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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by confusedcli »

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…

Could share what regulation you’re talking about? I’m sorry I don’t follow your position when it comes to regulating social media and what regulations are needed. If we use the oil industry as an example I think it’s clear that environmental regulations are needed to preserve ecological environments. What is the end goal to regulating tech giants?

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

#812

Post by remarkEon »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #805
remarkEon wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

I'm making an argument that Executive Order abuse is bad, but for whatever reason we're only worried about it now. When the guy in charge isn't the usual kind of ... uh ... President. If you want me to say it George W. Bush's EO abuses were also bad.

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

#813

Post by remarkEon »

naikrovek wrote: post #806
remarkEon wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I don't. I wasn't clear. EO abuses have been ongoing for at least 150 years, like you said. I'm merely pointing out that we're now only worried about it because Trump is bad and thus now EOs are bad.

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

#814

Post by belltaco »

prawn wrote: post #745
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? This has nothing to do with any real person, but is just a hypothetical situation pertaining to this question in your post: Let's say an account X with many followers calls you a pedophile. You're not, of course, so you responded and said you weren't, but since the followers tend to like X, they don't listen to you. X's followers then dox you, find yo…

(Not a lawyer, but have run a forum for 15-20 years and survived many legal threats.) You would potentially have legal recourse against the author, and the platform if they didn't act on you reporting the content. I don't know how that would apply were the author in another jurisdiction/country. I don't know if it's universal, but in Australia you'd request identifying information (IP and timestamp) from the platform…

It's much harder in the US. You may want to read this. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john...

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

#816

Post by [deleted] »

username90 wrote: post #740
newacct583 wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly it. Twitter disseminated the president's words as he wrote them to everyone that wanted to see it. They also said it was wrong. Fundamentally the whole exercise is an attempt to conflate Twitters (first amendment!) right to speak its own opinions with somehow "restricting" the rights of their subscribers. And that's insane. Just look at how many people in this very thread are buying into the frame by d…

Personally I think that Twitter inserting their own articles is overstepping their own role. Nobody goes there to view what Twitter writes, nobody goes there to care about Twitter opinions. Them doing this forfeits their status as a public square, now they are publishing their own editorialized content, and not as Tweets but as privileged inserts in others Tweets.

[deleted]

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

#817

Post by dmode »

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 understand this point. This is not thoughtful legislation being debated. This is one guy writing some executive order out of spite, which will soon be reversed by the.courts

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

#819

Post by anewdirection »

bosswipe wrote: post #145
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.

Should breitbart.com be forced to allow liberals comments?

I mean, they do allow them, they just get drowned out.

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

#820

Post by lastres0rt »

nostromo wrote: post #687
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.

This strikes me as shameful behavior. You should say the truth: you're an American, and Americans have a diversity of views on most subjects, just like every other country.

I'm not gonna say you're wrong, I'm just going to say I've been having some variety of this argument since 9/11.

If you have to spend the better part of two decades trying to defend your country as NOT being a white trash dumpsterfire...

Post reply on HN