5 ms·
Trump to sign executive order on social media Thursday
- milkytron 6y agoOh man, if Trump got upset over that tweet, I can only imagine what would happen if they put something like "Confirmed/Believed to be false by these sources...." on his other tweets that have been confirmed to be false/incorrect/lies. Interesting times. We'll see what happens.
- mrlonglong 6y agoYeah well the first amendment applies here, I think. And quite likely an illegal order.
- nine_zeros 6y agoIf this is what we think it is and it passes, I am not sure why CCP is worse than US-style democracy that just steals rights.
- jmeyer2k 6y agoThe US isn't really a true democracy (representative or otherwise). In the US rural areas get higher voting power than urban areas. Trump lost the popular vote, but won the election completely because of this fact. The idea of granting voting power based on land dates back to slavery [1] where they wanted to give power to wealthy landowners. [1]: https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
- derision 6y agoThe US was never intended to be a true democracy. So all you're saying is a car isn't really a boat and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
- jmeyer2k 6y agoIt was intended to be a representative democracy. It is not representative because it assigns unequal voting power to constituents based on what state they live in.
- AnHonestComment 6y agoIt was designed that way from the start, that’s the whole point of the Senate. It protects the smaller states from bullying by large population centers — which was the original intent and still functioning.
- jmeyer2k 6y agoWhy do those who live in smaller states deserve more voting power than those who live in larger states?
- dmoy 6y agoBecause that was literally the only way they could convince the smaller states to join, and not have the whole thing collapse at the very beginning.
- krapp 6y agoOk. That was over 200 years ago, and it seems unlikely that smaller states are going to opt out of the union at this point. Why do they still deserve more voting power than populous states?
- willcipriano 6y agoThey aren't allowed to opt out, well except for Texas.
- krapp 6y ago
- dekhn 6y agoIt's also not a true democracy because individuals don't vote on all measures. Instead, we elect representatives who do the voting for us, typically in line with, or in a more educated fashion than, we would on our own (well, at least that's what my social studies teacher said back in the day). I don't think there are any major countries which are true direct democracies although if you like the idea see the Demarchists in Alastair Reynolds science fiction. Everybody votes on everything.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- glennvtx 6y agoStraight democracy is a disaster, rightly avoided whenever possible. Allowing "the masses" to dictate policy such as you propose results in giant unsustainable welfare states, where the masses in cities vote themselves the property of those who produce, based on sheer numbers. It is an appeal to the masses, a fallacy.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MisterBastahrd 6y agoIt... passes? Trump has no power here and he isn't the legislative branch. The best he can do is try to reinterpret Section 230 and get Barr embarrassed in court trying to defend his nonsense. Twitter should just ban him in response so he can go on gab with his racist and incel supporters, which is where he would already be if he didn't believe that Twitter was the superior forum for direct celebrity access.
- nine_zeros 6y ago> It... passes? Passes the inevitable Supreme court test. Are you confident that this supreme court will hold your rights?
- MisterBastahrd 6y agoThere won't be a Supreme Court test. The law is explicit and so is the First Amendment. They can appeal it all they like, the Court won't hear it because it's idiotic.
- thrill 6y agoYes.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Simulacra 6y agoDid you just assume their gender?
- downerending 6y agoWe're far more alike than we'd like to admit. We can point and laugh (so to speak) at struggle sessions, but in 2020 US, we have plenty of our own.
- leira 6y agoWhen I left China 9 years ago, I used to think the internet with social media is a great democratizing power. It opens information to common Chinese to the extent that the government cannot control all the narratives anymore, especially with social medias like Twitter. Now after staying in US for 9 years, I'm not sure if the internet is such a positive power any more. It might actually just be the opposite. With internet and social media, it enables information bubble to form. It enables people to live in totally isolated worlds. And it is almost impossible to penetrate through the bubbles to reach the other side. In US, it fueled the ever growing polarization in the society, essentially created 2 or more totally different US'. While in China, the government creates its narrative bubble through its propaganda machine and censorship. Rather than the liberation of people's mind we hoped to see, we actually seeing people's opinion more converged to the official narrative. I'm afraid, even someday CCP loosens it's iron grip of censorship, we still won't see the information freedom we hoped for. But rather bubbles like US, just with one giant bubble of official narrative, and many tiny bubbles of other opinions, which can never penetrate the giant bubble.
- threatofrain 6y agoThe world in general is more bubbled than the web, and most people spend their whole lives not having substantive experience with people from other countries. And where does a gay individual find alternative stories in a world without the web? The world before the web was a terrible fishbowl for anyone who didn't have money or access. The web gives people choice where before you either had the money to live a "broad" lifestyle or you didn't. That some people choose to stay within little boundaries is the way the world has always worked, but at least they have a choice.
- ngngngng 6y agoIt was recently affirmed in court that the first amendment applies to the government, not corporations. See PragerU v Youtube. I'm curious what he thinks he's going to do though. Any guesses?
- aurelius12 6y agoHe's going to appeal to his base is what he's going to do, while repelling almost everyone else on earth. As usual.
