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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by ac29 »

username90 wrote: post #720
TeaDrunk wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The ideal of free speech and its merits applies just as well to private actors and we should try to live up to it whenever we can." What exactly does this mean if it doesn't apply to actively telling people when and where they can speak?

It is fine to police disruptions, but you shouldn't police ideas. If all conservatives are told to wait for their turns while it is fine for liberals to just blurt things out then it isn't free speech. However if everyone is forced to wait and a conservative gets banned for talking out of turn then it is still free speech, he got banned for disrupting and not for his message. It is hard/impossible to create laws arou…

This seems like a strawman - no one is getting banned from social media for having polite disagreements on foreign policy or income tax rates.

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

#802

Post by kickopotomus »

tomohawk wrote: post #657
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…

Why does the US government exist? The only reason is to protect the rights of the citizens. Once upon a time, the rights of citizens only protected them from the federal government's actions. States could (and did) infringe on these rights. Corporations were much less powerful at this time, so were not much of a concern. We ended up fighting a war over this, and one result was the 14th amendment, which binds the stat…

You do not have a right to use Twitter. Currently, in the US, you do not even have a right to use the Internet. Twitter and ISPs may decide not to service you. As it pertains to Internet services specifically, these services are also allowed to moderate content that you post. You are not guaranteed a right for them to host your speech and show it to the world.

If you have an issue with how Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, et al. moderate content, you are completely free to create your own Internet service which you may moderate as you see fit.

The US government exists to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare. The government is not interested in protecting the rights of citizens. Instead, it is the rights of citizens which are meant to protect us from the government. Other laws may dictate how businesses are allowed operate but the first amendment absolutely does not apply to private businesses.

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

#803

Post by SiVal »

vannevar wrote: post #377
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.

Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. And if we're going to make them into public spaces legally, it's certainly not going to happen through an executive order. It would require an act of Congress, similar to the restrictions and obligations placed on broadcasters.

I agree that at least ultimately Congress and/or the courts need to consider the larger issue. Trump isn't demanding a retraction of a single comment, because the fact check itself isn't the problem. It's a symptom. It's just a "straw that broke the camel's back". People who insist on analyzing the straw rather than the whole load are not discussing the real issue.

The real issue is the extent to which Big Tech platforms can tilt a playing field that a billion people play on. Whether tilting the field to favor their own products, as the EU courts ruled, or their own political preferences or whatever else they want, heaven help you if you are playing against their favored team and have to play on their field. Death by a thousand bad ref calls.

Big Tech is big because of the network effects on the internet, meaning that for many things you want to do, there are lots of choices in theory but just one in practice. They own the whole league. You play on their tilted field or you "can always go start your own" league and play alone. (Google started their own FaceBook. Microsoft started their own phone OS. Now you go start your own Twitter.)

Congress and the courts need to look at these massive network-effects platforms that are claiming the rights of players and non-players and the responsibilities of neither.

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

#804

Post by jbeam »

2019-nCoV wrote: post #540
javagram wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FoxNews.com has comments on their website. By the logic of the order, Fox News should also lose their immunity and be liable for suit for anything posted by commenters to their online articles.

Where have Fox News editorialised users content?

The point of the order is to say “publishers” do not have Section 230 immunity and that Twitters actions constitute making it a publisher.

Fox News is already publisher under any reasonable definition.

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

#805

Post by colejohnson66 »

remarkEon wrote: post #800
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…

>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…

> 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.

What is this argument? Why is it always “look at what Obama did! Therefore it’s ok!” when Trump does something bad?

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

#806

Post by naikrovek »

remarkEon wrote: post #800
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…

>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…

> 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.

If you truly think that Obama invented the Executive Order or was the first to use them frequently, you are laughably misinformed. Use of Executive Order has been common for at least 150 years.

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

#807

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#808

Post by colejohnson66 »

chongli wrote: post #796
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…

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.

Section 230 does not say “any form of moderation or editorialization makes them liable.” In fact, this what §230(c)(1) says:

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Enforcing section 230 would actually mean that Twitter is not liable for what Trump posts. Which is already the case. If Trump were to advocate violence, Twitter would not be liable.

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

#809

Post by SllX »

nautilus12 wrote: post #791
SllX wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes.[1] Section 230 is not a new law, but this order is directing his Administration how they are to interpret certain provisions of it going forward with some actions they are to take. It’s important to remember that an Executive Order is not law by decree, it is an official government communication directing the government how to act under the law, as is the President’s prerogative. No matter how you come down on the issue of how social media companies interpret Section 230, a new EO is effectively a new interpretation either narrowing, expanding or changing the scope under which enforcement action is to be taken by the government.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...

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

#810

Post by KingMachiavelli »

chongli wrote: post #796
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…

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.

The issue is that it's impossible to run a viable user generated site without some moderation. The difference between 4chan & 8chan is some level of moderation (in addition to removing illegal content).

Although less extreme, conspiracy theories and fake news are bad PR for social media platforms & thus impact their bottom line. Additionally, many platforms currently are under pressure from investors and ad-networks to maintain certain standards.

Post reply on HN