5 ms·

There seem to be some upside down priorities here. Many folks seem to be arguing that its an unacceptable form of censorship for a private platform to annotate

There seem to be some upside down priorities here. Many folks seem to be arguing that its an unacceptable form of censorship for a private platform to annotate content it allows others to post. Meanwhile, I'm seeing barely a mention of the fact that the President of the United States has threatened to use government power to shut down an entire sector of the economy devoted to communication. The latter is almost certainly a violation of the Constitution. The former, almost certainly not.

tossAfterUsing 6y ago
Mhm. Also missing from the parts of the discussion i've yet read, is the question of what sort of software we're using. At the risk of using a buzzword, decentralized comms could reduce the risks of constitutional shutdown. And maybe even be better.
- fixmycode 6y ago
  I hope they name it mastodon.gov
meragrin_ 6y ago
Perhaps they see it as targeting a political figure because of political differences rather than trying to prevent the spread of misinformation. I'm not seeing any annotations on a number prominent members of Congress spreading misinformation. Where in the US Constitution does it say presidents cannot threaten companies? Obama had his share of threats. I'm sure they could find a suitable legal issue with Twitter targeting Trump while ignoring members of Congress.
- standardUser 6y ago
  "Obama had his share of threats." Cite two.
  - austingulati 6y ago
    A quick Google found two: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inversion-walgreens-avoid-executive-powers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inve... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-financials/obama-threatens-fight-with-banks-on-new-risk-rules-idUSTRE60K0RW20100121 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-financials/obama-th... Not sure this will support the original commenters point, as these "threats" have a basis in reality and appear to be good causes unlike Trump's, but these are "threats" by Obama at least according to the journalists involved. Edit: why the downvotes? I am showing that the Trump supporter above is full of shit, Obama's "threats" were for good causes
    - freehunter 6y ago
      You might have avoided the downvotes if you had made it clear what your point was. As it reads without the edit, it sounds like you're arguing the opposite of what your edit says. Edit - to be clear I did not downvote
      - austingulati 6y ago
        Thanks for the reply. I had thought putting quotes around threats and including "appear to be good causes" would be enough. Lesson learned!
    - meragrin_ 6y ago
      Trump supporter? I cannot wait for Trump to be gone. If I were a Trump supporter, I would refer to him as President or President Trump. More like person who is not triggered just by the mere mention of Trump. I never even insinuated Obama's threats were not for good causes. Part of being a president is to execute laws and regulations which includes threats of action. Since I have no doubt someone will take my "President" comment above out of context, I will not refer to a political figure by their former position title. To me, wishing/expecting to be referred by their former position is akin to using it as a title of nobility and expecting to be treated as nobility.
- RandomTisk 6y ago
  That is exactly how I see it. I see it as silicon valley employees taking it upon themselves to try to get the last word in with Trump's message. Linking to CNN and WP was just beyond the pale.
- thephyber 6y ago
  > Where in the US Constitution does it say presidents cannot threaten companies? The Articles of the US Constitution aren't an enumerated list of illegal actions. It's the wrong place to look for limitations of presidential power. I love that our expectations of the current president are so low that we will use excuse them because "the previous presidents did it too!" You aren't actually saying what he's doing is legal; you are simply increasing the importance of precedent over the statutory restraints of power -- it's a very dangerous argument to make.
  - gwright 6y ago
    > The Articles of the US Constitution aren't an enumerated list of illegal actions. It's the wrong place to look for limitations of presidential power. The US Constitution is indeed an enumerated list of federal governmental powers, including the President's. At least that is the standard interpretation. Obviously there are an infinite number of ways those enumerated powers might manifest themselves but the overall scope and nature of the powers is indeed limited by the US Constitution.
    - thephyber 6y ago
