11 ms·

Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

• lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  My base level here is "Speakers Corner". This is a part of London's Hyde Park where free speech is (culturally if it legally) extra protected - the idea is anyone can stand and speak there, say anything, and culturally that is acceptable - one should not be moved on or prevented. I think that right of speaking freely in a public space is deeply important (no surprises there). But if someone spews vile speech while standing on my front lawn, frankly I want them to stop. So what is public space on the internet? What is the minimum level - the sidewalk vs the front lawn? It's not twitter. Hardly anyone has access to it? It's specialised and not open in its protocols. I suspect it's not even facebook - is it just plain HTML on a plain server, perhaps plainly hosted in your own home? This is going to be an interesting debate.
• sulam 6y ago
  If I am to believe the poster, this is a draft of an Executive Order anonymously sent to her. As per: https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Specifically it would declare that sites like Twitter and Facebook are subject to the Communications Decency Act by virtue of their editorializing the content vs acting in more of a common carrier capacity. This is a really big deal for them (much more significant than losing federal ad dollars).
  • seemslegit 6y ago
    Or they could stop editorializing their content.
    • cinquemb 6y ago
      But the children!
      • seemslegit 6y ago
        That's a different piece of legislation
        • cinquemb 6y ago
          Fair, but the adult children that cant be trusted to come to the same conclusions/opinions/perceptions that the platform holds without some contextual messaging? :P
  • whateveracct 6y ago
    Literally no way this holds up in court. If it does, we have bigger problems than this EO.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • mentalpiracy 6y ago
      Honestly whether it ultimately holds up in court or not is hardly the point - the disruptive theater of the EO and the subsequent muddying discourse unfortunately ends up being victory enough.
      • whateveracct 6y ago
        That's 100% true.
    • remarkEon 6y ago
      I'm actually very much looking forward to seeing this make it's way to SCOTUS (assuming this is legit).
      • wmf 6y ago
        It would take years to reach SCOTUS and during that time more and more damage can be done.
        • remarkEon 6y ago
          I'm not so sure. In recent issues as contentious as this we've had District Courts make Nation-wide injunctions against these EOs, and they've been fast-tracked to SCOTUS. It might take a year or so, but I think "years" is overstating how fast something that's this emotional can get to the High Court. There's other problems with the "Nation-wide injunction" but if this EO gets issued that'll for sure be the next thing that happens, and I'm sure Twitter et al are counting on it.
    • 6y ago
  • Trasmatta 6y ago
    > The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Can anyone give a tl;dr of what the implications actually are? Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm having a hard time parsing what this would actually do (beyond soothe Trump's feelings after getting called out by Twitter).
    • throwlaplace 6y ago
      sections 2b and 4c are the action items; new fcc and ftc regulations that prevent this kind (or broadly whatever kind they deem relevant) of behavior.
    • sulam 6y ago
      It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Today they can claim that they aren’t responsible for it, the posters are. If they are operating in an editorial capacity, that shield is removed.
      • adventured 6y ago
        > It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Exactly as it should be. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and others, now that they're getting into the business of editorializing and dictating the truth as they see it via heavy-handed moderation, should be fully liable for all things posted to their platforms. It should apply to any large platform that makes that shift. It's perfectly fine if these platforms want to do that, and they should be held responsible accordingly. It'll restrict the size and activity of their networks, which will probably be a societal benefit. Twitter picked a fight they can't win. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Things will never return to the way they were before.
        • anyon 6y ago
          sorry to see you downvoted. People can disagree with your opinion but it is encouraging a debate. there is no god-given right for these companies to become monopolies. If this were to pass, it could break the monopolies: Decision 1: they choose to stop all moderation Out come 1: Advertisers ditch them because of all the objectionable content that will surely come. Decision 2: They choose to moderate, and take on the liability Outcome 2: Growing bigger becomes more costly and companies fall to some optimal 'Chandra Limit'
  • berberous 6y ago
    Wouldn’t this be a great outcome for twitter? I don’t think they particularly want to be in the role of playing fact checker / censor, but have been forced to do so due to pressure. This seems like it would, practically, tie their hands from continuing, due to the negative consequences, at which point they can legitimately say their hands are tied.
    • cinquemb 6y ago
      I agree, it could save platforms a lot of effort, and possibly put the onus on advertisers (who I suspect pressure the platforms anyways to engage in this sort of behavior) to adapt.
    • daveevad 6y ago
      probably not, wouldn't that just alienate the other half of their users that would view that as backing down? it's a good question i hadn't considered though.
      • 2019-nCoV 6y ago
        Backing down to who? It becomes US law.
      • koheripbal 6y ago
        Most users only follow and are followed-by people in their own bubble, so I doubt they would notice.
    • blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      Actually you have a point. Twitter can "temporarily" shelve this fact checker thing and get back to status quo ante. Dorsey and Trump can both declare victory and move on.
