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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by Normille »

rbanffy wrote: post #527
sneak wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When my Twitter account was suspended recently after 12 years, I also lost access to my DM history, including usernames which I had not memorized. For some of my friends, Twitter was the only contact information I had for them. I have now totally lost the ability to communicate with those friends in the midst of a global emergency, even if I make a new account (which itself would be subject to immediate termination a…

> You can’t export your data or do “data takeout” from a suspended account, sadly, and you can’t view your DM history either inbound or outbound. This is a big problem.

This is not only a big problem, but it seems to be in flagrant breach of GDPR regulations:

https://stiobhart.net/2020-03-18-twittergdpr/

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

#982

Post by kickopotomus »

tomohawk wrote: post #966
kickopotomus wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Again, you are conflating rights granted by the constitution with legislation that dictates how businesses must operate. Racial discrimination in public accommodations, like those that you mentioned, was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1]. In that case, those private companies were explicitly breaking federal law. Rights granted in the constitution are separate and are only intended to protect citizens from the government.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

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

#983

Post by caminante »

slg wrote: post #894
caminante wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that an anti-trust lens isn't adequate if legislation keeps getting passed that rolls back regulation [0] and promotes formation of trusts. The CDA and §230 was part of the broader Telecommunications Act of 1996. Look at the outcome, which sure seems like "regulatory capture" to me: > Before the 1996 Act was passed, the largest four [Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers] owned less than half of all the lines…

But the current discussion is specifically about this one small aspect of that overall bill. Whether the overall bill is regulatory capture or not is irrelevant to the discussion of the merits of this specific section.

I appreciate your nuance.

I'm skeptical about claims that the overall bill (i.e. de-regulation) and §230 (i.e. liability shields) weren't intertwined.

My lay understanding is that §230 came about because (i) telecom providers and ISPs were getting sued for trafficking third-party content; and (ii) they started running to pro-business legislators for protection.[0]

Again, my initial reaction was to the claim that the anti-trust controls would be effective in order to police things. That seems like a last resort; and requires first UNWINDING a lot of other legislation that appears to shield the formation of trusts.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

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

#984

Post by threatofrain »

gamblor956 wrote: post #953
threatofrain wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First amendment is the issue as we're contemplating who should be liable for the consequences of bad speech. If FB is liable than FB is incentivized to censor risky people; if I'm liable then I might watch what I say on Yelp or Wikipedia. Right now we have a situation where the platform owner can collect the fruits of popularity, while the platform users experience basically no-liability gossip, such as empirical cla…

People have successfully pursued defamation cases for posts to Facebook and other social media platforms. Section 230 shields Facebook from liability for these posts, not the users. And Facebook generally responds to subpoenas from a court for IP address data that can be used to identify a the user behind a libelous post...

So what if I say that your restaurant serves old chicken and gives food poisoning? What if too many users each take a tiny stab, repeating the false empirical claim they heard?

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

#985

Post by lurquer »

ikt wrote: post #909
lurquer wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a Trump tantrum. The issues are real. As we speak, courts across the country are using Zoom for hearings. Would there be any legal impediment to Zoom automatically inserting a caption on YOUR video feed that says "jwalgenbach is a liar"? If you were to complain, would we be justified in saying "it's just another jwaldenbach tantrum..." Would it be right to simply say, "if jwaldenbach doesn't like Zoom's p…

> Would it be right to simply say, "if jwaldenbach doesn't like Zoom's polices, he doesn't have to use it"? Yes. > What is Western Union added a 'fact check' to your telegrams? Don't use Western Union > What if Google inserts a 'fact check' in your emails? Don't use Google? You don't have to use Zoom, you don't have to use Western Union, if you don't like their policies don't use their products. Trump uses Twitter be…

Your answers were expected, but I mentioned Zoom for a specific reason...

Currently, many judicial hearings are being conducted using Zoom. You can literally be ORDERED to appear for a hearing using Zoom.

In this situation, what would you make of Zoom inserting that tag line? Does it change your analysis?

If yes, why? It's still a private company. Does the fact that the government is requiring you to use is restrict what the private company may or may not do?

There are two sides to the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument. You are focusing only on one side; namely, if the consumer doesn't like it, he need not use it.

The Zoom example might open your eyes to the other side; namely, if a private company chooses to offer a service to the government, it needs to abide by certain restrictions... and, if it doesn't like it, it need not provide that service.

In the Zoom example, if Zoom insists on putting the tag on your video during hearings, a reasonable response would be to turn to Zoom -- and not you -- and say, "If you aren't willing to curtail your 1st Am. rights a bit, Zoom, then don't provide the service to the Court... the choice is yours."

If Twitter is hosting government officials and agencies -- in their official capacity -- there are certain restrictions it muse abide by; namely, not modifying, editorializing, or shadow-banning their posts. If Twitter doesn't like this restriction, it can choose not to host that government official or agency.

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

#986

Post by munificent »

jayspell wrote: post #237
munificent wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but you have a fundamentally flawed model for how Trump (and many in the GOP) think about the world. You're operating under a principle that says that people are essential equal in terms of rights and that there is a moral obligation to consistency. The old Golden Rule, and everything. Under that framework, it's stupid to punch someone in the face unless you also want to get punched in the face, because you…

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…

> I hate the term "these people" some of "these people" meet some of your criteria but not all.

I used "these people" to refer to the people that are not like the ones I described in my first paragraph. There are certainly those on the left and right who are decent, moral people. Would it have helped if instead of "these people" I'd said "people not like that?" Those are basically equivalent in terms of what I intended to say.

