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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by skeletor_999 »

newacct583 wrote: post #708
malwarebytess wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. I've only ever heard people complaining that people misunderstand the first amendment. I've yet to see someone say they believe the first amendment governs and protects against private censorship. However, I constantly see people conflating the concept of free sp…

I'd be curious to hear real lawyers weigh in on this, but... that sounds pretty dubious to me. Executive orders aren't laws, they don't get interpreted by courts in general and they absolutely don't override existing case law! I mean, who cares what the executive branch says about section 230? We know what congress wrote, and we know how the judiciary has interpreted it, because we've already had that fight.

I found the following video insightful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmBGFVUjCaI

It seems like an executive order is more of a guideline on how they interpret the law. He mentions that congress would need to make changes to the law for it to have teeth. He also said there will be lawsuits on the way.

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

#912

Post by takeda »

evan_ wrote: post #425
takeda wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were a president visiting that mall, you would be allowed to do a lot of things that ordinary people would be kicked for.

The President can only play in the mall fountain or whatever if the mall management says he can. If they want to boot him they can. The president is not a king.

You know well that it's not how it works in real life. Everyone would be afraid of repercussions to their business, kind of like the article we are currently discussing.

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

#913

Post by sneak »

newacct583 wrote: post #700
viscanti wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Twitter is indeed censoring on ideological grounds, just not the president in that one particular instance. To say that Twitter isn’t restricting legal publishing of their users simply isn’t true.

I was quite surprised to find this EO rather cogent and fair and reasonable, and while I was poised to vehemently oppose it, having read it, I find myself in support of it. The arguments it makes are legitimate.

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

#914

Post by skeletor_999 »

Thriptic wrote: post #662
throwaways1232 wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I own Google and refuse to index and show in search results anything from Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Post is that okay? It is not! Technically, Google is a private entity and can do whatever it wants. Once a company becomes too big like Twitter, Google, Facebook, they have a moral obligation to stay neutral. Interesting how opinions expressing a viewpoint that differs from the hive mind gets down-voted.

I would argue that Google has an obligation to be transparent, they do not have an obligation to be neutral. As you state, they are a private entity and can do whatever they want. If news providers and other knowledge providers are allowed to curate what data they present then I don't think it's reasonable to demand that Google be held to a higher standard. Further, literally nothing is stopping you from creating you…

I'm a big proponent of free speech, and have read a bit on the arguments against Big Tech censorship. One of the arguments against Google being able to selectively censor political content, despite being a private company, is that they could be classified as an essential service. I'm obviously getting information from sources opposed to Google's censorship, so I don't know if the wider legal community agrees with that view, but it's worth considering.

Another argument is that they have legal protections as content providers. However, the same protections don't apply to content publishers. If their censorship places them in the publisher category, they could open themselves to lawsuits. YouTube is an example that usually comes up. If a user uploads an illegal video, YouTube has protections against lawsuits. As a publisher, they would have more liability for the content they host.

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

#915

Post by takeda »

nine_zeros wrote: post #437
quicklime wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies if this is a stupid question; I'm a foreigner so I can't understand freedom like Americans do. But if the first words are "Congress shall make no law", does that mean that the President and his executive orders are not bound by the First Amendment?

Technically yes, other branches are not bound by the first amendment. By the spirit of the law, no. A lot of historical laws and constitutional writings were to limit power of the government in general. When the constitution was actually written, the executive was just a puppet with military commander powers. But over the centuries there has been power creep into the executive. Such battles end up in supreme court an…

Actually, the way it works is:

legislative branch - writes the law

judicial branch - interprets the law

executive branch - executes the law

FCC, FTC etc were created by legislative branch to make governing specific areas more streamlined, they are still bound by whatever legislative branch is bound.

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

#916

Post by free_rms »

orwin wrote: post #466
free_rms wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because everything is tribalism now. You can call the right hypocrites for doing a 180 on corporate property rights and demanding a 21st century fairness doctrine.. but didn't the left do a 180 as well?

Part of them did. Because tribalism. But i think you should differentiate between socialists and liberals, the "left" is broader than the "right" right now. I don't think any liberal wants to nationalize a company like twitter. Some may want to break true monopolies maybe, but twitter? Anyway i was convinced by a conservative that big media companies should be partially nationalized (for gov oversight), still i don't…

I should have used 'liberals' instead of 'the left'. I fell victim to symmetry.

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

#917

Post by courtf »

Twitter, Facebook etc created this problem (exemplified by Trump) and continue to benefit from it. Social media has significantly amplified expressions outrage and taken an active role in spreading those messages, which in turn has given rise to all manner of demagogues and populists. If the day ever comes that these companies are forced to atone for the corrosive effect they have had on discourse and politics all over the world, it can't happen to a more deserving group.

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

#918

Post by cthalupa »

busymom0 wrote: post #631

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history > The Cox-Wyden Amendment: Section 230 > Worried about the future of free speech online and responding directly to Stratton Oakmont, Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act that would end up becoming Section 230. The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer s…

What's interesting is we're both reading "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," and my take on it is that yes, section 230 is there to explicitly protect Twitter under this circumstance, and you take it as giving Trump the ability to censor them.

Thankfully, one of the authors of the section in question has actually stated exactly what it means: https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456

"As the co-author of Section 230, let me make this clear: there is nothing in the law about political neutrality. It does not say companies like Twitter are forced to carry misinformation about voting, especially from the president."

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

#919

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #843
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Ok, that’s fair. Editorialize isn’t exactly right - except - it’s not just a reply. It’s altering the format to include a new entry that no one else could make. I suppose in my mind that’s how I would view an editor redlining something.

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

#920

Post by tekknik »

ac29 wrote: post #906
tekknik wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You took my comment too literally - of course there are people who've been banned somewhere online for having opinions another human disagreed with. My point was that no large social media platform has a policy of banning people for civilized political disagreements.

Ok so what do we do about the first part of banning people for having a different opinion when they were otherwise civilized? A social media site having a policy that directly states “if you disagree with my statements i’ll ban you” is clearly not an issue nor is even worth discussing. I can’t really see how this is taking your comment too literally.
Post reply on HN