      • Animats 6y ago
        There doesn't seem to be anything there directed against Twitter's editorializing. If anything, this puts online services in the position of having to censor more to avoid nuisance lawsuits.
  • wmf 6y ago
    "None of [the CDA's architects] said that there was this intent for platforms to be neutral. In fact, that was the opposite. They wanted platforms to feel free to make these judgments without risking liability..." https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte... Can an executive order overturn this? Isn't there already precedent about this topic?
    • dragonwriter 6y ago
      An executive order can neither overturn statutory immunity from liability nor overturn Constitutional freedom of speech. OTOH, if Trump thinks that the Courts have changed (either in genuine opinion on the legal question, or if he thinks that the courts—or, ultimately, just the Supreme Court—has become partisan enough to simply favor his preferences independent of any genuine legal interpretation) then issuing an executive order conflicting with the present precedent on either of those points is an excellent way to get into position to force a test of them. And, in any case, it's an excellent way to fan conservative victimhood into an election-year rallying cry to the base.
      • dmix 6y ago
        In politics it often doesn't matter if policy doesn't actually work, it's frequently about sending a message. Especially when elections are around. It's not like they are ever tied to measurable outcomes. Plus even if the courts decline it will then further fuel the victimization, which conspiracies and radical groups historically feed off of. I've always believed creating martyrs over online speech is a minefield for radicalizing people. No longer venting into the void people become increasingly angry and isolated. The long term implications of this worries me a great deal. I also don't believe our only alternative means allowing (legitimate) hate speech, as a more limited approach has worked in countless other scenarios without the endless scope creep we're witnessing. But today this debate seems to be long lost, Twitter et al are full steam ahead, and now we can only witness the implications and hopefully adapt...
    • zaroth 6y ago
  • adrianmonk 6y ago
    > Therefore, this EO places such platforms outside scope of Sec. 230 protection So Trump is trying to tell the courts, via executive order, how to interpret the law? I'm no expert, but I don't think that's how the different branches of government work.
    • chrisco255 6y ago
      He's not "telling" the courts anything, he's telling the FTC, FCC, etc to interpret 230 as intended, where a social media site can now be interpreted as a publisher and not as a neutral platform if they engage in active editorial decision making (i.e. feed manipulation, shadow banning, editorial injections, etc). If Twitter wants to challenge the Federal Government on this, they'll have to do battle in court. In the meantime, the Federal government will withdraw all paid advertising from the platform if they choose that route. He's also holding the FTC out, which deals with antitrust law. So Twitter could hit 3 different ways. In my opinion, they have far more to lose by fighting this than simply letting users choose who to follow and who to engage with and what speech to listen to.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        > He's not "telling" the courts anything Yes, he is. He is telling the FCC, etc., to issue regulations “clarifying” section 230; regulations clarifying law exist specifically to guide the courts in application, and courts grant such regulations (where properly authorized under statute) great deference, which Trump clearly hopes to benefit from.
        • chrisco255 6y ago
          The FCC is an executive branch department. So telling the FCC is not telling the courts. The FCC and FTC can make certain moves and it's up to Twitter to sue the Federal Government to contend with them. And then, the courts get to decide on the matter. But until then, let's not pretend 230c is the most well-defined precedent in legal history.
          • 6y ago
  • seemslegit 6y ago
    It's one thing to believe the poster but why does the poster believe an anonymously sent "Executive order draft" and publish it ?
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • 2019-nCoV 6y ago
    Akin to banning cigarette advertising, this will free up many millions in the war against misinformation. Would absolve Twitter from any future calls for debunking/censorship. Can't wait to see it enacted.
    • blaser-waffle 6y ago
      A 3 month old account that only posts in threads about Trump and/or Social Media (Facebook, et al). Someone's low effort shill account. Come on buddy, the good shill accounts are years old and have longer, more obfuscating post histories.
      • COGlory 6y ago
        "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Let's not ruin the HN comments by introducing this type of language.
      • koheripbal 6y ago
        Argue the argument, not the arguer.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
• cmendel 6y ago
  Jesus Christ, we're really doing this aren't we?
• tbabb 6y ago
  The constitution is just a piece of paper if no one follows or enforces it.
• kreelman 6y ago
  I think you need to vote Donald Trump out of office. We look from afar and are perplexed by his ruinous actions on the United States of America. These actions feel vaguely like authoritarianism. Originally I thought these actions felt like fascism, but I appreciate that fascism's victims would laugh at this comparison... but I think it's a slippery slope. Is Twitter's flagging censorship? People can still make their own decisions. If a piece of text is just wrong, shouldn't the expression of a differing opinion be allowed? I'd love to hear what lawyers think. (Thanks for comments, fascism removed).
