Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#991

Post by no-s »

Traster wrote: post #36

I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway: There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-re…

This is about Twitter trying to pick winners and losers in the marketplace of attention. I don't think the Feds will have to dig very deep to find a cause for action. Twitter has conceivably already crossed the line to become a publisher. If they collude with other publishers they're running into the territory of anti-competitive agreements. Anti-trust action may be viable. Picking winners and losers and colluding with competitors is in the scope of illegal business. Double down with lobbying violations if the "fact-checkers" are unregistered foreign agents.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#992

Post by sabertoothed »

rodiger wrote: post #373
sabertoothed wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It is just another lie that Twitter would be "stifling free speech". Free speech was not stifled: Trump could even say what he wanted even though it is a private platform.

When referring to free speech, it is common to refer to the moral backbone of freedom of speech (strong entity shouldn't be able to silence the masses) instead of just the legal/constitutional definition.

But no message was suppressed. There was no silencing.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#993

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

gameswithgo wrote: post #607
jjuel wrote: post #27

It is crazy to see how well he knows his base and how to get them to rally close to an election. Making them think everything is a liberal bias against them, and if they don't vote for his big government agenda they will receive a big government agenda. This is just one more way for him to get his base to believe everything he says versus people who actually prove what he says is a lie. He wants state run media and s…

It isn't that he has a special insight into his base, he is just willing to abandon any sense of truth or decency to flame it. That is what is remarkable about him.

I disagree with everything Trump says, does, and stands for. ' But this is literally the only thing I won't short change him on.

He really does understand the base, the media and pollsters, and other the other candidates never really got that in the last election.

A LOT of politicians are willing to lie and fan those flames, but he has been more successful at knowing what lies to tell and really breaking new ground with his bullshit.

Does anyone think that a conspiracy theory invented by Rick Perry or Mitch McConnell would go viral or catch the public eye like one of Trumps half assed tweets?

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#994

Post by pwdisswordfish2 »

pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #746

One alternative is to ban politicians from using these private websites as "official pulpits". As private websites they are under no legal obligation to allow anyone to use them. If politicians want to communicate with constituents, then let them do so through government websites. Why does the US government not create its own "Twitter" service? Government websites are subject to laws and regulations that private webs…

The term "private websites" might be ambiguous. What I mean is "privately-owned websites".

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#995

Post by legolas2412 »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #882
legolas2412 wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much disagree. If I cut your reach to 0, I denied you the freedom of speech. If cut your reach in half, I still affected your freedom of speech. The question is whether fb/Twitter should be subjected to freedom of speech restrictions or not

Your reach on Twitter being cut to 0 is absolutely constitutionally allowed.

Sure, I'm not contesting that. It is a different question if freedom of speech regulations apply to Twitter or not.

But freedom of reach is a part of freedom of speech.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#996

Post by nautilus12 »

nautilus12 wrote: post #240
boomboomsubban wrote: post #126

From a free speech/free press standpoint, private company Twitter absolutely has the right to editorialize Trump's tweets, while Trump trying to silence Twitter would be the government infringing on the right to free speech/press.

But if that were true then they would be personally liable in a court of law for tweets that break the law. Seems like they want to be treated as both an "editor" with the right to change user content and "just a distribution platform". They can't have it both ways.

This comment aged well...

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#997

Post by frankzen »

After listening to the conference it just boils down to whether these social media companies are public forums protected from liability or publishers. Once they made the move to edit content, they became publishers. It's actually pretty clear. All that is happening is that they're losing their public forum status, rightfully so.

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#998

Post by lliamander »

Traster wrote: post #36

I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway: There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-re…

Social media companies are of course not obligated to distribute any content in particular, and in fact they are obligated to remove content which is illegal.

They are however only protected from civil liability for good faith restriction of otherwise legal content on their platform. To the extent to which that moderation is done on content that is compliant with the TOS, or without prior notice and indication of what terms were violated, or only selectively with an agenda to influence the broader social discourse, they may not necessarily benefit from an assumption of good faith, and therefore may be subject to civil liability.

And honestly, who wouldn't want social media companies to have a more fair and transparent TOS and moderation policy?

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#999

Post by tzs »

hadtodoit wrote: post #672
Traster wrote: post #36

I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway: There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-re…

If companies are going to self-moderate their platforms then they should not receive any kind of legal protection from user-generated content. I wholly believe companies have every right to dictate what is on their platform but they cannot have it both ways. If you can afford to moderate content you disagree with, you can do so for illegal content as well. If I own a store and someone injures themselves on the premis…

> If companies are going to self-moderate their platforms then they should not receive any kind of legal protection from user-generated content. I wholly believe companies have every right to dictate what is on their platform but they cannot have it both ways. If you can afford to moderate content you disagree with, you can do so for illegal content as well.

So if I run a chess forum and disallow posts that are not related to chess, your belief is that if one of my users posts a libelous statement about another user's alleged conduct during a chess game at a tournament in their city, I should be on the hook for the first user's post?

If I can afford to spend maybe 20 minutes a day reviewing all posts that keyword-based scanning suggest might not be about chess, I should have been able to fly to the city that tournament was in and conduct an investigation to determine if what the user said was true before allowing the post to stay up on my forum?

Re: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

#1000

Post by ev0lv »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #438
node-bayarea wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is the President of the United States! And 50% of the people like his policies (if not his personal behavior)

"his policies"? This is something I don't understand about current politics, a leader uses their people to create greatness. If it's "Trump's policies" wth is everyone else in the political system doing? In the UK we get "Boris says" but it's quite clear all policy decisions are being made under Cummings, and he gets them presumably from liaison with Tory donors. Trump/Boris clearly know nothing about medicine, epide…

We like to believe that government is a person, it takes less mental cycles.
Post reply on HN