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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by nautilus12 »

SllX wrote: post #761
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.

Someone that spends too much time at the bar might mistake that for the town square, as might someone who spends too much time on Twitter. The more foolish aspect of this is that the President doesn’t have a direct means of striking back against what Twitter actually did (post a Get the Facts link), so he’s trying to punish them by reinterpreting Section 230. This EO definitely has some teeth, but there are provision…

Is he reinterpreting 230? I've seen both sides of the spectrum say that social media companies have been interpreting 230 too broadly

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

#792

Post by SilasX »

derefr wrote: post #677
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.

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…

I remember reading that there's some precedent for those kinds of workarounds, and courts have ruled that, when you start looking like a government, then the First Amendment applies, and it came up when the Domino's Pizza owners tried to do exactly that, but I don't know where to look to substantiate that, though someone else might.

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

#793

Post by nautilus12 »

theduder99 wrote: post #461
bosswipe wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

230 seems to only be considered too broadly interpreted when it's helping their side out ️. Definite double standards here like no other

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

#794

Post by belltaco »

caseysoftware wrote: post #769
gamblor956 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fundamental question has already been addressed by the courts many times. The answer is yes to your first question. A private company is not required to make available "Official Statements" (whatever that means) using its own resources. The government (in the US at least) must pay for publication and dissemination of "Official Statements."

Fantastic, despite looking, I hadn't found a decision along those lines. Can you give me a case to read? Just the name, I'm happy to do the research myself. Thanks in advance! And to be clear, I've read the DOJ position asserting that "Trump's tweets are official government statements" (linked in this thread) but wasn't aware of court rulings.

There's probably no decision because it's black and white. For example, many media outlets stopped carrying full Trump press conferences live.

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/04/cnn-msnbc-not-airing-trump...

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

#795

Post by VectorLock »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #789
remarkEon wrote: post #785

I don't know why everyone here is upset by this. Isn't this what we wanted? An actual policy debate, decided by the three branches of government - the executive, congress, the Courts - about what kinds of regulations these super powerful social media companies should have to submit to. Don't fool yourselves, if Facebook or Twitter wanted to swing an election they absolutely have the power to do that . Isn't that a pr…

I think some people are upset because he’s not going the proper route. He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now . Because he knows that something like this would be held up in Congress by the Democrats. Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “co…

I'd be interested to see what a Court would say if Twitter decided to straight-up delete his account as a response.

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

#796

Post by chongli »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #789
remarkEon wrote: post #785

I don't know why everyone here is upset by this. Isn't this what we wanted? An actual policy debate, decided by the three branches of government - the executive, congress, the Courts - about what kinds of regulations these super powerful social media companies should have to submit to. Don't fool yourselves, if Facebook or Twitter wanted to swing an election they absolutely have the power to do that . Isn't that a pr…

I think some people are upset because he’s not going the proper route. He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now . Because he knows that something like this would be held up in Congress by the Democrats. Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “co…

This isn’t about repealing section 230, it’s about enforcing it. Twitter is exercising editorial control over users’ posts. That makes them a publisher. I don’t like Trump either but I think he has a point here.

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

#798

Post by tebruno99 »

VectorLock wrote: post #795
colejohnson66 wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some people are upset because he’s not going the proper route. He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now . Because he knows that something like this would be held up in Congress by the Democrats. Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “co…

I'd be interested to see what a Court would say if Twitter decided to straight-up delete his account as a response.

If they make Twitter liable for content this way, Twitter will have to delete his account ;)

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

#799

Post by oldsklgdfth »

remarkEon wrote: post #785

I don't know why everyone here is upset by this. Isn't this what we wanted? An actual policy debate, decided by the three branches of government - the executive, congress, the Courts - about what kinds of regulations these super powerful social media companies should have to submit to. Don't fool yourselves, if Facebook or Twitter wanted to swing an election they absolutely have the power to do that . Isn't that a pr…

I don't disagree that policy is required, but expecting policy to correct problems is asking too much. Policy is there to provide guidelines, not create an exhaustive list of what is ok and what is not.

If we do not police ourselves, the government will do it for us. When law enforcement is expected to deal with everything, they become militarized. I'm not sure what this means for the internet.

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

#800

Post by remarkEon »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #789
remarkEon wrote: post #785

I don't know why everyone here is upset by this. Isn't this what we wanted? An actual policy debate, decided by the three branches of government - the executive, congress, the Courts - about what kinds of regulations these super powerful social media companies should have to submit to. Don't fool yourselves, if Facebook or Twitter wanted to swing an election they absolutely have the power to do that . Isn't that a pr…

I think some people are upset because he’s not going the proper route. He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now . Because he knows that something like this would be held up in Congress by the Democrats. Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “co…

>He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now.

And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here.

>as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech

Not quite sure this is actually the question at hand. It's about choice of moderation is it not? In any case ... thankfully we have a Court system that is designed to handle these types of questions.

>There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely detrimental to the internet.

Not following you. Maybe the social media and tech companies have to hire a lot more layers instead of bloating their HR departments. Probably a good development imo, since HR people like to pretend they work in tech but what they really do is bureaucracy.

Post reply on HN