  • whateveracct 6y ago
    I'm trying Jennifer!
  • dav43 6y ago
    I don’t think he understands free speech. If you tell lies, I’m allowed to call it out.
    • dpbriggs 6y ago
      The issue isn't you or me calling him out, it's whether Twitter is acting as a platform or publisher by annotating the tweet. The document here alleges that they are like a publisher, and will lose vital protection. This has serious implications.
      • wnmurphy 6y ago
        Which would also apply to any news outlet with a moderated comment section, including Fox News, no?
        • dpbriggs 6y ago
          I would think so, yes. In that case I wouldn't be surprised if the comment section is removed, or the moderation team of Fox News more carefully sticks to platform principles. Honestly not sure.
• ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? If a company has an obligation to promote something against their will, violating their own right to free speech, how could a company like Hobby Lobby get away with an exemption on the same grounds? I don’t see this getting past federal courts, even with a heavily conservative judiciary. The fallout would be far too great.
  • splintercell 6y ago
    This is a publisher vs platform issue. Platforms were given a free pass, provided they act in "good faith". Publishers weren't given a free pass. Hobby Lobby's case was not related to platform vs publisher issue.
  • Barrin92 6y ago
    >Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO "Patreon is and should remain free to disassociate itself from whomever it wants. Like all companies that have guidelines and content‐ moderation policies, Patreon is open to accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistently applying its speech standards. Anyone looking for a company that has been entirely consistent with its own content guidelines will be persistently disappointed.[...] Classical liberals and other supporters of free association and free speech should indeed be concerned when the government undertakes initiatives such as the Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point, which investigated banks doing business with firearms dealers (among others). But there is a world of difference between a government cracking down on peaceful citizens’ legal behaviour and a private company choosing to sever a business relationship.[...] But it’s a mistake to portray the ongoing debate about content moderation as one in which supporters of a ‘closed’ and a ‘free’ internet fight it out for supremacy. You’re not less free if a private company won’t host your speech, and an internet where those companies discriminate is not ‘closed’. Those who want a maximally tolerant venue for speech on the internet are welcome to build one. " https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patreon-not-waging-war-free-speech https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patreon-not-wag...
    • 6y ago
• blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  How did a professor of Internet law get a hold of a draft EO? Are these things widely circulated before signing?
  • splintercell 6y ago
    If I know anything about Trump, then his team leaked it on purpose to get an initial feedback. If it turns out to have a bad reaction then they would repudiate this copy and release some other watered down version.
    • remarkEon 6y ago
      ... or a more extreme one. My sense is that they use leaks as a way to ferret out who is disloyal, not get feedback from the Press, which they hate.
  • 3001 6y ago
    https://mobile.twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 https://mobile.twitter.com/klonick/status/126585020639607603...
  • mentalpiracy 6y ago
    There appear to be other recipients of this draft doc besides Klonick. Same document, from all appearances. Probably same source sending it out. https://mobile.twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1265868452834635776 https://mobile.twitter.com/mmasnick/status/12658684528346357...
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > How did a professor of Internet law get a hold of a draft EO? A leak. > Are these things widely circulated before signing? Something with this content would probably need to be coordinated between at least White House counsel, DoJ, and counsel for all or most of the agencies being given tasks under it to get the language right and make sure it was as workable as possible given the intent, so it would be in a large number of hands. Even if they were all fairly reliable partisan political appointees (and it’d be unlikely that there wouldn't be a lot of permanent staff involved), those are in some ways the most dangerous since, well, reliable Republican partisan attorneys and people who support a hands-off approach to regulating speech of business entities have a pretty big overlap. Trumpian corporatists who think that all of society (whether government, business, or otherwise) should be united in reflecting the will of the head of state, at least as long as the current incumbent holds that position, or pay the price for disloyalty, aren't the norm even among Republican partisans. As much as Trump would like to fill the whole administration with them, there aren't enough of them remotely qualified to fill the needed roles.
• WatchDog 6y ago
  I wonder how this platforms that use community moderation might be held liable under this.
• jimbob45 6y ago
  If I'm reading this right, platforms must act in "good faith" to restrict access to content that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable". That seems quite broad and doesn't seem to do anything to stop the current deluge of censorship.