- swasheck 6y agoIt’s what he does. Appeal to the base, defy common sense, and allow for the rabid frenzied masses respond as they will.
- swasheck 6y agoFeel free to respond and not just downvote.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago"appeal to his base" is the a reductive way to describe an enormous number of Americans. Overwhelming, even.
- bargl 6y agoThis is news to say news is coming the rest is speculation.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Simulacra 6y agoSocial media are publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
- bargl 6y agoMy comment was posted when the article linked here said, Trump was going to sign "something pertaining to social media" on Thursday. We had no details. The article could have been 1 paragraph. That was my point. I didn't have any of the context from today 5/28. No one had it.
- nikivi 6y agoI would love if HN banned anything that had to do with Trump by default in all the postings. Most of the discussions around it are a waste of time imo
- sillysaurusx 6y agoHave faith in HN. If you believe it will be crummy, you’ll probably find comments that justify that belief. But believing the opposite usually yields the opposite. (You can also yield the opposite directly, by writing good comments.)
- Simulacra 6y agoI have zero faith in HN, it operates in the same fantastical bubble that all of Silicon Valley operates in.
- sillysaurusx 6y agoI went through periods of losing faith too. But ultimately, HN = programmers, writers, and so on. What are the chances of any random programmer/writer being interesting? Much higher than the general population, for some definitions of interesting. You get what you put in. It often doesn't feel like it, but in the long run it seems to work out that way. You have to remember that HN is so massive now that it's hard to comprehend just how many people read the top comments. All the world is a stage, but HN particularly so. And personally, I think it's cool you can influence the situation by skill alone – a good top comment can salvage an otherwise hopeless situation.
- Simulacra 6y agoHN is still just mostly overpaid white guys that are immune from most of societal problems. It's like the rich saying "we're all in this together." Sounds good but deep down you know it's a lie.
- dylan604 6y agoAs you said yourself "most". This happens to hit a little close to home to HN readers though.
- downerending 6y agoMeh. Facebook, Twitter, and the like need to be nuked from orbit. An executive order just isn't going to cut it.
- ccktlmazeltov 6y agoPOTUS got "personally attacked" by Twitter and is now attacking back. The US is now a dictatorship? How many citizens have lost any faith in the US government? Trump has created long-lasting damaged in the US democracy.
- devmunchies 6y agodemocracy has been going downhill across the globe since the popularization of the internet.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- IIAOPSW 6y agoIn normal times I'd have faith in our institutions to block this blatantly unconstitutional abuse of power. But 2 of the seats in the Supreme Court were filled by the administration itself.
- dsfyu404ed 6y agoHow can you say it's blatantly unconstitutional if the executive order hasn't even been released? It wouldn't exactly be out of character for him to spend a couple days whipping people into a frenzy then announce the reinterpretation of something that sounds impressive but has no actual meaning and declare it to be a massive victory.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago> Social media platforms' legal right as private companies to delete or otherwise regulate speech – or, in this case, tweets – is well established. I'm curious how this will work out for tweets by the USA president. Twitter will easily delete anything the Chinese, French, or German government deems "unacceptable" speech. They've never deleted anything that the USA government has requested (the USA government has never requested anything to be deleted). What's the difference here? What's the double-standard?
- a4wtaw4tawtawt 6y agoThat leftists are always correct. Enjoy your stay!
- rsynnott 6y agoIt has deleted things in accordance with local law (and it absolutely does delete things illegal in the US). What things were you thinking the US government should ask it to delete? Under what law?
- notadog 6y agoRelated discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23317286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23317286 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322112
- hedora 6y agoI hope twitter decides they can’t comply with whatever is in the executive order, and simply bans his account instead. In other news, after a certain threshold, when someone lies on TV, there is an FCC mandate that the broadcaster adds a disclaimer saying the person is spreading false information. There was a lawsuit over this, because stations were broadcasting Trump speeches without adding the disclaimer, and the executive branch isn’t enforcing the rule.
- Simulacra 6y agoSocial media should be considered publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
- Simulacra 6y agoSocial media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
- Simulacra 6y agoIt will be very interesting to see if this method of finger in the scales by Twitter stands up. I’m glad to see that they have been forced to apply the same treatment to China, But section 230 simply has to go.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Simulacra 6y agoSocial media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
- ilaksh 6y agoThis comment thread is full of people who A) decide not to say anything, probably because they are not sure and B) very vocal people who are extremely sure that the other side is completely corrupt. I feel like the polarization is harmful. Interested to hear any background like why he would say the mail in is full of fraud or something and why people are so sure it is not.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoWest Virginia mail carrier charged with attempted absentee ballot application fraud [1] 1. https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pendleton-County-mail-carrier-charged-with-altering-absentee-ballot-requests-570777221.html https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pendleton-County-mail-carr...
- notadog 6y agoA alleged draft of the order has been leaked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333496
- inscartwheelies 6y agoAn Executive Wish. It's meaningless.
- Simulacra 6y agoSocial media should be considered publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.