> You would likely place me in the category of "these people" because I believe social media favors the left side of arguments.

No, I think you're jumping to a conclusion that I was referring to conservatives or those on the right as a whole but nowhere in my text did I do that. I said "Trump (and many in the GOP)". I didn't make any mention of the right. There are many conservatives and people on the right who are not Republicans and I explicitly noted that there are Republicans for whom my claim doesn't apply.

I can understand being sensitive to this issue since it's hard being a conservative in progressive circles these days, but I don't think it's reasonable to construe that my comment applied to you.

> I believe in a fair an open internet, let ideas be shared and stop censoring.

I didn't state any opinion for or against what Twitter did or how Trump reacted.

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

#987

Post by ilikehurdles »

lurquer wrote: post #985
ikt wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would it be right to simply say, "if jwaldenbach doesn't like Zoom's polices, he doesn't have to use it"? Yes. > What is Western Union added a 'fact check' to your telegrams? Don't use Western Union > What if Google inserts a 'fact check' in your emails? Don't use Google? You don't have to use Zoom, you don't have to use Western Union, if you don't like their policies don't use their products. Trump uses Twitter be…

Your answers were expected, but I mentioned Zoom for a specific reason... Currently, many judicial hearings are being conducted using Zoom. You can literally be ORDERED to appear for a hearing using Zoom. In this situation, what would you make of Zoom inserting that tag line? Does it change your analysis? If yes, why? It's still a private company. Does the fact that the government is requiring you to use is restrict…

Your logic is flawed and entirely unconvincing.

> In this situation, what would you make of Zoom inserting that tag line? Does it change your analysis?

It would be counter to the contractual agreements and policies that Zoom has set up. Twitter has no such obligations.

> The Zoom example might open your eyes to the other side; namely, if a private company chooses to offer a service to the government, it needs to abide by certain restrictions... and, if it doesn't like it, it need not provide that service.

The company is responsible for operating according to the terms that both it and its users agree to, and the law. That is it.

> If Twitter is hosting government officials and agencies -- in their official capacity -- there are certain restrictions it muse abide by; namely, not modifying, editorializing, or shadow-banning their posts. If Twitter doesn't like this restriction, it can choose not to host that government official or agency.

Twitter's only mistake is not reprimanding the racist hate-mongers like Trump for the policies it supposedly has. Any regular user or lesser public figure would have (and has) been banned if they tweeted the things he does.

If Twitter has agreements with these users, stating that they are immune from all of Twitter's posted rules, then sure your argument has footing. Otherwise, you don't get to hijack a platform with your own rules and because you happen to work for the government and open a free account there.

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

#988

Post by coliveira »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #423
coliveira wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not the existence of anti-trust laws and other regulations - these things are good. The problem is the blatant political use of these tools. If a company becomes a problem to the Trump regime, they will use the full array of existing laws to prosecute them, at the same time when they are dismantling legislation that targets their allies.

At least this President is being upfront about it. Previous administration did things more secretly. See, Operation Chokepoint.

Are you saying that open criminality is better than hiding crimes?

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

#989

Post by gamblor956 »

threatofrain wrote: post #984
gamblor956 wrote: post #953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have successfully pursued defamation cases for posts to Facebook and other social media platforms. Section 230 shields Facebook from liability for these posts, not the users. And Facebook generally responds to subpoenas from a court for IP address data that can be used to identify a the user behind a libelous post...

So what if I say that your restaurant serves old chicken and gives food poisoning? What if too many users each take a tiny stab, repeating the false empirical claim they heard?

The restaurant can sue you for libel.

The restaurant can sue all of the other users for libel, and if it's a coordinated effort or the apparent facts behind each libelous act are sufficiently similar, they can get them joined into a class action imposing joint and several liability imposed on the named defendants (i.e. the few they are able to reasonably identify), meaning that it is now the named defendants' responsibility to find the other users if they want to avoid paying the full damages out of their own pockets.

Believe it or not, all of these hypothetical that techies keep bringing up on HN in this thread as if they were magical logical bullets have long been addressed by courts and/or legislators.

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

#990

Post by gamblor956 »

caseysoftware wrote: post #898
gamblor956 wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

West Virginia v. Barnett. Rumsfield v Forum. There are more. The answers you want are the first search result in Google and Bing for first amendment and compelled speech and are covered by the Wikipedia page on the First Amendment.

I've actually read the Rumsfeld case before but I don't see how it addresses my question from above: Does a private company have the authority to impede access to Official Statements? If so, under what conditions? If no, is it "never"? As noted, I suspect this is not a 1st Amendment issue as the "speech" is present regardless and you have organizations, not necessarily people.

The Rumsfield case is literally on point: the government cannot force a private party to present government speech. I don't know how much more on point than they can be.

Twitter is not a legally recognized method of presenting Official Statements, as a matter of law (which sets forth the prescribed methods for making Official Statements). They have no responsibilities to present Official Statements, which means they can "impede" access to those statements on their platform all they like, in whatever manner that takes, from simply deleting such posts to providing fact checks to outright editorializing against the official statements.

As noted, I suspect this is not a 1st Amendment issue as the "speech" is present regardless and you have organizations, not necessarily people.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. This is definitely a First Amendment issue...even the White House acknowledges that this is a First Amendment issue. This order is entirely about trying to violate Twitter's First Amendment rights as a private non-governmental organization.

Post reply on HN