  • geofft 6y ago
    That text is quoted from Section 230. The reason Section 230 was introduced is that, long ago, if platforms did literally any moderation on their site, they were considered to be taking an editorial role and liable for all the things they failed to moderate (e.g., if someone posted libel, the platform would have liability for it), so there was an incentive not to moderate at all, because you wouldn't get it 100% right. For pre-online platforms this was fairly reasonable (e.g., you could hold a newspaper responsible for its columnists publishing libel) but it put a serious damper in real-time user-contributed online forum. Section 230 said that if a platform acts in good faith for those moderation reasons you list, that doesn't cause them to gain liability - they're still in the same place as if they didn't moderate. If they exercised active editorial control, then they'd be responsible (e.g., you can't just host a pro-harassment forum and solicit other people to post harassing comments and expect Section 230 to protect you), but as long as you only do normal moderation of obviously bad stuff, you're fine. This draft executive order says, we're interpreting that part of Section 230 to specifically not count "deceptive or pretextual actions restricting online content" as normal moderation, presumably including things like flagging Trump's tweets for misinformation. That leaves Twitter with two choices: 1) forfeit Section 230 protection and be responsible for all the content on their site (i.e., they'd have to heavily and reliably moderate every single tweet) or 2) stop flagging Trump's tweets for misinformation and do even less moderation so they maintain Section 230 protections.
    • jimbob45 6y ago
      I appreciate you trying to explain because I'm genuinely trying to get to the bottom of this. Would you not agree that "deceptive or pretextual actions restricting online content" is broad and would be difficult to prove in court?
• dav43 6y ago
  America, when are you going to give up on this idiot? I’m genuinely curious, what’s the last straw? He takes a dump on the Whitehouse lawn in order to show how powerful he is? My view of America has forever changed, no matter who comes next.
  • tly_alex 6y ago
    Same here. I am so disappointed by all the crazy things this so called president did in the last few years.The word "President" use to carry a lot of respect.
    • erentz 6y ago
      There was nothing that respectable about Bush or Obama (or Clinton, or Older Bush) either if you really looked at their records. Foreigners do not get to see the bad state democracy is in here in the US, between the corruption, the heavy corporate funding of candidates and the lobbyists, the corporate control of media, and the suppression of voters. A lot of choice, especially the president is decided for people, and what people see and hear is heavily controlled by the media which themselves are beholden to the same large corporate interests that finance the elections. We just had what would pass as a very centrist candidate in any European country compared to a communist and a nazi and suggested that he would hang people in Central Park by the media that was supposed to be informing people. All because he wanted to do a few things like spend 1/7th of our military budget to give people free college education. The corporate and establishment interests had a freak out at the prospect and wound up spending over $1 billion during the primary against him. All to ensure that voters are once again left with a choice between a guy who will do more of the same things that have been a problem, and another guy who will also do more of the same things. That’s what you are up against. That’s why it’s not just as simple as “vote him out”.
      • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        The idea that Bernie would be centrist in Europe is an American political meme. Europeans who are familiar with him do not consider him centrist, and there are some issues on which he's actually further from the mainstream in most European countries.
• themodelplumber 6y ago
  Tech and policy are kind of like two different roads running in parallel. Drivers who can drive on one of those roads only, but not both, cannot effectively solve problems on that other road. The policy people get activated because of issues they perceive on the tech road, and their answer is: Write policy! For that reason I fully expect the tech experts in question to solve this new policy problem with some technology. Maybe a new categorization and preference-indication system, giving users yet another way to ignore their in-laws' award political voice, or whatever it is that routes around this latest missive.
• Havoc 6y ago
  He’s literally going to attack twitter via presidential powers because they dared calling him out on lies? I’d say that’s insane and childish but I think we’re a little past that already
  • wnmurphy 6y ago
    They didn't even "call him out". They added a link to more information on voting to two tweets. That's how fragile and insecure this guy is.
  • hackermang 6y ago
    What were his lies?
  • nicosaul 6y ago
    It’s not only that, youtube and facebook have been sensoring legit content and comments that are non related to Trump. This guy is too narsicistic to express what the real issue is, but we are having a problem with these platforms right now.
• lalaland1125 6y ago
  Here is my attempt at summarizing the order: 1. Twitter and Facebook (and other entities that try to fact check content) will be labeled as publishers and thus can be sued in court for libel. 2. The Federal Government will be banned from buying ads from internet companies that "restrict" speech. 3. The FTC and the Attorney General will investigate Twitter, Facebook, and related platforms for any potential violations of law or regulation.
• sulam 6y ago
  If you are a conservative cheering this on, ask yourself what you think would have happened when Trump was using Twitter as a platform to raise questions about Obama’s birth certificate? Do you really want the government to be effectively regulating the treatment of every social media post as they see fit?
  • throwawaysea 6y ago
    I think requiring viewpoint neutrality via regulation from platforms that behave like utilities is perfectly reasonable.
    • tehwebguy 6y ago
      In what ways is Twitter like a utility?
      • akvadrako 6y ago
        I wouldn’t say utility but the courts ruled recently it’s a public forum; the same logic applies.
        • tehwebguy 6y ago
          What courts? What does “public forum” mean legally? I don’t think what you are saying has actually happened and would appreciate a link but I think there is none. So again, in what way is Twitter even slightly possibly like a utility?