      You aren't disproving my statement. I was being particularly pedantic because it was relevant to my parent comment. The Articles of the Constitution are affirmatively defined positive powers of the branches of government. They are not affirmatively defined negative powers. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) are closer to that, but they don't specifically talk about The President and their scopes have had to be interpreted by courts to determine (1) are the rights they guarantee applied to {all people, all US residents, all US citizens, etc} and do they protect against {US government, state/local governments, other private citizens, etc}.
      - gwright 6y ago
        Well I guess we are in agreement but I found your formulation confusing. In particular "It's the wrong place to look for limitations of presidential power" is what I was responding to. Given your followup I now understand what you were saying.
- thewileyone 6y ago
  Also not in the Constitution that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but decent human beings understand that that's not to be done.
fzeroracer 6y ago
Because that's how far we've gone from reality. The word censorship has lost almost all meaning in online arguments when people are trying to argue that what Twitter did constitutes censorship while Trump publicly threatening them with shutdown somehow does not. It's become increasingly obvious that the argument around censorship has never been actually about censorship but rather as another political bludgeon you can use to beat your opponent over the head with by scoring some easy points since censorship = bad. They ignore the power dynamics at play which is what makes censorship possible.
Thorentis 6y ago
> its an unacceptable form of censorship for a private platform to annotate content it allows others to post It is an unacceptable form of censorship to hand over our modern day equivalent of the public square to private companies, and then allow them to police what people say in it. Freedom of speech was always intended to be protected in public. The Internet is now our equivalent of the public space. It is time this problem is solved once and for all, and the Internet is now reclassified as both a public utility and a public space. Yes, those of us with technical know-how can argue that personal websites are that equivalent. But this is depriving those that see Twitter, Facebook, et. al. as a public platform, of the right to have their voice heard. A tweet is now the equivalent of a placard on the street. Do we really want to censor that because we messed up in how we allowed the Internet to be run?
- javagram 6y ago
  > Yes, those of us with technical know-how can argue that personal websites are that equivalent. But this is depriving those that see Twitter, Facebook, et. al. as a public platform, of the right to have their voice heard. A tweet is now the equivalent of a placard on the street. Do we really want to censor that because we messed up in how we allowed the Internet to be run? Disagree, because street space is limited, whereas there are a multiplicity of websites you can go to. It isn’t just a matter of personal websites. There’s a Twitter-like, Gab, which can be used. The president and his multi-million dollar campaign apparatus could easily strike a deal with Gab to host some more Gab servers and get their message out via Gab to anyone of their twitter followers who wants to sign up. Never mind that Trump is not actually being censored on twitter in any way - his message still went out to all his followers, simply with an appended notice that Twitter itself considers the message to be factually wrong. EDIT: this is like saying that the President has the right to publish whatever content he wants in a specific newspaper. Back in the day, a city might have a dozen newspapers - they could each print what they liked and if they decided not to print a person’s letter to the editor, that was no violation of free speech. Or if they print the letter to the editor with a note explaining they disagree with it, that certainly doesn’t violate free speech either.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
BurningFrog 6y ago
One factor is that Trump says a lot of dumb things, and almost none of them are true. Instead he seems to say whatever outrageous thing that can get attention so he's the center of the news cycle. Once again, it worked. When he actually does something to silence twitter, I'll be upset too. But I'm not falling for the "big crazy talk ploy" again.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Hot off the press: > President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at social media companies on Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Wednesday evening, a move that comes as the president and his allies have escalated their allegations that companies like Twitter and Facebook stifle GOP voices. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891 https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive...
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    I think it will improve the debate a lot to have a concrete policy to discuss, rather than guesses about what Trump might do.

