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

81–90 of 1001 posts

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

#81

Post by HPsquared »

akersten wrote: post #19
seanwilson wrote: post #10

> "Currently, social media giants like Twitter received unprecedented viability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We are fed up with it. It is unfair, and it's been very unfair." What examples of this unfairness are being referred to? I never understand why journalist don't press harder and follow up with obvious questions. Same with "man…

He has no examples, it's just word salad. The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allo…

Either they can control the content, or not. Do they have editorial control?

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

#82

Post by adrr »

wnevets wrote: post #32

Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government republicans

It’s the same people who said the deficit was the top priority during the Obama administration. Once in power immediately increased the deficit.

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

#83

Post by kube-system »

ReptileMan wrote: post #30
chasing wrote: post #4

All because Twitter dared to fact check him.

It is impossible to fact check a prediction. Fact check "The sun is going to turn red supergiant in 9 days" ...

Yes, it is. Mankind's amassed knowledge of physics, chemistry, and astronomy has lots of evidence to demonstrate why that would not happen, and when it probably will. That can be compared to the evidence you have to show for your claim, which is nothing.

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

#84

Post by akersten »

w3mmpp wrote: post #59
akersten wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has no examples, it's just word salad. The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allo…

> "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here." At least it'd be clear if they said so, nothing worse than the current situation where they think it but won't say it because it'd be bad for business.

I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all.

Some prominent conservatives have been banned from the platform, like Alex Jones, but it wasn't due to their views on Keynesian economics, it was for spreading outright lies about Sandy Hook.

Diving deeper into almost any of the examples that people dig up as 'anti-conservative bias' reveals trolling, hateful attacks, or other bad behavior, completely independent of the author's political views, and earnestly deserving of removal.

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

#85

Post by Zecar »

krapp wrote: post #65
TheColorYellow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an interesting thought experiment to assess in what ways Twitter is a "private website". It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts comprehension.

>It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company No, it isn't, any more than a store is a public space because it has windows the public can see into. You have to sign up for a Twitter account and accept their terms of service to post on the site. It's a private platform run by a private company for its own private business interests.

Twitter has over 300 million monthly active users. That is roughly equal to the entire population of the United States. You can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have total control over political discourse with no accountability? No reason at all?

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

#86

Post by Wowfunhappy »

thrusong wrote: post #61
TheColorYellow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an interesting thought experiment to assess in what ways Twitter is a "private website". It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts comprehension.

Do you have the right to stand in your community's biggest mall screaming racist things or does the property owner/operator have the right to remove you from the premise?

To play devil's advocate, you can't do that in a public park either. You can be arrested for disturbing the peace or some such. So I'm not sure it's necessarily about private vs public.

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

#87

Post by Goronmon »

marcell wrote: post #20

I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions. Twitter's "fact check" singles out a specific Trump tweet. It's clearly a human intervention by Twitter staff, not user generated content. The subject of Trump's tweet was a political dispute, and while Trump certainly had false statements in his tweet, that's basically par for the course on Twitter. T…

At what point does Twitter or Medium cease to be a neutral discussion platform, and become more like a publisher that pushes a specific narrative (like Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, etc.).

What does "neutral discussion platform" even mean? My understanding is that Fox News, New York Times, CNN, etc, all benefit from protections against what users post in places like comments sections, etc.

This whole "neutrality" aspect seems like a talking point meant to attack social media platforms from a strawman perspective of "Only 'neutral' platforms are allowed protections from liability" that doesn't seem to actually be related to the law itself.

I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions.

I wouldn't consider basic moderation activities as "murky territory".

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

#88

Post by inetknght »

probably_wrong wrote: post #78
xamuel wrote: post #3

Without any attempt to weigh in on political sides, this debate made me think of an interesting "hack" to act as a publisher while enjoying the protections of a platform: 1. Start a website where users are able to write arbitrary articles. 2. Have a bot systematically spam your site with all possible articles (suitably limited so as to make this technically doable). 3. Systematically weed out all the articles which a…

That's not so much of a "hack", more like "fraud with enough extra steps to make it difficult to prosecute". That doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. Adult websites have been accused of something similar: as the version goes, they'll take your (illegally published) video down on request, no questions asked, but "someone" will upload it again later. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this, though, which m…

> That's not so much of a "hack", more like "fraud with enough extra steps to make it difficult to prosecute".

Demonstrate that users on Twitter aren't bots. Otherwise I don't see a difference here.

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

#89

Post by kingnight »

jjcon wrote: post #71
chasing wrote: post #4

All because Twitter dared to fact check him.

This has been in the works since last summer - it has little to do with the recent twitter spat. Edit: I find it funny someone claiming it was due to fact checking downvotes me because I fact checked them.

Source?
Post reply on HN