• egamirorrim 6y ago
  I feel like I can see Trump's editorial influence in this. "Put in that stuff about China yeah China and lyin' Google, don't tell me it's ranty and doesn't make sense, put it in"
  • caseysoftware 6y ago
    It makes sense. If Trump demonstrates that some (most?) of these companies act on behalf of or at the request of a government to suppress embarrassing facts/comments, it challenges the assertion this is "only" about flagging misinformation. It also raises the question of "What else are they suppressing?" Neither point will be fun to respond to.
• RNCTX 6y ago
  I particularly like the bit about how a provider is found in violation of "good faith" if they act in violation of their own terms of service, OR, if they restrict access to material after insufficient notice, unreasoned explanation, or acting against a user who has not had a "meaningful opportunity to be heard." Not being facetious, I really like it. Everyone should start by mass-complaining to the White House's reporting tool the recent Twitter change allowing people to censor replies.
  • monsonjeremy 6y ago
    Why would you report the ability to hide replies? If someone replies to my tweet with something I don’t like, what’s wrong with me hiding the reply? It’s a lesser end result than blocking someone. I’m not obligated to platform your opinion on my post.
    • RNCTX 6y ago
      See that's the thing, it's not your post. It's all public. Twitter does not have private posts like Facebook does, nor does this change purport to make such a thing. Its design is specifically to allow people to amplify their own personal echo chamber, and pre-silence disagreement. The UI designer (hired from Facebook) who created the tool defended it with the notion that people should "want to watch people they admire have conversations" (his words). That's not social interaction, that's television. A one way communication medium in which the screen tells the observer what to think.
  • tehwebguy 6y ago
    You mean like disabling comments on a blog? Please explain what thought process could possibly lead you to this conclusion. You can scream whatever stupid shit you want in public but why in the world should you have the right to use someone else’s megaphone to do it?
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• disillusioned 6y ago
  If you're Twitter, don't you seriously consider deplatforming POTUS at this point? I understand that no small amount of their traffic has to do with him using Twitter as his primary megaphone to the world, but they are under no obligation whatsoever to continue to provide him said megaphone. One only has to hope that if that were to happen, no one would show him the Presidential Alerts functionality on all of our phones...
• wnmurphy 6y ago
  Oh hey, look... a distraction from 100,000 mostly-preventable American deaths.
• throwawaysea 6y ago
  The large tech platforms are defacto digital public squares. The recent trend they’ve taken on to censor content they disagree with is unacceptable and bad for society. And yes, it is evidence of them behaving as a publisher. This censorship trend was bad enough previously, but it has become a lot worse and more egregious during COVID-19, where only the word of certain public agencies are allowed, even though they’ve been wrong several times. Various platforms have deleted many reasonable COVID blog posts that go against the grain, even if they’re logical and worthy of consideration. I’m glad this move from the President will shine a light on the issue. In the least it may result in viable alternatives to Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and Google springing up.
  • bmarquez 6y ago
    > In the least it may result in viable alternatives to Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and Google springing up. I'm looking forward to this. If smaller social networks (or even federated networks) gain more traction due to this governmental shakeup, it will be harder to get censored as people can switch to the server that has the moderation style, or features (such as no ads but fees) they like. There could be a silver lining in all this.
    • rvz 6y ago
      You would need a growing network effect to follow on to that alternative platform for it to be a true challenger to the mainstream social networks. Otherwise it will stay in the fringes of the internet. Although it is more difficult to censor a decentralised social network, attracting and migrating existing users from other social networks with a growing network effect on to a new platform is even harder.
• nicosaul 6y ago
  Nobody thinks there is a big problem with online censoring that needs to be dealt with?
  • geofft 6y ago
    Not really - there is certainly a "problem" of major social media platforms banning abusive/hurtful behavior, and for whatever reason, such behavior seems to not be evenly distributed across the political spectrum, but there is not a big problem of them banning ideas or good-faith or even mostly-good-faith debate. You can find tradcaths on Twitter, threepers on Facebook, tankies on YouTube, and literally /r/politicalcompassmemes on Reddit. Certainly no platform is anywhere close to banning the ideas or platform of the Trump campaign or the Republican Party - they get debate and discussion but they certainly are not censored. They are firmly within the mainstream. (I also think, in a broader sense, that people need to not rely on big for-profit tech companies for unpopular ideas. I think it's good for society that everyone from the boogaloo folks to the Unabomber get to be able to publish their ideas, even - and perhaps especially - when those ideas involve violent revolution to the social order. But I also think it's foolish to expect platforms that are profiting handsomely from the stability of the social order to fairly convey those discussions, especially if any of those ideologies gets close to making a difference. So, even if I thought that we had a problem with the big tech companies censoring discussions, it doesn't seem like a problem worth solving.)
    • coolspot 6y ago
      Ummm... Reddit permanently banned theDonald using dubious reasoning. By “coincidence”, in the election year.
