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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by lastres0rt »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #780
empath75 wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repealing section 230 would make twitter liable for publishing trump’s libelous murder accusations and incitement to violence. They’d be forced to ban him.

I’m curious how that would turn out? What would happen if Trump was banned? While I’m against censorship, banning someone for not following your “code of conduct” is well within your rights.

The best example is what happened when Alex Jones found himself deplatformed -- although I think the simplest answer there is "too little too late".

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

#852

Post by ColanR »

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…

> repealing Section 230

I don't see how this is repealing anything. It seems like the order is saying that if a company wants Section 230 protection, they have to be very strict about not editorializing anything, and if they do even a little bit, they have to go all the way.

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

#853

Post by gowld »

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.

"town squares" are not law.

Private property is sometimes public space, especially in Twitter's home of California. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

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

#854

Post by perl4ever »

tekknik wrote: post #844
ac29 wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some site are like that, plus talking about the voting system is against the rules, and even if you get plenty of upvotes, you can still be throttled or banned by a moderator.

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

#855

Post by colejohnson66 »

ColanR wrote: post #852
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…

> repealing Section 230 I don't see how this is repealing anything. It seems like the order is saying that if a company wants Section 230 protection, they have to be very strict about not editorializing anything, and if they do even a little bit, they have to go all the way.

Which, in essence, is repealing it. It’s saying, if you do anything, it’s editorialization. That was how it was before Section 230.

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

#856

Post by pariahHN »

superfrank wrote: post #489
JacobGoodson wrote: post #340

Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples post…

According to Twitter, the reasons they added the warning to Trump's tweet as as follows: - Trump claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to "a Rigged Election." However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud. - Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there." In fact, only regi…

This is the conclusion I think I am coming to on this issue. So long as only verifiable facts are presented as a counter point, then it isn't really even editorializing, let alone censorship. Editorializing is defined as presenting an opinion - if you present a verifiable primary data source and nothing else, you are by definition not editorializing.

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

#857

Post by tekknik »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #559
2019-nCoV wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Politics is the mind killer. Would they have the same opinion if Twitter was a right-leaning Trump-mouthpiece that was disproportionately quelling left-leaning voices? Take a step back and recognise you can agree with Trump's action and not necessarily admire the man.

We don't have to speak in hypotheticals here. There are plenty of examples: voat, gab, TD, etc. What laws are/were being pushed by liberal politicians to use the force of law to shut them up? Please do link to government documents or quotes from elected officials.

It’s not a question of laws used, more psychological factors. Some people seeing those statements made by twitter may believe them blindly. We need people reading into important topics like this and forming opinions without being bated. Part of the problem you’ll also see in this thread. The downvotes here set the tone for the comment the viewer is about to read. Why is it’s view changed at all? Nothing this commenter said was offensive yet on some sites their comment would be hidden entirely.

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

#858

Post by perl4ever »

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…

Can't Twitter fact check falsehoods that he stated in support of his prediction?

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

#859

Post by gowld »

dnautics wrote: post #623
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.

By the same token though, as per the tweets assertion (I have not read the EO personally) it looks like a good chunk of the teeth of this bill is "preventing the government from advertising on a platform that doesn't X", not "creating legal consequences for a company that doesn't X", which is... Not at all the same.

They are in part the same, as the Supreme Court has ruled.

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

As HN is fond of saying, judges are smart enough to see through attempts to hack the law.

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

#860

Post by ashtonkem »

_-david-_ wrote: post #830
ashtonkem wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core premise of the arguments being raised is that Twitter is being politically biased (citation needed), and that something should be done to make Twitter politically neutral since Twitter is such an important faux public square. The problem is enforcement. How exactly will we make Twitter be politically neutral? There are two basic ways: you either eliminate Twitter’s ability to moderate at all, or someone has…

I get what your saying now. Thanks. I think you are making a poor argument. Somebody could take your exact argument and say that you cannot have anti-discrimination laws for hiring or renting. We would also handle abuses / accusations of abuses in the same way as anti discrimination laws. I think what conservatives tend to see are a few examples where there appears to be bias. Liberals say something that violates the…

> Somebody could take your exact argument and say that you cannot have anti-discrimination laws for hiring or renting.

Only if you’re willing to argue that speech and race are the same thing, or that access to Twitter and housing are the same thing.

You can try this argument, just don’t expect it to persuade many people.

> I think what conservatives tend to see are a few examples where there appears to be bias.

You can spend your whole day trying to prove that Twitter is biased, and you will have completely ignored my actual point. You don’t need to prove that Twitter is biased, you need to prove that Twitter’s supposed biases justifies the government regulating protected speech.

I genuinely couldn’t care less if Twitter is biased if you don’t meet that second, higher bar. Use a different platform, petition twitter, complain here, just don’t ask the government to regulate speech.

> I get what your saying now.

Given that you did not address my core concern, I do not believe this.

Post reply on HN