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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by berryjerry »

thomaslord wrote: post #734
jtbayly wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers do that because they are liable for what they publish. Twitter is not liable for what it publishes. Why should it not be liable? The answer is because they are just providing a platform and others are publishing. But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right?

I don't see why they should be. If someone uploads their library of child porn encoded to base64 split across tons of tweets, do you want Twitter to have a choice between removing that content and continuing to operate? We have 3 options here: 1. No moderation allowed whatsoever on a site without a court order. That obviously leads to a terrible, toxic community with lots of reprehensible content that the average per…

Twitter is actually required by law to remove child porn, not being forced to keep it up, that would be insane. This isn't a call for no moderation, it is a call for a neutral platform when companies are on the verge of monopolies. They are definitely monopolize your followers, switching platforms is not even a choice. You can work you're entire life building a channel and audience on social media site and they can take it away in a heartbeat and you don't even get a chance to let your followers know what happened, e-mail them even, let them know where they can find you going forward. That's not the worst part, the worst part is they can and do do it without any reason whatsoever, it could be just because someone at the company dislikes what you said. Again this is not about moderation, this is about companies that were built off of being a neutral platform that cannot be sued for liability, like a phone company but are now using their monopoly over your follower's information to hold over you and control what you say. If anything what really needs to be in legislation is rights to notify followers where else they can find you if you are banned or censored.

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

#962

Post by berryjerry »

rbanffy wrote: post #405
salawat wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually kind of funny right there. Politically, internet access is being championed as a fundamental human right (I.e. being classified as a need). Yet we still have people trying to define what activity on the Net constitutes the necessity that access is supposed to fulfill. I understand where you're coming from though. I just wanted to point out the amusing dichotomy that stood out in my head.

Right to access the internet is much more important for allowing someone to interact with the government through their various websites and to access sources of information that allow people learn and to fully exercise their rights. As much as Twitter is important, it's not nearly as important.

If you have followers on a twitter you have already built then it is just as important, especially if you have 20 million followers you stand to lose if twitter just decides they don't like you. For many it is your job, your livelihood, and your outlet to the world. For people and companies it may be the only way to reach out for collaboration with someone who you do not have a phone number yet and a twitter follower count is often used as a indicator that you are who you say you are, a filter of sorts. Since you can't go and meet every stranger in person elsewhere it is a requirement to have. Some people may not use twitter or only follow and never tweet but a lot of people use it as a necessity for communication, their personal well being, and businesses. Like it or not Twitter is worth billions for a reason and that reason is it provides a necessity for many that they cannot get elsewhere. The sheer size of Twitter already self-perpetuates their monopoly over that method of communication. It doesn't matter that you can go to Facebook if Twitter bans you. Take another industry for example such as TV. Disney bought Fox but was forced to sell Fox Sports because otherwise Disney would have had close to a monopoly on sports content as it already owned ESPN. Note it was not TV, it was only sports, a sub section of TV where they were deemed to have too much control. The internet monopolies just haven't had to face a determination of what is and isn't a subsection of social media but to be sure they are monopolies of public discourse.

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

#963

Post by username90 »

tibbon wrote: post #752
username90 wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where is a company limited to only one role? Can Facebook not publish a blog and be a platform?

No, not like this. This is like Google or Apple prioritizing their own pages and items in their searches.

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

#964

Post by bakuninsbart »

w3mmpp wrote: post #59
akersten wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has no examples, it's just word salad. The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allo…

> "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here." At least it'd be clear if they said so, nothing worse than the current situation where they think it but won't say it because it'd be bad for business.

Just not true at all, there's tons of conservatives on twitter not having any problem at all. - Trump's problem, and that of his allies, is that they talk bullshit all the time. It is lies, half-truths, threats of violence and insults all day every day.

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

#965

Post by mjburgess »

smeeth wrote: post #486
rbanffy wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without S230, Twitter and Facebook would not curate or moderate any content - you'd be constantly bombarded by a torrent of spam, vitriol and disinformation. With S230, companies can remove the worst, most obvious ofenses without fearing being held accountable by the things they didn't find.

That sounds to me like the outcome of both options are: 1) Toxic, awful to use sites with no personalization (custom recommendations, curation, etc) 2) Sites get more careful (and expensive to operate) because they don't want to get sued. I really doubt #1 is even a tenable business. Who uses a site like that? On the other hand I really like the idea of more careful social media sites.

Under (2), I don't think it's a matter of expense. As a publisher, you'd need editorial control over all users content (literally billions of people).

A publisher platform with a billion users is untennable. There isnt enough money or people in the world to police it.

Maybe the distinction between publishers and platforms is too archaic for digital platforms.

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

#966

Post by tomohawk »

kickopotomus wrote: post #802
tomohawk wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

During the civil rights era, private businesses infringed on people's rights with state government backing. People with the wrong skin color were forbidden from being in certain restaurants or sitting in certain seats, etc.

These were private companies infringing on rights.

The president sent in the national guard.

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

#967

Post by rbanffy »

smeeth wrote: post #486
rbanffy wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without S230, Twitter and Facebook would not curate or moderate any content - you'd be constantly bombarded by a torrent of spam, vitriol and disinformation. With S230, companies can remove the worst, most obvious ofenses without fearing being held accountable by the things they didn't find.

That sounds to me like the outcome of both options are: 1) Toxic, awful to use sites with no personalization (custom recommendations, curation, etc) 2) Sites get more careful (and expensive to operate) because they don't want to get sued. I really doubt #1 is even a tenable business. Who uses a site like that? On the other hand I really like the idea of more careful social media sites.

About 1, you can demonstrate that with the various chan sites and with the gab.ai Twitter clone.

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

#968

Post by pnako »

jtchang wrote: post #72

Sometimes I wonder why Twitter doesn't just ban his account like they would any other troll on the internet.

Because he's the bloody president of the United States of America.

This should be a well-known fact but some people still don't accept it, 4 years after he was elected (will 8 years do the trick?)

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

#969

Post by paddez »

perf1 wrote: post #957
colejohnson66 wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They are allowed to police things that are against their TOS. They just aren't allowed to be biased.

> Aren't allowed to be biased.

Where does this come from?

Post reply on HN