      • geofft 6y ago
        But /r/conservative and plenty of other pro-Trump subreddits are doing just fine. Is there an ideology that has been censored from Reddit, or just behavior? No platform should be obligated to keep disruptive users around simply because those users happen to have a certain political belief.
• ilaksh 6y ago
  There is no point in me saying this, because people are literally living in parallel universes at this point, but I feel that hatred for Trump and anything associated with the right is blinding people. What most young people or people on the left seem to want very badly is for tech companies to remove viewpoints they disagree with. Unfortunately the reality is that this is in fact political censorship. And it will lead directly to the type of censorship that China has. Go ahead and click the downvote button until my viewpoint disappears. It doesn't matter anymore. I actually think that the possibility of real free speech online, if it ever existed, is dead anyway. Because, bizarrely, people are begging for more censorship.
  • w3mmpp 6y ago
    Indeed in a parallel universe but in the end they'll lose those battles one after the other because they are on the wrong side of history. People on the right need to be more vocal here and elsewhere, we can't let the children and their feelings, run the ship or it'll end badly.
    • peteforde 6y ago
      Condescension is not a good look when you're conflating conservativism with paranoid conspiracies and equating really basic fact-checking to censorship.
    • akvadrako 6y ago
      I’m doubtful that it does any good to provide opposing viewpoints in these threads unless you have something surprising to say, either facts or insight. The effect on reality of a HN thread isn’t much and it’s not really a place for nuanced discussion. The twitter thing doesn’t matter because the solution is obvious - we need decentralized platforms where such behavior isn’t possible.
  • blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    Ironically, back in the 1980s techies were fiercely pro-free speech and anti-censorship. The older companies like Apple and Microsoft still have some remnants of this culture, whereas newer ones like Google etc. are curiously ambivalent about freedom of speech.
• w3mmpp 6y ago
  Long overdue, they're publishers just like Google/Youtube and Facebook are publishers. Every conservative who use those services will tell you, they're biased. They've been putting their thumb on the scale for many years, now the chickens have come home to roost. Downvote me to oblivion, I don't care, tonight I'm happy.
  • tehwebguy 6y ago
    1. I would think every conservative would look to the free market to make better, less biased social networks and websites? 2. You think you will be downvoted here, is it due to humans with differing views or this website’s management’s bias, and what does that mean for your point? 3. Do you not know that conservative talking heads and influencers go wildly viral every hour of every day on all 3 of these networks, reaching audiences far outside their conservative following?
    • w3mmpp 6y ago
      1. Sure, the market will take care of it at some point in the future, but at this point in time those entities are monopolistic. 2. It's simple, liberals are more prone to downvote and censor than conservatives. 3. They reach their followers, Twitter, FB and Google reach everybody.
      • tehwebguy 6y ago
        1. Most Americans don’t use Twitter at all, could Twitter in particular possibly be a monopoly? What is being monopolized by Twitter specifically? 2. No I am asking do you think people are downvoting you or do you think this website is penalizing you for saying conservative leaning things? 3. Where do you think conservative influencers get their new followers? If they play the game right (posting engaging content that people would want to share) their content goes viral and they get huge algorithmic discovery from new audiences. It’s why you upload a video you want to get lots of views to YouTube instead of Vimeo, the discovery engine helps you get a bigger audience. But it doesn’t mean you are silenced if you upload to Vimeo or even your own website, it just means that you aren’t playing YouTube’s game and as a result won’t get YouTube’s completely free search, related and social traffic boosts.
• 4x5-Guy 6y ago
  It would seem to me that this order tramples on the First Amendment. No matter how much the executive wants to trample on twitter, they are still a private company and can publish or not publish what they wish.
  • dpbriggs 6y ago
    Could you expand further on that? I don't see anything in the order that prohibits speech, instead focusing on questioning if Twitter et al. qualify for platform protections. Plus some other ad-money ammunition. An argument could be made that this EO itself violates the first amendment as it's clearly in response to the tweet fact checks, thereby silencing twitter?
    • 4x5-Guy 6y ago
      In the First Amendment, the government is not allowed to either promote or attack speech. The courts have ruled that some speech, such as hate speech, does not have this protection. Just by deciding whether or not the government will spend ad-money on a platform or not, based solely on what is said on the platform, is one form of the government either rewarding or punishing that platform. I can't comment on the platform protections at the moment. I'm going to say I believe the courts will block this, but it will look good to Trump's base in an election year.
  • CRASCH 6y ago
    Right now they are considered a platform, not a publisher. Platforms can't be sued for libel. They are acting as a publisher. Remember the Covington Boys, CNN (A publisher) etc. got the pants sued off of them for Libel. That is one rich kid. Anyway if it is determined they are a publisher they can be sued. So if you were to post that I'm an Orange NAZI on twitter. I could essentially sue you and twitter, if I prove that I am not an Orange Nazi I could win millions. Both you and twitter would pay. No one knows if you have enough money to pay out 8 figures but everyone and his lawyer knows twitter does.
