Live data from Hacker News

Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

axios.com

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If tech companies instead shut down people clamoring for unions and worker rights then you'd see the left rushing to introduce measures like the one signed by Donald Trump right now. So this is really a bipartisan issue and not just a right wing one, we should all work together to regulate the power of big tech. They might be mostly well-intentioned today, but it is best we regulate them before they have a chance to…

Fuck you

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

#972

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of the link in the first place. You have to be pretty far removed from reality to not know Twitter execs have a left lean to their bias. So the a completely unbiased person will notice that only some tweets show this link and could build a bias based on other psychological factors, such as wanting acceptance from a seemingly majority of peers. I am for neutrality. I’m also a realist. IFF they could pull…

> You have to be pretty far removed from reality to not know Twitter execs have a left lean to their bias. Is that why they only remove nazis if you set your location to germany? That's bias to the... left?

I mean are you really trying to argue the Twitter execs are right leaning?

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

#973

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? No. Executive order is an order to the executive branch from it's boss the President. It's not going around Congress at all- it's separate from Congress. It's not changing law. All Presidents do this and are allowed to. You can't do whatever you want via executive order. This is Trump telling the FCC, one of his departments, how to operate, which he can do, as much as I disagree with it.

The powers of the executive branch are not unlimited and not every order is Constitutionally valid. Especially ones restricting freedom of speech by private individuals.

You're right, I'm merely defending the executive order and outlining it's not a magic wand that lets the President do everything they want.

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

#974
post #629

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.

Both Packingham and Knight involve government action to deny others access to social media. They don't involve any obligations of social media sites themselves to provide access.

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

#976

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to be pretty far removed from reality to not know Twitter execs have a left lean to their bias. Is that why they only remove nazis if you set your location to germany? That's bias to the... left?

I mean are you really trying to argue the Twitter execs are right leaning?

I don't know about what they do in their personal lives, but the actions I've seen applied to the site itself don't seem to be left leaning.

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

#977
post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the term "these people" some of "these people" meet some of your criteria but not all. You would likely place me in the category of "these people" because I believe social media favors the left side of arguments. I believe in a fair an open internet, let ideas be shared and stop censoring. Every group is a hypocrite, but everyone feels justified in their hypocrisy. It would go a long way if we stopped dividing…

Is it not the right of private companies, social media or otherwise, to choose how they distribute information? Also, the only division I've ever seen is from people who can't handle a coffee cup that says "Happy Holidays" on it.

I agree with this, free enterprise is amazing. A company should be free to set the standards of the service they provide. But I also believe that Standard Oil needed to be broken up and Microsoft needed to be reined in. I believe we all feel the need to exercise some degree of oversight on these giant corporations. Not long ago there was a lot of discussion about Hobby Lobby and its fight against some of the healthcare regulations passed by President Obama. Issues are always more nuanced than the internet makes them appear. I believe there is plenty of divisiveness on both sides, it doesn't take much to find examples of both. That is kind of my point, we are feeding a monster and don't seem to realize it.

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

#978

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean are you really trying to argue the Twitter execs are right leaning?

I don't know about what they do in their personal lives, but the actions I've seen applied to the site itself don't seem to be left leaning.

Well, they have posted many times on their position on Trump, which is a left leaning position. Then, rather quickly they throw this fact check on one of his tweets. Regardless of what their actual intents were the actions to me look a bit shady. Especially since the fact check comes down to “no evidence”, which is completely different then proven false.

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

#979
It's not often I side with Donald Trump on anything. But I think it's high time, the likes of Twitter, Facebook et al got a good kicking.

To be fair, the problem is not with the sites themselves. They are private companies and [within the law] can do whatever the hell they like with regard to who can use their platforms and what they can say while doing so.

The problem is that these type of sites [and especially Twitter] have been elevated by the rest of the world and transformed from being outlets for vacuous chatter into being the official conduit for 'news', for any lazy journalist who can't be bothered to research a story properly.

Even on such esteemed organisations as the BBC and Reuters, it's becoming increasingly common to see news articles in which the 'sources' are little more than lists of what various parties said on Twitter. And on a smaller and even local level, more and more companies are only contactable through their Twitter accounts or Facebook pages. I even got message from the UK Government's unemployment service a few days ago, informing me that they would be announcing nee vacancies on their Twitter account, from now on.

Now, as I said, that's not Twitter or Facebook's fault. It's the rest of the worlds fault for increasingly elevating them to this pseudo-official status. But it does create the situation whereby anyone who's not on Twitter or Facebook is increasingly disenfranchised from having their viewpoint heard or from participating in the great and small issues of the day.

And what if Twitter or Facebook decide to ban a user or suspend an account? That user has no recourse but to plead with the company in question to reinstate them, which is entirely arbitrary decision. There is no legal recourse, as there would be if some authority tried to remove a person's vote or to ban them from speaking, writing or otherwise putting forward their opinions in the 'real world'.

As chance would have it, I've run into this myself. About a year ago, I logged into my Twitter account to find that it had been suspended as had my business Twitter account --with no reason given and nothing that I had done [that I can see] to have justified this. I never verbally attacked anyone or posted anything dodgy. I can only think my accounts were mistakenly caught up in one of Twitter's periodic automated sweeps, after which they proudly announce they've removed X-million bot accounts.

The only recourse is to fill in a form asking them to review the account suspension. Which, needless to say results in nothing but an autoreply, assigning you a case number. And then... nothing.

Likewise, as chance would have it, just today I logged into a Facebook page I'd set up for my business to find a message saying that had been suspended for "suspicious activity". Again, nothing I can see that i've done that could possibly justify that. In fact, I don't do FB at all. So I don't even interact with that account apart from to occasionally post links to the latest 'thing' I've made and am selling on Amazon. I've not even added any friends to my FB account, so I couldn't have 'offended' any one! In order to lift that suspension I was asked to verify my mobile phone number [OK... with great reluctance] and then upload a photograph of myself, so they can 'verify' me [WTF? Am i applying for a passport to the fucking internet now?

Now, I know those last few paragraphs sound like I'm just whining and crying because I can't use Twitter or Facebook any more. I'm honestly not. I couldn't give a flying fk about either of them. I only created accounts on both because [as I intimated above], with the state of the internet today, we've arrived at a point, where, for a lot of people, Twitter and Facebook ARE the internet. It's where they talk to their friends, where they arrange their social lives, where they do their shopping, where they read their news, where they run their businesses and where they exist online. So, sometimes, you've just got to swallow the rising vomit and at least establish a token presence there, just so people know you exist.

Anyway, given that's the state we're in, should all that vast mass of human commerce and interaction be dependent on the whims of a couple of monstrously rich individuals and a couple of monstrously rich corporations? It's a toughie.

On the one hand, I'm generally opposed to government interference in how people run their lives or their businesses. On the other hand, I believe in freedom of expression and freedom of access to the media and the government, which isn't dispensed or withheld at the whim of a few individuals.

Post reply on HN