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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by perl4ever »

SilasX wrote: post #788
Reelin wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that SCOTUS has already at least flirted with the idea (see Packingham v. North Carolina, 2017). Also the executive order in question doesn't have anything to do with public spaces but rather Section 230 protections; the argument is that fact checking is a form of editorializing.

See also this HN discussion about a case[1], where a judge ruled that Trump can't block people on Twitter. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945 [1] Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 17-cv-5205, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

It seems significant that Twitter wasn't a party to that case. People seem to be enthusiastically conflating it with some sort of ruling on what Twitter can or must do. I'm not sure if you are, but even bringing it up worries me.

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

#842

Post by free_rms »

viscanti wrote: post #675
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.

Seems like having the president attack Twitter for their speech (adding extra speech that suggests that some shared information is disputed) is the actual violation of Free Speech. The First Amendment says that the federal government can't stifle free speech, which seems like what is happening here.

Bedhead's point still stands in isolation from this week's bullshit, though.

Trump will be on to some other highly divisive circus act next week. The question of whether Twitter is a public square will persist.

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

#843

Post by colejohnson66 »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #777
FireBeyond wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m gonna nitpick, but they didn’t editorialize it. They posted their view in the form of a reply. Editorialization would mean changing what he wrote. Literally the root word of “editorialization” is edit.

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

#844

Post by tekknik »

ac29 wrote: post #801
username90 wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You haven’t been to imgur have you? Some sites have a point system and if your “social score” is too low you most definitely can get banned. There’s generally more left leaning people than right leaning people on some platforms, and when someone disagrees with someone else but otherwise can’t refute their statements they hit downvote. Enough of this and you get a ban.

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

#845

Post by gowld »

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…

Those people may know more than you think.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

Twitter is a California company.

> movie theater where they need to shut the hell up or leave.

This has nothing to do with anything. The 1A has always been understood as a freedom of content, not form. Noise ordinances and rules are constitutional.

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

#846

Post by isoskeles »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #828
isoskeles wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

> Sorry, you don't just get to decide what is a larger point in some discussion. The whole point was the editing of comments. You keep going back and forth between 'political speech' being the same or different, but you hallucinated that as having anything to do with the discussion. > these are different categories of speech Maybe to the government, not to whether a website is a publisher or a platform. Protected pol…

> You keep going back and forth between 'political speech' being the same or different, but you hallucinated that as having anything to do with the discussion.

I definitely never varied my own view on this. You most likely misinterpreted my first comment and the quote ">", or worse, you're being intentionally dishonest.

In any case, go read the EO. Right now, your opinion amounts to, "Trump bad, therefore removing a comment that spams racial slurs is the same as editorializing a comment that states a political opinion."

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

#847

Post by gowld »

jklein11 wrote: post #839
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…

I think there are two issues at hand here. The first is related to section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. This section provides a legal shield to companies that act as an intermediary by hosting comments. This legal shield is effective even if the intermediary moderates the comments and provides editorials. The executive action is saying if you are providing editorials, you are no longer just an intermediary a…

Don't be sad to be a Republican. Elect better Republicans, and kick out the carpetbaggers.

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

#848

Post by perl4ever »

dexen wrote: post #665
vannevar wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>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. In 2018 there was a decision of a district court[1], subsequently reaffirmed by the Courts of Appeal, that the President's twitter account is a "designated public forum". This was widely reported due to it's "Trump cannot block other users" aspect, but might have interesting bearing here. -- [1] https…

It's disturbing to me that people have picked this up and are running with it as saying something about Twitter and its rights or responsibilities. It appears to me that was simply about the rights and responsibilities of public officials whatever (private) means they use to communicate.

From the previous thread:

"Just because Twitter allows people to block stuff, doesn't mean Trump gets to block stuff.

In a "normal" government, they'd pick a vendor with software that would let them make official policy statements in a way that complied with the laws around people having the right to reach out to their government officials.

Just 'cause twitter's software lets him do something doesn't make actually doing that thing legal, moral, or ethical.

This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right."

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

#849

Post by tekknik »

natechols wrote: post #718
username90 wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extending free speech laws to cover companies which acts as public forums is not the same as the government telling companies what they are allowed to say and do. If you think that free speech laws are fine for governments then you should also think it is fine for certain companies which grew too powerful and influential.

How do you think those laws will be enforced, if not the government telling companies "you must allow this defamatory and/or untrue content on your servers"? Facebook and Twitter can't censor me, because I am not a customer of either company, and neither has a law enforcement wing. The government, on the other hand, has unlimited firepower and I have no choice whether to "do business" with it. So yes, I will absolute…

Why is it up to the company to decide what is defamatory or untrue? If you read the rebuttal twitter posted on his tweet you’ll see it boils down to “no evidence”. This doesn’t mean his claims are not true, it means there’s no evidence they are. These are very different concepts. So now twitter is running around saying it’s untrue when legally it hasn’t been proven untrue. They should instead take a hands off approach and let people think, read and decide for themselves.

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

#850

Post by jklein11 »

Reelin wrote: post #629
vannevar wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that SCOTUS has already at least flirted with the idea (see Packingham v. North Carolina, 2017). Also the executive order in question doesn't have anything to do with public spaces but rather Section 230 protections; the argument is that fact checking is a form of editorializing.

I think it is pretty clear that fact checking is a form of editorializing. It seems that Section 230 was being applied even if the intermediary was editorializing the content.
Post reply on HN