• 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  I only skimmed the second part, but this doesn't even seem to prevent the actions it complains about. It's also interesting to think about reddit and subreddits. When a moderator of a subreddit engages in the behavior described here, deleting comments and posts and banning users arbitrarily, stickying editorial commentary in threads, are they acting as publishers? Are the mods now legally liable in the section 230 sense? If not, is reddit a publisher and liable even though they aren't doing the editing? If reddit can enable mods to do it without reddit or the mods being liable, why can't reddit just do it without being liable?
  • threatofrain 6y ago
    I wonder if this would have implications for IRC or Discord as well.
• foogazi 6y ago
  Wonder if with this we’ll all enjoy equal representation on twitter’s search engine, timeline & promoted tweets, or will they continue to discriminate based on rank Twitter’s algorithm determines who sees my tweets. Based on internal criteria my content is ignored while other’s is promoted, limiting my exposure and damaging my brand /s
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• mehrdadn 6y ago
  I seem to recall we had a court ruling (non-SC) earlier that said officials that use social media can't block other users on there... something about it being a public forum or such. But if we treat it that way, then does that have implications on what people can expect in terms of limits on speech?
  • akvadrako 6y ago
    Exactly. Since twitter is de facto a public forum where anyone can say what they think, it’s important for free speech they also follow the 1st amendment and have a legal like process to restrict what people can say.
  • akersten 6y ago
    No, you've misinterpreted the ruling. It is not because twitter is a "public forum" that a public official cannot block a follower, it is because the public official is a public official that they cannot block a follower.
    • mehrdadn 6y ago
      I was thinking more along the lines of, would being a public official in a public forum imply that the forum administrators can't interject and add their own editorials to his speech either? At least, I can't think of situations where this happens in real life, so it's not clear to me what the implications are.
• prawn 6y ago
  I'm not American and not familiar with Section 230 in any detail, but I do run a forum where I consider moderation, legality and responsibility of content. Could Twitter apply some level of automatic editorial response on particular topics rather than flag particular posts or users? e.g., if it suspects the tweet is about COVID-19 (whether mundane or outrageous), it links off to a broader information and fact-checking page about the topic. Likewise for voting fraud or any other hot topic. What if it were independent of the tweet itself and just one of a small selection of header links like Reddit and others are currently doing with COVID-19? Edit: Also, could they differentiate the levels of editorial based on tier of account? e.g., claim platform-status for the bulk, but accept legal responsibility for anything by the largest accounts which saw immediate moderator review.
• bawolff 6y ago
  I feel like this is fake or some internal draft that was never going to see the light of day. But if its real, i wonder what will happen to silcon valley. Part of the reason why internet companies like the united states is the legal environment is conducive to making online services. If that goes away, will companies move to other countries
  • dpbriggs 6y ago
    Regression to 4chan? Assuming this continues as-is they can still moderate the site to remove obscene material, but otherwise have to act like platforms. I don't think this draft will survive for long.
• bawolff 6y ago
  So after actually reading it, it seems to want two things: * prevent astro-turfing, especially by foreign governments * require that sites engaging in moderation basically follow some sort of rule of law-eaque process (there are rules posted, and you cant be arbitraily blocked unless you break them) Honestly in many ways those are things i agree with, but it seems inappropriate to do it with an executive order, and much of this seems vauge and could be used as a justification to put pressure on social media sites arbitrarily.
  • geofft 6y ago
    There's nothing in the order to prevent astroturfing by foreign governments, is there? (If anything, it limits the ability of sites to censor foreign governments with unpopular opinions.) It's in the section about vague policies and opinions, but I don't think it actually does anything beyond saying "China bad."
    • bawolff 6y ago
      There is an implication of they are going to crack down on sites banning americans to help the astro-turfers, but nobody does that, so sounds like bs. And i dont know, maybe the section on not allowing gov to advertise on such platforms is aimed at that (if you give very strong benefit of doubt). But yeah, i think you are right.
• seemslegit 6y ago
  So what about this purported order establishes new censorship ? Surely censorship has not become synonymous with interfering with the right of online services to the moderate their content as they see fit ?
• cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  If nothing else this is going to provoke a crucial test for social media "platforms" and has the potential to alter them permanently going forward, whether they win or lose. As someone who's quite anti social-media, and the effect it appears to have had on our societies, I'm interested in how this plays out either way. It feels like a test that has been a long time coming. Regardless, it seems the next rational step is for Trump to quit Twitter and encourage his base to do the same, or for Twitter to ban Trump and provoke his base to leave. Trump staying active on Twitter after this, or Twitter allowing him to, would be something beyond bizarre.