tossAfterUsing 6y ago

Mhm. Also missing from the parts of the discussion i've yet read, is the question of what sort of software we're using. At the risk of using a buzzword, decentralized comms could reduce the risks of constitutional shutdown. And maybe even be better.

fixmycode 6y ago
I hope they name it mastodon.gov

meragrin_ 6y ago

Perhaps they see it as targeting a political figure because of political differences rather than trying to prevent the spread of misinformation. I'm not seeing any annotations on a number prominent members of Congress spreading misinformation. Where in the US Constitution does it say presidents cannot threaten companies? Obama had his share of threats. I'm sure they could find a suitable legal issue with Twitter targeting Trump while ignoring members of Congress.

standardUser 6y ago
"Obama had his share of threats." Cite two.
- austingulati 6y ago
  A quick Google found two: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inversion-walgreens-avoid-executive-powers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inve... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-financials/obama-threatens-fight-with-banks-on-new-risk-rules-idUSTRE60K0RW20100121 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-financials/obama-th... Not sure this will support the original commenters point, as these "threats" have a basis in reality and appear to be good causes unlike Trump's, but these are "threats" by Obama at least according to the journalists involved. Edit: why the downvotes? I am showing that the Trump supporter above is full of shit, Obama's "threats" were for good causes
  - freehunter 6y ago
    You might have avoided the downvotes if you had made it clear what your point was. As it reads without the edit, it sounds like you're arguing the opposite of what your edit says. Edit - to be clear I did not downvote
    - austingulati 6y ago
      Thanks for the reply. I had thought putting quotes around threats and including "appear to be good causes" would be enough. Lesson learned!
  - meragrin_ 6y ago
    Trump supporter? I cannot wait for Trump to be gone. If I were a Trump supporter, I would refer to him as President or President Trump. More like person who is not triggered just by the mere mention of Trump. I never even insinuated Obama's threats were not for good causes. Part of being a president is to execute laws and regulations which includes threats of action. Since I have no doubt someone will take my "President" comment above out of context, I will not refer to a political figure by their former position title. To me, wishing/expecting to be referred by their former position is akin to using it as a title of nobility and expecting to be treated as nobility.
RandomTisk 6y ago
That is exactly how I see it. I see it as silicon valley employees taking it upon themselves to try to get the last word in with Trump's message. Linking to CNN and WP was just beyond the pale.
thephyber 6y ago
> Where in the US Constitution does it say presidents cannot threaten companies? The Articles of the US Constitution aren't an enumerated list of illegal actions. It's the wrong place to look for limitations of presidential power. I love that our expectations of the current president are so low that we will use excuse them because "the previous presidents did it too!" You aren't actually saying what he's doing is legal; you are simply increasing the importance of precedent over the statutory restraints of power -- it's a very dangerous argument to make.
- gwright 6y ago
  > The Articles of the US Constitution aren't an enumerated list of illegal actions. It's the wrong place to look for limitations of presidential power. The US Constitution is indeed an enumerated list of federal governmental powers, including the President's. At least that is the standard interpretation. Obviously there are an infinite number of ways those enumerated powers might manifest themselves but the overall scope and nature of the powers is indeed limited by the US Constitution.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    You aren't disproving my statement. I was being particularly pedantic because it was relevant to my parent comment. The Articles of the Constitution are affirmatively defined positive powers of the branches of government. They are not affirmatively defined negative powers. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) are closer to that, but they don't specifically talk about The President and their scopes have had to be interpreted by courts to determine (1) are the rights they guarantee applied to {all people, all US residents, all US citizens, etc} and do they protect against {US government, state/local governments, other private citizens, etc}.
    - gwright 6y ago
      Well I guess we are in agreement but I found your formulation confusing. In particular "It's the wrong place to look for limitations of presidential power" is what I was responding to. Given your followup I now understand what you were saying.
thewileyone 6y ago
Also not in the Constitution that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but decent human beings understand that that's not to be done.

fzeroracer 6y ago

Because that's how far we've gone from reality. The word censorship has lost almost all meaning in online arguments when people are trying to argue that what Twitter did constitutes censorship while Trump publicly threatening them with shutdown somehow does not. It's become increasingly obvious that the argument around censorship has never been actually about censorship but rather as another political bludgeon you can use to beat your opponent over the head with by scoring some easy points since censorship = bad. They ignore the power dynamics at play which is what makes censorship possible.

Thorentis 6y ago

> its an unacceptable form of censorship for a private platform to annotate content it allows others to post It is an unacceptable form of censorship to hand over our modern day equivalent of the public square to private companies, and then allow them to police what people say in it. Freedom of speech was always intended to be protected in public. The Internet is now our equivalent of the public space. It is time this problem is solved once and for all, and the Internet is now reclassified as both a public utility and a public space. Yes, those of us with technical know-how can argue that personal websites are that equivalent. But this is depriving those that see Twitter, Facebook, et. al. as a public platform, of the right to have their voice heard. A tweet is now the equivalent of a placard on the street. Do we really want to censor that because we messed up in how we allowed the Internet to be run?

javagram 6y ago
> Yes, those of us with technical know-how can argue that personal websites are that equivalent. But this is depriving those that see Twitter, Facebook, et. al. as a public platform, of the right to have their voice heard. A tweet is now the equivalent of a placard on the street. Do we really want to censor that because we messed up in how we allowed the Internet to be run? Disagree, because street space is limited, whereas there are a multiplicity of websites you can go to. It isn’t just a matter of personal websites. There’s a Twitter-like, Gab, which can be used. The president and his multi-million dollar campaign apparatus could easily strike a deal with Gab to host some more Gab servers and get their message out via Gab to anyone of their twitter followers who wants to sign up. Never mind that Trump is not actually being censored on twitter in any way - his message still went out to all his followers, simply with an appended notice that Twitter itself considers the message to be factually wrong. EDIT: this is like saying that the President has the right to publish whatever content he wants in a specific newspaper. Back in the day, a city might have a dozen newspapers - they could each print what they liked and if they decided not to print a person’s letter to the editor, that was no violation of free speech. Or if they print the letter to the editor with a note explaining they disagree with it, that certainly doesn’t violate free speech either.
- Thorentis 6y ago

BurningFrog 6y ago

One factor is that Trump says a lot of dumb things, and almost none of them are true. Instead he seems to say whatever outrageous thing that can get attention so he's the center of the news cycle. Once again, it worked. When he actually does something to silence twitter, I'll be upset too. But I'm not falling for the "big crazy talk ploy" again.

themacguffinman 6y ago
Hot off the press: > President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at social media companies on Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Wednesday evening, a move that comes as the president and his allies have escalated their allegations that companies like Twitter and Facebook stifle GOP voices. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891 https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive...
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  I think it will improve the debate a lot to have a concrete policy to discuss, rather than guesses about what Trump might do.