTisk wrote: post #717
kaikai wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding fact checking is not censorship. You have the right to say whatever you like, and everyone else has the right to have opinions about it.

What about shadow banning, deleting content and expelling users for otherwise legal speech?

> The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment constrains governmental actors and protects private actors. To draw the line between governmental and private, this Court applies what is known as the state-action doctrine. Under that doctrine, as relevant here, a private entity may be considered a state actor when it exercises a function “traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 352 (1974). [0]

[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf

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

#772

Post by isoskeles »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #746
isoskeles wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pretending content is not often political speech

The person you are replying to explicitly said that is not the point in the larger issue.

Sorry, you don't just get to decide what is a larger point in some discussion.

The law is capable of distinguishing between ideas, including whether content is good-faith speech or trolling. Pretending the two are the same and that a law could not possibly allow for a platform to moderate the latter without sacrificing its "neutrality" seems unreasonable.

I think it is a valid question that could be scrutinized in court, but there is no need to be obtuse about the fact that these are different categories of speech that the law could treat differently specifically with regard to how it would categorize ("neutrality" of) a platform on the internet, not whether or not the speech is entirely forbidden period.

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

#773

Post by belltaco »

partyboat1586 wrote: post #504
roganp wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The owners of printing presses have even more power, but the government does not mandate open access to those machines for dispensing speech. Unfettered access to twitter is not akin to free speech.

Twitter is essentially a big public square the results of which end up getting printed by mainstream press. Publishers are also under more legal restrictions than Twitter is.

No, publishers can be as biased as they want, unlike the new requirements here.

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

#774

Post by jeffdavis »

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…

There's the legality of freedom and the spirit.

I'd be pretty disturbed if an ISP all of a sudden prevented me from contacting wikipedia, or throttled my access to competitors. The ISP is private, but it's not really in the spirit of freedom to do so.

Similarly, if an airline said they won't sell me a ticket because I'm going to a rally for a particular politician. Or if the post office (or fedex) wouldn't carry my letter to the editor because they disagree with my opinion. Or if I couldn't get basic banking, insurance, or other business services because my legal business is politically unpopular.

There also is some legal murkiness because a federal judge ruled that Trump couldn't block people on Twitter[1].

[1] https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-twitter-facebo...

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

#775

Post by dyoo1979 »

rwoodley wrote: post #767
irrational wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I used to be proud of our flag and would display it. Now (past 3 years) it has morphed into a symbol of hate and oppression. When I see armed 'protestors' terrorizing a state legislature and waving the flag, then the flag is no longer a symbol of freedom but of intimidation.

You may want to read the history of banana republics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic.

Given the wildness of that particular dark corner of our history, I'm looking forward to reading about the history we're living through now. Hopefully after some emotional remove, like in another ten years.

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

#776

Post by GlTChWhISKY »

Youtube places checks on videos for covid ... Antivax and more. How is what twitter did any different. Why is the conversation about what twitter did and not about Trump getting mad and using an EO to stop people from fact checking him. Why isnt that the conversation.. I shouldnt be able to turn a radio on and not hear how unprofessional and childish and abuse of power this truly is.

This isnt how the presidency is supposed to be used. He got mad and hes trying to silence his critics. Enough with the twitter is right or wrong.. Publisher vs platform. This is the conversation that needs to be had.

There is no reason an EO of this nature should be slid across the desk. A blind judge could see hes reacting to being checked.

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

#777

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

FireBeyond wrote: post #576
xiphias2 wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be as simple as you write if social media companies would take responsibility for the publishing rights for what they publish, but they don't. For a long time they are picking and choosing the laws they want to abide by.

What law did Twitter fail to abide by in linking a tweet to factual information?

>factual information

Well... if you really want to get into it. Twitter can’t “fact check” the original statement. Because it was a prediction.

It hasn’t happened yet. It’s unlikely to be mass scale fraud, of course, but it’s a future event.

It’s his opinion / prediction. As wrong as it is, that isn’t something they should “fact check”.

Twitter picked a really bad tweet to make a stand on. Like it or not, they chose to editorialize someone else’s content, that’s a publisher.

They didn’t have to “break a law” to now be liable for other content they “publish”. That’s all the EO is, that Section 230 doesn’t apply to publishers.

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

#778

Post by smkellat »

kthxbye123 wrote: post #535
smkellat wrote: post #109

After just under four years of scorched earth resistance we now get this new EO. I am only surprised he waited this long.

And to think, just this morning you were claiming the text of this order was probably a forgery because it was so shoddy and inconsistent.

I used to work at a sub-cabinet bureau that had much, much higher standards than we’re seeing out of the executive mansion now. I’m disappointed.

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

#779

Post by sfj »

GlTChWhISKY wrote: post #776

Youtube places checks on videos for covid ... Antivax and more. How is what twitter did any different. Why is the conversation about what twitter did and not about Trump getting mad and using an EO to stop people from fact checking him. Why isnt that the conversation.. I shouldnt be able to turn a radio on and not hear how unprofessional and childish and abuse of power this truly is. This isnt how the presidency is s…

> This isnt how the presidency is supposed to be used. He got mad and hes trying to silence his critics.

There is a “reply” button underneath all of his tweets, you know?

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

#780

Post by colejohnson66 »

empath75 wrote: post #654
cdolan wrote: post #2

The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline: “This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations. Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”

Repealing section 230 would make twitter liable for publishing trump’s libelous murder accusations and incitement to violence. They’d be forced to ban him.

I’m curious how that would turn out? What would happen if Trump was banned? While I’m against censorship, banning someone for not following your “code of conduct” is well within your rights.
Post reply on HN