• seemslegit 6y ago
  Really seems far less harmful than EARNIT, not that it replaces it - in fact it could be a gambit to get the big web companies to play along with passing EARNIT
• dawnerd 6y ago
  So they should just ban him and anyone else? That seems like the obvious solution to avoid any claim of them editorializing content. There's multiple cases where he violated long standing rules on Twitter. I fail to see how this is any different than that bakery years ago that refused to make a cake for that gay couple. Or a business refusing service because you're saying things against them. Or many of the other reasons a company might decide you cant shop or be a customer.
• tibbydudeza 6y ago
  He should sign an executive order to stop the Corona virus.
• qubex 6y ago
  This will actually backfire on him spectacularly, as the social media platforms will go all-in in every way they can think of to defeat the leagues of bots promoting his message and therefore hinder his opportunity to get re-elected. It’s as if a President in the late 1800s-early 1900s declared war on the printed press. They’re going to reject his targeted ads, they’re going to aid Democrats in swing states to persuade the undecided swing-voters... it’s going to be mayhem.
• RpFLCL 6y ago
  >The draft order would push the Federal Communications Commission to issue rules clarifying the issue, potentially allowing users to sue over takedowns if they were inconsistent with companies’ terms of service, did not provide enough notice or meet other suggested criteria. I find this interesting and I'm not sure where I stand here. On the one hand I'm not happy about an executive order that limits liability for online platforms. The onus for posts being on the user, protecting the platform, is a core part of running any service. On the other hand, this doesn't seem like it would make platforms liable for content that users post, instead it's liability for the content that the platforms choose to _remove_. I've never considered that angle before. Would it be akin to compelled speech on the part of the platform, or does it make them more like common carriers that can't pick and choose who gets access? I suppose the biggest risk here would something along the lines of having bad actors post content that follows the rules for a site, but is also obviously against the spirit of the site, causing the posts to be removed and opening the site to a lawsuit?
  • JoshTriplett 6y ago
    > Would it be akin to compelled speech on the part of the platform Here's an obvious test: this would also make the operator of a personally hosted blog liable if they moderate/remove comments (or for that matter, spam), if it were construed as "the result of inadequate notice, the product of unreasoned explanation, or having been undertaking without a meaningful opportunity to be heard". You have no obligation to provide notice, reasoned explanation, or "an opportunity to be heard" to spammers, trolls, or anyone else you feel like moderating on your private blog. You can just nuke their comments from orbit. Anything suggesting otherwise is broken, and would either mean sites can't afford the liability of user-generated content at all, or provide a perverse incentive to stop moderating at all, which was exactly what CDA section 230 was intended to avoid. (The whole point of CDA section 230 was to avoid discouraging sites from providing moderation, because otherwise "nobody would have any incentive to keep the internet civil". Quoting Wikipedia: 'Section 230 has frequently been referred as a key law that has allowed the Internet to flourish, often referred to as "The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet".') That's leaving aside the "compelled speech" argument, which is an entirely separate reason to consider this unreasonable.
• jerome-jh 6y ago
  "Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution, [...]" Does not this sound like sci-fi, straight from the beginning?
• dpbriggs 6y ago
  How did this end up on the third page so quickly?
• smkellat 6y ago
  Parts of this purported draft look a bit off. That is to say the bits being directed are things private citizens would do rather than what the executive branch itself has the authority to do. As bad as the whole idea sounds this doesn't come off as authentic to me based upon presentation or textual structure. Why is he suddenly giving direct orders to the Federal Trade Commission but separately directing a sub-cabinet agency at Commerce to file a Petition for Rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission? That's where this starts to get inconsistent.
  • kthxbye123 6y ago
    This order was hastily drafted by White House staff to soothe a temper tantrum the President had after a day of being extremely online. Why would you expect it to be anything but sloppy and inconsistent?
    • smkellat 6y ago
      Generally I’d expect the staff to understand how the machinery of government works by this point in an administration. First hundred days is one thing. This looks more like a forgery especially after the discussions that have cropped up recently on the TeX StackExchange in terms of forging outputs.
      • spacephysics 6y ago
        That sounds interesting, do you have some discussions to link, I’d like to read them.
      • kthxbye123 6y ago
        I think based on the events of the past three years (or really, the past three months) the most parsimonious explanation by far is that the President and his staff and advisors are simply lazy and incompetent.
• hysan 6y ago
  Would someone more knowledgeable about Section 230 be able to comment on whether this EO would be solidifying the protections afforded by Section 230? I’m thinking that by making a deeper, clear cut line in what platforms can/cannot do to maintain protections, there is now less legal wiggle room for entities like the MPAA to push for moderation of content. For example, if Google completely scrapped the Content ID system for YouTube, would the wording in this EO put them firmly on the side of being a platform, not a publisher?